Energy 240 (2022) 122830

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Economy-environment-energy performance evaluation of CCHP

microgrid system: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method
Huiru Zhao a, Bingkang Li a, Hao Lu c, Xuejie Wang a, Hongze Li a, Sen Guo a, Wanlei Xue b,
Yuwei Wang c, *
a
School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Changping District, Beijing, 102206, China
b
Economic & Technology Research Institute, State Grid Shandong Electric Power Company, Jinan, Shandong Province, 250002, China
c
Department of Economic Management, North China Electric Power University, Baoding, Hebei Province, 071003, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The combined cooling, heating and power micro-grid (CCHP-MG) system has significant economy-
Received 30 April 2021 environment-energy (3E) characteristics, making it valuable to evaluating its 3E performance in pro-
Received in revised form moting the 3E coordinated development. Based on the energy supply structure of CCHP-MG system, this
24 November 2021
paper constructs a 3E performance evaluation index system for the CCHP-MG system from economy,
Accepted 5 December 2021
Available online 7 December 2021
environment and energy dimensions. Then, a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework
is designed, involving integrated weighting method based on anti-entropy weight method and grey
decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (grey-DEMATEL), and improved technique for order
Keywords:
3E performance
preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) with difference and quotient grey relation analysis
CCHP micro-Grid system (DQGRA). 8 building-typed CCHP-MG systems are taken as examples for analysis. The results show that
Hybrid MCDM framework the benefits of system energy supply, equivalent emission reduction of pollutants, energy utilization and
Integrated subjective and objective equivalent energy saving are important manifestations of CCHP-MG's 3E performance, and raising energy
weighting supply scale and renewable energy proportion are the key ways to improve CCHP-MG's 3E performance.
Improved TOPSIS Comparing with 4 other MCDM models, the proposed hybrid MCDM model has good applicability and
Robustness and sample discrimination tests effectiveness for the 3E performance evaluation of CCHP-MG system, but it is necessary to carry out
targeted adjustment when applying it to other MCDM issues.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction adjusting energy structure, renewable energy represented by wind

Energy, as the material basis for human survival and economic
development, also holds the lifeline of the country's economy. As
the economy continues to develop rapidly, many problems such as
energy shortages, environmental pollution, and ecological deteri-
oration are gradually deepening [1]. The contradiction between
economic development, energy consumption and environmental
protection has become increasingly prominent, and the coordi-
nated development of the economy-environment-energy (3E)
system has been severely challenged [2]. In this case, many coun-
tries have begun to adjust their energy distribution, transform their
energy development modes, and improve energy utilization rates
[3,4].
In terms of transforming energy development modes and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangyuwei2010@126.com (Y. Wang).
power and photovoltaic power generation have gradually attracted
attentions [5e7]. This type of power generation is generally device
with a relatively small capacity and most of them are scattered on
the load side or near the user, thereby is called distributed power
generation. It has the characteristics of flexibility and decentral-
ization, can make better use of natural resources to meet load needs
nearby, and has the advantages of small investment, less land
occupation, energy saving and environmental protection [8e10].
In terms of improving energy efficiency, over 70 countries have
successively carried out research related to the integrated energy
system (IES) technology [11]. IES integrates the production, trans-
mission, distribution, conversion, storage and consumption of
multiple energy sources, and can realize comprehensive manage-
ment and economic dispatch of electricity, gas, and heat, which
provides an important solution for the comprehensive utilization of
energy [12]. The combined cooling, heating and power (CCHP)
system is the most promising business mode in IES. By utilizing

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122830
0360-5442/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
high-grade energy of different energy sources for power generation
and low-grade energy for heating and cooling, the energy efficiency
of CCHP system can reach more than 80%, which is significantly
better than that of traditional centralized power plants [13,14].
Distributed power generation and CCHP have outstanding ad-
vantages, and their development has been widely promoted.
However, they also have many problems, such as the high cost of
single-machine access to the grid and difficulty in control [15,16]. In
order to give full play to the advantages of distributed power,
realize the flexible application of distributed power, and solve the
problem of large and diverse distributed power grid connection,
the concept of micro-grid (MG), which is a controllable unit that
integrates various distributed power sources, loads, energy storage
devices and energy conversion devices, is proposed [17,18]. MG can
provide cooling, heating, and electrical loads to the system by
controlling the effective interconnection of distributed power and
CCHP. In this case, the MG can be called a CCHP-MG system, and its
definition can be extended to a micro energy grid, which is actually
a small IES [19,20]. The development and extension of the CCHP-
MG can fully promote the large-scale access of distributed power
sources and renewable energy sources, realize the highly reliable
supply of multiple energy forms, and promote the coordinated
development of the regional 3E system [21,22].
Early researches on the CCHP-MG mainly focused on the
structure and energy supply mode of the CCHP-MG, with the pur-
pose of clarifying the basic concept and system framework of the
CCHP-MG [23e26]. Subsequently, scholars’ researches on CCHP-
MG mainly focus on its economic operation optimization. Specif-
ically, based on the CCHP-MG operation mode, corresponding
operating formulas for various power sources and devices in the
system are constructed, the objective function and constraint
conditions of the economic operation optimization problem of the
CCHP-MG system are designed accordingly, and the applicability
and effectiveness of the model are verified through calculation
examples [27e29]. Li et al. developed an improved two-stage
robust optimization model for CCHPeP2G microgrid system,
which can fully considers the multi-energy operation under wind
power outputs uncertainties [30]. Bu et al. examined the day-ahead
optimization economic dispatch of CCHP multi-microgrid system,
finding that the use of negotiation game in the scheduling process
helps to better realize the economics of the system [31]. Abdalla
et al. explored the optimized economic operation of the CCHP-MG
with hybrid energy storage system, holding that the CCHP system
can effectively reduce the operation and fuel costs of the MG [32].
In general, the above-mentioned researches on the CCHP-MG re-
veals the operation rules of the CCHP-MG system by modeling the
equipment, and enriches the theories and practical outcomes of the
economic operation of the CCHP-MG, which provides a useful
reference for promoting the development of CCHP-MG and opti-
mizing its dispatching operation mode.
The CCHP-MG has significant 3E system characteristics, so it has
significant theoretical and practical value to examine the CCHP-MG
operation mode and its performance from the perspective of 3E
coordinated development [33]. Some scholars have considered
environmental factors (environmental externality costs, pollutant
discharge constraints, etc.) in addition to traditional economic and
energy factors when conducting research on the optimization of
the economic operation of the CCHP-MG, which can be considered
as analyzing the operation mode of the CCHP-MG system from the
perspective of 3E coordinated development [34e36]. Guo et al.
examined the economic-environmental coordinated operation of
an industrial energy parks integrated with CCHP units, finding that
under the proposed coordinated approach, the total operation cost
and emission pollution are decreased significantly [37]. Yuan et al.
developed a novel algorithm to optimize the operation of a hybrid
2
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
CCHP residential system considering economic costs and pollution
emissions, showing that the CCHP residential system with envi-
ronmental and economic advantages should be promoted widely
[38]. Zhao et al. established a modeling framework of a multi-
energy system (MES) with CCHP units, and examined the opera-
tion strategy considering operation cost and carbon dioxide emis-
sion of the system, finding that the proposed operation strategy can
improve the economic and environmental advantages of the sys-
tem [39]. However, in the research on the performance of the
CCHP-MG system, previous researches mainly evaluated the per-
formance of CCHP-MG system from the dimensions of technology,
economy, society and environment [40e42]. Although the indicator
system contains some indicators that reflect 3E characteristics, it
still does not deviate from the traditional evaluation framework for
power transmission and distribution grid performance, making it
difficult to fully reflect the 3E characteristics of the CCHP-MG sys-
tem, resulting that the evaluation results lack target reference for
promoting 3E coordinated development of the CCHP-MG system.
In line with the above discussion, this paper examines the per-
formance evaluation of the CCHP-MG system from the perspective
of 3E coordinated development, which can effectively make up for
the insufficiency of previous research on CCHP-MG's 3E coordina-
tion performance analysis. Based on the introduction of the energy
supply structure of the CCHP-MG system, the 3E performance
evaluation index system of the CCHP-MG system is constructed
from the three dimensions of economy, environment and energy.
Furthermore, a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
model based on the anti-entropy weight (AEW) method, the grey
decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (grey-DEMATEL)
and the improved technique for order preference by similarity to an
ideal solution (TOPSIS) with difference and quotient grey relation
analysis (DQGRA) is constructed (called DQGRA-TOPSIS), and
several CCHP-MG systems are used for case analysis to verify the
applicability and effectiveness of the proposed model.
To sum up, the main contribution of this paper is twofold. First,
by analyzing the 3E benefits of the CCHP-MG, this paper constructs
an index system involving 13 indicators for evaluating the 3E per-
formance of CCHP-MG system. Accordingly, based on grey-
DEMATEL method, the interaction relationship between various
indicators is examined, which provides a reference for the 3E co-
ordinated development of the CCHP-MG system. Second, a hybrid
MCDM model based on AEW-grey-DEMATEL and DQGRA-TOPSIS
techniques is developed, which has good applicability and effec-
tiveness for the evaluation issue in this paper. On one hand, the
integrated weighting method based on AEW and grey-DEMATEL
techniques can deal with the interrelationship between the in-
dicators under the premise of reducing subjectivity, thereby
improving the reliability of the weighting results. On the other
hand, considering geometric similarity and numerical similarity
between sequences, the DQGRA-TOPSIS technique is developed,
which can overcome the vertical bisector problem of conventional
TOPSIS using Euclidean distance as the closeness, and avoid the
subjectivity in the determination of the resolution coefficient in
conventional GRA.
The rest of this paper is organized as follow: Section 2 describes
the energy supply structure of CCHP-MG system, and constructs the
3E performance evaluation index system of the CCHP-MG. Section 3
introduces the developed hybrid MCDM model for the 3E perfor-
mance evaluation of CCHP-MG, and discusses the applicability of
the proposed model. In Section 4, 8 building-typed CCHP-MG cases
are used for case analysis and the results are reported. Section 5
investigates the interactions between the indicators, and verifies
the effectiveness of the model from the dimensions of robustness
and sample discrimination tests. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the
paper and put forward corresponding suggestions.
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
2. Energy supply structure and 3E performance of CCHP-MG
system
2.1. Energy supply structure of CCHP-MG system
In order to achieve energy conservation, emission reduction,
and improvement of energy utilization, the integrated energy
supply technique in the form of MG including distributed energy
and CCHP systems, namely the CCHP-MG system, has received
more and more attention [43]. Fig. 1 is a typical structure of the MG,
which is connected to the power system through isolation equip-
ment and isolation transformers. Most of the distributed power
sources in the MG system use power electronic devices to connect
to the load and the power system.
Different from the typical MG system, the CCHP-MG not only
generates residual heat from the combined heat and power (CHP)
equipment, but also contains a CCHP system to generate heat and
cold power at the same time, so as to achieve efficient use of energy.
Specifically, the CCHP-MG takes the micro gas turbine (MGT) typed
CCHP system as the core, and determines the structure, equipment
capacity, and power source output of the micro-energy grid ac-
cording to the demand for cold, heat and electrical loads [44]. Fig. 2
shows the energy supply structure of a typical CCHP-MG system,
including wind power generation, photovoltaic power generation,
CCHP systems, and electric and thermal energy storage devices.
Among them, the CCHP system with MGT as the core includes MGT,
gas boilers and refrigerators, which recycles the residual heat
generated by the MGT to realize the combined supply of cooling,
heating and electricity on the load side. In the CCHP-MG system,
photovoltaic power generation, wind power generation, MGT,
electricity energy storage, and power purchase from the power grid
are applied to meet the electrical load demand; MGT, gas-fired
boilers and thermal energy storage are applied to meet the heat
load demand; absorption chillers and electric chillers are applied to
meet the cooling load demand. Therefore, the CCHP-MG system can
improve energy utilization, reduce energy costs, improve energy
supply reliability, and enhance environmental protection by energy
comprehensive and cascade utilization.
2.2. Analysis on the 3E performance of CCHP-MG system
The CCHP-MG system has significant 3E characteristics, and the
internal economic, environmental and energy factors are coupled
Fig. 1. Typical structure of MG system.
3
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
and optimized, as well as coordinated and interacted, which fully
reflects the 3E performance of the CCHP-MG system.
For economic performance, during the operation of CCHP-MG
system, its economic performance is mainly reflected in two as-
pects. One is the direct benefits, that is, the benefits obtained by
providing users with cooling, heating and power. The other is the
indirect benefits, that is, the CCHP-MG can exchange energy with
the main power grid through the public connection points, serving
as backups for power system, thus can effectively save the con-
struction investment related to improving the reliability of power
supply [45]. Moreover, the CCHP-MG's “on-site production and on-
site consumption” mode can significantly reduce the grid loss in the
power transmission and distribution process, thereby obtaining
significant grid loss reduction benefits.
For environmental performance, the CCHP-MG system contains
gas generators and renewable energy sources such as wind and
solar power sources. Compared with traditional energy supply
modes, the CCHP-MG system can effectively promote the use of
clean energy by coordinating internal resources [41]. In the process
of meeting the regional diversified energy demand, CCHP-MG
system will emit lower pollutants and reduce the damage to the
environment, thus having significant emission reduction benefits.
For energy performance, the CCHP-MG system effectively sup-
presses the instability of renewable energy output such as wind
and solar through a variety of energy storage devices, and promotes
the consumption of renewable energy [46]. Compared with tradi-
tional energy supply modes, the CCHP-MG system can realize the
effective conversion of electricity, heating and cooling, and the
energy cascade utilization through energy storage devices, residual
heat recovery devices and energy conversion devices, thereby
significantly improving energy utilization efficiency.
Based on the above analysis, this paper constructs an evaluation
index system reflecting the performance of the CCHP-MG from the
perspective of 3E framework, as shown in Fig. 3. According to Fig. 3,
the economic performance of the CCHP-MG system mainly in-
cludes energy supply benefits, grid loss reduction benefits, and
investment savings benefits; the environmental performance
mainly includes carbon emission reduction benefits and other
pollutant emission reduction benefits; the energy performance
mainly includes renewable energy consumption benefits, energy
utilization efficiency improvement benefits, and energy saving
benefits.
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
Fig. 2. Energy supply structure of CCHP-MG system.
Fig. 3. Index system for evaluating the 3E performance of CCHP-MG system.
3. Hybrid evaluating model for the 3E performance of CCHP-
MG system
3.1. Framework of the hybrid MCDM model
The framework of the proposed hybrid MCDM model for 3E
performance evaluation of CCHP-MG system in this paper is shown
in Fig. 4. The hybrid MCDM model includes two parts:
Part 1: Indicator weighting phase. Based on the constructed
evaluation index system, this paper proposes a subjective and
objective integrated weighting method based on AEW and grey-
DEMATEL methods. Firstly, based on the values of multiple cases
to be evaluated on all indicators, the anti-entropy value of each
indicator is calculated, and then the anti-entropy value is normal-
ized to obtain the objective weight of the indicator. Secondly,
several experts were invited to judge the importance of each
4
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
indicator in the index system, and based on the judgment results,
the direct grey relationship matrix of DEMATEL is constructed.
Furthermore, the direct grey relationship matrix is clarified and
realized, then the DEMATEL comprehensive influence matrix that
integrates the judgment results of multiple experts can be calcu-
lated, and the subjective weight of the indicator based on grey-
DEMATEL is calculated accordingly. Finally, an optimization
model minimizing the heterogeneity between objective and sub-
jective weights is constructed, and the integrated weight is ob-
tained, so as to evaluate the 3E performance of the CCHP-MG
system.
Part 2: MCDM phase. The constructed indicators are all quan-
titative indicators and the purpose of this model is to evaluate the
3E performance of multiple CCHP-MG, so this paper proposes a
MCDM method based on DQGRA-TOPSIS. Firstly, based on the
values of multiple cases to be evaluated on all indicators, a
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

