Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Sustaining power production in hydropower stations of developing countries T

Tauqeer Rehman Jadoon, Muhammad Khurram Ali , Salman Hussain, Ahmad Wasim,
⁎

Mirza Jahanzaib
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: While the International Regulatory Bodies for Sustainability are striving in exploring innovative renewable
Sustainable energy production energy resources, it is inevitable to make the existing clean resources more efficient, especially if they are
Hydropower station investment-intensive, green, and situated in developing countries. The sustainability deviation in these renew-
Multi criteria decision-making (MCDM) able resources can be alarming not only for these financially weaker nations but also for the whole planet. In this
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
study, a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach is presented for the sustainable performance im-
Technique for order preference by similarity to
ideal solution (TOPSIS)
provement of the existing major hydropower station, generating forty eight percent of the hydroelectric power in
a developing country. The problem is modeled using two different decision making tools to ensure the con-
sistency and reliability of the results. ‘Predictive Maintenance’ has been identified as the most optimal alter-
native while ‘Training and Development’ has emerged as the second option. This clearly generates the need for
adopting intelligent technologies coupled with the ‘State of the Art’ Trainings. Operational Agility and System
Upgradation seem the least important options, mainly due to financial challenges faced by developing countries.
The results, in terms of policy making, sustainability and future investments, are highly attractive for all the
stakeholders including the plant crews, international investors, local government and international regulatory
bodies.

Introduction intensified if such plants are installed in developing countries. In ad-

Energy plays a role of engine for the sustainable economic growth
and welfare of a nation in this modern era. Energy efficiency of a nation
describes the basic concept that guides both production and trade ex-
change rates towards the growth and development. Energy demand is
directly proportional to population growth and industrialization, par-
ticularly in developing countries [1,2]. The high consumption rate of
energy increases the daily demand of electricity. It stimulates our at-
tention towards clean and renewable alternatives of power generation
[3]. The renewable energy resources not only fulfil the increasing en-
ergy demands, but also ensure the energy security and other social
aspects of nation development [4].
Among the different available alternatives of electricity generating
systems, hydropower is considered as the major source, covering up to
71% of the total worldwide electrical energy [5]. In addition to this
huge proportion, the technology of the hydropower stations is also
found to be the most efficient one, marked as the green source of power
generation [6–8]. It is, therefore, much crucial to continuously evaluate
and improve the performance of the already installed hydropower
stations. The need for this performance appraisal gets extremely
dition to that, if these countries are suffering from energy deficiency
and financial crises, the need for performance sustainability of hydro-
power plants becomes even more serious, as the negligence can divert
such nations towards adopting cheaper but highly non-sustainable so-
lutions.
The lifespan of a hydropower station is strongly associated with the
technology advancement, environmental changes and sustainability
development aspects [9,10]. The rate of power production at a hydro-
power station varies due to the small variability of factors like the level
of water head, turbine rate of flow, and efficiency of hydro turbine or
generator [11]. The analysis and forecast of hydroelectric power pro-
duction units is a prerequisite for the reliable and stable operation of
the hydropower plant [12]. In power generation systems, the hydro-
electric power plant must safely provide power to the grid station at
peak load and should maintain frequency of the system as per re-
quirements [13].
Some studies are available in literature which focus on efficiency
enhancement, availability, maintenance, renovation and modernization
of existing hydropower plants etc [14–17]. However, these rarely
available studies only focus on limited number of parameters and do

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khurram.ali@uettaxila.edu.pk (M.K. Ali).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100637
Received 12 November 2019; Received in revised form 27 December 2019; Accepted 13 January 2020
2213-1388/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.R. Jadoon, et al.
not take into account the multidimensional nature for the problem of
performance improvement in hydropower plants. The overall efficiency
of a hydropower plant depends mainly on a number of criteria, such as
technical, social, environmental and financial etc. [18]. It is necessary
to consider all those parameters and take all the plant crew (including
technical managers, non-technical managers, juniors and seniors en-
gineers etc.) on board to model the problem using decision support
systems, thus ensuring the efficient and long lasting supply of sustain-
able energy. The need for MCDM based analysis of this issue becomes
vital in developing countries as they suffer financial pressures, political
instabilities, conflicts in social behaviors and vagueness in policies.
MCDM techniques have the ability to identify and solve problems
based on multiple conflicting criteria. It is one of the fastest growing
fields of operations research in the 20th century and a lot of new MCDM
methods have evolved [19]. In recent years, MCDM techniques have
been utilized for decision making in the field of renewable and sus-
tainable energies [20]. Most of them are generic in nature and focus on
decisions related to evaluation of strategies and alternatives regarding
installation of new plants. Some of them are on country specific issues
of selecting generation technologies like Pakistan [9], Saudi Arabia
[21], Indonesia [22], Turkey [2,23] and Iran [24] etc. Afsordegan et al.
[25] used qualitative TOPSIS approach for the selection of sustainable
energy technologies under uncertainty. Kaya and Kahraman [26] pro-
posed a modified fuzzy TOPSIS and Fuzzy-AHP to choose the best
power source technology in energy planning. Atilgan [27] presented a
sustainable assessment of different energy scenarios in Turkey using
multi-criteria decision analysis. The work presented by Ali et al. [28]
utilized Fuzzy-AHP to select captive power plants in the developing
country. Solangi et al. [29] applied an integrated approach based on
Delphi-AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS to rank and select the best renewable
energy sources for Pakistan.
Above-mentioned studies address the issue of selecting and instal-
ling different energy alternatives. Only a limited number of MCDM
research papers are found in literature, which solely focuses on deci-
sions associated with the hydropower stations. Majumder and Saha
[30] conducted a detailed study to identify the key factors for in-
creasing hydropower plant performance by applying hybrid MCDM
approaches including Decision making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
(DEMATEL) and Multi criterion Analysis of Preferences by means of
Pairwise Actions and Criterion comparisons (MAPPAC). However, they
worked only on factors identification. The AHP model applied by
Bhandari and Saptalena [31] was on sustainable assessments but it was
limited to the micro-hydro power plants only. A fuzzy-AHP based
sensitivity analysis for human errors and system failures in a hydro-
power plant was the main focus of Ram and Chandna [32]. Wang et al.
[4] applied TOPSIS for overall efficiency evaluation of hydropower in
the major parts of Canada. Although, these rarely available MCDM
papers address the issues related with already installed hydropower
stations, they are specific in nature as discussed above. Moreover, one
can hardly find a study in the literature, which focusses on the sus-
tainable performance improvement of existing hydropower stations in
developing countries.
A small number of researchers have most recently focused on the
performance issues of already installed hydropower plants in developed
countries [33,34]. However, such plants are still being overlooked in
developing countries. From the large number of hydropower plants in
the world, only a few are registered as decommissioned, while others
have remained active for over 100 years [34]. Despite having such a
longer span of life, the efficiency of these cleanest sources of energy are
mostly compromised due to lack of scientific evaluations. It is, there-
fore, inevitable to have sustainable performance improvements of these
plants especially if they are in developing countries. Moreover, it is
crucial to identify if the current hydropower plants in such countries are
ready to cope with the innovative technology adoption challenges in
line with the host government policies and investment decisions [35].
If multiple MCDM approaches are used for this performance
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637
improvement problem, by taking into account the factors like auto-
mation, and IT tools as prospective alternatives, the problem becomes
more innovative and interesting. This is in line with the recommenda-
tions of the study presented by Wagner et al. [36], which highlights the
need for technology innovation to deal with the complexity and dy-
namicity in performance evaluation of existing hydropower plants. The
research for modernization of operation and maintenance issues in the
current hydropower plants, is also strongly recommended and endorsed
by the International Hydropower Association, as this will make the
performance of these plants optimal and reliable [37].
This work focusses on evaluating the performance improvement
options for the largest hydropower station in Pakistan. The problem is
modelled and solved using two different MCDM approaches. The
parameters and alternatives, initially explored from the literature, are
screened-out by the panels of plant experts, as per their compatibility
with the case of hydropower station under investigation. Eventually,
the best strategic approach is recommended to improve the perfor-
mance and ensure the sustainability of such power stations in devel-
oping countries.
In next section of the study, a discussion is provided on the electrical
power generation of Pakistan with a special emphasis on hydroelectric
power.
Review of power production in Pakistan
Pakistan is a developing country with the population of above 200
million people. It is the sixth largest populated country in the world
ranked by the US Population Reference Bureau in 2013 World
Population Data Sheet. Due to the growing population and industrial
processes, energy demand is increasing day by day, resulting in energy
crises in the country. About 90 million energy consumers suffer from
unreliable power supply and load shedding on daily basis, which has
serious impacts on the economy of country [38]. Fig. 1 shows the entire
energy mix of Pakistan in 2018 [39] consisting of renewable and non-
renewable energy sources.
Most of the energy mix comes from thermal or non-renewable
sources such as oil and natural gas with about 60.17%, while the re-
maining 39.83% is covered by renewable energy sources such as hydro,
wind, solar, and nuclear. Thus, thermal power is the main source of
power production in Pakistan [40]. An installed capacity of about
3000 MW is recently added to the total power production system of
country but it is mainly based on thermal power system [41]. At pre-
sent, thermal power plants are using fossil fuels like oil and gas to
produce electricity, which makes electricity much more expensive than
government-imposed tariffs. The government pays the difference be-
tween the cost of generating electricity and the final price charged by
users as a subsidy.
Due to limited resources and economic crises of the country, the
government has not paid such a large sum as a subsidy to power gen-
eration companies. This high cost of power production results to cir-
cular debt that affects the reliability of thermal power plants due to
non-availability of oil and gas. The energy crisis in the country is
Nuclear (5.15%)
Solar (0.03%) Baggase (0.32%)
Hydro (33.87%)
Thermal (oil and Gas)
(60.17%)
Wind (0.47%)
Fig. 1. Percent share of different energy sources in Pakistan.
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

