2020 13th International UNIMAS Engineering Conference (EnCon)
Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak,
Kota Samarahan, Sarawak Malaysia
27 - 28 October 2020
Copyright © 2020 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc All Rights Reserved
Copyright and Reprint Permissions: Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source.
Libraries are permitted to photocopy beyond the limit of U.S. copyright law for private use of patrons those articles in this volume that carry a code at the bottom of the first page, provided the per-copy fee indicated in the code is paid through Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923.
For other copying, reprint or republication permission, write to IEEE Copyrights Manager, IEEE Service Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854. All rights reserved.
***This publication is a representation of what appears in the IEEE Digital Libraries.
IEEE Catalog Number: CFP20T28-ART
ISBN 13: 978-1-7281-9293-2
Additional Copies of This Publication Are Available From:
Curran Associates, Inc 57 Morehouse Lane
Red Hook, NY 12571 USA Phone: (845) 758-0400 Fax: (845) 758-2633
E-mail: [email protected]
International Engineering Conference 2020 Advisory Panel
The International Scientific Committee ENCON2020
Civil
Engineering
Dato’ Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew (Keynote Speaker) Chief Executive Officer of G&P Professionals Sdn Bhd Area of expertise: Geotechnical Engineering
Prof. Dr. Irtishad Uddin Ahmad (Keynote Speaker)
Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at American University of Sharjah (AUS), United Arab Emirates
Area of expertise: Construction & Management
Prof. Ts. Dr. Mohd Rosli bin Hainin (Keynote Speaker)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academics and International) Universiti Malaysia Pahang Area of expertise: Transportation Engineering
Prof. Dr. Ng Chee Khoon (Keynote Speaker) Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak Area of expertise: Structural Engineering
Professor Simon Beecham
Deputy Vice Chancellor, UNISA Australia, University of South Australia Area of expertise: Sustainable Water Resources Engineering
Prof. Dr. Jianguo Cai
Key Laboratory of C & PC Structures of Ministry of Education, National Prestress Engineering Research Center, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China Area of expertise: Structure
Prof. Dr. Xiao-Hui Wang
College of Ocean Science and Engineering, Shanghai Maritime University, China Area of expertise: Civil Engineering Materials and Structural Engineering
Prof. Dr. K. S. Sathyanarayanan
Head of Civil Engineering Department, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Area of expertise: Materials and Structural Engineering, Repair and Rehabilitation of Structures
Prof. Dr. K. Gunasekaran
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Area of expertise: Structural Engineering – Construction Materials and Concrete Prof. Dr. S. Senthil Selvan
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Area of expertise: Structural Engineering – Steel Structures Professor Dr. Galina S. Slavcheva
Department of Construc on Materials Voronezh State Technical University, Russia
Email:[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Area of exper se: Structure forma on and durability of building materials such as nanomodifica on of building materials structure, Rheology of building materials as dispersed systems, 3D-printable concrete
Professor Dr Indrajit Ray
Program Coordinator Construction Materials, Engineering and Management, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago Email address: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) Area of expertise: Construction materials
Professor Dr Md Maruf Mortula
Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah
Professor Dr. Farid Abed
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American University of Sharjah, AUS, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) Area of expertise: Structure
Associate Professor James Ward
Lecturer, UNISA Australia, University of South Australia
Area of expertise: Water engineering and environmental science, specializing in computer modelling of water and environmental systems
Associate Professor Dr. JOE G. TOM
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, United States
Area of expertise: Geotechnical Engineering Associate Professor Dr. Xiaowei Deng
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Hong Kong,
China
Area of expertise: Structural Engineering
Associate Professor Dr. Faiz Uddin Ahmed Shaikh
School of civil and mechanical engineering, Curtin University, Australia.
Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) Area of expertise: Structure
Associate Professor Dr. Anjay Kumar Mishra Research Director
Madam Bhandari Memorial Academy Nepal and Pokhara University, Nepal Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])/
(mailto:[email protected]/) [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Area of expertise; Project Management Eng. Prof. Sibilike K. Makhanu Professor of Civil Engineering
Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST), Kenya Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])/smakhanu (mailto:[email protected]/smakhanu)@mmust.ac.ke
Area of expertise: Hydraulics Engineering Ir. Dr. Kelvin Kuok King Kuok
Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus Area of expertise: Water Resources Engineering Dr Suntoro Tjoe
Universitas Kristen Indonesia
Area of expertise: Structure mechanics & construction project management Dr Ir Pinandan Simanjuntak MT
Universitas Kristen Indonesia
Area of expertise: Structure mechanics
Mechanical Engineering
Prof. Dr. S. Prabhu
Head of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India Area of expertise: Nanotechnology
Associate Professor Dr. Yixiang Xu
Faculty of Science and Engineering, School of Aerospace, The University of Nottingham Ningbo China
Area of expertise: numerical and experimental study of light weight mechanical system and new materials, e.g. deployable actuators, thin composites, including advanced space structures as well as and design and analysis of infrastructure, e.g. portal frame and web crippling
Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Basil T. Wong
Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus
Area of expertise: Near-field radiation, light scattering, nanoscale thermal conduction
Assoc. Prof. Dr. S. Murali
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Area of expertise: Manufacturing/Ergonomics/Human Factors
Chemical Engineering
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jaka Sunarso
Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus Area of expertise: Electrochemical-based materials Prof. Dr. M. P. Rajesh
Head of Chemical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India Area of expertise: Biochemical Engineering
Assoc. Prof. Dr. K. Anbalagan
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Area of expertise: Chemical Engineering, Energy Engineering
Electric &
Electronics Engineering
Prof. Dr. Su Hieng Tiong
Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus
Area of expertise: Design of RF and microwave passive devices Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Sim Kwan Yong
Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus Area of expertise: Electronic and computer engineering Prof. Dr. K. Vijayakumar
Head of Electric & Electronic Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Area of expertise: Power systems Assoc. Prof. Dr. R. Sridhar
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India Area of expertise: Power Electronics & Drives Assoc. Prof. Dr. J. Preetha Roselyn
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Area of expertise: Voltage stability, computational intelligent techniques,
evolutionary computation, Grid integration issues of renewable energy, building automation, smart metering infrastructure
Conference Organizing Committee
EnCon 2020 Committee Members 29-30 October 2020
Hotel Riverside Majestic, Kuching
Advisors :
Assoc. Prof. Ir Dr Siti Noor Linda Binti Hj. Taib
Dean, Faculty of Engineering
Dr Norhuzaimin Bin Julai
Deputy Dean (Postgraduate and Research), Faculty of Engineering
Assoc. Prof. Ir Dr Lim Soh Fong
Deputy Dean (Industry, Community Engagement and Commercialization), Faculty of Engineering
Chairperson : Ir Dr Ting Sim Nee
Deputy Chairperson : Assoc. Prof. Dr Mohammad Ibrahim Safawi Bin Mohammad Zain
Secretary :
Miss Hasmida Binti Hamza (Head) Dr Charles Bong Hin Joo
Deputy Secretary: Dr Charles Bong Hin Joo
Secretariat and
Programme Committee
Ir Rudiyanto Bin Philman Jong
Dr May Raksmey
Mdm Norazlina Binti Bateni
Mdm Dayangku Salma Binti Awang Ismail
Mdm Nur Shafini Hamdan
Mdm Rokilah Bte Bohari Khan
Mdm Safaraliwati Ghazali