Fig. 4. Framework of the proposed hybrid MCDM model.

standardized decision matrix of TOPSIS is constructed, and then

combining with indicator weights, a weighted decision matrix of X
m  
TOPSIS is constructed. Secondly, based on the weighted decision hi ¼  rij ln 1  rij (2)
matrix, the difference and quotient between sequences are calcu- j¼1
lated, and the difference-quotient grey relational degrees between P
each case and the positive ideal solution as well as the negative where rij ¼ xij = xij . By normalizing the calculated anti-entropy
j
ideal solution are obtained, which are regard as the closeness of the
value, the objective weight w1i of each indicator can be
case related to the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal
determined:
solution. Finally, based on difference-quotient grey relational de-
gree, the relative closeness of each case related to the positive ideal ,
solution is calculated, and the examined cases can be ranked X
accordingly. w1i ¼ hi hi (3)
i

(2) Grey-DEMATEL method

3.2. Indicator weighting method based on AEW and grey-DEMATEL
The steps for calculating the subjective weight vector w2 using
(1) Anti-entropy weight method grey-DEMATEL method are:
Step 1: Determine the index system, as shown in Fig. 3.
The objective weight vector w1 is determined using AEW Step 2: Determine the direct grey relationship matrix. Experts in
method. Entropy is a concept in system thermodynamics, used for related fields are invited to issue questionnaires. According to the
measuring the disorder degree of a system. Subsequently, it is grey language scale shown in Table 1 [49], the judgment of each
introduced into information theory. When there are m possible expert about the correlation between the indicators is obtained,
states in the system, and each possible state appears with a prob-
and the direct grey relationship matrix 5X k ¼ ½5xkij nn can be
ability of pj ðj ¼ 1; 2; …; mÞ, the entropy can be defined as follow
constructed, where n ¼ 13 represents the number of indicators,
[47]:
and 5xkij is the element in the direct grey coefficient matrix, indi-
X
m cating the influence degree of index i on index j considered by the
h¼  pj lnpj (1)
j¼1
Table 1
P Five grade grey language scale.
where 0  pj  1, and pj ¼ 1.
j Grey language Grey number
Under the AEW method, supposing that for the evaluation
No influence (N) ½0; 0
problem, the number of evaluation objects is m and the number of Very low influence (VL) ½0; 0:25
indicators is n, the indicator value can be xij (i ¼ 1; 2; …;n, j ¼ 1; 2; Low influence (L) ½0:25; 0:5
…; m), and the evaluation matrix can be X ¼ ½xij nm . The anti- High influence (H) ½0:5; 0:75
Very high influence (VH) ½0:75; 1
entropy value of each indicator is [48]:
5
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

k-th expert. It is obvious that 5xkij is a grey number, expressed as 5

h i Mi ¼ fi þ ei ði ¼ 1; 2; …; nÞ (12)
xkij ¼ 5 xkij ; 5xkij , where 5 xkij and 5xkij are the lower and upper
bounds of 5 xkij . As suggested by Lin et al. [49], it is set that 5 xkii ¼ Ni ¼ fi  ei ði ¼ 1; 2; …; nÞ (13)
½0; 0.
Step 3: Clarify the direct grey relationship matrix. The elements where fi and ei are the influencing degree and influenced degree of
in the direct grey relational matrix are all grey numbers, which can the index i respectively, which are calculated by:
be clarified by formulas (4)-(7), and the clarified directly influence
X
n
matrix can be gained [49,50]. fi ¼ tij ði ¼ 1; 2; …; nÞ (14)
  j¼1
5xkij  min5xkij
i;j
5xk ¼ (4) X
n
ij
Dmax
min ðkÞ ei ¼ tji ði ¼ 1; 2; …; nÞ (15)
j¼1
 
5xkij  min5xkij where tij and tji are the element in the comprehensive influence
i;j
5xk
ij ¼ (5) matrix T.
Dmax
min ðkÞ The greater the center degree, the greater the importance of the
indicator in the system is. If the cause degree is greater than 0, it
 
5xk 1  5xk þ 5xk k means that the total impacts of this indicator on other indicators in
ij ij ij  5xij
ykij ¼   (6) the system is greater than the total impacts of other indicators on
1 þ 5xk ij
 5xk
ij
this indicator, so this indicator can be defined as the causal factor. If
the cause degree is less than 0, it means that the total impacts of
other indicators in the system on this indicator is greater than the
zkij ¼ min5xkij þ ykij  Dmax
min ðkÞ (7) total impacts of this indicator on other indicators, so this indicator
j
can be defined as the result factor.
Step 7: Calculate subjective weight. According to the center
where 5xk k
ij and 5xij are the lower and upper bounds of the grey degree of the indicator, the final subjective weight of each indicator
number 5xkij after the clarification, ykij is the clear value after can be:
standardization, zkij is the element in the clarification judgment ,
X
matrix Z k ¼ ½zkij nn , indicating the degree of influence of index i on w2i ¼ Mi Mi (16)
index j considered by the k-th expert after being processed by the i

grey system, and Dmax

min ðkÞ is the range of the k-th expert's grey where w2i is the normalized subjective weight of indicator i based
judgment matrix, which can be calculated by:
on grey-DEMATEL.