Chasma Others, major hydropower projects of the country are shown in Fig. 2. “Tar-
Barrage, 1248.53 MW bela” is the largest hydropower plant with a total installed capacity of
184 MW
4888 MW, being 48% of the total hydroelectric power output in
Warsak, country. It is located on the right bank of the Indus River at Tarbela in
Tarbela,
243 MW district Swabi of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Details of the installed
4888 MW
Neelum- units in Tarbela hydropower plant are presented by the Google® image
Jhelum, shown in Fig. 3.
969 MW This study mainly focuses on the performance evaluation of larger
sized hydropower plant of the developing country, mainly due to the
Mangla, design complexity, high investment costs and the life span of such
1150 MW
plants. As far as the performance evaluation of smaller sized hydro
Ghazi power plants (with a generation capacity of less than 10 MW) is con-
Barotha, cerned, they are simple in design, have lesser investment costs and their
1450 MW maintenance issues can be handled by local experts [49,50]. Their
Fig. 2. Hydroelectric power generation capacity of Pakistan. lifespan is also shorter than the large sized hydropower plants and
sometimes their replacement option can be more attractive than the
refurbishment [51]. It is because of such reasons that performance
directly dependent on the circular debt of energy sector. Therefore, the
evaluation of larger sized hydropower plants using MCDM techniques is
main causes of energy crises are the high costs of electricity generation,
more crucial and urgent in perspective of the developing countries.
the circular debt and the higher subsidy rate [42]. The optimization of
Physical and operational conditions of a hydropower plant dete-
the power production system becomes the major concern to address the
riorate over time, affecting the efficiency and performance of the plant.
problems of energy crises. The government should undertake energy
Poor operation and maintenance techniques, lack of fresh investments,
sector reforms to make the power generation system dependent on re-
unskilled labor and an outdated approaches etc, can lead to high failure
newable resources such as water, wind, solar and biomass. Pakistan has
rates, lower efficiency and increased operating cost. It is because of
the potential to generate electricity profitably using renewable energy
these reasons that forced outages frequently occur in the installed units
technologies to meet all energy needs of the country.
of Tarbela hydropower station. This means that they are not available
Pakistan has abundant of natural resources such as hydropower,
for electrical generation as per their installed capacity.
solar power, coal and wind power to produce clean and cheap energy
This is really alarming situation for a developing country like
[43–45]. The share of hydropower in renewable energy sources is 85%
Pakistan as this opens the option of relying on non-renewable energy
and the country has a large hydropower generation potential that al-
resources. It is, therefore, inevitable to prioritize the factors that mainly
ready cover 33.87% of the total power generation as shown in Figure 1.
affect the performance improvement strategies for this hydropower
Hydropower is one of the most reliable domestic energy sources for
station and then have a rational opinion on the alternative selection.
electricity generation and plays an important role in the economic de-
velopment of a country. In 1980, hydropower produced 70% of the
total electrical power in the country. Due to political instability and
Materials and methods
lack of government attention, the hydroelectric power production de-
creased to 31% in 2014–2015 while having the potential of 60 GW
This section consists of three subsections. Initially a brief discussion
[46]. Moreover, the inefficient operations of existing public sector hy-
is provided on the selected MCDM methodologies. In the first sub-sec-
dropower plants generating the major portion of electricity, force the
tion, relevant information on the development of preliminary lists of
policy makers to meet the urgent needs by installing thermal power
criteria and alternatives is provided. In sub-section two, the decision
plants which obviously leads towards the unfortunate deviation from
problem is modeled using two MCDM techniques adopted in this re-
the sustainable development [47].
search including the AHP and TOPSIS. The last part of this section
At present, Pakistan has a total hydroelectric generation capacity of
highlights the data collection methodology.
10132.53 MW [48]. The percent shares of energy generation from
The two MCDM methodologies selected for this study include AHP

Fig. 3. Pakistan’s largest hydropower station with the generating capacity of installed Units.

3
T.R. Jadoon, et al.
and TOPSIS which are among the most popular and reliable MCDM
tools reported in literature. In their detailed and very rigorous literature
review on MCDM tools, Mardani et al. [20] found AHP as the most
widely used MCDM technique among the other available options in-
cluding ELECTRE, ANP, DEMATEL, PROMETHEE, VIKOR etc. The
reasons associated with AHP include its pairwise structure, a scientific
and highly reliable way of recording rational opinions and the back-
ground matrix algebra which is based on the Eigen values and Eigen
vectors. Kumar [52] found AHP as an appropriate tool in energy related
MCDM problems, based on its ability to handle the MCDM complexity,
in addition to a simple and flexible mechanism of recording judge-
ments. While AHP is a very relevant methodology for calculating cri-
teria weights, TOPSIS has been found to be one of the most compatible
techniques for computation of alternative ranks. It generates an optimal
and ideal solution and then ranks all the alternatives based on their
deviations from this ideal solution [53]. Instances of AHP and TOPSIS
applications in hydropower decision-making problems are already
mentioned in the introduction part of this study.
Generating the criteria and alternatives
The day-by-day increasing complexity of industrial problems forces
the researchers to consider multiple solution alternatives by taking into
account a broader spectrum of the influencing parameters. It is, there-
fore, not surprising to find a variety of parameters and alternatives in
literature, focusing the different backgrounds of problems and scenarios.
Hydropower stations are one of the most sustainable energy alter-
natives, due to their technical, economic and environmental im-
portance [50]. Since they are stronger in all the three main domains of
sustainability including social, economic and environmental para-
meters, they receive top ranking in the lists of sustainable power plants
[38,54]. Based on numerous studies reported in the literature (e.g.
[38,50,54]), it can be considered as a well-established academic con-
sensus that hydropower stations are highly sustainable for the future
total energy mix of the world.
Consideration of all parameters from the three main domains of
sustainability is inevitable for the problems focusing on selection of
energy alternatives from the list of several available plants. They are
also crucial in site selection problems of hydropower plants. While it is
a well-known fact that hydropower plants are sustainable, the problem
of performance improvement of installed plants mainly depends on
technical parameters, as a technically perfect power plant has a greater
contribution to the sustainable development [54]. It is because of these
reasons that the studies focusing on energy alternative selection
[9,23,25,26,55] consider all the economic, social and environmental
parameters but the efficiency and performance related studies empha-
size mainly on technical parameters [30–32].
Research instances from the developing countries are also in line
with above discussion. Studies focusing on the selection and evaluation
of renewable energy alternatives in countries like Malaysia, Pakistan,
Taiwan and Turkey, have mostly utilized the generic classes of para-
meters like technical, financial, environmental, social and political etc.
[18,29,56,57]. On the other hand, the papers which emphasized on the
efficiency and performance related problems of the hydropower sta-
tions mostly considered technical evaluation criteria [30,58–60].
A list of significant parameters used in different studies, similar to
our case of renewable power station, is compiled in Table 1. Our case,
the performance improvement of hydropower stations, has a close af-
finity with the two different studies by Majumder [12,61] which ana-
lyzed the reliability of hydropower plant performance and also high-
lighted the effects of climate changes and urbanization on hydropower
station. It was, therefore, pretty logical to include all the parameters of
these studies in our preliminary list of criteria and alternatives which
was eventually presented to the experts, as an initial list.
These shortlisted parameters and alternatives, scientifically
screened out from the literature, have been formally placed as an
4
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637
agenda item for deliberations of experts, in a purposely arranged
meeting of officials at the Tarbela hydropower station. A mutual con-
sensus was eventually, built to extract five criteria from the preliminary
list, with necessary modifications in their names as per requirements of
an existing hydropower plant in a developing country.
A brief description of selected parameters is provided below.
C-1 = Turbine Efficiency and Reliability
Turbine is a rotary mechanical device capable of converting the
kinetic energy of flowing water into mechanical energy to produce
electrical power. The conversion efficiency of hydropower plant pri-
marily depends on the type of hydraulic turbine installed. The efficient
and reliable hydro turbine, therefore, acts as an important factor for the
conversion of total available hydropower into useful mechanical power
flawlessly.
C-2 = Generator Efficiency and Reliability
The generator in hydropower plant is used to convert mechanical
energy available at the input of a prime mover into electrical energy at
a particular voltage and frequency. The criterion Generator Efficiency
and Reliability is accountable for the generation of maximum possible
electrical power from the available input mechanical power.
C-3 = Transformer Efficiency and Reliability
Transformer is a static electrical device used to step up or step down
the voltage according to the required rate from one circuit to another
circuit without any physical contact. The transformer installed in power
generation unit must be highly efficient and reliable to regulate the
generating power proficiently for the auxiliary use.
C-4 = Turbine Governing System
Governor control System or Governor is the main control unit of the
hydraulic turbine. This criterion is like the heart of power generation
unit because it is used to maintain the speed of running turbine ac-
cording to the load connected. It performs this function by controlling
the speed of water flow through the turbine blades.
C-5 = Turbine Rate of Flow
Turbine rate of flow is the amount of water available to flow
through the blades of the turbine to move it. The operation of hydraulic
turbine installed in a hydropower generation unit is mainly depending
on the flowrate of water provided by the reservoir head.
The next outcome of this experts meeting was the generation of a
list of alternatives, as per requirements and perspective of the devel-
oping countries. The plant managers and experts recommended this list,
based on the current physical and working conditions of the conven-
tional hydropower station. The advanced technologies and operational
strategies that are lacking in the conventional hydropower stations of
developing countries are also selected as potential alternatives. It is
pertinent to mention that current economic scenario of the country is an
important aspect which directly influences the alternative selection. All
the alternatives and expert opinions are mainly based on the current
economic situation of the country.
A-1 = System Upgradation
System upgradation is the process of replacing an existing system
with its advanced version to improve its efficiency, reliability and
availability. The modernization and upgradation of older units in a
hydropower station, apparently, seems a very attractive alternative to
enhance the production rate and prolong the useful life of the plants.
However, there is a need to correlate it with other alternatives by
performing a systematic MCDM based analysis.
A-2 = Operational Agility
It is the ability of a system to quickly respond to the changes oc-
curred in the processes during normal operations. The digitization and
 T.R. Jadoon, et al.

