{"id":4282,"date":"2021-02-17T17:07:41","date_gmt":"2021-02-17T17:07:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=4282"},"modified":"2021-02-25T00:41:08","modified_gmt":"2021-02-25T00:41:08","slug":"6-results","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=4282","title":{"rendered":"5. Interpretations and Decision making"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interpretations<\/strong><\/p>\n

Resulting from the Multi-Objective Optimization<\/a>, different options vary throughout the different factors, which makes the process of decision making more complicated. In order to get a better overview of the situation,\u00a0a closer look at the single characteristics of each solution will be provided before generalizing the observations.<\/p>\n

1-Energy consumption<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Fig<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0Fig 5.1 : Energy_barplot<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Fig.5.1 shows, that options 1, 4 and 6 are the less energy consuming solutions by consuming 27629947.9 kJ while option 5 with a consumption of about 28084155.5 KJ is higher. Option 5 represents the option with the highest amount of energy consumption.<\/p>\n

\n

2-CO2<\/sub>, SO2<\/sub> and NOX<\/sub> emissions<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"co2_barplot\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"so2_barplot\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"nox_barplot\"<\/a>
Fig 5.2 : CO2, SO2 xand ,NO Barplots<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fig.5.2 displays, that options 1, 4 and 6 with values of 33889.55 kg, 3532.01 kg and 15305.79 kg for CO2<\/sub>, SO2<\/sub> and NOX<\/sub> are the less greenhouse gases emitting solutions while again option 5 emits the highest values.<\/p>\n

\n

3-Time factors<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\"interval_barplot\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"duration_barplot\"<\/a>
Fig 5.3 : Duration and time interval Barplots<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fig.5.3\u00a0reveals that options 3 and 9 involve less maintenance days during the life cycle (48.75 days) while option 4 has the highest number of maintenance days. On the other hand, options 4, 5, 7 and 11 have the greatest time intervals between the maintenance actions with 9 years while the other options amount about 6 years.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

4-Economic factors<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\"cost_barplot\"<\/a>
Fig 5.4 Cost Barplot<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

According to Fig.5.4 Options 1, 4 and 6 turn to be more economical involving 5 360 825 Euros for the whole life cycle, while option 5 is the most expensive with nearly the double costs of 10 019 663 Euros.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

All evaluation\u00a0factors are summarized in the table below:<\/p>\n

\"v4-2\"<\/a>
Table 5.1 : Solutions<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

NB:<\/strong><\/span> From the table it can be noticed that the following group of solutions are identical.<\/p>\n