Dmax k k
min ðkÞ ¼ max5xij  min5 xij (8) (3) Integrated weight based on subjective and objective weights
i;j i;j

Step 4: Calculate the real-numbered direct influence matrix. The subjective weighting method ranks the importance of
Integrating the clarified direct grey relationship matrices Z k ¼ evaluation indicators according to the experts' own experience and
½zkij nn of all experts (k ¼ 1; 2; …; K represents the number of ex- knowledge, which reflects the subjective willingness of the experts
perts), the real-numbered direct influence matrix X ¼ ½xij nn is: on the importance of evaluation indicators, so the weights obtained
are more interpretable. However, subjective weight does not reflect
the data information of evaluation indicators. The objective weight
1 X
K
xij ¼ zkij (9) reflects the data information of the evaluation indicators but it will
K change with the change of the evaluation object set, that is, the
k¼1
stability of objective weight is weaker than that of subjective
Step 5: Determine the comprehensive influence matrix of
weight. Meanwhile, the objective weight cannot reflect the
DEMATEL. Based on the real-numbered direct influence matrix X ¼
importance of the evaluation indicator itself, so its explanatory
½xij nn , the normalized direct influence matrix A ¼ ½aij nn can be
power is weaker. Based on the respective advantages and disad-
calculated by formula (10): vantages of subjective and objective weighting methods, many
scholars have investigated the integrated weighting method, hop-
xij
aij ¼ Pn ; n ¼ 13 (10) ing that through integrated weighting, it will retain the advantages
max j¼1 xij of subjective and objective weighting method and overcome the
0in
shortcomings of subjective and objective weighting method
For matrix A, there is lim Ak ¼ O (O is zero matrix), so the [51e53]. Under this premise, using integrated weighting method to
k/∞
comprehensive influence matrix T can be calculated by: determine the index weight, on the one hand, can avoid the situ-
ation that experts’ scoring is too subjective, on the other hand, can
  also avoids the situation that objective weighting ignores the index
T ¼ lim A þ A2 þ A3 þ … þ Ak ¼ AðI  AÞ1 (11) attributes and causes the weight distribution to be unreasonable, so
k/∞
as to obtain a more effective weight.
where I is the unit matrix. In this paper, the fundamental principle of integrating the
Step 6: Calculate the center degree Mi and the cause degree Ni of subjective and objective weights is to minimize the heterogeneity
each indicator according to the following formula: between objective and subjective weights. Therefore, the
6
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

integrated weights are obtained by solving the following optimi- Secondly, construct the grey relation degree of geometric simi-
zation problems: larity according to Drijþ and Drij :
n h
X i   .  
min ðw0i  w1i Þ2  ðw0i  w2i Þ2 gþ sþ ; rij ¼ 1
1j i
exp Drijþ (23)
i¼1
(17)
Xn
.  
s:t: w0i ¼ 1  
g 
1j si ; rij ¼ 1 exp Drij (24)
i¼1

where w0i is the normalized integrated weight of indicator i. In this where gþ ðsþ ; rij Þ and g
1j i

1j ðsi ; rij Þ are the grey relation degrees of
way, the total distance between the obtained integrated weight and geometric similarity of case j regard to the positive and negative
the subjective/object weights is the smallest, thereby balancing the ideal solutions, respectively.
indicator importance degrees reflected by the subjective weights Thirdly, construct the grey relation degree of numerical simi-
and the objective weights, that is, the integrated weight can not larity according to Drijþ and Drij :
0 0

only reflect the attributes of the indicator itself, but also make full
use of the indicator data information.   .  0

gþ sþ ; rij ¼ 1
2j i
exp 1  Drijþ (25)

3.3. MCDM method based on DQGRA-TOPSIS

  .  0

g 
2j si ; rij ¼ 1 exp 1  Drij (26)
The steps of the constructed MCDM model based on DQGRA-
TOPSIS are as follows:
where gþ ðsþ ; rij Þ and g 
2j ðsi ; rij Þ are the grey relation degrees of
Step 1: Construct the standardized decision matrix of TOPSIS. 2j i
For the evaluation issue, supposing that the number of evaluated numerical similarity of case j regard to the positive and negative
cases is m, the number of indicators is n, and the indicator value is ideal solutions, respectively.
xij (i ¼ 1; 2; …; n, j ¼ 1; 2; …; m), then the decision matrix is X ¼ Finally, the grey relation degrees of geometric and numerical
½xij nm . Since the values of all indicators in the constructed index similarity are integrated to obtain the comprehensive grey relation
degree:
system are positive, the decision matrix can be dimensionless and
unified to form a standardized decision matrix by: rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   ffi
1X n
 gþ
j ¼ gþ s þ
; r  g þ
s þ
; r (27)
8 n i¼1 1j i ij 2j i ij
< xij maxxij ; indicator i is of benefit type
j
x*ij ¼  (18)
: rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   ffi
minxij xij ; indicator i is of cost type 1X n
j g
j ¼ g 1j i
s þ
; r ij  g  sþ ; r
2j i ij (28)
n i¼1
where, x*ij is the element in the standardized decision matrix X * .
Step 2: Construct the weighted decision matrix of TOPSIS. where gþ
j
and g
j are respectively the comprehensive grey relation
Multiply the integrated indicator weight w0i with the standardized degrees of case j regard to the positive and negative ideal solutions,
matrix X * to obtain the weighted decision matrix R ¼ ½rij nm , which can be defined as the closeness of DQGRA-TOPSIS. The larger
where rij ¼ w0i  x*ij . gþ
j
, the smaller the distance between the case j and the positive
Step 3: Calculate the positive ideal solution Sþ and the negative ideal solution. The larger the g
j , the smaller the distance between
ideal solution S of TOPSIS. The positive and negative ideal solu- the case j and the negative ideal solution.
tions of TOPSIS can be gained by: Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness of each case to the pos-
itive ideal solution. According to the meaning of gþ j
and gj , the
S þ ¼ sþ þ þ þ þ
1 ; s2 ; …; si ; …; sn ; si ¼ max rij (19)
j relative closeness dj of each case to the positive ideal solution is:

S  ¼ s    0 gþ
1 ; s2 ; …; si ; …; sn ; si ¼ min rij (20) j
dj ¼ (29)
j
g
j
þ gþ
j
Step 4: Calculate the comprehensive grey relation degrees of
A larger dj value means that case j is relatively close to the
standardized case regard to the positive and negative ideal solu-
positive ideal solution and relatively far away from the negative
tions. Firstly, calculate the difference and quotient of each indicator
ideal solution. If the dj of a case is the largest, this case is the optimal
in the standardized case regard to the positive and negative ideal
case among the alternatives.
solutions [54,55]:

Drijþ ¼ sþ  
i  rij ; Drij ¼ si  rij (21)
3.4. Applicability of the proposed hybrid MCDM model
0
. .
0
Drijþ ¼ rij sþ
i ; Drij ¼ s 
i rij (22) The proposed hybrid MCDM model for evaluating the 3E per-
formance of CCHP-MG system based on AEW, grey-DEMATEL and
where Drijþ and Drij are the differences of indicator i in case j regard DAGRA-TOPSIS techniques mainly includes two modules: one is to
0 weight the indicators based on AEW and grey-DEMATEL methods,
to the positive and negative ideal solutions, respectively. Drijþ and
0
and the other is to rank the evaluated cases employing the DQGRA-
Drij are the quotients of indicator i in case j regard to the positive TOPSIS technique. The applicability of the proposed hybrid model is
and negative ideal solutions, respectively. mainly reflected in:
7
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
(1) Applicability and advantages of the index weighting
methods
Firstly, considering that all indicators in the constructed index
system is quantitative, and this paper takes a number of typical
CCHP-MG as the cases, the objective weighting method with
difference-driven can be adopted for indicator weighting. Entropy
weight method is a widely used objective weighting method,
assuming that the difference of indicators is inversely proportional
to the entropy value and proportional to the weight coefficient of
the indicator, so the weights of the indicators can be determined by
calculating the entropy value of the MCDM system [47]. However,
in the conventional entropy weight method, the index difference
reflected by the entropy value is too sensitive, which may lead to
the extreme situation of the index weight being too small in the
weight distribution. The AEW method is different from the entropy
method, and the difference of the indicators is proportional to the
calculated anti-entropy value and the weight coefficient, which can
avoid the emergence of extreme situations [48,56]. Therefore, this
paper employs the AEW method to determine the objective
weights. On one hand, it makes full use of the original information
of the indicators. On the other hand, it avoids the extreme situation
of indicator weights being too small in the weight distribution.
Secondly, as an objective weighting method, the AEW method
pays too much attention to the difference between indicators while
ignores the meaning of the indicator itself. Therefore, it is necessary
to modify the objective weight through the subjective weighting
method [57]. Economy, environment and energy are an interactive
organic system. In the 3E performance evaluation index system
constructed in this paper, there is a certain correlation between
each indicator, and the importance of the indicator mainly depends
on the status of the indicator in the 3E system, that is, the inter-
action relationships with other indicators. Therefore, the DEMATEL
technique, as an effective method that can reflect the interactions of
factors in complex systems and determine the status of factors [58],
is suitable for the subjective weighting of this paper. However, the
conventional DEMATEL method inevitably faces problems such as
insufficient information and uncertainty when judging the corre-
lation between factors, making the judgment result more subjec-
tive [59]. In this case, this paper introduces the grey system theory
to improve the conventional DEMATEL method, which can deal
with the uncertainty and ambiguity in the process of factor judg-
ment, so as to improve the accuracy of factor judgment [50,59,60].
Finally, according to Li G et al. [61], the criteria for judging the
rationality of subjective-objective combination weights include:
the combination mode of subjective and objective weights is
reasonable, the interpretability of the combination weights should
be ensured, and the evaluation effect is better. Therefore, on the
basis of the AEW weights and the grey-DEMATEL weights, this
paper makes normalizing the integration weights be the constraint,
and minimizing the heterogeneity of the subjective and objective
weight results be the objective function, to establish an optimiza-
tion model, and solves it to obtain the integrated weight, which
makes full use of the original information of the indicators, and at
the same time considers the correlation between the indicators on
the basis of reducing subjectivity, ensuring the reliability of the
weight results. Overall, the combination mode of the integrated
weight is reasonable, and the integrated weight can be well
explained.
(2) Applicability and advantages of the MCDM methods
Firstly, the indicators in the constructed index system are all
quantitative, and the evaluation objects are the 3E performance of
multiple CCHP-MG systems. Therefore, the TOPSIS method based
8
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
on the differences of evaluation objects has good applicability [62].
Secondly, the conventional TOPSIS makes Euclidean distance as
the closeness between the alternative to be evaluated and the
positive and negative ideal solutions. When two alternatives are
located on the vertical bisector of the positive and negative ideal
solutions (Fig. 5), their Euclidean distances for the positive ideal
solution is equal to the Euclidean distances for the negative ideal
solution, which makes it impossible to rank them [63]. In this case,
introducing the GRA method into TOPSIS can effectively overcome
this defect [64,65].
Finally, the basic idea of GRA is to judge the degree of relevance
based on the similarity of the data sequence, which is a method
proposed by the grey system theory to analyze the relevance de-
gree of various factors in the system. However, the determination of
the resolution coefficient in conventional GRA method is subjec-
tive. Furthermore, conventional GRA uses the absolute value of the
difference between two data sequence to calculate the relation
degree, only considering the degree of geometric similarity be-
tween the data sequence, and ignoring the numerical closeness
degree [54,55]. If the two curves are parallel, the grey relation de-
gree calculated by conventional GRA is 1. In fact, the two curves are
not completely consistent, so the calculated grey relation degree is
biased. Therefore, this paper proposes a GRA method that combines
difference and division methods, defining the comprehensive grey
relation degree from geometric and numerical similarity, which
overcomes the limitation of conventional grey relation degree that
only considers geometric similarity. Besides, the improved GRA
does not need to set the resolution coefficient, avoiding the
subjectivity in the calculation process.
4. Case analysis
4.1. Basic information of the cases
In this section, 8 building-typed CCHP-MG systems located in a
demonstrative industrial park of Jiangsu Province are employed for
case analysis, and the composition of each CCHP-MG system is
shown in Table 2. According to Table 2, the typical characteristics of
each case are calculated (Fig. 6), from which it can be seen that: (1)
Cases 2 and Case 3 have the largest distributed renewable energy
installed capacity of 100 kW, while Case 7 has the smallest installed
capacity of 40 kW. However, from the perspective of the proportion
of distributed renewable energy in the total energy supply, Case 4 is
the largest (13.79%) and Case 1 is the smallest (6.67%). (2) Case 3 has
the largest total energy storage capacity, reaching 600 kW, while
Case 7 has the smallest total energy storage capacity (180 kW). (3)
Case 3 has the largest total energy demand and supply, reaching
780 kW and 950 kW, respectively, while Case 7 has the smallest
total energy demand and supply of 290 kW and 360 kW,
Fig. 5. The vertical bisector problem of conventional TOPSIS method.
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

Table 2
Composition of 8 building-typed CCHP-MG systems.

Compositions Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

Wind power installed capacity (kW) 0 0 50 50 30 30 10 0

Photovoltaic installed capacity (kW) 50 100 50 30 50 60 30 60
Maximum capacity with the main grid (kW) 200 200 250 100 300 200 100 150
Rated power of micro gas turbine (kW) 200 300 300 200 200 300 100 120
Rated power of gas-fired boiler (kW) 300 200 300 200 200 200 120 200
Rated output of heat recovery units (kW) 200 180 220 100 150 250 60 80
Rated power of heat exchanger (kW) 180 150 200 100 100 200 50 80
Rated cooling capacity of electric chillers (kW) 200 200 220 150 150 200 60 100
Rated cooling capacity of absorption chillers (kW) 200 150 220 100 100 150 60 60
Electric energy storage capacity (kWh) 200 200 300 150 150 200 80 100
Thermal energy storage capacity (kWh) 300 300 300 200 150 200 100 150
Maximum heating load (kW) 100 80 120 70 80 230 60 110
Maximum cooling load (kW) 210 200 340 180 240 150 80 130
Maximum electric load (kW) 230 270 320 210 300 260 150 220

Fig. 6. Characteristic indicators of 8 building-typed CCHP-MG system.

respectively. (4) Case 2 has the largest system energy supply-
demand ratio of 1.4545, and Case 8 has the smallest one of 1.1522.
4.2. Results of indicator weighting
(1) Determination of objective weight based on AEW method
For the 8 building-typed CCHP-MG systems, collect the indicator
values of each case, and then calculate the objective weight of each
index according to formulas (2) and (3), as shown in Table 3.
In this paper, 9 experts (3 from power grid enterprises, 4 from
universities, and 2 from government energy regulatory agencies)
were invited to issue questionnaires to obtain each expert's judg-
ment on the correlation between indicators. Then, the direct grey
relationship matrix and the clarified judgment matrix of each
expert can be calculated by formulas (4)~(7). On this basis, ac-
cording to formulas (9)~(11), the comprehensive influence matrix T
of grey-DEMATEL is calculated, as shown in Table 4.
Based on the comprehensive influence matrix, according to
formulas (12)~(16), the subjective weight based on grey-DEMATEL
is calculated, and the results are shown in Table 5.
On the basis of determining the weights based on AEW and
grey-DEMATEL, using MATLAB programming to solve the formula
(17), the integrated weight are obtained:

Table 3
Calculation result of objective weight based on AEW method.

Indicator number Indicator values AEW weights

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 hi w1i Ranking

c11 13.31 17.35 19.32 21.07 16.8 14.12 14.44 9.72 0.1406 0.0743 11
c12 17.15 15.01 12.69 10.44 15.87 25.69 8.35 17.85 0.1497 0.0791 4
c13 16.37 18.83 20.45 10.98 21.37 7.73 13.44 12.25 0.1473 0.0778 6
c14 40.64 47.7 61.11 35.54 33.49 52.89 22.78 37.91 0.1449 0.0765 9
c15 167.5 189.81 215.73 120.16 157.01 141.84 72.04 133.4 0.1451 0.0767 8
c21 153.29 177.11 229.08 135.92 120.36 139.1 103.32 132.59 0.1429 0.0755 10
c22 0.065 0.083 0.098 0.043 0.078 0.055 0.033 0.063 0.1481 0.0783 5
c23 0.34 0.289 0.506 0.232 0.273 0.306 0.123 0.223 0.1538 0.0813 2
c24 0.121 0.13 0.192 0.115 0.129 0.099 0.043 0.109 0.1500 0.0793 3
c31 4.78 7.64 8.55 12.88 6.04 5.13 5.04 5.22 0.1559 0.0824 1
c32 87.96 91.61 89.1 93.09 82.9 89.64 92.34 86.02 0.1337 0.0707 13
c33 562.63 600.33 623.83 541.18 585.37 528.69 635.37 612.42 0.1341 0.0709 12
c34 386.32 320.01 443.88 286.75 364.3 261.98 160.44 210.66 0.1463 0.0773 7

Note: The values of each indicator in the 8 cases were collected manually by the authors.
(2) Determination of subjective weight based on grey-DEMATEL

9
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

Table 4
The comprehensive influence matrix of grey-DEMATEL.

c11 c12 c13 c14 c15 c21 c22 c23 c24 c31 c32 c33 c34

c11 0.0221 0.0892 0.0696 0.0067 0.0179 0.0155 0.0136 0.0087 0.0134 0.0403 0.0122 0.0045 0.0039
c12 0.0977 0.0212 0.0785 0.0045 0.0333 0.0372 0.0273 0.0229 0.0272 0.0160 0.0140 0.0024 0.0033
c13 0.0904 0.0737 0.0224 0.0039 0.0193 0.0135 0.0074 0.0067 0.0072 0.0164 0.0148 0.0031 0.0084
c14 0.1235 0.0619 0.0581 0.0092 0.0943 0.0363 0.0321 0.0313 0.0317 0.0077 0.0262 0.0226 0.0591
c15 0.1287 0.1115 0.1093 0.0578 0.0146 0.0170 0.0154 0.0144 0.0115 0.0076 0.0071 0.0039 0.0187
c21 0.0457 0.0444 0.0350 0.0027 0.0342 0.0092 0.0555 0.0551 0.0555 0.0027 0.0072 0.0009 0.0018
c22 0.0473 0.0456 0.0361 0.0036 0.0552 0.0469 0.0112 0.0668 0.0635 0.0027 0.0027 0.0006 0.0016
c23 0.0468 0.0452 0.0357 0.0033 0.0513 0.0469 0.0671 0.0108 0.0635 0.0027 0.0026 0.0006 0.0015
c24 0.0361 0.0348 0.0293 0.0029 0.0457 0.0415 0.0542 0.0539 0.0094 0.0021 0.0023 0.0005 0.0013
c31 0.1858 0.1435 0.1322 0.1230 0.1699 0.1413 0.1345 0.1331 0.1297 0.0125 0.1039 0.0755 0.0573
c32 0.1881 0.1781 0.1709 0.0760 0.1575 0.0975 0.0925 0.0910 0.0878 0.0285 0.0229 0.0900 0.1295
c33 0.1028 0.0991 0.0883 0.0151 0.0851 0.0610 0.0478 0.0470 0.0435 0.0085 0.0532 0.0083 0.0340
c34 0.1421 0.1391 0.1167 0.0399 0.1400 0.1552 0.1570 0.1558 0.1562 0.0201 0.0856 0.1182 0.0182