Treasurer: Ir Dr Abdul Razak Bin Abdul Karim
Deputy Treasurers :
Ir Dr Norazzlina Binti M. Sa’don
Mr Abdul Azim Bin Abdullah
Committees :
Publicity, MoA & MoU
Mdm Rosmina Binti Ahmad Bustami (Head)
Ir Dr David Bong Boon Liang
Assoc. Prof. Dr Norsuzailina Binti Mohamed Sutan
Dr Yonis M. Yonis Buswig
Dr Kasumawati Binti Lias
Mr Saiful bin Edi
Mdm Rose Sima Ak Ikau
Sponsorship
Assoc. Prof. Dr Mohammad Ibrahim Safawi Bin Mohammad Zain (Head)
Prof Ir Dr Law Puong Ling
Dr Raudhah Binti Ahmadi
Mdm Azida Binti Hj Rashidi
Venue and Logistics:
Dr Alsidqi Hasan (Head)
Dr Nicholas Kuan Hoo Tien
Dr Abang Mohammad Nizam Bin Abang Kamaruddin
Mr Mohammad Ismail Hairul Bin Abdul Latif
Technical papers and Publication
Dr Lee Yee Yong (Head)
Prof Dr Mohammad Abdul Mannan
Assoc. Prof. Dr Ahmad Kueh Beng Hong
Ir Dr Mah Yau Seng
Chemical – Ir Dr Ivy Tan Ai Wei
Chemical – Dr Hafizah Binti Abdul Halim Yun
EE – Dr Kho Lee Chin
EE – Dr Dayang Nur Salmi Dharmiza Binti Awang Salleh
Mechanical – Dr Lidyana Binti Roslan
Protocol and floor management:
Dr Jethro Anak Henry Adam (Head)
Dr Nordiana Binti Rajaee
Mdm Rosmina Binti Ahmad Bustami
Mr Affandi Bin Hj Othman
Mr Rozaini Bin Ahmad
Special Sessions:
Prof Dr Ng Chee Khoon (Head)
Ir Dr Leonard Lim Lik Pueh
Mr Ron Aldrino Chan@Ron Buking (mailto:Chan@Ron Buking) (mailto:Chan@Ron%20Buking)
Mr Larry Anak Silas Tirau
Dr Mahsuri Binti Yusof
Technical visit :
Mr Ahmad Kamal Bin Abdul Aziz (Head)
Dr Mohamad Raduan Bin Hj Kabit
Mr Affandi Bin Hj Othman
iSTEEX
Dr Idawati Binti Ismail (Head)
Dr. Nur Tahirah binti Razali (Secretary)
Miss Siti Nor Ain binti Musa (Secretary)
Dr. Dyg Norkhairunnisa binti Abang Zaidel (Venue/Protocol/Logistics)
Miss Nur Amalina Shairah binti Abdul Samat (Venue/Protocol)
Dr Gaddafi Bin Ismaili (Special Task)
Dr Zamri Bin Bujang (Special Task)
Dr. Lidyana binti Roslan (Special Task)
Dr. Ngu Sze Song (Special Task)
Mr Mohd Hafiez Izzwan bin Saad (Technical/Logistics)
Mr Azfar Satari bin Abdullah (Technical/Logistics)
Mr Mohammad Ar-Rasyidin Bin Marudin (Technical/Logistics)
Mr Mohammad Sapian Bin Mohamed Kassim (Technical/Logistics) Print
2020 13th International UNIMAS Engineering Conference (EnCon)
Table of Content
No. Filename Paper title
1 2020001318 Design and Development of Remote Laboratory System to Facilitate Online Learning in Hardware Programming Subjects
2 2020001321 A Low-Cost IoT-Based System for Manufacturing Process Data Acquisition
3 2020001404 Effect of Number of Electrodes on Electrical
Performance of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuator
4 2020001408 Parametric Model Study for Outdoor Routers Cost Estimation
5 2020001502 Review of Temperature and Humidity Impacts on RF Signals
6 2020001513 Hybrid Renewable System based Pumped Energy Storage for the Electrification of Rural Areas
7 2020001835 Sizing of a Hybrid Photovoltaic-Hydrokinetic Turbine Renewable Energy System in East Malaysia
8 2020001931 Improving the Bit Error Rate Performance of Free Space Optical Communication due to Atmospheric Turbulence Effect using New Double Multiple-Input Multiple-Output Technique
9 2020001945 Proportional-Integral Ammonium-based Aeration Control for Activated Sludge Process
10 2020001954 Modeling Rain Attenuation Effect in Free Space Optic Propagation
11 2020002715 Implementation of Verilog HDL in Calculator Design with FPGA Simulation
12 2020002827 Surface Current Distribution and Performance Analysis of Different Feeding Techniques for Microstrip Patch Antenna
13 2020002951 Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant and Thermal Power Plants Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) 14 2020002977 Effect of Lightning Surge in AC Power and
Telecommunication Lines for Electrical Devices 15 2020003289 Feasibility, Sizing and Economic Analysis of Solar
Energy System for Green Swinburne Campus 16 2020003629 Electric and Magnetic Fields for the Proposed
Microstrip Antenna with DGS for Breast Cancer Detection 17 2020005201 Enhanced Dye-Sensitized Solar Cell Efficiency of
Titanium Oxide (TiO2) -Doped Reduced Graphene Oxide
(rGO)
Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant and Thermal Power Plants Using Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP)
