[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Interval-valued probabilistic uncertain linguistic information for decision-making: selection of hydrogen production methodology

  • Fuzzy systems and their mathematics
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a promising option, Hydrogen as a clean energy alternative has been acknowledged for emissions alleviation and environmental safety. Life cycle sustainability evaluation of hydrogen can help the experts choose the desirable sustainable methodology for hydrogen production in life cycle standard over various options. This paper proposes a sustainable approach for selecting apt hydrogen production methodologies by integrating life cycle sustainability evaluation and an uncertain linguistic multi-attribute decision-making approach. As a useful extension to linguistic models, probabilistic uncertain linguistic term sets (PULTSs) have attracted many scholars. Elicitation of precise occurring probability value for each uncertain linguistic term is an interesting and open challenge. Occurring probability values are considered interval numbers with lower and upper limits associated with each uncertain linguistic term to form interval-valued probabilistic uncertain linguistic term sets (IVPULTSs). Various operations and axioms of the IVPULTS concept are discussed. Next, a novel aggregation operator is proposed under the IVPULTS context for aggregating decision expert’s preferences. Criteria weights are computed using the extended statistical variance approach on the IVPULTS environment, and the popular VIKOR method is extended on IVPULTSs for the best hydrogen production methodology selection. Here, four hydrogen production methodologies are chosen viz., coal gasification, steam reformation of methane, biomass gasification, and water electrolysis to realize the developed framework's applicability. Biomass Gasification is considered a viable option in this study. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the introduced approach are discussed by comparing it with other approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

BG:

Biomass gasification

WEL:

Wind turbine electrolysis

CG:

Coal gasification

DE:

Decision expert

GDM:

Group decision-making

HPMs:

Hydrogen production methodologies

MADM:

Multi-attribute group decision-making

LT:

Linguistic term

LTS:

Linguistic term set

LCSE:

Life cycle sustainability evaluation

ULTS:

Uncertain linguistic term set

PLTS:

Probabilistic linguistic term set

PULTS:

Probabilistic ULTS

IVPULTS:

Interval-valued PULTS

SV:

Statistical variance

SMR:

Steam reforming of methane

SIVPULWG:

Simple interval-valued probabilistic uncertain linguistic weighted geometry

PROMETHEE:

Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation

ELECTRE:

ELimination Et ChoixTraduisant la REalité

VIKOR:

VlseKriterijumskaOptimizacijaKompromisnoResenje

TOPSIS:

Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution

AHP:

Analytical hierarchy process

References

  • Agarski B, Budak I, Vukelic D, Hodolic J (2016) Fuzzy multi-criteria-based impact category weighting in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 112:3256–3266

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlroth S (2014) The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 85:34–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools e suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 19:145–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Steen B (2000) Weighting in LCA e-approaches and applications. Environ Prog 19:101–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao X, Kou G, Peng Y, Viedma EH (2021) Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: an application in financial inclusion. Eur J Oper Res 288(1):271–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.05.047

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cortes-Borda D, Guillen-Gosalbez G, Jimenez-Esteller L (2013) On the use of weighting in LCA: translating decision makers’ preferences into weights via linear programming. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:948–957

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirbas MF (2006) Hydrogen from various biomass species via pyrolysis and steam gasification processes. Energ Source A 28:245–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong J, Chi Y, Zou D, Fu C, Huang Q, Ni M (2014) Energy-environment-economy assessment of waste management systems from a life cycle perspective: model development and case study. Appl Energy 114:400–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufour J, Serrano DP, Galvez JL, Gonzalez A, Soria E, Fierro JL (2012) Life cycle assessment of alternatives for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil sources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37:1173–1183

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul M, Erkan C, Nezir A, Gumus A, Ali G (2016) A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl Soft Comput 46:60–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinee JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stabil 95:422–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:73–87

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huppes G, van Oers L, Pretato U, Pennington DW (2012) Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:876–891

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji C, Hong T (2016) Comparative analysis of methods for integrating various environmental impacts as a single index in life cycle assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 57:123–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Hauschild MZ, Jørgensen MS, Wangel A (2009) Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:204–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao C (2010) Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl Math Model 34:1779–1787

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny A, Mondal K, Wiltowski T, Dydo P (2008) Catalyst development for thermocatalytic decomposition of methane to hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energ 33:264–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussiopoulos N (2004) Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel production processes. Int J Hydrogen Energ 29:1443–1450

    Google Scholar 

  • Kou G, Ergu D, Lin C, Chen Y (2016) Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 22(5):738–765. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1210694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao H, Jiang L, Xu ZS, Xu J, Herrera F (2017) A linear programming method for multiple criteria decision making with probabilistic linguistic information. Inf Sci 416:341–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao H, Mi X, Xu ZS (2020) A survey of decision-making methods with probabilistic linguistic information: bibliometrics, preliminaries, methodologies, applications and future directions. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 19:81–134

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Liao H, Xu ZS (2015) Consistency of the fused intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation in group intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput 35:812–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin C, Kou G, Peng Y, Alsaadi FE (2020) Aggregation of the nearest consistency matrices with the acceptable consensus in AHP-GDM. Ann Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03572-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin M, Xu ZS, Zhai Y, Yao Z (2018) Multi-attribute group decision-making under probabilistic uncertain linguistic environment. J Oper Res Soc 69:157–170. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-017-0182-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Chan FTS, Ran W (2016) Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: an improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Syst Appl 55:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzardo M, Ren J, Mazzi A, Scipioni A (2012) A grey-based group decision-making methodology for the selection of hydrogen technologies in life cycle sustainability perspective. Int J Hydrogen Energ 37:17663–17670