Table 5 environmental performance caused by considerable renewable

Calculation result of subjective weight based on grey-DEMATEL. energy, energy and economic performance usually receive more
(3) Determination of the integrated weight attention in the actual operation of CCHP-MG system.
fi ei Mi Ni w2i Ranking From the comparison of the secondary indicator weights
c11 0.3176 1.2571 1.5747 0.9395 0.0914 4
(Fig. 7b), (1) the weight results of the indicators under the AEW
c12 0.3855 1.0873 1.4728 0.7018 0.0855 5 method are relatively close, while the weight difference between
c13 0.2871 0.9822 1.2694 0.6951 0.0736 7 different indicators in grey-DEMATEL and integrated methods is
c14 0.5939 0.3486 0.9424 0.2453 0.0547 13 significant. (2) The top three weighted indicators under grey-
c15 0.5176 0.9183 1.4359 0.4007 0.0833 6
DEMATEL method are c34 , c32 and c31 , and those under the inte-
c21 0.3500 0.7190 1.0689 0.3690 0.0620 10
c22 0.3839 0.7158 1.0997 0.3319 0.0638 8 grated weighting results are c34 , c32 and c11 (the fourth largest
c23 0.3780 0.6976 1.0756 0.3196 0.0624 9 weight under the grey-DEMATEL method), revealing that the en-
c24 0.3142 0.7000 1.0142 0.3858 0.0588 12 ergy utilization level and power supply revenue are important
c31 1.5420 0.1679 1.7099 1.3741 0.0992 3 manifestations of the comprehensive performance of CCHP-MG. (3)
c32 1.4104 0.3548 1.7652 1.0555 0.1024 2
The three indicators with the smallest weights under the grey-
c33 0.6938 0.3310 1.0248 0.3628 0.0595 11
c34 1.4442 0.3384 1.7826 1.1058 0.1034 1 DEMATEL weight and the integrated weight results are c33 , c24
and c14 , indicating that in CCHP-MG's 3E performance system, the
importance of the above indicators is relatively weak.
To sum up, the above comparative analysis shows that there are
w0 ¼ ½0:0943; 0:0734; 0:0864; 0:0535; 0:0710; 0:0625; 0:0803; significant differences between the subjective weighting results
and the objective weighting results of the same indicator. Accord-
0:0802; 0:0564; 0:0808; 0:0997; 0:0567; 0:1048 ing to the discussion of the limitations of a single weighting method
in Section 3.4, the use of a single objective weight or a single sub-
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the AEW weight, grey-DEMATEL jective weight may lead to bias in the MCDM results. Therefore,
weight and integrated weight results, from which it can be seen when carrying out the 3E performance evaluation of CCHP-MG
that: system, the integrated weight will be adopted.
From the comparison of criteria-level indicator weights (Fig. 7a),
(1) the weights of the C1 under the three methods are largest,
indicating that the economic performance have most significant 4.3. Results of 3E performance evaluation
positions in the CCHP-MG's 3E comprehensive performance sys-
tem. (2) The weights of C2 and C3 under the AEW method are Based on the indicator values of the 8 cases in Table 3, the
relatively close, but those under grey-DEMATEL are quite different. original data is dimensionless and consistent according to formula
(3) The grey-DEMATEL and integrated weight results both show (18), and then combining with the integrated weight results, the
that the weight of C2 is the smallest, that is, due to better weighted decision matrix R ¼ ½rij nm is calculated, as reported in

Fig. 7. Comparison of the indicator weights under of different weighting methods.

10
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

Table 6
The weighted decision matrix of TOPSIS.

Indicator number Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

c11 0.0596 0.0777 0.0865 0.0943 0.0752 0.0632 0.0646 0.0435

c12 0.0490 0.0429 0.0363 0.0298 0.0453 0.0734 0.0239 0.0510
c13 0.0662 0.0761 0.0827 0.0444 0.0864 0.0313 0.0543 0.0495
c14 0.0356 0.0418 0.0535 0.0311 0.0293 0.0463 0.0199 0.0332
c15 0.0551 0.0625 0.0710 0.0395 0.0517 0.0467 0.0237 0.0439
c21 0.0418 0.0483 0.0625 0.0371 0.0328 0.0380 0.0282 0.0362
c22 0.0533 0.0680 0.0803 0.0352 0.0639 0.0451 0.0270 0.0516
c23 0.0539 0.0458 0.0802 0.0368 0.0433 0.0485 0.0195 0.0353
c24 0.0355 0.0382 0.0564 0.0338 0.0379 0.0291 0.0126 0.0320
c31 0.0300 0.0479 0.0536 0.0808 0.0379 0.0322 0.0316 0.0327
c32 0.0942 0.0981 0.0954 0.0997 0.0888 0.0960 0.0989 0.0921
c33 0.0533 0.0499 0.0481 0.0554 0.0512 0.0567 0.0472 0.0489
c34 0.0912 0.0756 0.1048 0.0677 0.0860 0.0619 0.0379 0.0497

Table 6. (2) In terms of environmental performance, Case 3 performs the

Based on the weighted decision matrix in Table 6, using the best, and Case 7 performs the worst. The 8 cases have a large
proposed DQGRA-TOPSIS technique, the closeness of DQGRA- difference in environmental performance, with a standard
TOPSIS of 8 cases can be calculated, as shown in Fig. 8, showing deviation of 0.0593, which is higher than 0.0375 for eco-
that Case 3 has the highest comprehensive closeness, followed by nomic performance and 0.0271 for energy performance.
Case 2, indicating that Case 3 and Case 2 has the best 3E compre- From the perspective of environmental performance in-
hensive performance. Meanwhile, Case 7 has the lowest compre- dicators, the weights of equivalent SO2 emission reduction
hensive closeness (0.4403), indicating that its 3E comprehensive and equivalent NOx emission reduction are larger. Case 3
performance performed poorly in the 8 cases. performs better than other cases in all four environmental
Fig. 9 shows the performance of the 8 cases in the 3E dimension. performance indicators, mainly due to the larger scale of
It can be found that: energy supply and the larger scale of distributed renewable
energy, making Case 3 save more fossil energy consumption
(1) In terms of economic performance, Case 3 performs best, through the multi-energy coupling of distributed renewable
followed by Case 2, and Case 7 performs the worst. The index energy and gas, thereby having higher environmental per-
weighting results in this paper show that economic perfor- formance. In contrast, Case 7 performs poorly in all four
mance have the largest weight, indicating that better eco- environmental performance indicators, mainly due to the
nomic performance is the important reason for the best smaller energy supply and demand scales, resulting in fewer
comprehensive performance of Case 3. Similarly, the poor pollutants equivalently reduced and lower environmental
comprehensive performance of Case 7 can also be largely performance.
attributed to its poor economic performance. From the (3) In terms of energy performance, Case 4 performs the best,
perspective of economic performance indicators, Case 3 followed by Case 3, and Case 7 is still the worst performer.
performs well on the other four indicators except return rate From the perspective of energy performance indicators,
of heating supply, especially on the return rates power and system energy cascade utilization rate and equivalent saved
cooling supply, which have greater weights in economic energy consumption have larger weights. Case 4 performs
performance system. In contrast, Case 7 is small in scale, the best in the energy cascade utilization rate, and Case 3
resulting that its energy supply rate of return is lower, and its performs the best in the equivalent saved energy consump-
effect on reducing grid loss and saving investment is also tion. Case 4 performs significantly better than Case 3 in terms
weaker. Therefore, to increase the economic performance of of renewable energy penetration rate, while Case 3 performs
the CCHP-MG system, the key is that the system must have a significantly better than Case 4 in terms of equivalent saved
certain scale, so as to be able to exert the economies of scale. energy consumption. The performance of the two cases on
the other two indicators is relatively close, and Case 4 per-
forms slightly better than Case 3, resulting that the energy
performance of Case 4 is slightly higher than that of Case 3.
The energy cascade utilization rate of Case 7 is relatively
high, but due to its limited scale, the renewable energy
penetration rate and equivalent saved energy consumption
of Case 7 are lower, causing its poor energy performance.
In summary, the performance of the 3E dimension of the CCHP-
MG system are mainly reflected by the benefits of energy supply,
equivalent emission reduction of pollutants, energy utilization
level, and equivalent energy conservation. The total energy supply
and demand scales of the system and the scale of renewable energy
in the system will affect the above factors to a large extent, thereby
affecting the 3E comprehensive performance of the CCHP-MG
system. Thus, to improve the 3E comprehensive performance of
the CCHP-MG system, it is essential to expand the energy supply
and demand scales of the system, so as to improve the energy
supply benefits and energy saving and emission reduction benefits
Fig. 8. The closeness of DQGRA-TOPSIS in the 8 cases.

11
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

Fig. 9. The performance of 8 cases in the 3E dimensions.

of the system. Moreover, it is much needed to increase the scale of
renewable energy installed capacity and the penetration rate of
renewable energy in the system, which can enhance the energy
utilization efficiency of the system and improve the benefits of
energy saving and emission reduction.
to provide a reference for improving the 3E benefits of CCHP-MG
system.
As suggested by Bhatia and Srivastava [66] and Zhang and Deng
[67], taking the center degree Mi and cause degree Ni of each

5. Discussions

5.1. Interactions between the indicators in the evaluation index

system

In Section 4.2, by calculating the weights of indicators, the

relative importance of the indicators is examined. However, in the
3E system of CCHP-MG, there are actually complex interact re-
lationships among indicators, and these indicators also play
different roles in the system, which cannot be reflected by the
importance ranking in Section 4.2. Therefore, this section employs
the grey-DEMATEL causality analysis to reveal the interactions and
positions of the various indicators in the CCHP-MG 3E system, so as
Fig. 10. The causal relationships of CCHP-MG's 3E system indicators.

Table 7
The models for ranking similarity comparison.