Yanuar Z. Arief
(1)Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Eng., Faculty of Engineering Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)
Kota Samarahan,, Sarawak, Malaysia [email protected] (2) Master of Engineering Program, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Jakarta Global University (JGU), Grand Depok Citi, Jl. Boulevard Raya 2,
Tirtajaya, Sukmajaya, Kota Depok, Indonesia
Erdawaty Samsul
Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Eng., Faculty of Engineering Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)
Kota Samarahan,, Sarawak, Malaysia [email protected]
Hamzah Eteruddin Dept. of Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering Universitas Lancang Kuning (UNILAK),
Jl. Yos Sudarso, KM 8 Rumbai, 28265 Rumbai, Riau, Indonesia
Mohd Hafiez Izzwan Saad Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Eng.,
Faculty of Engineering Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)
Kota Samarahan,, Sarawak, Malaysia [email protected]
Abstract—In Malaysia, fossil fuels are the most frequently used as energy resource. However, the amount of reserves for fossil fuels is now declining. That is why nuclear energy has become more popular for a certain country to diversify its production of energy. The aim of this paper is to analyze the suitability of nuclear power plant (NPP) compared to conventional power plants using a multi-criteria decision-making technique or known as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A framework of AHP’s hierarchy is being developed, and the hierarchy structure consists of six criteria, namely safety and security, resources, public acceptance, cost of energy, construction time, and CO2 emission, respectively. Other than that, three alternatives, namely NPP, thermal power plant and hydropower plant, are also considered in the hierarchy structure.
By using AHP technique, the system reveals that the hydropower plant is the most favourable choice of a better power plant compared with others. The results obtained demonstrate the validity of the framework developed.
Keywords—Nuclear power plant, thermal power plants, analytic hierarchy process, criteria, alternative, goal, consistency ratio, consistency index.
I. INTRODUCTION
The supply of electricity is essential in this era of globalization and modern life where the energy demand is increasing every day and the government of each country must be able to meet this growing demand for energy. In Malaysia, the main sources of power generation or electricity output used basically generated from fossil fuel such as coal, diesel fuel, natural gas and etc which have huge consequences for the environment. Thus, Malaysia should ready to substitute the non-renewable energy to renewable and alternatives energy sources like hydropower and nuclear in the future. This is because nuclear power plants does not lead to air pollution as it does not produce emission of poisonous gases such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide that will lead to man-made disasters like acid rain and global warming [1].
The sources of nuclear power plants come from uranium and originate from the separation of uranium atoms known
as the fission process. From that process, it generates heat to produce steam that will drive the turbine to produce electricity. In order to know and select a better source to generate power in Malaysia, there are certain criteria that must be considered. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is utilized in order to have a great decision. AHP is an effective tool to handle complex decision making [2].
This method was developed by Thomas Saaty at the Wharton School of Business and it has proved the potential of the system used for decision making in managerial problems [3]. These multiple criterion decision-making tools are set up in a hierarchical structure. It is a method of decision-making that helps the decision-makers to make the right decision through the decision making process [4]. The AHP is a strong weighted scoring system that assists in setting goals, evaluating and making the best decision [5].
Nuclear power plant has become an important part of the energy balance in the world. Nowadays, global energy consumption is increasing significantly as the population increases. Hence the government of each country must be able to supply this growing energy demand for their peoples.
Everyone must understand that nuclear is not only a factor in creating explosive energy but also in generating electricity [6]. Nuclear power plants (NPP) generate fewer gas emissions for each unit of energy it produces compared with conventional power plants like fossil fuels, including coal and natural gas. There are currently around 440 reactors operating in 30 countries, with a total net install capacity is 389.34 GWe [7]. Table 1 shows the number of reactors in each country with its total net electrical capacity based on the world statistics from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) website.
Currently, the largest number of operating nuclear units (95) and the highest installed capacity (97,154 MW) is in the United States (US). Next is France with 56 units, and the installed capacity is 61,370 MW, then China with 48 units and 45,518 MW installed capacity, followed by Russia with 38 units and 28,437 MW installed capacity. Japan has 33 operating units with 31,679 MW installed capacity. The Republic of Korea has 24 units and 23,172 MW installed
capacity, India has 22 units with 6,255 MW installed capacity, and Canada has 19 units with 13,554 installed capacities. Ukraine and the United Kingdom (UK) have 15 operating units with 13,107 MW and 8,923 MW, respectively. Sweden, Belgium, and Spain have 7 units in operation with 77,40MW, 5,930 MW and, 7,121 MW installed capacity, respectively. Next, Germany and the Czech Republic have 6 units with 8,113MW and 3,932MW installed capacity, respectively. Pakistan has 5 operating units with ,1318MW installed capacity. Switzerland, Finland, Hungary, and Slovakia have 4 units in operation with 2,960MW, 2,794MW, 1,902MW, and 1,814MW installed capacity, respectively. Argentina has 3 operating units with 1,641MW. Brazil, Bulgaria, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, they run up to 2 nuclear units while remaining nuclear-powered countries like Armenia, Iran, Netherlands, and Slovenia, they run up to 1 nuclear unit.
Other than the total worldwide number of reactors, the IAEA also offers country-specific data on the number of power reactors and their current status, either it is in operation, under construction, or in long-term or permanent shutdown. From the website, the total number of operational reactors is about 440 reactors, 54 reactors under construction, and 189 permanent shutdown reactors. The data about the nuclear power capacity of operating reactors from 2000-2019 in GW can also be obtained from the IAEA website is shown in Fig. 1.
TABLEI. NUMBER OF REACTORS IN EACH COUNTRY WITH ITS TOTAL NET
ELECTRICAL CAPACITI[7]
Fig. 2. Nuclear Power Capacity of operating reactors from 2000-2019[7].
II. METHOD A. Analytical Hierarchy Process
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision- making method based on multi-criteria introduced by T.L.
Saaty [6]. AHP is a structured approach to address decision issues involving multi-criteria, where hierarchy is defined in the decision process. In General, AHP consist of 3 levels, in which goal is kept at the first level, followed by the criteria and the alternatives, respectively. Next, this technique includes few fundamental steps such as defining the problem, determining priorities among the decision elements of the hierarchy, deriving the overall relative weights of the decision elements and verifying the consistency of judgments and making a conclusion based on the results [4].
The AHP technique can be divided into three stages.
First, create a judgment matrix by using a pair-wise comparison matrix where the relative importance of one criterion over another can be expressed. Then, compute the eigenvector of the judgment matrix corresponding to the largest eigenvalue. Last but not least, from the regional preferences associated with each decision matrix, determine the composite priority vector [6]. This sequence is summarized in a flowchart as shown in Fig. 2.
Next, the steps of implementing the AHP technique will be explained one by one with a detailed explanation, which will include some tables, equations, and pictures involved in this project.
B. AHP Implementing Procedure
•Step 1 – Identify levels and elements within the level of hierarchy design.
This research work involves six criteria and three alternatives. The criteria are declared as C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6, while the alternatives are declared as A1, A2, and A3 as shown in Fig. 3. The hierarchical structure for this project is shown in Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 4, the hierarchy design of the AHP system used in this study, where there are six criteria and three alternatives. The selection of a better power plant is the goal of this project, and it can be seen in level 1 of the hierarchy. At level 2, there are six criteria labeled as C1: safety and security, C2: resources, C3: public acceptance, C4: cost of energy, C5: construction time, and C6: CO2 emission. Next, at level 3, all alternatives are attached to each criterion. The alternatives in this project are
A1: nuclear power plant, A2: thermal power plant, and A3:
hydropower plant. The AHP structure hierarchy design above is implemented and presented using Microsoft Excel.
Fig. 2. Flowchart of AHP[5].
Fig. 3. General structure of the AHP hierarchy design in this study.
Fig. 4. Structure of AHP hierarchy design in this study.
•Step 2 – Create the pair-wise comparison matrix The most important step in many decision-making approaches is the precise estimation of the relevant data. In this case, pair-wise comparisons are used to determine the relative value of one criterion over another. This pair-wise comparison matrix is created with the help of the scale of the relative important table that Thomas L. Saaty introduced in 1980 [2]. These scales are shown in Table 2.
The matric can be developed by using the matric equation below:
a) Matrix for criteria [9]
Where , , …. represent the criteria and aij represents the criteria Ci with respect to the Cj.
b) Matrix for alternative [9]
Where , , …. represent the alternatives and aij represents the criteria Ai with respect to the Aj.
Table 3 shows the example of the pair-wise comparison matrix where safety and security, resources, public acceptance, cost of energy, construction time, and CO2
emission are the criteria in choosing a better power plant.
The value of the pair-wise matrix depends on the decision- maker, and to determine the value, some questions should be asked to the decision-maker and the sample question is as below:
Question: How important is safety and security with respect to the construction time?
Answer: The safety and security of the power plant are much more important compared to the construction time.
TABLEII. THE SCALE OF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE[9]
TABLEIII. EXAMPLE OF PAIR-WAISE COMPARISON MATRIC
This pair-wise comparison matrix was completed with the help of the scale of relative importance.
From the table above, the diagonal element is fixed to the value of 1 because the price will be equal importance to price, and the same goes for the other criteria. Then, the fractional value needs to be converted into a decimal value.
•Step 3 – Normalizing the pair-wise comparison matrix There are three steps to normalize the pair-wise comparison matrix. The steps can be found below [10].
1) Summarize the values in each pair-wise matrix column.
2) Next, each element of the column is divided by its total column to create a standardized pair-wise matrix.
3) Then, the sum of the normalized column of the matrix is divided by the number of criteria (n) to produce a weighted matrix.
•Step 4 – Consistency analysis by Eigen Vector Method (EVM)
Basically, in the AHP, pair-wise comparisons are considered to be sufficiently accurate in a decision matrix if the corresponding consistency ratio (CR) is less than 0.1 [2].
Use the following steps to calculate the consistency ratio (CR) [10]:
1) The vector of consistency is determined by multiplying the pair-wise matrix by the weights vector.
2) Then, the weighted sum vector is divided by the criteria weight.
3) Next, the maximum eigenvalue is denoted by and it is calculated as follows:
4) The value of the consistency index (CI) is determined using the following equation:
5) Finally, by dividing the CI with Random Index, RI, the CR is obtained. The value of RI can be obtained as shown Table 5.
The CR value must be less than the allowable 0.10 value. The accuracy of the matrix of a decision should be within an appropriate tolerance, but if the ratio of the accuracy reaches or exceeds 0.10, then the subjective decision must be revised [9].
•Step 5 – All priority ranking is developed.
The final pair-wise comparisons matrix should be achieved by normalizing both criteria and alternatives with respect to each other. The goal can be recognized by the estimated value of the overall priority.
•Step 6 – Goal achieved.
The goal is accomplished by choosing the highest priority alternatives
.
