Chapter 4.

Constraints, Trade-Off, and Standards

Constraints
Constraints were used to achieve the best design to be produced. Economical, mobility, efficiency, and safety
were the constraints to be considered on this design project. These four factors have been taken based on
observations and survey conducted by the proponents based on the needed system rationale.

Economical
In this constraint, the designers will find a way to lessen the expenses, by finding and comparing equipment
prices or finding a product substitute with the same output or even greater compared to the expensive
materials available. Moreover, the availability of the materials to be purchased was highly considered upon
the canvass. This constraint listed the actual cost of the components to be used in the project.

Mobility
Mobility is another important criterion of the design to consider. The weight of the prototype must also be
noted. The device should be lightweight that must weigh less than 10 kilograms (10 kg.). The design should
be convenient to use.

Efficiency
The efficiency design criteria consider the ratio of output power produced by the device with regards to the
input power applied to the device through conversion of the wind pressure and water flow. The device must
exhibit an efficiency of 40%-80% under wind velocity and 45%-80% when submerged in water flow.

Safety
The device is intended to be water-tight and equipped with protective components like circuit protection to
avoid internal damage that can cause harm to its user and the environment. The designers must ensure that
the prototype has proper protection since the device is also running underwater.

Trade-offs
Using the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design presented by Kirkwood and Sarin, the
importance of each criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned and each
design technology’s ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5 with the highest ability to satisfy the
criterion).
Computation of ranking for the ability to satisfy the criterion of materials:
Kirkwood and Sarin 1980, Exponential Family Scoring Function
V - Lowest
Higher Preference Score Score =
Highest - Lowest

Lower Preference Score Highest - V

Score =
Where: Highest - Lowest
V = Input value
Highest = the highest value
Lowest = the lowest value

94
Criterion of Importance

Economic cost will be given a ranking of five (5) since the cost is the most significant in this design. The
economic (cost) is composed primarily of the materials, labor, and management, thus, the decision for the
next constraints dependent on it.

The next constraint is the mobility. An importance ranking of four (4) is given to this constraint because
mobility must be compact and lightweight to the user.

Another constraint is the efficiency. An importance ranking of four (4) also is given to this constraint for this
is about the ratio of the power output with respect to the power input at a given period as compared to the
other design. Using efficiency percentage, power losses can be determined.

Finally, the last constraint which is the safety constraint having an importance ranking of two (2). This
constraint justifies the assurance to the user that the device is safe to use.

Trade-offs of Design Options

Portability
Mobility is another important criterion of the design to consider. The weight of the prototype must also be
noted. The device should be lightweight that must weigh less than ten kilograms (12 kg). The design should
be lightweight and convenient to use.

Table 4-1. Mobility constraint score ranking

Design Sub-Design Design Option Form Factor Ranking Score

Option 1 1810 0.7300
Horizontal-Axis Turbine Option 2 1910 0.6967
Option 3 2010 0.6633
Option 1 1860 0.7133
Darrieus Option 2 1960 0.6800
Option 3 2060 0.6467
Vertical-Axis Turbine
Option 1 1910 0.6967
Savonius Option 2 1860 0.7133
Option 3 2110 0.6300
Option 1 2210 0.5967
Multidirectional Option 2 2260 0.5800
Option 3 2410 0.5300
Option 1 2910 0.3633
Vortex Option 2 2960 0.3467
Option 3 3110 0.2967

95
 Portability
0.8000

0.7000

0.6000

0.5000

0.4000

0.3000

0.2000

0.1000

0.0000
Horizontal Vertical-Darrieus Vertical-Savonius Multidirectional Vortex

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Figure 4-1. Ranking score of mobility of turbine designs

Figure 4-1 shows the ranking scores of mobility of different turbine designs. Based on the data shown, the
designers observed that option 1: Open Type Horizontal Axis turbine design ranked first among the different
designs having a score of 0.7300.

