Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 199–219 | Cite as

Application of statistical charts, multi-criteria decision making and polynomial neural networks in monitoring energy utilization of wave energy converters

  • Tilottama Chakraborty
  • Mrinmoy MajumderEmail author


The rise in the demand for energy from the burgeoning population has enhanced the importance of renewable energy resources to substitute conventional energy resources. In this regard, energy extracted from ocean waves is found to be one of the most reliable but expensive alternatives. The cost of installation and monitoring of wave energy converters are the reasons why it is not a popular alternative to replace fossil fuels. One of the major reasons for higher cost lies in the subjective methods adopted to monitor or predict the wave energy potential. Also very few studies were conducted to monitor the efficiency of the converters in utilization of the available potential. The present investigation is an attempt to propose an objective, unbiased and adaptive procedure to monitor as well as estimate the utilization efficiency of the wave energy converters. The method was experimented on the coastal regions of India, and the results encourage further application of the novel method.


Wave energy converter Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) Control charts Group method of data handling (GMDH) 


  1. Brooke, J. (2003). Wave energy conversion (Vol. 6). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Chakraborti, S. (2006). Parameter estimation and design considerations in prospective applications of the X chart. Journal of Applied Statistics, 33(4), 439–459.Google Scholar
  3. Chew, X. Y., Khoo, M. B. C., Teh, S. Y., & Castagliola, P. (2015). The variable sampling interval run sum control chart. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 90, 25–38.Google Scholar
  4. Citiroglu, K. H., & Okur, A. (2014). An approach to wave energy converter applications in Eregli on the western Black Sea coast of Turkey. Applied Energy, 135, 738–747.Google Scholar
  5. Clémentb, A., McCullenc, P., Falcãod, A., Fiorentinoe, A., Gardnerf, F., Hammarlundg, K., et al. (2002). Wave energy in Europe: current status and perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 6(5), 405–431.Google Scholar
  6. Cordonnier, J., Gorintina, F., De Cagny, A., Clement, A. H., & Babarit, A. (2015). SEAREV: Case study of the development of a wave energy converter. Renewable Energy, 80, 40–52.Google Scholar
  7. de Antonio, F. O. (2010). Wave energy utilization: A review of the technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), 899–918.Google Scholar
  8. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility, DEMATEL.Google Scholar
  9. Ganguly, A., & Patel, S. K. (2014). A teaching–learning based optimization approach for economic design of X-bar control chart. Applied Soft Computing, 30, 643–653.Google Scholar
  10. Ghosh, S., Chakraborty, T., Saha, S., Majumder, M., & Pal, M. (2016). Development of the location suitability index for wave energy production by ANN and MCDM techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59, 1017–1028.Google Scholar
  11. Hamby, D. M. (1994). A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 32(2), 135–154.Google Scholar
  12. Henderson, R. (2006). Design, simulation, and testing of a novel hydraulic power take-off system for the Pelamis wave energy converter. Renewable Energy, 2, 271–283.Google Scholar
  13. Hu, X. L., Castagliola, P., Sun, J. S., & Khoo, M. B. C. (2016). Effect of measurement errors on the VSI X chart. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 10(2), 224–242.Google Scholar
  14. Hyndman, R. J., & Koehler, A. B. (2006). Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting, 4, 679–688.Google Scholar
  15. Irurzun, M. A., Chaparro, M. A. E., Sinito, A. M., Gogorza, C. S. G., Lirio, J. M., Nuñez, H., et al. (2013). Preliminary relative palaeointensity record and chronology on sedimentary cores from Lake Esmeralda (Vega Island, Antarctica). Latimag Letters, 6.Google Scholar
  16. Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy, 35(6), 2517–2527.Google Scholar
  17. Kewalramani, M. A., & Gupta, R. (2016). Group method of data handling algorithms to predict compressive strength of concrete based on absorbed extraterrestrial solar radiations. Key Engineering Materials, 689, 108–113.Google Scholar
  18. Kleijnen, J. P. C. (1992). Sensitivity analysis of simulation experiments: regression analysis and statistical design. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 3, 297–315.Google Scholar
  19. Li, Y., Duan, W., Sun, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2013). A group DEMATEL approach based on interval estimation. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 10, 292.Google Scholar
  20. Li, M., Jin, L., & Wang, J. (2014). A new MCDM method combining QFD with TOPSIS for knowledge management system selection from the user’s perspective in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Applied Soft Computing, 21, 28–37.Google Scholar
  21. Liu, H.-C., Liu, L., Liu, N., & Mao, L.-X. (2012). Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 17, 12926–12934.Google Scholar
  22. Majumder, M., & Saha, A. K. (2016). Feasibility model of solar energy plants by ANN and MCDM techniques. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. McCormick, M. E. (1981). Ocean wave energy conversion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Morabia, Z. S., Owlia, M. S., Bashiri, M., & Doroudyan, M. H. (2015). Multi-objective design of control charts with fuzzy process parameters using the hybrid epsilon constraint PSO. Applied Soft Computing, 30, 390–399.Google Scholar
  25. Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885–900.Google Scholar
  26. Mork, G., Barstow, S., Kabuth, A., & Pontes, M. T. (2010). Assessing the global wave energy potential. In ASME 2010 29th International conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, (pp. 447–454). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  27. Mrugalski, M. (2014). Robust fault detection using zonotope-based GMDH neural network (pp. 101–112). Berlin Heidelberg: Intelligent Systems in Technical and Medical Diagnostics. Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Najafzadeh, M., & Tafarojnoruz, A. (2010). Evaluation of neuro-fuzzy GMDH-based particle swarm optimization to predict longitudinal dispersion coefficient in rivers. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
  29. Narasimhan, R. (1983). An analytic approach to supplier selection. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 1, 27–32.Google Scholar
  30. Rezaie, K., Ramiyani, S. S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Badizadeh, A. (2014). Evaluating performance of Iranian cement firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(21), 5033–5046.Google Scholar
  31. Saaty, T. L. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Tam, C. M., Tong, T. K. L., & Chiu, G. W. C. (2006). Comparing non-structural fuzzy decision support system and analytical hierarchy process in decision-making for construction problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(2), 1317–1324.Google Scholar
  33. Tsai, S.-B., Chien, M.-F., Xue, Y., Li, L., Jiang, X., Chen, Q., et al. (2015). Using the fuzzy DEMATEL to determine environmental performance: a case of printed circuit board industry in Taiwan. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0129153.Google Scholar
  34. Tseng, M.-L., & Lin, Y. H. (2009). Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL to develop a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 158, 519–533.Google Scholar
  35. Veigas, M., López, M., & Iglesias, G. (2014). Assessing the optimal location for a shoreline wave energy converter. Applied Energy, 132, 404–411.Google Scholar
  36. Vining, J. G., & Muetze, A. (2007). Governmental regulation of ocean wave energy converter installations. In Industry applications conference, 2007. 42nd IAS annual meeting. Conference record of the 2007 IEEE, (pp. 749–755). IEEE.Google Scholar
  37. Washio, Y., Osawa, H., Nagata, Y., Fujii, F., Furuyama, H., & Fujita, T. (2000). The offshore floating type wave power device “Mighty Whale”: Open Sea Tests. In The Tenth international offshore and polar engineering conference. International society of offshore and polar engineers.Google Scholar
  38. Willmott, C. J., & Matsuura, K. (2005). Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Climate Research, 1, 79–82.Google Scholar
  39. Yusuff, R. D., & Yee, K. P. (2001). A preliminary study on the potential use of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to predict advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17, 421–427.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Hydro-Informatics EngineeringNational Institute of Technology AgartalaWest TripuraIndia

Personalised recommendations