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra AR, Kumari R, Sharma DK (2019a) Intuitionistic fuzzy divergence measure-based multi-criteria decision-making method. Neural Comput Appl 31:2279–2294

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra AR, Rani P, Pardasani KR, Mardani A (2019b) A novel hesitant fuzzy WASPAS method for assessment of green supplier problem based on exponential information measures. J Clean Prod 238:113901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra AR, Rani P (2019) Shapley divergence measures with VIKOR method for multi-attribute decision-making problems. Neural Comput Appl 31:1299–1316

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra AR, Rani P, Mardani A, Pardasani KR, Govindan K, Alrasheedi M (2020) Healthcare evaluation in hazardous waste recycling using novel interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information based on complex proportional assessment method. Comp Ind Eng 193:106140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onozaki M, Watanabe K, Hashimoto T, Saegusa H, Katayama Y (2006) Hydrogen production by the partial oxidation and steam reforming of tar from hot coke oven gas. Fuel 85:143–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pang Q, Wang H, Xu ZS (2016) Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf Sci 369:128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.06.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parameshwaran R, Praveen Kumar S, Saravanakumar K (2015) An integrated fuzzy MCDM based approach for robot selection considering objective and subjective criteria. Appl Soft Comput 26:31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Reveret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the SLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lopez V, Seager TP, Chester M, Laurin L, Bernardo M, Tylock S (2014) Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:405–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Rani P, Mishra AR, Pardasani KR, Mardani A, Liao H, Streimikiene D (2019) A novel VIKOR approach based on entropy and divergence measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets to evaluate renewable energy technologies in India. J Clean Prod 238:117936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Fedele A, Mason M, Manzardo M, Scipioni A (2013) Fuzzy multi-actor multi-criteria decision making for sustainability assessment of biomass-based technologies for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energ 38:9111–9120

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Gao S, Tan S, Dong L, Scipioni A, Mazzi A (2015a) Role prioritization of hydrogen production technologies for promoting hydrogen economy in the current state of China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1217–1229

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Lützen M (2017) Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:1003–1019

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Manzardo A, Mazzi A, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2015b) Prioritization of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and multicriteria decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:842–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Toniolo S (2018) Life cycle sustainability decision-support framework for ranking of hydrogen production methodologies under uncertainties: an interval multi-criteria decision making approach. J Clean Prod 175:222–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren X, Li W, Ding S, Dong L (2020) Sustainability assessment and decision making of hydrogen production technologies: a novel two stage multi-criteria decision making method. Int J Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2170076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez RM, Martínez L, Herrera F (2013) A group decision making model dealing with comparative linguistic expressions based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Inf Sci 241:28–42

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 38:233–244

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Song Y, Hu J (2017) A group decision-making model based on incomplete comparative expressions with hesitant linguistic terms. Appl Soft Comput 59:174–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25:529–539

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vaisanen S, Mikkila M, Havukainen J, Sokka L, Luoranen M, Horttanainen M (2016) Using a multi-method approach for decision-making about a sustainable local distributed energy system: a case study from Finland. J Clean Prod 137:1330–1338

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang SW, Hsu CW, Hu AH (2016) An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment part-1: methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1514–1528

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia M, Xu ZS (2011) Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making. Int J Approx Reason 52:395–407

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Xia M, Xu ZS (2012) Entropy/cross entropy-based group decision making under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Inf Fusion 13:31–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu ZS (2004) Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Inf Sci 168:171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2004.02.003

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3):338–353

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Kou G, Peng Y (2019) Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations. Eur J Oper Res 277(3):964–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.03.009

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Kou G, Peng Y, Zhang Y (2021) Estimating priorities from relative deviations in pairwise comparison matrices. Inf Sci 552:310–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.12.008

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Xing X (2017) Probabilistic linguistic VIKOR method to evaluate green supply chain initiatives. Sustainability 9:1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Xu ZS, Liao H (2017) A consensus process for group decision making with probabilistic linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 414:260–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.06.006

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC), India (Grant no: F./2015–17/RGNF-2015–17-TAM-83), and the Department of Science and Technology (DST), India (Grant no: SR/FST/ETI-349/2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, SASTRA University, Tamil Nadu, Thanjavur, 613401, India

    R. Krishankumar & K. S. Ravichandran

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, TN, India

    R. Krishankumar

  3. Department of Mathematics, Government College Jaitwara, Madhya Pradesh, Satna, 485221, India

    Arunodaya R. Mishra

  4. Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development, Sriperumbudur, TN, India

    K. S. Ravichandran

  5. Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology-Durgapur, Durgapur, West Bengal, India

    Samarjit Kar

  6. Department of Operational Research, University of Delhi, Delhi, 110007, India

    Pankaj Gupta & Mukesh Kumar Mehlawat

Authors
  1. R. Krishankumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arunodaya R. Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. S. Ravichandran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samarjit Kar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pankaj Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mukesh Kumar Mehlawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samarjit Kar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors of this research paper declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krishankumar, R., Mishra, A.R., Ravichandran, K.S. et al. Interval-valued probabilistic uncertain linguistic information for decision-making: selection of hydrogen production methodology. Soft Comput 25, 9121–9138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05845-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05845-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation