Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simul 2012 5 30 50048
Simul 2012 5 30 50048
Eric Solano
RTI International
RTP, North Carolina, USA
solano@rti.org
Abstract—Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) is a (collection, recycling, treatment, disposal) could be
very complex problem present in many communities around accomplished through different technological options, and an
the world. Decision makers need to formulate solutions that overall MSWM overall strategy should include in most cases
consider multiple goals and strategies. Strategies include at least one technological option for each step. Decision
multiple options for waste collection, transportation, transfer, makers are then faced with a problem of multiple
treatment and disposal. The most appropriate choice, however, dimensions: they need to select from multiple technological
is often not clear. Given the large number of available options options to manage municipal waste from the generation point
for MSWM and the interrelationships among these options, to the final disposal point to create an overall strategy, and
identifying MSWM strategies that satisfy economic or
they must evaluate each overall strategy for the competing
environmental objectives is a complex task. The main objective
objectives of cost effectiveness and environmental impact
of this work is to use MSWM simulation and multi-objective
linear programming to support decision makers in the process reduction. Given the large number of available options for
of selecting MSWM strategies from a very large decision space MSWM and the interrelationships among these options,
and in the presence of multiple objectives. Three competing identifying MSWM strategies that satisfy economic or
objectives are considered: least cost, minimization of carbon environmental objectives is a complex task. Simulation of
dioxide emissions and minimization of energy consumption. A MSWM is used in this work to help the decision makers with
multi-objective fuzzy linear programming method is proposed the screening and identification of MSWM strategies.
to manage imprecision and uncertainty in the objectives via The main objective of this work is to use MSWM
fuzzy membership functions. simulation and multi-objective linear programming to select
MSWM strategies from a very large decision space. Multiple
Keywords-simulation model; linear programming; fuzzy objectives are considered: least cost, minimization of carbon
multiobjective optimization; Pareto optimal set; waste dioxide emissions and minimization of energy consumption.
management. Least cost solutions will tend to select MSWM technological
options that do not necessarily reduce emissions or energy
I. INTRODUCTION consumption. Conversely, minimum energy consumption
scenarios and minimum pollutant emission scenarios will
tend to select more advanced and expensive MSWM
Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) is getting
technological options. A number of methodologies have
increased attention at national and local levels. The specific
been proposed for multi-objective linear programming, such
goals of each community for implementing MSWM plans
as the ones reported in [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10].
depend on site-specific conditions and issues. For instance, a
None of these methodologies offers a simple way to evaluate
community facing a landfill space crisis may set a goal to
the relative importance of objective functions with very
reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill disposal and may
dissimilar measurement units. A new methodology using
consider source reduction, waste diversion through recycling,
MSWM simulation and multi-objective fuzzy linear
and volume reduction alternatives such as converting waste
programming is proposed to improve the traditional
to energy. The most appropriate choice, however, is often not
weighted sum methodology. It is used to select noninferior
clear. For instance, recycling is known to reduce
solutions and to quantify the degree of achievement for each
consumption of natural resources and save some processing
of the competing objectives.
activities at manufacturing facilities. These savings will
avoid the emissions of some associated greenhouse gases II. METHODOLOGY
and pollutants. However, if the market prices of recyclable
materials are low, then a recycling program may not be as A. Municipal Solid Waste Management Simulation
economical as one of the other options. To add complexity to
Simulation of MSWM can be performed by using a
this problem, landfill space may be very limited, making
systemic representation of the different MSWM options.
recycling an attractive option regardless of low market prices
Each MSWM option or node has a specific purpose (e.g.
for recyclable materials. Each step in waste management
waste collection, waste transfer or waste treatment) and is The diversion rate will be enforced by adding a diversion
inter-related with a number of other MSWM options. Waste constraint in addition to the mass flow constraints. Single
processes are simulated as mass balances at each objective simulations were executed to obtain the minimum-
management option, where there is incoming waste from cost solution, the minimum carbon dioxide emissions
other nodes and outgoing waste to other nodes. This solution and the minimum energy consumption solution. The
simulation includes a number of sub-models, one for each resulting MSWM options selected from the decision space
MSWM option. These sub-models use the Life Cycle were reported for each case. The resulting cost or
Inventory methodology to calculate annualized cost, energy environmental objective values selected from the objective
consumption and emissions of different pollutants. The space were reported for each case.
mathematical formulation is linear programming (LP) in
which the objective functions are to minimize cost, energy
consumption or a number of pollutant emissions. The C. Generation of Pareto Optimal Set
simulation includes a life cycle inventory of different
pollutants and the user can select to minimize the emissions The next step was to generate additional MSWM
of any of these pollutants. It also includes a complex solutions using multi-objective programming. The three
mathematical formulation via constraints to represent waste solutions obtained previously were generated by minimizing
mass flows from process units to other process units. For on one of the main objectives at a time. Since these
more details on the model simulation design and objectives can be conflicting with one other, we are now
mathematical formulation see references [1], [2] and [3]. interested in formulating a single aggregate objective
Table 1 shows a list of MSWM options used in this study. function that incorporates all three objectives. This is done
by creating a weighted linear sum of the objectives.