Economic Cost
The total cost of the components for each sub-option to be used in the project. The total price of the project
must meet the client’s budget for the making of it.

Table 4-2. Economic Cost score ranking

Design Sub-Design Design Option Total Cost in Peso Ranking Score

Option 1 4050.00 0.9267
Horizontal-Axis Turbine Option 2 5550.00 0.7266
Option 3 6050.00 0.6600
Option 1 3950.00 0.9400
Darrieus Option 2 5450.00 0.7400
Option 3 5950.00 0.6733
Vertical-Axis Turbine
Option 1 3850.00 0.9533
Savonius Option 2 5350.00 0.7533
Option 3 5850.00 0.6866
Option 1 9050.00 0.2599
Multidirectional Option 2 10550.00 0.0599
Option 3 11050.00 -0.0068

96
 Design Sub-Design Design Option Total Cost in Peso Ranking Score
Option 1 10050.00 0.1266
Vortex Option 2 11550.00 -0.0735
Option 3 14550.00 -0.4735

Economical
1.2000

1.0000

0.8000

0.6000

0.4000

0.2000

0.0000
Horizontal Vertical-Darrieus Vertical-Savonius Multidirectional Vortex
-0.2000

-0.4000

-0.6000

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Figure 4-2. Ranking score of the cost of turbine designs

Figure 4-2 shows the ranking scores of costs of different turbine designs. Based on the data shown, the
designers observed that option one leads all the way in terms of economic cost. But among the leading
options one which is designed in an open type, the design in Vertical Axis-Savonius had the highest rank
having a score of 0.9533, meaning the design got the lowest price and cost of materials to make. Vortex
Type-Option 3: Drag Force minimizer shows a negative figure since the total price exceeded the client’s
requirement.

Efficiency
The efficiency design criteria consider the ratio of output power produced by the device with regards to the
input power applied to the device through conversion of the wind pressure and water flow.

Table 4-3. Efficiency constraint score ranking

Design Sub-Design Design Option Efficiency Ranking Score

Option 1 0.576 0.1520
Horizontal-Axis Turbine Option 2 0.6528 0.3056
Option 3 0.745 0.4900

97
 Design Sub-Design Design Option Efficiency Ranking Score
Option 1 0.572 0.1440
Darrieus Option 2 0.6429 0.2858
Option 3 0.7448 0.4896
Vertical-Axis Turbine
Option 1 0.6115 0.2230
Savonius Option 2 0.6742 0.3484
Option 3 0.7683 0.5366
Option 1 0.5032 0.0064
Multidirectional Option 2 0.5712 0.1424
Option 3 0.6451 0.2902
Option 1 0.5152 0.0304
Vortex Option 2 0.5888 0.1776
Option 3 0.6424 0.2848

Efficiency
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Horizontal Vertical-Darrieus Vertical-Savonius Multidirectional Vortex

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Figure 4-3. Ranking score of the efficiency of turbine designs

Figure 4-3 shows the ranking scores of efficiencies of different turbine designs. Based on the data shown,
the designers observed that the values from different designs are the same in terms of options. Vertical-
Savonius option 3: Ducted Type with Direct Input is the most efficient design among the different turbine
designs.

Safety
The device is intended to be water-tight and equipped with protective components like circuit protection to
avoid internal damage that can cause harm to its user and the environment. The designers must ensure that
the prototype has proper protection since the device is also running underwater.

