4 Design Comparative Analysis

4.1 Constraints

4.1.1 Justifications for the Decisions in the Pairwise Chart

1. Economic vs. Environmental

Economic constraint is considered more important than environmental constraint due

to its design alternative’s operation and it will help to lessen harmful emission.

2. Economic vs. Health and Safety

Both constraints are important but being able to buy affordable parts or machine and

able to apply the design alternative on time will help the workers/employees/operators to

have safe working place and lesser harmful emission.

3. Economic vs. Manufacturability

Economic constraint is more important than the Manufacturability constraint because

it is more convenient to use the cheapest design alternative.

4. Economic vs. Societal

Economic constraint is more important than the Societal constraint because the

society will choose the cheapest design alternative that will address the problem of the

power plant.

5. Economic vs. Sustainability

Both constraints are important but economic constraint will be considered for the

design alternatives because sustainability will depend through either reconditioning or

replacing of the generator set.

6. Environmental vs. Health and Safety

 Environmental constraint is more important than the Health and Safety constraint

because the health and safety of the people will depend on the condition of the

environment. If the environment is safe, the people in that environment are also safe.

7. Environmental vs. Manufacturability

Producing the right design alternative and correct installation of this design

alternative will prevent any system malfunction which sometimes create some

environmental issues; thus, Manufacturability constraints is considered more important

than Environmental constraints.

8. Environmental vs. Societal

Environmental constraint is more important than the Societal constraint because the

society will choose the design alternative that will not harm and rather to help the

environment where the power plant is established.

9. Environmental vs. Sustainability

Sustainability constraint is more important than the Environmental constraint because

the design alternative will help to operate in good condition; then the engine will produce

lesser harmful emission that will affect environment.

10. Health and Safety vs. Manufacturability

Manufacturability constraint is more important than the Health and Safety constraint

because the health and safety of the operator will depend on the difficulty on

manufacturing the components of the design alternative.

11. Health and Safety vs. Societal

 Health and Safety constraint is more important than the Societal constraint because

the society will choose the design alternative that will prioritized the health and safety

condition of the people inside and outside the power plant’s premises.

12. Health and Safety vs. Sustainability

Both constraint are important but being able to apply the design alternative in

increasing the dependable capacity and operates in good condition, it may help the

workers/employees/operators to have safe working place and lesser harmful emission.

13. Availability vs. Societal

The installation of the design alternative on the system may cause some changes in

the operation of the power plant which may determine if it will cause problems to the

society like noise emission, thus considering Manufacturability constraints than Societal

constraints will be necessary.

14. Availability vs. Sustainability

Sustainability constraint is more important than the Manufacturability constraint

because even if the production of the design alternatives will be at ease, it is more

important for the design alternative to produce the desired output or if the design

alternative has met its desired function.

15. Sustainability vs. Societal

Sustainability constraint is more important than the Societal constraint because the

society will choose the design alternative that is economical in terms of the duration of

the components of the system that will address the problem of the power plant
 4.1.2 Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Using the pairwise comparison method, the considered constraints in this design study

are ranked in order of importance, wherein the constraints are assigned to some relative

ranking indicating the degree of importance of each constraint with respect to the other

constraints. Table 4.1 shows the pairwise comparison matrix chart for the following

constraints: Economic, Availability, Sustainability, Environmental, Health and Safety, and

Societal for this design study. Each cell in the matrix corresponds to a comparison of a pair

of items (hence the name “pairwise comparison”). The cells contain the constraint that is

considered the most important of the pair.

Table 4.1: Pairwise Comparison Chart (PWC Chart)

Total
A B C D E F
Sum
Economic A - 1 1 1 1 1 5
2
Environmental B 0 - 1 0 1 0
1
Health and Safety C 0 0 - 0 1 0
3
Availability D 0 1 1 - 1 0
0
Societal E 0 0 0 0 - 0
4
Sustainability F 0 1 1 1 1 -

Note: The constraints will be placed in an evaluation table shown above, then a grading of

“1” and “0” will be used. If the constraint in the ‘row’ is more important than the ’column’

objective, then place “1” in the cell where the two constraint being compared will intersect,
otherwise place “0”. After comparing all the constraints to each other, the scores for each rows

will be added, then the three constraints with highest score will be chose.