Models Model description

Model 1 The proposed hybrid MCDM model based on AEW-grey-DEMATEL and DQGRA-TOPSIS
Model 2 The hybrid MCDM model based on AEW and DQGRA-TOPSIS
Model 3 The hybrid MCDM model based on grey-DEMATEL and DQGRA-TOPSIS
Model 4 The hybrid MCDM model based on AEW-grey-DEMATEL and conventional TOPSIS
Model 5 The hybrid MCDM model based on AEW-grey-DEMATEL and conventional GRA-TOPSIS

12
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
indicator in Table 7 as the X-axis and Y-axis, the causal relationship
of each indicator in the 3E system of the CCHP-MG is drawn
(Fig. 10).
According to Fig. 10, several findings are discovered:
(1) The indicators in the 3E comprehensive performance system
of the CCHP-MG can be divided into four areas according to
the center and cause degrees, that is, L-H area, HeH area, L-L
area and H-L area. Among them, the indicators being in the
HeH area can be regarded as the causal factors with greater
importance in the system, the indicators being in the L-H
area can be regarded as the causal factors while with little
importance in the system, the indicators being in the H-L
area can be regarded as important result factors in the sys-
tem, and the indicators being in the L-L area can be regarded
as the result factors with little importance in the system.
(2) The three indicators named equivalent saved energy con-
sumption, system energy cascade utilization rate and
renewable energy penetration rate are in the HeH region, all
of which are energy performance indicators, indicating that
the energy utilization level and renewable energy scale are
the key factors in the 3E comprehensive performance system
of the CCHP-MG system, which can affect the 3E perfor-
mance of the system by acting on other factors. The three
indicators named return rate of power supply, return rate of
heating supply and investment saving benefits are in the H-L
region, so they are the key result factors of the system's 3E
comprehensive performance, indicating that energy supply
benefits and investment savings benefits are the most intu-
itive benefits of the CCHP-MG system. These indicators are
affected by other factors, and ultimately affect the 3E
comprehensive performance of the system. All in all, it is
necessary to focus on the indicators in HeH and H-L areas,
which is of great value for improving the 3E comprehensive
performance of the CCHP-MG system.
(3) The center degrees of indicators in the L-H and L-L regions
are small, indicating that the importance of these indicators
in the system is relatively weak. It is difficult for each one of
these factors to independently affect the 3E comprehensive
performance of the CCHP-MG system. Therefore, these fac-
tors need to be more or less related to other factors in order
to pass on their own influence on the 3E performance of
CCHP-MG system or help other factors pass on the influence.
All the environmental performance indicators are in the L-L
region, indicating that they are all result factors. These in-
dicators are affected by energy utilization level, equivalent
energy saving and other indicators, thus having an impact on
the 3E comprehensive performance of the CCHP-MG system.
5.2. Effectiveness check of rankings
Verifying the effectiveness of the MCDM model from an
empirical perspective mainly includes two dimensions: First,
compared with other models, the ranking results of the proposed
model should not be significantly different from the results of other
models, unless it can be proved theoretically and practically that
the results of other models are significantly biased, that is, the
proposed model should have better robustness. Second, compared
with other models, the proposed model ranking results should have
greater differences between alternatives, that is, the proposed
model has better sample discrimination.
(1) Robustness check of rankings
13
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
The similarity of the rankings is an important indicator to reflect
the robustness of the proposed MCDM method, which can usually
be measured by the similarity coefficient of rankings [68]. Ac-
cording to Sałabun et al. [69] and Kizielewicz et al. [70], there are
three commonly used ranking similarity coefficients, named
Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rS ), weighted Spearman's
rank correlation coefficient (rW ), and WS similarity coefficient
(WS), which can be calculated by formulas (30)-(32), respectively.
PN
6 ðxi  yi Þ2
rS ¼ 1  
i¼1  (30)
N  N2  1
PN
6 i¼1 ðxi  yi Þ2 ½ðN  xi þ 1Þ þ ðN  yi þ 1Þ
rW ¼ 1    (31)
N  N3 þ N2  N  1
N  
X jxi  yi j
WS ¼ 1  2xi (32)
i¼1
maxfjxi  1j; jxi  Njg
where xi and yi are the sequences of rankings, and N is the number
of alternatives in the rankings.
It is worth noting that the Spearman's rank correlation coeffi-
cient and the weighted Spearman's rank correlation coefficient are
both symmetrical coefficients, which means that the position of the
difference between the two rankings has no significant impact on
the similarity of the rankings. For instance, if in two ranking se-
quences, the rankings of only three alternatives are different, and
the ranking results of the other alternatives are the same, then
whether the three alternatives are the top three or the bottom three
will have no effect on the similarity of the two ranking sequences.
However, in the actual MCDM issues, whether the ranking of the
top alternatives is consistent is more important for measuring the
robustness of the MCDM results. The WS similarity coefficient, as an
asymmetrical similarity coefficient, holds that the ranking differ-
ences of the top-ranked alternatives have more influence on the
final ranking similarity.
This paper sets up 4 contrastive hybrid MCDM models for
ranking similarity comparison, as shown in Table 7. The steps of
conventional TOPSIS and conventional GRA-TOPSIS can be referred
to Behzadian et al. [62] and Baranitharan et al. [64] respectively. By
comparing the ranking similarity between Model 1, 2 and 3, the
robustness of the proposed weighting methods can be analyzed,
and by comparing the ranking similarity between Model 1, 4 and 5,
the robustness of the designed MCDM phases can be analyzed.
Based on the relevant data of the 8 building-typed CCHP-MG
systems, the ranking results under different models in the overall
performance dimension and the 3E performance dimension are
calculated. Then, according to formulas (30)~(32), the similarity
coefficients between the ranking results of proposed MCDM model
and each contrastive model are calculated, as shown in Table 8.
According to Table 8, it can be found that:
1) In terms of overall performance, the rankings of Model 1 and
the 4 contrastive models are highly consistent. After chang-
ing the weighting method and the MCDM phase, the overall
performance ranking results have not changed, indicating
that the proposed MCDM model has better robustness when
evaluating the 3E performance of the examined building-
based CCHP-MG systems.
2) The similarity coefficients of Model 2 and 3 show that for
economic and environmental performance, the ranking re-
sults of Model 2 and 3 relative to Model 1 are highly
consistent. In energy performance dimension, the ranking
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al. Energy 240 (2022) 122830

Table 8
The similarity coefficients between the rankings of the proposed model and the contrastive models.

Performance Models Rankings of 8 Cases Similarity coefficients

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 rS rW WS

Overall performance Model 1 4 2 1 5 3 6 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Model 2 4 2 1 5 3 6 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Model 3 4 2 1 5 3 6 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Model 4 4 2 1 5 3 6 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Model 5 4 2 1 5 3 6 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Economic performance Model 1 4 2 1 6 3 5 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Model 2 4 2 1 6 3 5 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Model 3 4 2 1 6 3 5 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Model 4 4 2 1 5 3 6 8 7 0.9762 0.9815 0.9891
Model 5 5 2 1 6 3 4 8 7 0.9762 0.9762 0.9766

Environmental performance Model 1 3 2 1 7 4 5 8 6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Model 2 3 2 1 7 4 5 8 6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Model 3 3 2 1 7 4 5 8 6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Model 4 3 2 1 6 4 5 8 7 0.9762 0.9868 0.9956
Model 5 3 2 1 7 4 5 8 6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Energy performance Model 1 4 3 2 1 5 6 8 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Model 2 5 3 2 1 4 6 8 7 0.9762 0.9762 0.9766
Model 3 5 3 2 1 4 6 8 7 0.9762 0.9762 0.9766
Model 4 4 2 1 5 3 6 8 7 0.7381 0.6561 0.6320
Model 5 5 3 2 1 6 4 7 8 0.9048 0.9286 0.9685