98
Table 4-4. Safety constraint ranking score

Design Sub-Design Design Option Safety Factor Ranking Score

Option 1 0.7000 0.5000
Horizontal-Axis Turbine Option 2 0.8000 0.6667
Option 3 0.8500 0.7500
Option 1 0.9000 0.8333
Darrieus Option 2 0.9300 0.8833
Option 3 0.9500 0.9167
Vertical-Axis Turbine
Option 1 0.9000 0.8333
Savonius Option 2 0.9300 0.8833
Option 3 0.9500 0.9167
Option 1 0.4000 0.0000
Multidirectional Option 2 0.5000 0.1667
Option 3 0.6000 0.3333
Option 1 0.5000 0.1667
Vortex Option 2 0.6000 0.3333
Option 3 0.7000 0.5000

Safety
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
0.6000
0.5000
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
Horizontal Vertical-Darrieus Vertical-Savonius Multidirectional Vortex

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Figure 4-4. Ranking of the score of safeties of the design

Figure 4-4 shows the ranking scores of safeties of different turbine designs. Based on the data shown, the
designers observed that the Vertical Axis Turbine Sub-Design 1-Darrieus option 3: Ducted Type with Direct
input ranked top with a score of 0.9167.

99
Table 4-5. Tabulation of final scores of design options

Sub- Constraints
Design Design Option
Design Economical Portability Efficiency Safety
Option 1 0.9267 0.7300 0.1520 0.5000
Horizontal-Axis
Option 2 0.7266 0.6967 0.3056 0.6667
Turbine
Option 3 0.6600 0.6633 0.4900 0.7500
Option 1 0.9400 0.7133 0.1440 0.8333
Darrieus Option 2 0.7400 0.6800 0.2858 0.8833
Option 3 0.6733 0.6467 0.4896 0.9167
Vertical-Axis Turbine
Option 1 0.9533 0.6967 0.2230 0.8333
Savonius Option 2 0.7533 0.7133 0.3484 0.8833
Option 3 0.6866 0.6300 0.5366 0.9167
Option 1 0.2599 0.5967 0.0064 0.0000
Multidirectional Option 2 0.0599 0.5800 0.1424 0.1667
Option 3 -0.0068 0.5300 0.2902 0.3333
Option 1 0.1266 0.3633 0.0304 0.1667
Vortex Option 2 -0.0735 0.3467 0.1776 0.3333
Option 3 -0.4735 0.2967 0.2848 0.5000

The decision matrix for the Turbine Design is constructed by knowing the Clients Requirements for the four
given options; this is known to be the value of the Weighting factor.

Where: RWF = W.F. x R.F.

RWF = Rated Weighting Factor
W.F. = Weighting Factor
R.F. = Rating Factor

The Rating factor for each cell is defined as the Score in the Sensitivity Analysis multiplied by a factor of 10.
The Rating Factor is located at the upper in each cell. The concept with the highest Rated Weighting Factor
is the one that most closely satisfies the set design criteria by the client requirements

Sensitivity Analysis 1
Table 4-6. Level of importance for Turbine Design (Sensitivity Analysis 1)