TABLEV. THE VALUE OF RANDOM INDEX [11]
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
First and foremost, in this study, the comparison is made between the criteria to recognize which criteria contribute to the highest weighting in selecting a better power plant as summarized in Table 6. Table 7 shows pair-wise matrix for all parameters. As shown in Table 6, the initial questionnaire design on how to judge every criterion, and the upper triangular matrix in Table 7 can be obtained by referring to this table. If the value of the judgment is on the left-hand side is 1, then the actual value of the judgment will be filled in, but if it is the other way around, then the reciprocal value will take over. This can be seen in Table 7, where the scale 5.00 in the first row, the sixth column, means that C1 (safety and security) is strong importance compared to the C6 (CO2 emissions). Next, in the fourth- row fifth column, scale 0.33 means that C5 (construction time) is moderate importance compared to C4 (cost of energy). Then, the reciprocal of the upper triangular matrix
will be used to fill in the value of the lower triangular matrix.
Table 8 shows the normalized pair-wise matrix comparison of all parameters. As shown in Table 8, the matrix is normalized, and it leads to the results of the priority. C1, which is known as safety and security, is recognized as the most important criteria to be taken into account when selecting a better power plant. Fig. 5 shows the ranking of the most important to the least essential criteria was developed. As shown from the figure, it shows that the most important criteria are C1 (safety and security) followed by C2 (resources), C3 (public acceptance), and C5 (construction time), C6 (CO2 emission) and C4 (cost of energy), respectively.
The consistency ratio (CR) is found 0.08, which is lower than 0.1 as shown in Table 9. This means that the comparison for the criteria is fair and the results obtained are valid.
The results of which alternative is chosen as a better power plant based on the relevant criteria. There are six criteria involved in this part. Each criterion then compared to each alternative. Table 10 show pair-wise comparison matrix of alternative for C1 (safety and security). Table 11 shows normalized the pair-wise comparison matrix for C1.
TABLEVI. THE PRIMARY QUESTIONARE DESIGN [11]
TABLEVII. PAIR-WISE MATRIX FOR ALL PARAMETERS
TABLEVIII. NORMALIZED PAIR-WISE MATRIX COMPARISON
The steps and procedures for this part are still the same as the previous part for the comparison between each criterion, but this time, the AHP technique is used to make a comparison between the alternatives with respect to each criterion. As shown in Table 12 and 13, the alternatives in this project are the nuclear power plant, thermal power plant, and hydropower plant, respectively. Table 12 shows the value that the decision-maker has inserted. Meanwhile, Table 13 provides the results of the priority for each alternative with respect to security and safety. Based on the results obtained in Table 13, it shows that the priority for security and safety for each alternative is equal to the priority value of 0.33. This is because security and safety have always been a priority for every type of power plant.
As for the consistency ratio (CR) for this calculation, the value is 0.00, which means that the judgment is perfectly consistent as shown in Table 12.
The procedures are repeated of other criteria, the normalization between all the criteria and alternatives is calculated via the AHP system are presented in Table 13 as a final AHP system results.
Fig. 6 show the ranking of a better selection of power plant based on AHP technique. As noted in that figure, the AHP system developed in this project indicates that the hydropower plant is at the top ranking of a better selection of power plants followed by the thermal and nuclear power plants. The overall priority of the hydropower plant is 0.46, followed by 0.29 for the thermal power plant and 0.24 for the nuclear power plant, respectively. Hydropower plant surpasses thermal and nuclear power plants in terms of resources availability, lower cost of energy, and higher acceptance by the public.
Fig. 5. Ranking developed among the criteria.
TABLEIX. CONSISTENCY RATIO FOR ALL PARAMETERS
TABLEX. PAIR-WISE COMPARISON MATRIX OF ANLTERNATIVES ON C1
TABLEXI. NORMALIZED THE PAIR-WISE COMPARISON MATRIX
TABLEXII. CONSISTENCY RATIO OF ALTERNATIVES ON C1
TABLEXIII. FINAL AHPSYSTEM RESULTS
Fig. 6. Ranking of a better selection of power plants.
IV. CONCLUSION
In this research work, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is developed successfully with the Microsoft Excel software. The AHP system framework shows that there are six criteria involved in this project, which are safety and security, resources, public acceptance, cost of energy, construction time, and CO2 emission. These criteria were all declared as C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6.