Table 1
Parameters identified in literature.

Parameters Authors Name/Year/Reference

Majumder, Biswas, Solangi, Tan Karakas and Topcu, Ülengin Majumder, Fecarotta, Ramos Lee and Chang. Hussain Mirjat, Majumder and
Majumder et al. Chakraborty et al. et al. 2019 Yıldıran. 2019 et al. 2019 [55] Majumder et al. et al. 2018 [63] 2018 [56] Uqaili et al. 2018 Saha. 2018 [30]
2019 [61] 2019 [62] [29] [23] 2018 [12] [9]

Penstock Efficiency √ √
Turbine Efficiency √ √ √
Generator Efficiency √ √ √
Transformer Efficiency √
Labour Efficiency √
Generator Converter Failures
Generator Failures
Turbines Failures
Turbine Governor Faults
Water Crises
Human Failure Rate
Climatic Effect √ √
Urbanization Effect √ √

5
Effect of Machine Failure √
Hydraulic losses √
Varying Energy Requirements √
Installed Machines Quality √
Human Failure
Rainfall
Humidity
Temperature
Hydraulic (Water) Head √
Rate of Flow √
Installation Cost
Maintenance Cost
Operation Cost
Technical √ √ √ √ √
Financial √
Economical √ √ √
Social √ √ √ √ √
Environmental √ √ √ √ √
Political √ √
Storage Capacity of Reservoir √

(continued on next page)

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637
 T.R. Jadoon, et al.

Table 1 (continued)

Parameters Authors Name/Year/Reference

Ram and Bhandari, Ajibola, Ajala Mahmood. Hamid, Ramli Majumder. Afsordegan, Sengül, Eren Ahmad and Kaya and Sousa, Jardini
Chandna. 2018 Saptalena et al. et al. 2018 2018 [64] et al. 2017 2016 [65] Sanchez et al. et al. 2015 Tahar. 2014 Kahraman. et al. 2007
[32] 2018 [31] [58] [59] 2016 [25] [57] [18] 2011[26] [60]

Penstock Efficiency
Turbine Efficiency √
Generator Efficiency √
Transformer Efficiency
Labour Efficiency
Generator Converter Failures √
Generator Failures √
Turbines Failures √
Turbine Governor Faults √
Water Crises √
Human Failure Rate √
Climatic Effect
Urbanization Effect
Effect of Machine Failure
Hydraulic losses

6
Varying Energy Requirements
Installed Machines Quality
Human Failure √
Rainfall √
Humidity √
Temperature √
Hydraulic (Water) Head √ √ √ √
Rate of Flow √ √ √
Installation Cost √
Maintenance Cost √ √
Operation Cost √ √
Technical √ √ √ √ √
Financial
Economical √ √ √ √ √
Social √ √ √ √ √
Environmental √ √ √ √ √
Political √
Storage Capacity of Reservoir
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

automation of operational technologies in a hydropower generation
system helps to run the power generating units smoothly and effi-
ciently.
A-3 = Predictive Maintenance
Predictive maintenance, can minimize the equipment downtime.
The prediction and fixing of faults in a hydroelectric power generation
system ensure the availability of reliable and safe power production for
users.
A-4 = Training and Development
The well-trained and professionally developed workforce is neces-
sary for the efficient operation of hydroelectric power generation unit.
All of the above-mentioned criteria and alternatives are closely re-
lated to the performance improvement of the plant under investigation.
Keeping in mind the prevailing situation in a developing country like
Pakistan, which is facing financial challenges, the overall energy
shortfalls, and pressure from the International Regulatory Bodies for
sustainable power generation and adoption of environment friendly
technologies, the MCDM problem of this study becomes really exciting.
After finalizing the criteria and potential alternatives, a hierarchical
developed by Saaty [66] to solve complex and real decision problems.
In this method, the problem is divided into levels of objective, criteria
and alternatives in a hierarchical manner. It works on making pairwise
comparison among the attributes. The AHP method can be used effec-
tively for both subjective and objective evaluations [19]. It has many
useful applications for making decisions in various fields, such as en-
ergy policy development, investment decisions, project management,
engineering, education and other social issues. The basic computation
steps of this method are summarized as follows.
First, the complex decision problem is organized in a hierarchical
structure to design the required decision model of the AHP metho-
dology. The next step is to make pairwise comparison among the de-
fined criteria with respect to the goal of research study using Saaty ratio
scale of pair-wise comparison as given in Table 2.
The comparison of the pairs of criteria i with respect to the criterion
j create a square matrix of An×n as shown in Eq. (1). The element aij
represents the relative importance of the criterion i with respect to the
criterion j. In the matrix, aij = 1 when i = j and aji = 1/aij.
1 a12 a13 a1n
1
1 a23 a2n
A=
a12

decision model is developed to structure the problem of this study, as 1 1 1

shown in Fig. 4. As per standard pattern of AHP hierarchy, goal of the 1
a1n a2n a3n (1)
study is presented at the top level of the decision model, followed by
selected criteria that are presented at the second level. The research The score of the above pair wise comparison matrix is then nor-
alternatives are presented at the bottom level of the decision model. malized using the given Eq. (2);
n
Mathematical modeling of the decision problem c ij = (aij)/ aij for i and j= 1, 2, 3, ….,n.
j=1 (2)
This section is about modeling the problem using both the MCDM
After normalization, the rows of comparison matrix are averaged
methodologies used in this research work. It is divided in the following
using Eq.3 to define priorities or weights of the criteria and alternatives.
two subsections.
n
wi = c ij /(n) for i and j= 1, 2, 3, ….,n.
AHP modeling for the prioritization of criteria and alternatives
i=1 (3)
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is an MCDM technique

Strategy Prioritization for

Goal Performance Improvement
of the Existing
Hydropower Station.

Turbine Generator Transformer Turbine

Turbine Rate
Criteria Efficiency and Efficiency and Efficiency and Governing
of Flow
Reliability Reliability Reliability System

System Operational Predictive Training and

Alternatives
Upgradation Agility Maintenance Development

Fig. 4. Hierarchy structure of the decision problem.

7
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

Table 2 a11 a12 a13 a1n

Saaty scale of pair wise comparison [66]. a21 a22 a23 a2n
Aij =
Scale Meaning am1 am2 am3 amn (7)
1 Equally Importance where value of i = 1, 2, 3…, m and j = 1, 2, 3…, n.
3 Moderately Importance The preference values (aij) of the above constructed decision matrix
5 Strongly Importance
is normalized by applying the given Eq. (8)[67].
7 Very Strongly Importance
9 Extremely Importance n
2,4,6,8 Intermediate Values
rij = (aij)/ a 2ij for i= 1, 2, 3…,m and j = 1, 2, 3, …, n
j=1 (8)
Then each normalized value (rij) of column in the decision matrix is
Consistency analysis is performed to check the consistency of pair- multiplied with the weight (wj) of respective criterion by using the
wise judgements provided by experts. This analysis is started by mul- given Eq. (9) to obtain the required weighted normalized decision
tiplying each initial score of column in the pairwise comparison matrix matrix as shown in Eq. (10).
with the concerned priority score calculated using Eq. (3). Then all the
values are added in row order to get weighted sum vector as given in
Vij = wj rij for i= 1, 2, 3…,m and j = 1, 2, 3, …, n (9)
Eq. (4);
w1*r11 w2*r12 w3*r13 wn*r1n
1 b1 w1*r21 w2*r22 w3*r23 wn*r2n
a12 a13 Vij =
1 a1n
1 a23 b2
a12 a2n w1*rm1 w2*rm2 w3*rm3 wn*rmn (10)
B= w1 + w2 + w3 + + wnn =
1
The maximum and minimum values of each column in weighted
1
1
a2n a1n 1
a1n bn (4) normalized decision matrix are selected as the positive and negative
ideal solutions of the respective criterion using the given Eq. (11) and
The values of weighted sum vector are divided by the relative
Eq. (12) [67].
priority score calculated using Eq. (3) to get the required Eigen vector
En = bn / wn . Then averaging all the values of Eigen vector results to V+={v+j , …, v+n } = {(maxvij| j J), (minvij| j J )} (11)
n
maximum Eigen value denoted by max = ( i=1 Ei) /(n). The value of
max is put in the given Eq. (5) to calculate consistency index (CI) [66]. V = {v j , …, v n } = {(minvij| j J), (maxvij| j J )} (12)

CI = ( max n) / (n 1) (5) where the variables J and J represent the beneficial and unbeneficial
criterion.
To ensure that the expert opinions are consistent, consistency ratio The Euclidean distance for each alternative from the positive and
(CR) is computed using the formula [66] given in Eq. (6); negative ideal solutions are computed using the given Eq. (13) and Eq.
(14) [67].
CR = CI/ RI (6)
n

where (CI) represent the consistency index calculated in previous step S+i = (v ij - V+j ) 2 for i= 1, 2, 3, …, m.
and RI is the random index value that can be selected from the random j=1 (13)
index table as shown in Table 3. n
The value of CR less than 0.1 is acceptable and verifies that the Si = (vij - V j )2 for i= 1, 2, 3, …, m.
results obtained are meaningful for decision-making. On the other j=1 (14)
hand, the value of CR greater than 0.1 means that the results obtained
are not meaningful for decision-making and the pairwise judgements where vij represents each preference value of the weighted normalized
will be made again [66]. decision matrix while vj+ and vj are the positive and negative ideal
solution of the respective criterion.
The performance score for alternatives are calculated using the
TOPSIS modeling for the preference ranking of alternatives given Eq. (15) [67].
TOPSIS is an MCDM approach introduced by Yoon and Hwang [67]
P= (Si )/(Si+ + Si ) for i= 1, 2, 3, …, m. (15)
used for making ranking comparison among the decision alternatives.
The theory of this method specifies that the chosen alternative must where Si and Si are the Euclidean distance of alternative from the
+

have the shortest Euclidian distance from the positive ideal solution and positive and negative ideal solution.
furthest Euclidian distance from the negative ideal solution. The As a last step, the alternatives are ranked in descending order ac-
method is used when decision makers are interested in a simple cordingly to their obtained performance scores.
weighted approach. The design procedure of this method is summarized
as follows. Data collection
A decision matrix of (m × n) as shown in Eq. (7) is designed for the
evaluation of selected alternatives with respect to the given criteria. After developing a consensus on the list of operational parameters
The elementaij of decision matrix represents the relative importance of and the performance improvement alternatives, questionnaires were
alternative i with respect to criterion j. designed for both the methodologies. The data collection process was
completed into two phases. In the first phase, an AHP based ques-
Table 3 tionnaire was designed consisting pair wise comparison matrix of cri-
Random index value table [66]. teria and alternatives using Saaty 9-scale ratio given in Table 2. The
questionnaires were physically distributed among the experts in in-
N 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
dividual meetings with them at the power station. It was ensured that
RI 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.51 there was no ambiguity in the questionnaire for the experts. Once the
first round of data collection was completed, the second questionnaire

8
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

designed mainly based on the TOPSIS evaluation matrix was circulated produce the required consistency ratio. The obtained value 0.095 is less
to evaluate the alternatives with respect to each selected criterion using than 0.1. This means that degree of inconsistency in the judgments of
five Likert scale. The information was collected from the same group of experts is acceptable as per Saaty’s recommendation [66]. A similar
experts in a similar way as in the first phase. procedure is repeated for all the alternatives with respect to each cri-
terion. Pairwise comparisons were repeated if the consistency index
Data specific solutions of the developed models crossed the defined threshold. The overall inconsistencies in the opi-
nions of three Expert Panels are finally computed as 0.09, 0.09 and 0.06
In this section, the models developed using both the methodologies respectively. These are within the Saaty’s recommended range.
are solved for the case specific data of the largest hydropower station in In the last step, alternative weights for each criterion are multiplied
Pakistan. by the individual criteria weights. Global priorities of alternatives are
thus obtained as given below.
AHP model
Alternatives priorities with respect to each Criteria priorities Alternatives
As discussed in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section, the AHP models criterion with respect to Overall priorities
include two phases; prioritization of parameters and the computations goal
involved in constituting alternative rankings. The questionnaire, de-
C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-1 0.342
signed based on the screened out list of parameters and alternatives as
summarized in Fig. 4, fulfill the needs for data collection of both the A-1 0.097 0.100 0.084 0.251 0.085 C-2 0.290 A-1 0.115
AHP phases. This carefully designed questionnaire had been circulated A-2 0.190 0.112 0.172 0.075 0.119 C-3 0.035 A-2 0.138
among the plant managers, placed in different expert panels. The A-3 0.506 0.436 0.429 0.289 0.539 C-4 0.126 A-3 0.462
A-4 0.206 0.352 0.315 0.385 0.258 C-5 0.207 A-4 0.286
members of Experts Panel-1 include the higher administration staff
such as Chief Engineer, Resident Engineers and Senior Engineers. Par- Predictive Maintenance (A-3) obtained the highest overall priority
ticipants of Expert Panel-2, include all the Operational Engineers of the score and is selected as the most appropriate option for the performance
hydropower station. Expert Panel-3 takes into account the opinion of improvement of existing hydropower station. The detail of all the AHP
lower level technical staff working in different units of hydropower results is discussed in the Results and Discussions section.
station, on top of the members from the rest of the two panels.
The combined pairwise comparison matrices for each Expert Panel, TOPSIS model
as shown in Appendix Tables A3 and A4, are obtained by taking geo-
metric mean of the concern participants of the Expert Panel. As a next The decision modeling of TOPSIS method for the proposed study
step, the criteria and alternative matrices are then utilized to solve the starts by forming a decision matrix based on the evaluation of gener-
developed AHP models presented in Eqs. (1)–(6). As an instance, ated alternatives with respect to selected criteria. The evaluation score
computation steps for the data of Expert Panel-1 are summarized here. of all the experts is aggregated by taking simple arithmetic mean in the
Eq. (2) gives the normalized score of Turbine Efficiency and Relia- single evaluation decision matrix, presented in Appendix Table A1. This
bility (C-1) with respect to each criterion as below; matrix is then solved using the TOPSIS steps as modelled. As an in-
stance, the preference value of alternative one with respective to cri-
[ c11 , c12 , c13 , c14 , c15 ] = [1/2.97, 2.17/4.09, 9.37/25.97, 1.16/9.11, 1.93
terion one using Eq. (8) in decision matrix, is normalized as follows.
/5.55]
= [0.34, 0.53, 0.36, 0.13, 0.35] r11 = (4.33)/( (4.33)2 + (4.50)2 + (4.50) 2 + (4.39) 2 ) = 0.49

The calculated scores are then averaged by taking their arithmetic
means to get the priority score for C-
1 = wC 1 = (0.34 + 0.53 + 0.36 + 0.13 + 0.35)/(5) = 0.342.
Repeating the same procedure for the rest of four criteria, we get the
weighted vector.
WC = [wC 1 = 0.342, wC 2 = 0.29, wC 3 = 0.035, wC 4 = 0.126,
wC 5 = 0.207]
The highest priority score equal to 0.342 in the above weighted
vector is gained by the criterion Turbine Efficiency and Reliability (C-
1), and is, therefore, considered the most important criterion with re-
spect to the goal of research work.
In next step, the recommended consistency analysis is performed to
check if there are any inconsistencies among the expert judgements.
Using the computation steps of consistency ratio explained in section
AHP modeling, each column value of pairwise comparison matrix is
multiplied with the priority score of respective criterion and then
summation is made across the row to obtain the weighted sum vector,
[1.84, 1.58, 0.19, 0.68, 1.13]. Each weighted sum value is then divided
by the relevant priority value for each criterion. Thus we obtain the
Eigen Vector [5.42, 5.52, 5.42, 5.27, 5.49]. Averaging this Eigen Vector
gives the maximum Eigen Value, max = 5.43. This value is put in the
formula given in Eq. (5) to get the value of consistency index. Here, ‘n’
is the number of compared criterion which is equal to five in our case.
CI = ( max n )/(n 1) = (5.43-5)/(5-1) = 0.1075
This value is multiplied with its corresponding criterion weight
using Eq. (8).
For example, Vij = 0.24 * 0.49 = 0.12
Applying the same procedure to the rest of values, the weighted
normalized decision matrix, as compiled in Appendix Table A2, is
formed. The computed weights of criteria given in Fig. 5 (c), are used
for the computation of weighted normalized decision matrix. The
maximum and minimum values in each column of weighted normalized
decision are considered the positive and negative ideal solution of re-
spective criterion according to condition given in Eqs. (11) and (12).
For criterion C-1 these values are equal to 0.12. As a next step,
Euclidean distance for each alternative from both the positive and ne-
gative ideal solution is calculated using Eqs. (13) and (14). For example
the Euclidean distance of alternative A-1 from the positive and negative
ideal solution is 0.0062 and 0.0040.
Now putting the above values in Eq. (15), we get the final perfor-
mance score of alternative A-1 as follows.
P= (0.0040)/(0.0062 + 0.0040) = 0.39
Same procedure is revised for all the alternatives and the one with
highest performance score is selected as the best among all. A detailed
discussion on TOPSIS results is provided in the next section.
Results and discussion

Now, the value of consistency index (CI) calculated above and value The developed AHP and TOPSIS models are solved in the respective
of random index (RI) selected from Table 3, for n = 5 is put in Eq. (6) to software platforms using case specific data of Tarbela Hydropower

9
T.R. Jadoon, et al.
Turbine Efficiency and Reliability
Generator Efficiency and Reliability
Turbine Rate of Flow
Turbine Governing System
Transformer Efficiency and Reliability
(a) Expert Panel-1.
Turbine Efficiency and Reliability
Turbine Governing System
Generator Efficiency and Reliability
Transformer Efficiency and Reliability
Turbine Rate of Flow
(b) Expert Panel-2.
Turbine Efficiency and Reliability
Generator Efficiency and Reliability
Turbine Governing System
Turbine Rate of Flow
Transformer Efficiency and Reliability
(c) Expert Panel-3.
Fig. 5. Prioritization of Criteria according to Expert Panels.
Station, the largest hydroelectric power generation source in Pakistan,
as discussed in first section of the study. Obtained results, along with
the relevant discussions on their comparative evaluation and sensitivity
analysis, are presented in this section.
Results obtained from the AHP model
In this section the AHP based analysis of data, collected from the
real world case of hydro power station, as mentioned, is performed. To
minimize the computational effort, a software named Expert Choice®
designed by Thomas Saaty and Ernest Forman [68] supplied by Expert
Choice®Inc [69] has been utilized for the solution of developed AHP
models. The computed aggregate initial scores shown in the Appendix
Tables A3 and A4, are treated as software inputs for the calculation of
final ranking. The results obtained in the form of criteria weights are
shown in Fig. 5 (a, b and c).
It is evident from these results that all of the experts in three dif-
ferent panels have unanimously agreed that Turbine Efficiency and
Reliability is the most crucial factor for the sustainable performance of
hydroelectric power plant. Despite the fact that there is only a minute
difference in the scores obtained from Panel-1 for the technical well-
being of both the turbines and the generators, the difference in top two
parameters is remarkable for rest of the panels. It can be inferred that
the turbines used in hydropower station must be highly efficient and
reliable to convert the total available hydropower into useful me-
chanical power without losses for electricity generation. The Generator
Efficiency and Reliability is graded as the second most important cri-
terion by Expert Panel 1 and 3 while third by Expert Panel 2 as it ac-
counts for the efficient and reliable electric power production from the
available mechanical power. The Turbine Rate of Flow that ensures the
mechanical operation of hydro turbine is ranked third by first two
Expert Panels while placed at the last position by Expert Panel 3. On
contrary, Transformer Efficiency and Reliability being at the bottom
most position in the ranking list proposed by Expert Panel 1 and 3,
seems to be the least important criteria.
The second phase of these AHP results gives us the prioritization of
10
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637
0.342
0.29
0.207
0.126
0.035
0.455
0.26
0.216
0.038
0.031
0.449
0.261
0.17
0.081
0.038
alternatives that is calculated using the pairwise comparison based on
the computed weights of the criteria. As we see from the Fig. 6 (a, b and
c) that all three Expert Panels have unanimously placed Predictive
Maintenance at the top most position in alternatives ranking and have
suggested it as the best choice for sustainable performance improve-
ment of hydropower station.
On the other hand, the panels have different opinions on the issue of
staff training and development. Expert Panels 1 and 3 feel that training
and professional development of the staff is the second most crucial
alternative for sustainable performance of the plant, however, the op-
erational engineers and managers do not feel it like that. They have
rather placed it at the most bottom position. As shown in Fig. 6, the
Operational Agility, in its highly sophisticated form, is not among the
main priorities of the experts. This means that they practically feel that
making the operations agile and adaptable can be attractive in other
circumstances but it does not suit in the perspective of hydropower in
Pakistan, probably because of the current financial circumstances. Ex-
pert panels selected Operational Agility as the third most important
strategy as given in for improving hydropower station performance
because quick response of turbine governance system is required to
adjust the speed of turbine according to the load connected. As far as
the alternative of System Upgradation is concerned, it has been given
the least priority by top management, despite being second in the list
constituted based on the opinions of operational engineers. Results
from the grand panel of experts reveal that it has been placed at the
second last position in the ranking list. Among the obvious reasons,
which can be associated with this outcome is again the huge costs of
replacing expensive machinery. Based on these preliminary results, we
can aggregately conclude that ensuring precise predictions about the
system failures can be considered the most appropriate option that may
lead towards the sustainable utilization of existing hydropower stations.
In the upcoming section, we apply another methodology named
TOPSIS, as elaborated earlier, to reach a scientifically reinforced solu-
tion that is backed by the two different MCDM methodologies and a
proper sensitivity analysis.
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

Predictive Maintenance 0.454

Training and Development 0.293
Operational Agility 0.135
System Upgradation 0.119

(a) Expert Panel-1.

Predictive Maintenance 0.481

System Upgradation 0.374
Operational Agility 0.101
Training and Development 0.044
(b) Expert Panel-2.

Predictive Maintenance 0.511

Training and Development 0.198
System Upgradation 0.188
Operational Agility 0.102
(c) Expert Panel-3.

Fig. 6. Prioritization of Alternatives according to Expert panels.

Results obtained from the TOPSIS model

Table 4
The nature of the capital-intensive and renewable power generation Comparison of AHP and TOPSIS results.
resources like the one under consideration, demands a more scientific
and authentic analysis of the data. In this phase of study, the ranking of Alternatives Ranking (Priority/Performance Score)

alternatives is computed using TOPSIS methodology so that we can AHP TOPSIS

have a more reliable conclusion based on two different procedures. The
computational procedure of TOPSIS is modeled in Microsoft Excel® and Predictive Maintenance 1 (0.51) 1 (0.63)
the outcomes are compiled in Fig. 7. Training and Development 2 (0.19) 2 (0.54)
Operational Agility 4 (0.18) 3 (0.46)
As far as the top two alternatives are concerned, the results clearly System Upgradation 3 (0.10) 4 (0.39)
second the ranking computed from AHP, by placing the Predictive
Maintenance at the top most position in the list followed by the
Training and Development which emerges as the second alternative.
However, ranking of the rest of the alternatives is not preserved in this are ranked differently. One interesting aspect which can be noted from
case and they are swapped by TOPSIS with the System Upgradation the comparison table is that the difference between normalized scores
now being at the bottom. for top two alternatives is higher in case of TOPSIS results as compared
to the AHP results. Overall, we can conclude that the results of both the
Comparing the results of both models methodologies are consistent for the Predictive Maintenance and the
Training and Development.
A detailed comparison of results from both the methodologies is
generated in the given Table 4. The results ensure that ranking for the Analyzing the effect of variations in parameter weights
top two alternatives is retained by both the methodologies. However,
the other two alternatives Operational Agility and System Upgradation In this section, the sensitivity analysis on AHP results is presented. It
is performed by changing inputs (criteria weights) in a systematic way
and checking their effects on the outputs i.e. the ranking of alternatives.
0.63 The performance sensitivity graphs of alternatives with dynamic
0.70 weights of criteria are shown in Fig. 8 with six different scenarios in-
0.54
0.60
0.46 cluding the original one that is presented in Fig. 8 (a). The horizontal
Performance Score

0.50 0.39 lines depict the names of different criterion while their respective
weights are scaled on the left vertical axis. The performance of each
0.40
alternative is mapped with all the parameters and is shown accordingly.
0.30 Overall scores obtained by the alternatives are pointed out on the right
0.20 vertical axis.
0.10 As proposed by Stein AW [70] the weight of a single parameter is
kept at 60% in each scenario. The strength of other parameters vary in
0.00
System Operational Predictive Training and proportion to their initial weights in such a way that sum of all the
Upgradation Agility Maintenance Development weights of the criteria remains equal to 100%. Outcomes of this sen-
sitivity analysis are summarized in Fig. 8. Overall, the graphs show that
Fig. 7. Final score of alternatives based on TOPSIS method. our results are robust and consistent with respect to different adverse

11
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

Fig. 8. Performance sensitivity analysis of alternatives.

scenarios, although there are two minor exceptions.
The ranking of top most and the bottom most alternatives are pre-
served in all six perspectives, which means that ‘Predictive
Maintenance’ always remains at the apex and the ‘Operational Agility’
remains at the bottom most position. It can, therefore, be concluded
that change of priority weights have no significant effect on the output
results of these two performance improvement options.
The only noteworthy changes on the overall ranking list, as ob-
served from the graphs are the effects of ‘Turbine Governing System’
and ‘Turbine Rate of Flow’. When we have assigned them the highest

12
T.R. Jadoon, et al.
priority weights, they have affected the ranking positions of ‘Training
and Development’ and ‘System Upgradation’, by simply swapping them
on their original places. Both of them are mechanical properties of the
system and when they are assigned higher priorities, they have made
the ‘System Upgradation’ alternative, a more preferable option as
compared to ‘Training and Development’.
Conclusion and recommendations
For the developing countries, which are suffering from serious fi-
nancial and energy crises, and where the global environmental con-
cerns are still not among the top-most priorities of policy makers, the
existing clean and green sources of energy are not less than a great
blessing. In such countries, if serious attention is not paid to make the
existing systems long lasting, it is like indirectly provoking them, to
adopt the solutions that may have lesser investment costs but are not
sustainable. Evaluating the performance improvement options of these
renewable energy resources, by considering a broader spectrum of in-
fluencing criteria and taking the opinions of different staff groups
working there into account, can ensure the long lasting and sustainable
use of these resources. This can also prevent the potential switchover to
non-renewable solutions. The main contribution from this research in-
cludes the ranking of performance improvement strategies of large
hydropower stations and exploration of the factors, which mainly affect
their sustainability.
Both the implemented MCDM methodologies have recommended
consistent rankings of the top two alternatives for the hydropower
station under consideration. The alternative Predictive Maintenance
has emerged as the most attractive and feasible option, under the pre-
vailing circumstances, to ensure the sustainable power production. This
also indicates a stronger technology readiness level to adopt sophisti-
cated technology for predictions about the equipment failures. Though
Staff Training and Development is second in the overall ranking lists,
there is a clear disagreement among the top management and the op-
erational engineers, on the importance of this crucial alternative. This
highlights a serious flaw in the systems of developing countries. The
experienced and highly qualified people clearly understand the im-
portance of well-trained and skilled work force, however, the junior
staff itself does not. International Bodies should get involved in the
training of staff working at such hydropower stations, as this can be one
of the inevitable steps for the overall sustainability of our planet. This
recommendation is also in line with the results of another study pre-
sented by Qazi et al. [47], which focused on overall institutional fra-
meworks for energy solutions. System Upgradation and Operational
Agility seem the least attractive options as per prevailing circumstances
of the developing countries, mainly due to high investment costs as-
sociated with these alternatives.
Among the carefully screened-out parameters, proposed MCDM
model has identified the Turbine Efficiency and Reliability as the most
crucial factor for sustainable performance improvement of these large
scale hydroelectric power plants. The Generator Efficiency and
Reliability is graded as the second most important criterion as it ac-
counts for the efficient and reliable electric power production from the
available mechanical power. The Turbine Rate of Flow that ensures the
mechanical operation of hydro turbine, remained almost in the middle
of the criteria ranking list. However, Transformer Efficiency and
Reliability seems to be the least important criteria in perspective of the
existing plant scenario.
When obtained rankings are compared with current investment
realities, the results become more interesting and thoughtful for all the
stakeholders. The current investment focus, with financial support from
International Bodies, is on building new dams, installing new coal based
13
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637
plants in different industrial zones [71], and expanding the capacity of
existing plants. These apparently fascinating investments create more
financial pressures and many of them are not in line with many studies
which recommend dissemination of clean and modern technologies in
developing countries for the achievement of long-term sustainability
goals [72]. The ground reality, as computed and observed from this
study, is that existing hydropower plants often remain shut down as
nothing like predictive maintenance exists and the staff needs a lot of
professional trainings.
Policy implication
Findings of the study are highly attractive for the International
Regulatory Bodies in terms of future policy making especially if the
global sustainability challenges in developing countries are taken into
account. Moreover, the results provide a clear guidance for the inter-
national investors in determining the investment priorities for the op-
erations and equipment installed in the hydropower stations of devel-
oping countries.
The gained insight of this study in terms of policy implications is
summarized below:
• The existing hydropower stations, being one of the cleanest sources
of energy generation on earth, need serious attention of the policy
makers to address their performance related issues. This study can
play a role in sustainable development of the developing countries
by recommending the performance improvement mechanisms in
existing plants.
• The decision makers have endorsed that the MCDM based results are
more interesting and reliable as compared to traditional approaches.
• State-of-the art technologies and implementation of data analytics
and machine learning techniques can play a major role in the per-
formance improvement of these plants. Since the plant managers
understand this reality, it can be considered as a strong investment
opportunity.
• Professional training of the staff needs serious and urgent attention
of the top management, governments and international bodies.
Although two different methodologies have provided almost con-
sistent results, there can still exist small uncertainties due to personal
opinions of the experts. Inclusion of more number of experts and other
stakeholders like the government policy makers can make the results
more reliable in future studies. It is worth mentioning that the results
are obtained by solving the developed models using a specific data with
respect to prevailing situation. Political instabilities and financial un-
certainties can slightly affect the model inputs and outputs. This work
can be extended in future by analyzing the alternatives using other
methodologies like data analytics. Outcomes of the study can be applied
with some modifications to other developing countries which are facing
similar financial and energy crises.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tauqeer Rehman Jadoon: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - ori-
ginal draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Muhammad
Khurram Ali: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Visualization, Validation, Supervision. Salman Hussain:
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization,
Project administration. Wasim Ahmad: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Validation, Supervision.
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

Mirza Jahanzaib: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Acknowledgement

Investigation, Resources, Visualization, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
The authors would like to thank the management of the surveyed
power plant for giving physical access to the installed units and having
extensive interviews with the plant managers and other technical staff.
The authors also appreciate the University of Engineering and
Technology, Taxila, Pakistan, for providing the required resources and
partial financial support.

