A material selection approach using the TODIM (TOmada de Decisao Interativa Multicriterio) method and its analysis

Author(s):  
Divya Zindani ◽  
Saikat R. Maity ◽  
Sumit Bhowmik ◽  
Shankar Chakraborty
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammdreza Nazemzadegan ◽  
Roghayeh Ghasempour

Hydrogen as a CO2-free fuel has been considered as a serious alternative for problematic fossil fuels in recent decades Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting is a developing solar-based technology for hydrogen production. In this study, some possible options for upgrading this technology from R&D stage to prototype stage through a material selection approach is investigated. For these purpose, TOPSIS algorithm through a multi criteria decision making (MCDM) approach was utilized for evaluating different (PEC)-based hydrogen production materials. TiO2, WO3 and BiVO4 as three semiconductors known for their PEC application, were selected as alternatives in this decision-making study. After defining a set of criteria, which were assessed based on similar studies and experts' visions, a group of ten PEC-experts including university professors and PhD students were asked to fill the questionnaires. The eight criteria considered in this study are include "Study Cost", "Synthesis Simplicity", "Facility & Availability", "Deposition capability on TCO", "Modifiability", "Commercialization in H2 production", "Physical and Chemical Durability" and "Eco-friendly Fabrication". The final TOPSIS results indicates that TiO2 is selected as the best semiconductor for further investments in order to upgrade the PEC-based hydrogen production technology from R&D level to prototype stage. ©2019. CBIORE-IJRED. All rights reserved


2013 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 331-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mümtaz İpek ◽  
İhsan H. Selvi ◽  
Fehim Findik ◽  
Orhan Torkul ◽  
I.H. Cedimoğlu

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 401-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascal Stoffels ◽  
Jerome Kaspar ◽  
Dirk Baehre ◽  
Michael Vielhaber

2015 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 704-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Poulikidou ◽  
C. Schneider ◽  
A. Björklund ◽  
S. Kazemahvazi ◽  
P. Wennhage ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 10704-10711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishram B. Sawant ◽  
Suhas S. Mohite ◽  
Laukik N. Cheulkar

Author(s):  
Glen B. Haydon

Analysis of light optical diffraction patterns produced by electron micrographs can easily lead to much nonsense. Such diffraction patterns are referred to as optical transforms and are compared with transforms produced by a variety of mathematical manipulations. In the use of light optical diffraction patterns to study periodicities in macromolecular ultrastructures, a number of potential pitfalls have been rediscovered. The limitations apply to the formation of the electron micrograph as well as its analysis.(1) The high resolution electron micrograph is itself a complex diffraction pattern resulting from the specimen, its stain, and its supporting substrate. Cowley and Moodie (Proc. Phys. Soc. B, LXX 497, 1957) demonstrated changing image patterns with changes in focus. Similar defocus images have been subjected to further light optical diffraction analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document