The C1, which is safety and security, is declared as the most important criteria for selecting a better power plant after a pair-wise comparison matrix and the normalization of the pair-wise comparison matrix have been done. From the results obtained, the ranking of the criteria was followed by the resources, public acceptance and construction time, CO2
emission, and cost of energy, respectively. In short, safety and security are one of the most critical factors to be considered when selecting a power plant to avoid any unwanted situation that could harm people, properties, and the environment. It has always been a priority in choosing a better power plant.
Next, three alternatives have been selected for this project. Those alternatives are the nuclear power plant, thermal power plant, and hydropower plant. The alternatives also need to go through the same procedure as the criteria, but this time, the pair-wise comparison matrix and the normalization of the matrix were done with respect to each criterion. After completing those procedures, the results were obtained, and from the results, in terms of resources, public acceptance, and cost of energy, the hydropower plant has been chosen as the better power plant. Meanwhile, the construction time of the thermal power plant is better compared to the nuclear power plant and hydropower plant.
In terms of CO2 emission, both nuclear and hydropower plants are better than thermal power plant as they produced less amount of CO2 emission. Last but not least, in terms of safety and security, it is equal for all alternatives.
To conclude, after applying the AHP technique, the hydropower plant seems to be a better power plant compared to the nuclear power plant and thermal power plant. The results can be seen in Table 13, where the overall priority column shows that the priority value for hydropower is 0.46, followed by the thermal power plant with 0.29, and 0.24 for the nuclear power plant. Based on the results, it shows that the feasibility of a nuclear power plant in Malaysia is low due to a few factors such as safety and security, public acceptance, and also waste treatment.
The proper disposal of nuclear waste remains a challenging issue which restricts the growth of nuclear power plant other than the public acceptance. This is because, with a high level of knowledge on nuclear power, people can appreciate the benefits and consequences of nuclear power instead of misinterpreting the risks and being worry about a nuclear generation. It also helps to increase the level of public perception of nuclear technology and its acceptance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) for the financial support under Small Grant Scheme (F02/SGS/1784/2018) facilitation and support in completing this research work.
REFERENCES
[1] “Benefits of Nuclear Energy Power on Malaysian Society Engineering Essay”, Available from:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/engineering/benefits-of-nuclear- energy-power-on-malaysian-society-engineering-essay.php?vref=1.
Accessed on 07 Dec 2019.
[2] E. Triantaphyllou and S. H. Mann, “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges,” J. Ind. Eng. Appl. Pract., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 35–44, 1995.
[3] R. W. Saaty, “The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used,” Math. Model., vol. 9, no. 3–5, pp. 161–176, 1987.
[4] Y. Murayama, 2014. “Progress in geospatial analysis,” Prog.
Geospatial Anal., vol. 9784431540, no. April 2012, pp. 1–291.
[5] S. A. Azeez, O. R. Nandagopan, and V. M. Dhiwakar, “Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Optimal Design Decisions in Product Development,” no. 3, pp. 47–54, 2013..
[6] R. Idris and Z. Abd. Latif, 2012. “GIS multi-criteria for power plant site selection,” Proc. - 2012 IEEE Control Syst. Grad. Res. Colloquium, ICSGRC 2012, no. Icsgrc, pp. 203–206.
[7] “PRIS - Home.” Available from: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx.
Accessed on 19 Jul 2020.
[8] H. M. Sungguh et al., “Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ( AHP ) in the Selection of River Basin Organizations Models in Toba Asahan River Basin - Indonesia,” vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 65–77, 2013.
[9] Z. B. H. Ibrahim, “Thesis_A Comparative Study of The Ahp And Topsis Methods For Implementing Load Shedding Scheme In A Pulp Mill System”, 2014.
[10] B. Khwanruthai, “How to do AHP analysis in Excel,” pp. 1–21, 2012..
[11] I.The AHP and A. Hierarchy, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP ),” no. 1980, pp. 1–11, 2004..