TABLE I. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Equation 1 shows the weighted linear sum of the three
MSWM step Management Option objectives: cost, energy consumption and carbon dioxide
emissions. This objective function is optimized subject to the
Collection Residential Collection of Yardwaste
mass flows constraints and the diversion constraint. The
Collection Residential Collection of Mixed MSW objective function weights wcost, wCO2 and wenegy are supplied
Residential Collection of Commingled Recyclables to obtain different optional solutions. They dictate how much
Collection
Sorted by Crew of one objective must be sacrificed for the benefit of the
Collection Residential Collection of Presorted Recyclables other objectives. All solutions obtained with this method
Residential Collection of Commingled Recyclables constitute non-inferior solutions necessary to generate the
Collection
Sorted at Materials Recovery Facility Pareto Optimal Set.
MRF Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for Mixed MSW
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for Presorted Min {wcost x Z1 + wenergy x Z2 + wCO2 x Z3}. (1)
MRF
Recyclables Subject to: mass flow and waste diversion constraints.
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for Commingled
MRF
Recyclables
where: Z1 is Cost, Z2 is Energy Consumption and Z3 is CO2
Treatment Treatment at Yardwaste Compost Plant
emissions. Weights wcost, wCO2 and wenegy are greater than
Treatment Treatment at Mixed MSW Combustion Plant zero and their sum is equal to 1.
Treatment Treatment at Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant
sorted at the mixed waste MRF (21,000 tons) include among the multi-objective solutions as a tradeoff between the
others: old newspaper (6,830 tons) and clear glass (4,160 conflicting objectives of least cost and minimum energy
tons). Fig. 3 shows the selection of technologies for the consumption. These tradeoff curves represent the Pareto
minimum energy consumption solution. The minimum optimal sets or frontiers for the conflicting objectives. Any
energy consumption obtained was -2.27 trillion BTU point in the Pareto optimal set represents a noninferior
(offset), with a cost of $60.3 million and -198 million pounds solution, for which an improvement in one objective requires
of CO2 emissions (offset). a degradation of the other. Energy and emissions are non-
conflicting objectives.
Collection of Mixed
mixed MSW MSW MRF
Waste to
energy
D. Multi-objective Optimization
Additional solutions were found by using multi- Figure 4. Cost and CO2 emissions tradeoff curve.
objective optimization and the weighted sum method. Table
2 shows the weight values used for each multi-objective
formulation, and summarizes the values of the three
objectives for each of the noninferior solutions. Weights
were varied arbitrarily to try to capture different solutions.
The optimal solution obtained depended on the relative
values of the used weights. For example, if the specified
weight for the cost objective was greater than the specified
weight for the energy consumption objective, the solution
favored lower cost over lower energy consumption.
Solution A corresponds to the least cost solution (Z1*);
solution E to the minimum CO2 emissions solution (Z3*);
and solution F to the minimum energy solution (Z2*). The
other solutions represent noninferior points in the multi-
Figure 5. Cost and energy consumption tradeoff curve.
objective solution space.
TABLE II. SUMMARY OF SOLUTIONS FROM MULTI-OBJECTIVE Solutions B, C and D are noninferior solutions in which
OPTIMIZATION none of the three objectives reaches its minimum possible
wenergy wCO2 Cost Energy CO2
value. These “intermediate” solutions try to accommodate all
Sol. wcost (106 $) (trillion (106 three objectives based on the provided objective weights.
BTU) lbs) The combinations of MSWM options for these intermediate
33.1 solutions are also different from the least cost, minimum
A 0.999 5e-4 5e-4 0.018 39.8
(Z1*)
energy and minimum CO2 solutions. Fig. 6 shows the
B 0.8 0.1 0.1 36.4 1.207 137.0
selected MSWM options for solution B. This solution is
C 0.6 0.2 0.2 45.6 2.070 187.0 trying to depart from the least cost solution A and provides a
greater weight to both the energy and emissions objectives.