Constraints Level of Importance Weighing Factor

Cost 5 0.3333
Mobility 4 0.2667
Efficiency 4 0.2667
Safety 2 0.1333
Total: 15 1

100
Table 4-7. Sensitivity Analysis Number 1 for Turbine Design

Cost Portability Efficiency Safety Sum

Design Weighing Factor 0.3333 0.2667 0.2667 0.1333 1.0000
Option 1 0.9267 0.7300 0.1520 0.5000
Option 1 0.3089 0.1947 0.0405 0.0667 0.6107
Option 2 0.7266 0.6967 0.3056 0.6667
Horizontal Axis
Option 2 0.2422 0.1858 0.0815 0.0889 0.5984
Option 3 0.6600 0.6633 0.4900 0.7500
Option 3 0.2200 0.1769 0.1307 0.1000 0.6275
Option 1 0.9400 0.7133 0.1440 0.8333
Option 1 0.3133 0.1902 0.0384 0.1111 0.6530
Option 2 0.7400 0.6800 0.2858 0.8833
Vertical-Darrieus
Option 2 0.2466 0.1814 0.0762 0.1177 0.6220
Option 3 0.6733 0.6467 0.4896 0.9167
Option 3 0.2244 0.1725 0.1306 0.1222 0.6496
Option 1 0.9533 0.6967 0.2230 0.8333
Option 1 0.3177 0.1858 0.0595 0.1111 0.6622
Option 2 0.7533 0.7133 0.3484 0.8833
Vertical-Savonius
Option 2 0.2511 0.1902 0.0929 0.1177 0.6520
Option 3 0.6866 0.6300 0.5366 0.9167
Option 3 0.2289 0.1680 0.1431 0.1222 0.6741
Option 1 0.2599 0.5967 0.0064 0.0000
Option 1 0.0866 0.1591 0.0017 0.0000 0.2475
Option 2 0.0599 0.5800 0.1424 0.1667
Multidirectional
Option 2 0.0200 0.1547 0.0380 0.0222 0.2348
Option 3 -0.0068 0.5300 0.2902 0.3333
Option 3 -0.0023 0.1414 0.0774 0.0444 0.2609
Option 1 0.1266 0.3633 0.0304 0.1667
Option 1 0.0422 0.0969 0.0081 0.0222 0.1694
Option 2 -0.0735 0.3467 0.1776 0.3333
Vortex
Option 2 -0.0245 0.0925 0.0474 0.0444 0.1598
Option 3 -0.4735 0.2967 0.2848 0.5000
Option 3 -0.1578 0.0791 0.0760 0.0667 0.0639

Table 4-7 shows the Sensitivity Analysis Number 1 for Turbine Design. Based on the result of the data, Option
3: Ducted with Direct Input from the Vertical-Axis Turbine Sub-Design 1: Savonius Turbine won the design
having a score of 0.6741.

101
 Design Matrix Summary
0.8000

0.7000

0.6000

0.5000

0.4000

0.3000

0.2000

0.1000

0.0000

-0.1000

-0.2000

Cost Portability Efficiency Safety

Figure 4-5. Design Matrix Figure Summary

The Decision Matrix Figure 4-5 shows the best design option for each criterion. The concept with the highest
RWF is the one that most closely satisfies the set design criteria by the client requirements. The highest RWF
summation for the variant is Option 3 Ducted with Direct Input Vertical-Axis Sub-Design 2- Savonius with
a total Rated Weighting Factor of 0.6741

Sensitivity Analysis 2

Table 4- 8. Level of importance for Turbine Design (Sensitivity Analysis 2)

Constraints Level of Importance Weighing Factor

Cost 1 0.1000
Mobility 2 0.2000
Efficiency 3 0.3000
Safety 4 0.4000
Total: 10 1

102
Table 4-9. Sensitivity Analysis Number 2 for Turbine Design

Cost Portability Efficiency Safety Sum

Design Weighing Factor 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 1.0000
Option 1 0.9267 0.7300 0.1520 0.5000
Option 1 0.0927 0.1460 0.0456 0.2000 0.4843
Option 2 0.7266 0.6967 0.3056 0.6667
Horizontal Axis
Option 2 0.0727 0.1393 0.0917 0.2667 0.5703
Option 3 0.6600 0.6633 0.4900 0.7500
Option 3 0.0660 0.1327 0.1470 0.3000 0.6457
Option 1 0.9400 0.7133 0.1440 0.8333
Option 1 0.0940 0.1427 0.0432 0.3333 0.6132
Option 2 0.7400 0.6800 0.2858 0.8833
Vertical-Darrieus
Option 2 0.0740 0.1360 0.0857 0.3533 0.6491
Option 3 0.6733 0.6467 0.4896 0.9167
Option 3 0.0673 0.1293 0.1469 0.3667 0.7102
Option 1 0.9533 0.6967 0.2230 0.8333
Option 1 0.0953 0.1393 0.0669 0.3333 0.6349
Option 2 0.7533 0.7133 0.3484 0.8833
Vertical-Savonius
Option 2 0.0753 0.1427 0.1045 0.3533 0.6759
Option 3 0.6866 0.6300 0.5366 0.9167
Option 3 0.0687 0.1260 0.1610 0.3667 0.7223
Option 1 0.2599 0.5967 0.0064 0.0000
Option 1 0.0260 0.1193 0.0019 0.0000 0.1472
Option 2 0.0599 0.5800 0.1424 0.1667
Multidirectional
Option 2 0.0060 0.1160 0.0427 0.0667 0.2314
Option 3 -0.0068 0.5300 0.2902 0.3333
Option 3 -0.0007 0.1060 0.0871 0.1333 0.3257
Option 1 0.1266 0.3633 0.0304 0.1667
Option 1 0.0127 0.0727 0.0091 0.0667 0.1611
Option 2 -0.0735 0.3467 0.1776 0.3333
Vortex
Option 2 -0.0073 0.0693 0.0533 0.1333 0.2486
Option 3 -0.4735 0.2967 0.2848 0.5000
Option 3 -0.0474 0.0593 0.0854 0.2000 0.2974