Appendix A

Abbreviation used in Tables A.1–A.4

Criteria Alternatives Expert Panels

C-1 = Turbine Efficiency and Reliability A-1 = System Upgradation EP-1 = Expert Panel-1
C-2 = Generator Efficiency and Reliability A-2 = Operational Agility EP-2 = Expert Panel-2
C-3 = Transformer Efficiency and Reliability A-3 = Predictive Maintenance EP-3 = Expert Panel-3
C-4 = Turbine Governing System A-4 = Training and Development
C-5 = Turbine Rate of Flow

Table A1
Decision Matrix of TOPSIS Method with aggregated score of Experts.

Evaluation matrix of alternatives with respect to criteria

C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5

A-1 4.33 4.61 4.44 4.56 4.33

A-2 4.50 4.61 4.33 4.56 4.22
A-3 4.50 4.67 4.44 4.67 4.28
A-4 4.39 4.50 4.44 4.67 4.50

Table A2
Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix of TOPSIS Method.

Weighted normalized matrix

C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5

A-1 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.08

A-2 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.08
A-3 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.08
A-4 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.08

Table A3
Aggregate Score of Expert Panels Judgements for Pairwise Comparison of Criteria.

Criteria Pairwise Comparison Matrix

C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5

EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3

C-1 1 1 1 2.17 5.23 3.68 9.37 9.22 9 1.16 1.07 1.71 1.93 8.26 3.82
C-2 1/2.17 1/5.24 1/3.68 1 1 1 7.17 7.54 7 3.39 1.13 2.08 2.12 9.13 4.48
C-3 1/9.37 1/9.22 1/9 1/7.17 1/7.54 1/7 1 1 1 1/3.13 1/5.62 1/3.91 1/5.30 1.39 1/2.47
C-4 1/1.16 1/1.07 1/1.71 1/3.39 1/1.13 1/2.08 3.13 5.62 3.91 1 1 1 1/3.24 9.19 2.29
C-5 1/1.93 1/8.26 1/3.82 1/2.12 1/9.13 1/4.48 5.30 1/1.39 2.47 3.24 1/9.19 1/2.29 1 1 1

14
T.R. Jadoon, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637

Table A4
Aggregated Score of Expert panels for Pairwise Comparison of Alternatives.

Alternatives Pairwise Comparison Matrix

A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4

EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3

With respect to C-1

A-1 1 1 1 1/2.1 5.06 1.91 1/3.38 1/2.50 1/3.10 1/3.22 7.08 1.05
A-2 2.1 1/5.06 1/1.91 1 1 1 1/3.14 1/5.67 1/4.22 1.11 4.22 1.59
A-3 3.38 2.50 3.11 3.14 5.67 4.22 1 1 1 3.16 9.19 5.13
A-4 3.22 1/7.08 1/1.05 1/1.11 1/4.22 1/1.59 1/3.16 1/9.19 1/5.13 1 1 1

With respect to C-2

A-1 1 1 1 1 8.73 3.56 1/5.32 5.12 1/1.44 1/3.23 6.24 1/1.14
A-2 1 1/8.73 1/3.56 1 1 1 1/3.26 1/3.89 1/3.98 1/3.33 1.16 1/2.47
A-3 5.32 1/5.12 1.44 3.26 3.89 3.98 1 1 1 1.19 5.19 2.47
A-4 3.23 1/6.24 1.14 3.33 1/1.16 2.47 1/1.19 1/5.19 1/2.47 1 1 1

With respect to C-3

A-1 1 1 1 1/3.54 5.01 2.03 1/3.33 1.06 1/2.29 1/3.21 7.38 1/1.09
A-2 3.54 1/5.08 1/2.03 1 1 1 1/2.53 1/3.92 1/3.48 1/3.28 5.30 1/1.44
A-3 3.33 1/1.06 2.29 2.53 3.92 3.48 1 1 1 2.19 9.58 3.78
A-4 3.21 1/7.38 1.09 3.28 1/5.30 1.44 1/2.19 1/9.58 1/3.78 1 1 1

With respect to C-4

A-1 1 1 1 2.90 3.18 2.62 1/2.10 1/3.19 1/2.29 1.21 7.55 2.41
A-2 1/2.90 1/3.18 1/2.62 1 1 1 1/3.31 1/5.23 1/3.11 1/5.25 5.60 1
A-3 2.10 3.19 2.29 3.31 5.23 3.11 1 1 1 1/2.28 9.36 1.65
A-4 1/1.21 1/7.55 1/2.41 5.25 1/5.60 1 2.28 1/9.36 1/1.65 1 1 1

With respect to C-5

A-1 1 1 1 1/2.43 7.16 2.60 1/3.54 1/2.18 1/2.62 1/3.40 9.49 2.08
A-2 2.43 1/7.16 1/2.60 1 1 1 1/5.34 1/3.45 1/4.22 1/3.24 1.17 1/1.44
A-3 3.54 2.18 2.62 5.34 3.45 4.22 1 1 1 3.19 9.28 5.13
A-4 3.40 1/9.49 1/2.08 3.24 1/1.17 1.44 1/3.19 1/9.28 1/5.13 1 1 1

References
[1] Alshareef AS. Technology Assessment Model of Developing Geothermal Energy
Resources for Supporting Electrical System: The Case for Oregon; 2017.
[2] Baysal ME, Çetin NC. Priority ranking for energy resources in Turkey and invest-
ment planning for renewable energy resources. Complex Intelligent Syst
2018;4(4):261–9.
[3] Ju L, Li H, Zhao J, Chen K, Tan Q, Tan Z. Multi-objective stochastic scheduling
optimization model for connecting a virtual power plant to wind-photovoltaic-
electric vehicles considering uncertainties and demand response. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;128:160–77.
[4] Wang B, Nistor I, Murty T, Wei Y-M. Efficiency assessment of hydroelectric power
plants in Canada: a multi criteria decision making approach. Energy Econ
2014;46:112–21.
[5] Nguyen-Tien V, Elliott RJR, Strobl EA. Hydropower generation, flood control and
dam cascades: a national assessment for Vietnam. J Hydrol 2018;560:109–26.
[6] Boran FE, Boran K, Menlik T. The evaluation of renewable energy technologies for
electricity generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Energy Sources
Part B 2012;7(1):81–90.
[7] Fakehinde OB, Fayomi OS, Efemwenkieki UK, Babaremu KO, Kolawole DO,
Oyedepo SO. Viability of hydroelectricity in Nigeria and the future prospect. Energy
Procedia 2019;157:871–8.
[8] Koç C. Problems and solutions related to hydroelectric power plants constructed on
the Buyuk Menderes and the West Mediterranean Basin. Energy Sources Part A
2012;34(15):1416–25.
[9] Hussain Mirjat N, Uqaili M, Harijan K, Mustafa M, Rahman M, Khan M. Multi-cri-
teria analysis of electricity generation scenarios for sustainable energy planning in
Pakistan. Energies 2018;11(4):757.
[10] Mahmud MAP, Huda N, Farjana SH, Lang C. Environmental sustainability assess-
ment of hydropower plant in Europe using life cycle assessment. IOP Conf Ser:
Mater Sci Eng 2018;351:012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/351/1/
012006.
[11] Sen R, Bhattacharyya SC. Off-grid electricity generation with renewable energy
technologies in India: an application of HOMER. Renewable Energy
2014;62:388–98.
[12] Majumder P, Majumder M, Saha AK. Climate change and urbanization impact on
hydropower plant by neural network-based decision-making methods: identifica-
tion of the most significant parameter. Water Conserv Sci Eng 2018;3(3):169–79.
[13] Chang X, Liu X, Zhou W. Hydropower in China at present and its further devel-
opment. Energy 2010;35(11):4400–6.
[14] Koç C. A study on operation problems of hydropower plants integrated with irri-
gation schemes operated in Turkey. Int J Green Energy 2018;15(2):129–35.
[15] Kolawole A, Agboola OO, Ikubanni PP, Raji OG, Okechukwu Osueke C, Pham D.
Reliability and power loss analysis: a case study of a power plant in Nigeria. Cogent
Eng 2019;6(1).
[16] Rahi OP, Kumar A. Economic analysis for refurbishment and uprating of hydro
power plants. Renewable Energy 2016;86:1197–204.
[17] Majeed A, Sadiq N, editors. Availability & Reliability evaluation of Dokan hydro
power station. 2006 IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference and
Exposition: Latin America; 2006: IEEE.
[18] Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable devel-
opment of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of
Malaysia. Renewable Energy 2014;63:458–66.
[19] Velasquez M, Hester PT. An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int
J Oper Res 2013;10(2):56–66.
[20] Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor K, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A. Multiple criteria
decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the literature from
2000 to 2014. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja 2015;28(1):516–71.
[21] Al Garni H, Kassem A, Awasthi A, Komljenovic D, Al-Haddad K. A multicriteria
decision making approach for evaluating renewable power generation sources in
Saudi Arabia. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2016;16:137–50.
[22] Tasri A, Susilawati A. Selection among renewable energy alternatives based on a
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in Indonesia. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess
2014;7:34–44.
[23] Karakaş E, Yıldıran OV. Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for Turkey via
modified fuzzy AHP. Int J Energy Econ Policy 2019;9(2):31–9.
[24] Sadeghi A, Larimian T. Sustainable electricity generation mix for Iran: a fuzzy
analytic network process approach. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess
2018;28:30–42.
[25] Afsordegan A, Sánchez M, Agell N, Zahedi S, Cremades LV. Decision making under
uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for selecting sustainable energy
alternatives. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2016;13(6):1419–32.
[26] Kaya T, Kahraman C. Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a
modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38(6):6577–85.
[27] Atilgan B. Assessing the sustainability of current and future electricity options for
Turkey. United Kingdom: The University of Manchester; 2016.
[28] Khurram Ali HM, Sultan A, Rana BB. Captive power plant selection for pakistan
cement industry in perspective of current energy crises: a fuzzy-AHP approach.
Mehran Univ Res J Eng Technol 2017;36(4):12.
[29] Solangi YA, Tan Q, Mirjat NH, Valasai GD, Khan MWA, Ikram M. An integrated
delphi-AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approach toward ranking and selection of renewable
energy resources in Pakistan. Processes 2019;7(2):118.
[30] Majumder P, Saha AK. Efficiency assignment of hydropower plants by DEMATEL-
MAPPAC approach. Water Conserv Sci Eng 2018;3(2):91–7.
[31] Bhandari R, Saptalena LG, Kusch W. Sustainability assessment of a micro