4.1.3 Ranking (Sorted List of the Constraints)

Below is a sorted list of the constraints. The number that is in the parenthesis on the

right side of the constraints is the number of cells containing their flag letter wherein these

numbers will be used for the ranking of their ranking. This leads to:

- Sustainability (5)

- Economic (4)

- Manufacturability (3)

- Environmental (2)

- Health and Safety (1)

- Societal (0)

4.1.4 Weight

In assigning the weights of the constraints, the total of all the weights must be 100% and

the weights must obey the relative ranking given by the pairwise comparison.

Constraints Weighted Percentage

Economic 33%
Sustainability 27%
Availability 20%
Environmental 13%
Health and Safety 7%
Societal 0
(See Appendix…. For computation)

NOTE: The 1% for societal arose by gathering up all the round-off error from the other

calculations. One cannot assume that zero importance implies we can omit it altogether.
4.1.5 Constraints to be Considered in Comparing the Two (2) Design Alternatives in

this Study

Based on the weight of the constraints, the Economic (33%), Sustainability (22%)

Manufacturability (17%) and Environmental constraints (13%) are the four that got the

highest level of importance compared to the other constraints. Thus, for the comparison of

the design alternatives, the said constraints with the highest level of importance would be

considered.

In this study, the researchers considered the Trade Study Process Key Elements from

Boeing (2016). The ability of the design to satisfy each constraint was assigned and tabulated

by the researchers and is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Evaluation Criteria

1 Least Recommended
2 Highly Recommended

4.1.5.1 Economic Constraint

Based on the data gathered, the total annual costs of the design alternatives are the

following: First Design Alternative = Php 13,302,349.01 ,and Second Design Alternative =

Php 5,648,977.20. The design alternative with lowest total cost of equipment will be more

economical than other alternatives. (See Appendix L for Computations)

Table 4.3: Economic Cost for Design Alternative 1and2

Constraint Design Alternative (DA)

Economic First DA Second DA

Annual Cost 1 2
 4.1.5.2 Availability Constraint

Based on the researcher’s observation and findings for the two design alternatives,

the parts and generator set are commercially available at the same source or

manufacturer.

Table 4.4: Availability for Design Alternatives 1 and 2

Design Alternative (DA)

Constraint
First DA Second DA
Availability 2 2

4.1.5.3 Sustainability Constraint

Since all design alternatives are intended for increasing the dependable capacity of

the plant and prolong the life of the said machines through either reconditioning the engine or

replacing the generator set. Comparing the two alternatives probably has the same outcome,

the design alternative with the lowest cost will be more sustainable than other alternatives.

Table 4.5: Sustainability for Design Alternatives 1 and 2

Design Alternative (DA)

Constraint
First DA Second DA
Sustainability 1 2
4.1.5.3

Environmental Constraint

Based on the researchers’ observation, for second design alternative, it used three

(3) new genset only to reach the peak load of the plant and produced lesser emission than

first design alternative which it used four (4) gensets.

Table 4.6: Sustainability for Design Alternatives 1 and 2

Design Alternative (DA)

Constraint
First DA Second DA
Fuel Consumption 1 2

Emission 1 2
4.2 Trade-offs

The constraint evaluations are summarized and ranked according to the Method of

Imprecision (MOI) that was introduced and developed by Wood and Antonsson. Table 4 shows

the trade-offs, that have been develop in order to compare the two

design alternatives. The design with the highest score rating of 2 (recommended) will be

considered as the best design as it is measured using the selected constraints.

The second design alternative which is replacement of new generator set is highly

recommended trice while the first design alternative, which is reconditioning of parts, is highly

recommended once same to the second design alternative under Availability constraints.

Table 4.6: Ranking of Design Alternatives for Each Constraint

Constraint
Design
Economic Environmental
Alternative Fuel
Sustainability Availability
Total Cost Emission
(DA) Consumption
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

First DA

Second DA
Legend:

First Design Alternative

Second Design Alternative

4.3 Codes and Standards