results of Model 2 and 3 are different from those of Model 1,

but the three similarity coefficients are all greater than 0.95,
indicating a slight difference. The above results reveal that
different weighting methods have less influence on the
ranking results of sub-performance, that is, the proposed
weighting method has good robustness when evaluating the
3E sub-performance of CCHP-MG system.
3) The similarity coefficients of Model 4 and 5 show that for
economic and environmental performance, the three simi-
larity coefficients of Model 4 and 5 relative to Model 1 are all
greater than 0.95, indicating a slight difference. In energy
performance dimension, the similarity coefficients of Model
4 are less than 0.75, indicating a large difference of ranking
results, and the similarity coefficients of Model 5 are all
greater than 0.90, especially the WS value is greater than
0.95, meaning that the rankings results of Model 5 in energy
performance is highly similar with that of Model 1. Overall,
the above ranking comparison results show that the change
of MCDM phase will affect the ranking results of sub-
performance to a certain extent, but the influence is slight,
that is, the proposed MCDM method has good robustness
when evaluating the 3E sub-performance of CCHP-MG
system.
(2) Sample discrimination test
The test of sample discrimination is an important means to
judge the effectiveness of the MCDM model's ranking results. The
commonly used indicators for testing the degree of sample
discrimination mainly include standard deviation (s), relative range
(q), coefficient of variation (w), and sensitivity (h). The calculation
formulas are as follows [71,72]:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm  2
j¼1 dj  d
s¼
m proposed DQGRA-TOPSIS technique can better distinguish the al-
dj;max  dj;min
q¼  100%
d decision-making efficiency under the premise of ensuring
w ¼ s=d (35)
dj;max  dj;sec
h¼ (36)
dj;max
where dj is the relative closeness of each case to the positive ideal
P
m
solution, and d is the mean value of dj , that is, d ¼ dj =m. m ¼ 8 is
j¼1
the number of alternatives. dj;max and dj;min are the maximum and
minimum values of dj , and dj;sec is the second largest value of dj . If
the values of the 4 indicators in a MCDM model are larger, it reveals
that the MCDM model has better sample discrimination.
Similarly, this paper sets up the 4 contrastive hybrid MCDM
models listed in Table 7 for sample discrimination test, and the
results are reported in Table 9. From Table 9, it can be seen that the
sample discrimination test indicators of Model 1are all largest
among the 5 models, indicating that compared with the contrastive
models, the proposed hybrid MCDM model has better performance
in sample discrimination. Therefore, in the case that there is no
significant difference in the ranking results, the proposed MCDM
model with integrated weighting method and improved TOPSIS has
a stronger ability to distinguish alternatives during the ranking
process.
In particular, the comparison results of Model 1, Model 2 and
Model 3 show that the integrated weights proposed in this paper
can better distinguish the differences among alternatives, while
maintaining consistency with the ranking results of other methods.
That is to say, the integrated weights do not lose the effective in-
formation of the subjective weights and the objective weights, and
at the same time can improve the deficiency of the single weight,
making the ranking results more effective. Furthermore, the com-
(33) parison results of Model 1, Model 4 and Model 5 show that the
ternatives although the ranking result of the alternatives in the sub-
dimensions are slightly different from that in the contrastive
(34) model, that is, the DQGRA-TOPSIS model can better improve
robustness.
14
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
Table 9
The sample discrimination test indicators of the proposed model and the contrastive models.
Models Sample discrimination test indicators
Standard deviation (s)
Model 1 0.0312
Model 2 0.0278
Model 3 0.0267
Model 4 0.0295
Model 5 0.0264
6. Conclusions
The high tolerance of CCHP-MG to distributed renewable energy
and CCHP-typed IES plays an important role in promoting the
global energy transition and achieving carbon neutrality. Evalu-
ating the comprehensive performance of the CCHP-MG system
from the 3E perspective has significant value in promoting the 3E
coordinated development of the CCHP-MG system. Based on CCHP-
MG's energy supply structure, this paper analyzes its 3E benefits
and constructs a 3E performance evaluation index system for the
CCHP-MG system, as well as a hybrid MCDM model, and 8 building-
typed CCHP-MG systems are adopted for case analysis.
The case analysis results show that the 3E performance of CCHP-
MG system are mainly reflected by the provision of electric and
thermal energy, equivalent emission reduction of pollutants, en-
ergy utilization level and equivalent energy saving. The total energy
supply and demand scales of the system and the scale of renewable
energy in the system have significant impacts on the above aspects,
thereby affecting the 3E comprehensive performance of CCHP-MG
system. Hence, by expanding the energy supply and demand scales
and increasing the proportion of renewable energy of CCHP-MG
system, the 3E comprehensive performance of the system can be
effectively improved.
The developed hybrid MCDM model has good applicability for
the 3E comprehensive performance evaluation of CCHP-MG. On
one hand, the proposed integrated weighting method based on
AEW and grey-DEMATEL can make full use of the original infor-
mation of the indicators, and at the same time can consider the
correlation between the indicators on the basis of reducing
subjectivity, thereby ensuring the reliability of the weighting re-
sults. On the other hand, the proposed MCDM method based on
DQGRA-TOPSIS overcomes the limitation of the conventional
TOPSIS based on the Euclidean distance in dealing with the vertical
bisector objects, and the DQGRA considers both the geometric and
numerical proximities between the sequences, without setting the
resolution coefficient, which has good applicability for evaluating
the pros and cons of multiple objects. Furthermore, by comparing
with other 4 models, the proposed hybrid MCDM model has better
robustness and sample discrimination, which verifies the effec-
tiveness from the empirical dimension.
It is worth noting that the applicability and effectiveness of the
proposed hybrid MCDM model in other fields still needs targeted
analysis. Firstly, if there are qualitative indicators in the evaluation
index system, it is necessary to assign values to the qualitative in-
dicators and quantify them through specific methods before the
indicator weighting and MCDM process. Secondly, if there is only
one alternative to be evaluated, the AEW method cannot be used to
weight the indicators. In fact, if there is only one alternative,
objective weighting methods with difference-driven like variation
coefficient method, entropy weight method and AEW method all
cannot be used [73,74]. Finally, if there is only one alternative, when
using the proposed MCDM model based on DQGRA-TOPSIS, it is
necessary to manually set the positive and negative ideal solutions
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
Relative range (q) Coefficient of variation (w) Sensitivity (h)
0.2273 0.0617 0.0485
0.1862 0.0544 0.0306
0.1816 0.0522 0.0339
0.1831 0.0564 0.0419
0.1634 0.0508 0.0318
in advance, rather than being directly obtained by the formulas in
this paper. In fact, when there is only one alternative, the TOPSIS-
typed method is inappropriate, because the main purpose of this
method is to rank the pros and cons of multiple alternatives [75,76].
In this case, methods such as fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and
matter element extension are usually employed for MCDM.
Credit author contribution statement
Huiru Zhao: Ideal, Conceptualization, Writing e original draft
preparation. Bingkang Li: Ideal, Conceptualization, Writing,
Reviewing and Editing. Hao Lu: Data curation, Reviewing and
Editing. Xuejie Wang: Data curation, Reviewing and Editing. Hon-
gze Li: Conceptualization and Reviewing. Sen Guo: Conceptualiza-
tion and Reviewing. Wanlei Xue: Data curation and Reviewing.
Yuwei Wang: Ideal, Conceptualization, Reviewing and Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative
interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the
work submitted.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to the North China Electric Power University
Library for providing detailed reference for this research, and this
paper is support by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 71973043).
References
[1] Wang Z. Does biomass energy consumption help to control environmental
pollution? Evidence from BRICS countries. Sci Total Environ 2019;670:
1075e83.
[2] Xing L, Xue M, Hu M. Dynamic simulation and assessment of the coupling
coordination degree of the economyeresourceeenvironment system: case of
Wuhan City in China. J Environ Manag 2019;230:474e87.
[3] Haoran Z, Sen G, Huiru Z. Provincial energy efficiency of China quantified by
three-stage data envelopment analysis. Energy 2019;166:96e107.
[4] Elavarasan RM, Afridhis S, Vijayaraghavan RR, Subramaniam U, Nurunnabi M.
SWOT analysis: a framework for comprehensive evaluation of drivers and
barriers for renewable energy development in significant countries. Energy
Rep 2020;6:1838e64.
[5] Li H, Lu H, Li B. Quantitative research on externalities brought by wind power
priority scheduling to power generation enterprises based on probabilistic
production simulation. Power Syst Technol 2017;41:3803e8.
[6] Tan Q, Ding Y, Ye Q, Mei S, Zhang Y, Wei Y. Optimization and evaluation of a
dispatch model for an integrated wind-photovoltaic-thermal power system
based on dynamic carbon emissions trading. Appl Energy 2019;253:113598.
[7] Mehrjerdi H. Modeling, integration, and optimal selection of the turbine
technology in the hybrid wind-photovoltaic renewable energy system design.
Energy Convers Manag 2020;205:112350.
[8] Abbassi A, Dami MA, Jemli M. A statistical approach for hybrid energy storage
system sizing based on capacity distributions in an autonomous PV/Wind
power generation system. Renew Energy 2017;103:81e93.
[9] Vargas S, Esteves G, Maçaira P, Bastos B, Oliveira F, Souza R. Wind power
generation: a review and a research agenda. J Clean Prod 2019;218:850e70.
[10] Li C, Xu C, Li X. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for site selection
of distributed PV power stations along high-speed railway. J Clean Prod
15
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
2020;277:124086.
[11] Fattahi A, Sijm J, Faaij A. A systemic approach to analyze integrated energy
system modeling tools: a review of national models. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2020;133:110195.
[12] Wang Y, Wang Y, Huang Y, Li F, Zeng M, Li J, Wang X, Zhang F. Planning and
operation method of the regional integrated energy system considering
economy and environment. Energy 2019;171:731e50.
[13] Zhang X, Liu X, Sun X, Jiang C, Li H, Song Q, Zeng J, Zhang G. Thermodynamic
and economic assessment of a novel CCHP integrated system taking biomass,
natural gas and geothermal energy as co-feeds. Energy Convers Manag
2018;172:105e18.
[14] Mehrpooya M, Sadeghzadeh M, Rahimi A, Pouriman M. Technical perfor-
mance analysis of a combined cooling heating and power (CCHP) system
based on solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technologyeA building application. En-
ergy Convers Manag 2019;198:111767.
[15] He X, Yu J, Huang T, Li C. Distributed power management for dynamic eco-
nomic dispatch in the multimicrogrids environment. IEEE Trans Control Syst
Technol 2018;27(4):1651e8.
[16] Jiang J, Gao W, Wei X, Li Y, Kuroki S. Reliability and cost analysis of the