15
T.R. Jadoon, et al.
hydropower plant in Nepal. Energy, Sustainability Soc 2018;8(1).
[32] Ram M, Chandna R. Sensitivity analysis of a hydroelectric production power plant
under reworking scheme using fuzzy AHP approach. J Ind Prod Eng
2018;35(8):481–5.
[33] Kougias I, Aggidis G, Avellan F, Deniz S, Lundin U, Moro A, et al. Analysis of
emerging technologies in the hydropower sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;113:109257.
[34] Farfan J, Breyer C. Aging of European power plant infrastructure as an opportunity
to evolve towards sustainability. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(28):18081–91.
[35] Kim K, Park H, Kim H. Real options analysis for renewable energy investment de-
cisions in developing countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;75:918–26.
[36] Wagner B, Hauer C, Habersack H. Current hydropower developments in Europe.
Curr Opin Environ Sustainability 2019;37:41–9.
[37] International Hydropower Association. Operations and maintenance [2019,
December 23]. Available from: https://www.hydropower.org/topics/operations/
operations-and-maintenance.
[38] International Hydropower Association. Pakistan [2019, December 19]. Available
from: https://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles/pakistan.
[39] National Electric Power Regulatory Authority. State of Industry Report. 2018.
Available from: https://www.nepra.org.pk/publications/State%20of%20Industry
%20Reports/State%20of%20Industry%20Report%202018.pdf.
[40] Wakeel M, Chen B, Jahangir S. Overview of energy portfolio in Pakistan. Energy
Procedia 2016;88:71–5.
[41] Qazi U, Jahanzaib M, Ahmad W, Hussain S. An institutional framework for the
development of sustainable and competitive power market in Pakistan. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;70:83–95.
[42] Zameer H, Wang Y. Energy production system optimization: evidence from
Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:886–93.
[43] Rafique MM, Rehman S. National energy scenario of Pakistan-Current status, future
alternatives, and institutional infrastructure: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2017;69:156–67.
[44] Shaikh F, Ji Q, Fan Y. Prospects of Pakistan-China energy and economic corridor.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;59:253–63.
[45] Farooq M, Shakoor A. Severe energy crises and solar thermal energy as a viable
option for Pakistan. J Renewable Sustainable Energy 2013;5(1):013104.
[46] Kamran M. Current status and future success of renewable energy in Pakistan.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:609–17.
[47] Qazi U, Jahanzaib M. An integrated sectoral framework for the development of
sustainable power sector in Pakistan. Energy Rep 2018;4:376–92.
[48] Wikipedia. List of power stations in Pakistan 2019, October. Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Pakistan.
[49] Chala GT, Ma’Arof M, Sharma R. Trends in an increased dependence towards hy-
dropower energy utilization-A short review. Cogent Eng; 2019(just-ac-
cepted):1631541.
[50] Yüksel I. Development of hydropower: a case study in developing countries. Energy
Sources, Part B 2007;2(2):113–21.
[51] Manzano-Agugliaro F, Taher M, Zapata-Sierra A, Juaidi A, Montoya FG. An over-
view of research and energy evolution for small hydropower in Europe. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;75:476–89.
[52] Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, et al. A review of multi criteria
decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development.
16
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100637
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:596–609.
[53] Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J. A state-of the-art survey of
TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 2012;39(17):13051–69.
[54] Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Technological, economic and sustainability
evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy
2009;37(3):778–87.
[55] Topcu I, Ülengin F, Kabak Ö, Isik M, Unver B, Onsel Ekici S. The evaluation of
electricity generation resources: the case of Turkey. Energy 2019;167:417–27.
[56] Lee H-C, Chang C-T. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable
energy sources in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;92:883–96.
[57] Şengül Ü, Eren M, Eslamian Shiraz S, Gezder V, Şengül AB. Fuzzy TOPSIS method
for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renewable Energy
2015;75:617–25.
[58] Ajibola OOE, Ajala OS, Akanmu JO, Balogun OJ. Improvement of hydroelectric
power generation using pumped storage system. Nigerian J Technol
2018;37(1):191.
[59] Hamid MFA, Ramli NA, Napiah SNBM, editors. Factors affecting mini hydro power
production efficiency: A case study in Malaysia. 2017 3rd International Conference
on Power Generation Systems and Renewable Energy Technologies (PGSRET);
2017: IEEE.
[60] Sousa T, Jardini JA, De Lima R, editors. Hydroelectric power plant unit efficiencies
evaluation and unit commitment. 2007 IEEE Lausanne Power Tech; 2007: IEEE.
[61] Majumder P, Majumder M, Saha AK, Nath S. Selection of features for analysis of
reliability of performance in hydropower plants: a multi-criteria decision making
approach. Environ Develop Sustainability 2019.
[62] Biswas S, Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R, Ghosh I. Hydroelectric Flow Optimization
of a Dam: A Kriging-Based Approach. 2019;12:813–23.
[63] Fecarotta O, Ramos HM, Derakhshan S, Del Giudice G, Carravetta A. Fine tuning a
PAT hydropower plant in a water supply network to improve system effectiveness. J
Water Resour Plann Manage 2018;144(8):04018038.
[64] Mahmood SN. Water flow control system based on “run – off – river” hybrid power
station.
[65] Majumder M. Minimization of climatic vulnerabilities on mini-hydro power plants:
fuzzy AHP, fuzzy ANP techniques and neuro-genetic model approach. Springer;
2016.
[66] Saaty TL. The analytic process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New
York: McGraw; 1980.
[67] Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple at-
tribute decision making. Springer; 1981. p. 58–191.
[68] French S, Xu DL. Comparison study of multi-attribute decision analytic software. J
Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 2005;13(2–3):65–80.
[69] Edwards W, von Winterfeldt D. Decision analysis and behavioral research.
Cambridge University Press; 1986. p. 6–8. 604.
[70] Stein EW. A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production
technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:640–54.
[71] Mirza FM, Fatima N, Ullah K. Impact of China-Pakistan economic corridor on
Pakistan’s future energy consumption and energy saving potential: evidence from
sectoral time series analysis. Energy Strategy Rev 2019;25:34–46.
[72] Sarkodie SA, Strezov V. Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development
and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Sci
Total Environ 2019;646:862–71.