Table 4-9 shows the Sensitivity Analysis Number 2 for Turbine Design. Based on the result of the data, Option
3: Ducted with Direct Input from the Vertical-Axis Sub-Design Option 2- Savonius Turbine won the design
having a score of 0.7223.

103
 Design Matrix Summary
0.8000

0.7000

0.6000

0.5000

0.4000

0.3000

0.2000

0.1000

0.0000

-0.1000

Cost Portability Efficiency Safety

Figure 4-6. Design Matrix Figure Summary

The Decision Matrix Figure 4-6 shows the best design option for each criterion. The concept with the highest
RWF is the one that most closely satisfies the set design criteria by the client requirements. The highest RWF
summation for the variant is Option 3 Ducted with Direct Input which is the Vertical-Axis Sub-Design 2-
Savonius with a total Rated Weighting Factor of 0.7223

Sensitivity Analysis 3

Table 4-10. Level of importance for Turbine Design (Sensitivity Analysis 3)

Constraints Level of Importance Weighing Factor

Cost 3 0.3000
Mobility 4 0.4000
Efficiency 2 0.2000
Safety 1 0.1000
Total: 10 1

104
Table 4-11. Sensitivity Analysis Number 3 for Turbine Design

Cost Portability Efficiency Safety Sum

Design Weighing Factor 0.3000 0.4000 0.2000 0.1000 1.0000
Option 1 0.9267 0.7300 0.1520 0.5000
Option 1 0.2780 0.2920 0.0304 0.0500 0.6504
Option 2 0.7266 0.6967 0.3056 0.6667
Horizontal Axis
Option 2 0.2180 0.2787 0.0611 0.0667 0.6244
Option 3 0.6600 0.6633 0.4900 0.7500
Option 3 0.1980 0.2653 0.0980 0.0750 0.6363
Option 1 0.9400 0.7133 0.1440 0.8333
Option 1 0.2820 0.2853 0.0288 0.0833 0.6795
Option 2 0.7400 0.6800 0.2858 0.8833
Vertical-Darrieus
Option 2 0.2220 0.2720 0.0572 0.0883 0.6395
Option 3 0.6733 0.6467 0.4896 0.9167
Option 3 0.2020 0.2587 0.0979 0.0917 0.6502
Option 1 0.9533 0.6967 0.2230 0.8333
Option 1 0.2860 0.2787 0.0446 0.0833 0.6926
Option 2 0.7533 0.7133 0.3484 0.8833
Vertical-Savonius
Option 2 0.2260 0.2853 0.0697 0.0883 0.6693
Option 3 0.6866 0.6300 0.5366 0.9167
Option 3 0.2060 0.2520 0.1073 0.0917 0.6570
Option 1 0.2599 0.5967 0.0064 0.0000
Option 1 0.0780 0.2387 0.0013 0.0000 0.3179
Option 2 0.0599 0.5800 0.1424 0.1667
Multidirectional
Option 2 0.0180 0.2320 0.0285 0.0167 0.2951
Option 3 -0.0068 0.5300 0.2902 0.3333
Option 3 -0.0020 0.2120 0.0580 0.0333 0.3013
Option 1 0.1266 0.3633 0.0304 0.1667
Option 1 0.0380 0.1453 0.0061 0.0167 0.2060
Option 2 -0.0735 0.3467 0.1776 0.3333
Vortex
Option 2 -0.0220 0.1387 0.0355 0.0333 0.1855
Option 3 -0.4735 0.2967 0.2848 0.5000
Option 3 -0.1421 0.1187 0.0570 0.0500 0.0836