D 0.4 0.3 0.3 52.1 2.203 196.0
Therefore, the selection of technologies includes, in addition
202.4 to the mandatory recycling, Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) to
E 0.2 0.4 0.4 57.6 2.205
(Z3*)
2.270 try to offset energy consumption via the generation of energy
F 5e-5 0.9999 5e-5 59.9 195.9
(Z2*) from waste, and to avoid CO2 emissions by reducing the
amount of waste to be disposed at landfills. Fig. 7 shows the
Fig. 4 shows a plot of the multi-objective solutions as a selected MSWM options for solution C, which increments
tradeoff between the conflicting objectives of least cost and the weight values again for both the energy and emissions
minimum CO2 emissions. Similarly, Fig. 5 shows a plot of objectives. The selection of technologies includes now both
RDF and waste to energy to try to improve the given to the objectives. The relative importance given to the
environmental objectives at the expense of cost. Finally, and objectives through the weights had a direct effect on their
following the same reasoning, Fig. 8 shows the selected reported degree of achievement. The greater the relative
options for solution D, which now includes only waste to importance given to an objective, the greater the degree of
energy and RDF, and excludes yardwaste composting. achievement was for that objective in the reported solution.
Collection of Yard waste
yard waste composting
Scenario 1 was obtained by assigning five times more
importance to cost than to the other objectives. Cost obtained
Collection of Mixed
a degree of achievement of 87% while the other two
Landfill
mixed MSW MSW objectives obtained degrees of achievement below 60%.
without yard MRF Scenario 2 assigned five times more importance to energy
waste Paper, than to cost, and the degree of achievement obtained for
glass,
RDF
plastic, energy was 97% in detriment of cost. Since energy and CO2
Collection
of
etc. are non-competing objectives, the degree of achievement for
Presorted CO2 was also high. Scenario 3 assigned five times more
recyclables
recyclables
sorted by
MRF importance to CO2 than to cost, and the degree of
crew
achievement obtained for CO2 was 97% in detriment of cost.
Figure 6. Management options for Solution B Again, since energy and CO2 are non-competing objectives,
the degree of achievement for energy was high.
Collection of Yard waste
yard waste composting
The combinations of MSWM options corresponding to
the solutions obtained in these 3 scenarios are also different
Collection of Mixed Waste to from the least cost, minimum energy and minimum CO2
mixed MSW MSW energy
without yard MRF solutions, and from the solutions B, C and D obtained in the
waste previous section. The fuzzy multi-objective linear
RDF
Paper, programming method presented here allows for the
glass, exploration of the decision space, as different combinations
Collection
plastic,
of
Presorted etc. of management options are likely to be selected when new
recyclables
sorted by
recyclables noninferior solutions are chosen.
MRF
crew
TABLE III. SUMMARY OF SOLUTIONS FROM FUZZY MULTI-
Figure 7. Management options for Solution C OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
Scenario Relative Objective values Degree of
Collection of Mixed Waste to importance (1=cost, 2=energy, achievement
mixed MSW MSW energy 3=CO2) (1- λi)
without yard MRF 1 w1 =5 Z1=36.4 M$ λ1=87%
waste w2=1 Z2=1.21 trillion BTU λ2=53%
RDF
Paper, w3=1 Z3=137.0 million lbs λ3=60%
glass, 2 w1 =1 Z1=51.1 M$ λ1=33%
Collection
plastic, w2=5 Z2=2.20 trillion BTU λ2=97%
of
Presorted etc.
recyclables w3=1 Z3=194.8 million lbs λ3=95%
recyclables
sorted by 3 w1 =1 Z1= 53.3 M$ λ1=25%
MRF
crew w2=1 Z2= 2.20 trillion BTU λ2=97%
w3=5 Z3= 197.6 million lbs λ3=97%
Figure 8. Management options for Solution D
IV. DISCUSSION
E. Multi-objective Fuzzy Optimization
Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) is a
The multi-objective fuzzy optimization method difficult task when a number of optional technologies and
simplified the task of choosing a unique solution among management processes are available to choose from. MSWM
possible solutions from the noninferior solution set simulation is crucial to help generate and analyze multiple
determined previously. Because the different objectives use and different waste management scenarios. It allows the
very different measuring units, the weights used in the analyst to choose from a number of optional objectives.
traditional weighted sum method were counter-intuitive. By Initially, optimal solutions were found for a waste
using the membership functions in the multi-objective fuzzy management scenario under three different objectives:
optimization method, the objective values are normalized to minimum cost, minimum carbon dioxide emissions and
comparable dimensionless units. minimum energy consumption. The combination of unit
processes associated with these optimal solutions was very
Table 3 shows the results obtained after running a different from one another. While the minimum cost solution
number of scenarios by varying the relative importance included collection of mixed waste and processing of
recyclables in a mixed waste MRF, the other two scenarios the objectives, the user can explore the noninferior set and
included additional recyclable collection and processing have a quantifiable means to rank the degree of optimization
options. Only the minimum cost solution included yardwaste obtained for each individual objective. The user may also
composting. Both minimum energy and minimum carbon experience different combinations of waste management
dioxide emissions included waste-to-energy as a means of options, as changes in the solution space may imply changes
offsetting energy consumption with the electricity generated in the decision space.
at the waste-to-energy plant. The mandated diversion rate of
15% was satisfied by all three scenarios in different ways.