redundant design of a combined cooling, heating and power (CCHP) system.
Energy Convers Manag 2019;199:111988.
[17] Ren L, Qin Y, Li Y, Zhang P, Wang B, Luh PB, Han S, Orekan T, Gong T. Enabling
resilient distributed power sharing in networked microgrids through software
defined networking. Appl Energy 2018;210:1251e65.
[18] Hirsch A, Parag Y, Guerrero J. Microgrids: a review of technologies, key
drivers, and outstanding issues. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;90:402e11.
[19] Zhao H, Lu H, Li B, Wang X, Zhang S, Wang Y. Stochastic optimization of
microgrid participating day-ahead market operation strategy with consider-
ation of energy storage system and demand response. Energies 2020;13(5):
1255.
[20] Zhao H, Wang X, Wang Y, Li B, Lu H. A dynamic decision-making method for
energy transaction price of CCHP microgrids considering multiple un-
certainties. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2021;127:106592.
[21] Gao L, Hwang Y, Cao T. An overview of optimization technologies applied in
combined cooling, heating and power systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;114:109344.
[22] Wegener M, Isalgue  A, Malmquist A, Martin A. 3E-analysis of a bio-solar CCHP
system for the Andaman Islands, Indiada case study. Energies 2019;12(6):
1113.
[23] Gu W, Lu S, Wu Z, Zhang X, Zhou J, Zhao B, Wang J. Residential CCHP microgrid
with load aggregator: operation mode, pricing strategy, and optimal dispatch.
Appl Energy 2017;205:173e86.
[24] Haoran Z, Sen G, Huiru Z. Comprehensive assessment for battery energy
storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences. Energy
2019;168:450e61.
[25] Fazlhashemi SS, Sedighizadeh M, Khodayar ME. Day-ahead energy manage-
ment and feeder reconfiguration for microgrids with CCHP and energy storage
systems. J Energy Stor 2020;29:101301.
[26] Chen J, Qi B, Rong Z, Peng K, Zhao Y, Zhang X. Multi-energy coordinated
microgrid scheduling with integrated demand response for flexibility
improvement. Energy 2020;217:119387.
[27] Wang Y, Tang L, Yang Y, Sun W, Zhao H. A stochastic-robust coordinated
optimization model for CCHP micro-grid considering multi-energy operation
and power trading with electricity markets under uncertainties. Energy
2020;198:117273.
[28] Yang Y, Tang L, Wang Y, Sun W. Integrated operation optimization for CCHP
micro-grid connected with power-to-gas facility considering risk manage-
ment and cost allocation. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2020;123:106319.
[29] Lixia S, Ping J, Jingtao B, Tiantian L. Multi-objective economic optimal oper-
ation of microgrid based on combined cooling, heating and power considering
battery life. Power Gen Technol 2020;41(1):64e72.
[30] Li Y, Zhang F, Li Y, Wang Y. An improved two-stage robust optimization model
for CCHP-P2G microgrid system considering multi-energy operation under
wind power outputs uncertainties. Energy 2021;223:120048.
[31] Bu J, Wang Q, Xu J. Day-ahead optimization economic dispatch CCHP multi-
microgrid system based on bargaining game method. In: 2021 IEEE interna-
tional conference on artificial intelligence and computer applications (ICA-
ICA); 2021. p. 1239e44.
[32] Abdalla AN, Nazir MS, Tiezhu Z, Bajaj M, Sanjeevikumar P, Yao L. Optimized
economic operation of microgrid: combined cooling and heating power and
hybrid energy storage systems. J Energy Resour Technol 2021;143(7):070906.
[33] Gholamian E, Ahmadi P, Hanafizadeh P, Ashjaee M. Dynamic feasibility
assessment and 3E analysis of a smart building energy system integrated with
hybrid photovoltaic-thermal panels and energy storage. Sustain Energy
Technol Assess 2020;42:100835.
[34] Zhou X, Ai Q. Distributed economic and environmental dispatch in two kinds
of CCHP microgrid clusters. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2019;112:109e26.
[35] Saberi K, Pashaei-Didani H, Nourollahi R, Zare K, Nojavan S. Optimal perfor-
mance of CCHP based microgrid considering environmental issue in the
presence of real time demand response. Sustain Cities Soc 2019;45:596e606.
[36] Xu Y, Luo Z, Zhu Z, Zhang Z, Qin J, Wang H, Gao Z, Yang Z. A three-stage co-
ordinated optimization scheduling strategy for a CCHP microgrid energy
management system. Processes 2020;8(2):245.
[37] Guo Q, Nojavan S, Lei S, Liang X. Economic-environmental evaluation of in-
dustrial energy parks integrated with CCHP units under a hybrid IGDT-
16
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
stochastic optimization approach. J Clean Prod 2021;317:128364.
[38] Yuan X, Liu Y, Bucknall R. Optimised MOPSO with the grey relationship
analysis for the multi-criteria objective energy dispatch of a novel SOFC-solar
hybrid CCHP residential system in the UK. Energy Convers Manag 2021;243:
114406.
[39] Zhao X, Zheng W, Hou Z, Chen H, Xu G, Liu W, Chen H. Economic dispatch of
multi-energy system considering seasonal variation based on hybrid opera-
tion strategy. Energy 2021;238:121733.
[40] Wu Q, Ren H. Design and evaluation of a CCHP based micro-grid for an urban
area. Energy Procedia 2017;143:798e803.
[41] Esmaeili S, Jadid S. Economic-environmental optimal management of smart
residential micro-grid considering CCHP system. Elec Power Compon Syst
2018;46(14e15):1592e606.
[42] Nojavan S, Saberi K, Zare K. Risk-based performance of combined cooling,
heating and power (CCHP) integrated with renewable energies using infor-
mation gap decision theory. Appl Therm Eng 2019;159:113875.
[43] Yang X, Su J, Lv Z, Liu H, Li R. Overview on micro-grid technology. Proc CSEE
2014;34(1):57e70.
[44] Wang S, Zhu W. Review on research of combined cooling, heating and power
micro-grid planning. Early Access at 10th June Electr Measur Instr 2020:1e10.
http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/23.1202.TH.20200610.1536.008.html.
[45] Ji L, Zhang B, Huang G, Xie Y, Niu D. Explicit cost-risk tradeoff for optimal
energy management in CCHP microgrid system under fuzzy-risk preferences.
Energy Econ 2018;70:525e35.
[46] Chen L, Wu J, Tang H, Xiong Y, Li C. Optimal allocation model of the micro-
energy grid with CCHP considering renewable energy consumption. Electr
Power Eng Technol 2019;38(5):121e9.
[47] Delgado A, Romero I. Environmental conflict analysis using an integrated grey
clustering and entropy-weight method: a case study of a mining project in
Peru. Environ Model Software 2016;77:108e21.
[48] Dmitriev ON. Anti-entropy resolving of uncertainty of estimations within
scope of intelligent DMSS. Int J Decis Support Syst Technol 2019;11(2):48e71.
[49] Lin Y, Lee PC, Ting H. Dynamic multi-attribute decision making model with
grey number evaluations. Expert Syst Appl 2008;35(4):1638e44.
[50] Ye J, Dang Y, Yang Y. Forecasting the multifactorial interval grey number se-
quences using grey relational model and GM (1,N) model based on effective
information transformation. Soft Comput 2020;24(7):5255e69.
[51] Davoudabadi R, Mousavi SM, Sharifi E. An integrated weighting and ranking
model based on entropy, DEA and PCA considering two aggregation ap-
proaches for resilient supplier selection problem. J Comput Sci 2020;40:
101074.
[52] Narayanamoorthy S, Annapoorani V, Kang D, Baleanu D, Jeon J, Kureethara JV,
Ramya L. A novel assessment of bio-medical waste disposal methods using
integrating weighting approach and hesitant fuzzy MOOSRA. J Clean Prod
2020;275:122587.
[53] Peng T, Deng H. Comprehensive evaluation on water resource carrying ca-
pacity in karst areas using cloud model with combination weighting method:
a case study of Guiyang, southwest China. Environ Sci Pollut Control Ser
2020;27(29):37057e73.
[54] Wu Y, Lei J, Bao L, Li C. Short-term load forecasting based on improved grey
relational analysis and neural network optimized by bat algorithm. Autom
Electr Power Syst 2018;42(20):67e74.
[55] Xue W, Li B, Yang Y, Zhao H, Xu N. Evaluating the effectiveness of new and old
kinetic energy conversion from an electric power economics perspective:
evidence on the Shandong Province of China. Energies 2019;12(6):1174.
[56] Guo X, Liu A, Li X, Xiao Y. Research on the intelligent fault diagnosis of medical
devices based on a DEMATEL-fuzzy concept lattice. Int J Fuzzy Syst
2020;22(7):2369e84.
[57] Sen G, Haoran Z. Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and
its applications. Knowl Base Syst 2017;121:23e31.
[58] Tian G, Liu X, Zhang M, Yang Y, Zhang H, Lin Y, Ma F, Wang X, Qu T, Li Z.
Selection of take-back pattern of vehicle reverse logistics in China via Grey-
DEMATEL and Fuzzy-VIKOR combined method. J Clean Prod 2019;220:
1088e100.
[59] Luthra S, Govindan K, Mangla SK. Structural model for sustainable con-
sumption and production adoption: a grey-DEMATEL based approach. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2017;125:198e207.
[60] Cui L, Chan HK, Zhou Y, Dai J, Lim JJ. Exploring critical factors of green business
failure based on Grey-Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
(DEMATEL). J Bus Res 2019;98:450e61.
[61] Li G, Li J, Sun X, Zhao M. Research on a combined method of subjective-
objective weighing and the its rationality. Manag Rev 2017;29(12):
17e26þ61.
[62] Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J. A state-of the-art survey of
TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 2012;39(17):13051e69.
[63] Li H, Xiong X, Dong M, Xiong D, Zhou C. Scheme optimization of existing
buildings seismic reinforcement based on grey correlation improved TOPSIS
method. J Chongqing Univ Technol (Nat Sci) 2020;34(12):264e70.
[64] Baranitharan P, Ramesh K, Sakthivel R. Multi-attribute decision-making
approach for Aegle marmelos pyrolysis process using TOPSIS and Grey Rela-
tional Analysis: assessment of engine emissions through novel Infrared
thermography. J Clean Prod 2019;234:315e28.
[65] Nguyen PH, Tsai JF, Kumar GVA, Hu YC. Stock investment of agriculture
companies in the Vietnam stock exchange market: an AHP integrated with
GRA-TOPSIS-MOORA approaches. J Asian Finan Econ Bus 2020;7(7):113e21.
H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Lu et al.
[66] Bhatia MS, Srivastava RK. Analysis of external barriers to remanufacturing
using grey-DEMATEL approach: an Indian perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl
2018;136:79e87.
[67] Zhang W, Deng Y. Combining conflicting evidence using the DEMATEL
method. Soft Comput 2019;23(17):8207e16.
[68] Sałabun W, Urbaniak K. A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-
making problems. In: International conference on computational science.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020. p. 632e45.
[69] Sałabun W, Wa˛ trobski J, Shekhovtsov A. Are MCDA methods benchmarkable?
a comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II methods.
Symmetry 2020;12(9):1549.
 bski J, Sałabun W. Identification of relevant criteria set in
[70] Kizielewicz B, Wa˛ tro
the MCDA processdwind farm location case study. Energies 2020;13(24):
6548.
[71] Liang H, Tian S, Li Q, Liu Y, Zhang W. Main grid structure evaluation based on
17
Energy 240 (2022) 122830
improved TOPSIS gray correlation projection method. Electr Power Auto
Equip 2019;39(4):63e9.
[72] Aytekin A. Comparative analysis of the normalization techniques in the
context of MCDM problems. Decision Making: Appl Manag Eng 2021;4(2):
1e25.
[73] Vavrek R. Evaluation of the impact of selected weighting methods on the
results of the TOPSIS technique. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making 2019;18(6):
1821e43.
[74] Ge L, Li Y, Li S, Zhu J, Yan J. Evaluation of the situational awareness effects for
smart distribution networks under the novel design of indicator framework
and hybrid weighting method. Front Energy 2020:1e16.
[75] Dutta B, Singha T, Goh M, Lamata MT, Verdegay JL. Post factum analysis in
TOPSIS based decision making method. Expert Syst Appl 2019;138:112806.
[76] Zhang K, Zhan J, Wang X. TOPSIS-WAA method based on a covering-based
fuzzy rough set: an application to rating problem. Inf Sci 2020;539:397e421.