The minimum cost solution diverted waste by composting REFERENCES
yardwaste and recycling. The other two scenarios relied on
recycling only. Both minimum energy and minimum carbon [1] E. Solano, S. R. Ranjithan, M. A. Barlaz, and E. D. Brill Jr.,
dioxide used waste-to-energy to offset energy consumption “Life-cycle-based solid waste management: 1. Model
and emissions from regular unit processes. development,” ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering,
128(10): 981–992, 2002.
Decision makers may also want to find MSWM options
while satisfying multiple objectives at once. The MSWM [2] E. Solano, R. D. Dumas, K.W. Harrison, S. R. Ranjithan, M.
A. Barlaz, and E. D. Brill Jr., “Lifecycle based solid waste
simulation allowed us to perform multiple-objective management: 2. Illustrative applications,” ASCE Journal of
optimization to find interesting and different solutions from Environmental Engi-neering, 128(10): 993–1005, 2002.
those obtained by minimizing on one objective at a time. The [3] K. W. Harrison, R. D. Dumas, E. Solano, M. A. Barlaz, E.D.
weighted sum methodology is a simple and reliable way to Brill, and S. Ranjithan, “Decision support tool for life-cycle-
obtain non-inferior solutions from the Pareto optimal set. based solid waste management,” Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering, 15(1), 44–58, 2001.
Each individual non-inferior solution represents a
compromise between the competing objectives, and will [4] K. S. Raju, and D. N. Kumar, “Application of multi-objective
fuzzy and stochastic linear programming to Sri Ram Sagar
favor one objective with respect to the other depending on Irrigation Planning Project of Andhra Pradesh”, ISH Journal
the relative weights used. The convexity of the Pareto of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 1, 2000.
frontier means that, when moving from one non-inferior [5] J. M. Cadenas, and J. L. Verdegay, “Using ranking functions
solution to another, an improvement in one of the objectives in multiobjective fuzzy linear programming”, Fuzzy Sets and
will represent degradation in the other objective. Non- Systems, 111, 4-53, 2000.
inferior solutions represent interesting multi-objective [6] R. Minciardi, M. Paolucci, M. Robba, and R. Sacile. “Multi-
scenarios for the decision maker to consider. They represent objective optimization of solid waste flows: Environmentally
sustainable strategies for municipalities”, Waste Management,
different points in the objective space, combining multiple 28, 2202-2212, 2008.
objectives by means of the weighted sum methodology. They [7] P. A. Thakre, D. S. Shelar, and S. P. Thakre, “Solving fuzzy
also represent potential different points in the decision space, linear programming problem as multi objective linear
which can provide valuable information about a variety of programming problem”, Journal of Engineering and
MSWM strategies. A drawback of the traditional weighted Technology Research, Vol 2(5), pp. 82-85, 2009.
sum methodology is the potential disparity in the values of [8] H. Katagiri, M. Sakawa, K. Kato, and I. Nishizaki,
used weights, due to the different measurement units used by “Interactive multiobjective fuzzy random linear
programming: maximization of possibility and probability”,
the objectives. The fuzzy multi-objective methodology European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 188, Issue 2,
presented here provides the modeler with the possibility to pp. 530-539, 2008.
select a noninferior solution and quantify the degree of [9] C. Stanciulescu, P. Fortemps, M. Installe, and V. Wertz,
achievement for each of the competing objectives. By “Multiobjective fuzzy linear programming problems with
normalizing the objective values via the membership fuzzy decision variables”, European Journal of Operational
functions, it eliminates the inconvenience of having Research, Vol. 149, Issue 3, pp. 654-675, 2003.
dissimilar measurement units. It offers a method to manage [10] A. Amid, S. H. Ghodsypour, and C. O’Brien, “Fuzzy
imprecision and uncertainty in the objectives via fuzzy multiobjective linear model for supplier selection in a supply
chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.
membership functions defined based on the worst 104, Issue 2, pp. 394-407, 2006.
achievement level and the best achievement level for each
objective. By changing the relative level of importance on