Table 4-11 shows the Sensitivity Analysis Number 3 for Turbine Design. Based on the result of the data,
option 1 Open type from the Vertical Axis Sub-Design 2 - Savonius Turbine won the design having a score
of 0.6926.

105
 Design Matrix Summary
0.8000

0.7000

0.6000

0.5000

0.4000

0.3000

0.2000

0.1000

0.0000

-0.1000

-0.2000

Cost Portability Efficiency Safety

Figure 4-7. Design Matrix Figure Summary

The Decision Matrix Figure 4-7 shows the best design option for each criterion. The concept with the highest
RWF is the one that most closely satisfies the set design criteria by the client requirements. The highest RWF
summation for all variant is Option 1 Open type which is the Vertical Axis Sub-Design 2- Savonius Option
3: Ducted Type with Direct Inputs with a total Rated Weighting Factor of 0.6926.

106
Pareto Analysis

Design 1 Comparison:

Table 4-12. Economical: Cost

Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 1: Horizontal Option1: Open Type
Input Minimizer
Cost ₱4050.00 ₱5550.00 ₱6050.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Economical: Cost
Table 4-12 shows that the Design 1 Option 1 Horizontal Open type is the cheapest among the other options
stated.

Table 4-13. Mobility: Form Factor (grams)

Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 1: Horizontal Option1: Open Type
Input Minimizer
Form Factor 1910 1810 2010
See Appendix A for the computation of Mobility: Form Factor
Table 4-13 shows that the Design 1 Option 2 Horizontal with Direct Input is the lightest among the other
options stated.

Table 4-14. Efficiency: Power Ratio (%)

Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 1: Horizontal Option1: Open Type
Input Minimizer
Power Ratio 57.60 65.28 74.50
See Appendix A for the computation of Efficiency: Power Ratio
Table 4-14 shows that the Design 1 Option 3 Horizontal with Drag Force Minimizer has the highest
efficiency among the other options stated.

Table 4-15. Safety: Safety Factor (%)

Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 1: Horizontal Option1: Open Type
Input Minimizer
Safety Factor 70.00 80.00 85.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Safety: Safety Factor
Table 4-15 shows that the Design 1 Option 3 has the highest Safety Factor among the other options stated.

Table 4-16. Comparison for Design in all Constraints

Form Factor
Design Options Cost Power Ratio (%) Safety Factor (%)
(grams)
Option1: Open
₱ 4050.00 1910 57.60 70.00
Type
Option 2: with
₱ 5550.00 1810 65.28 80.00
Direct Input
Option 3: Drag
₱ 6050.00 2010 74.5 85.00
Force Minimizer
Table 4-16 shows that Design 1 Option 3 has the best option for Design 1 with 2 wins out of 4 constraints.

107
Design 2.1 Comparison:
Table 4-17. Economical: Cost
Design 2 Sub-Design 1: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Darrieus Input w/ Direct Input
Cost ₱3950.00 ₱5450.00 ₱5950.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Economical: Cost
Table 4-17 shows that the Design 2 Sub-Design 1 Option 1 Darrieus Open Type is the cheapest among the
other options stated.

Table 4-18. Mobility: Form Factor (grams)

Design 2 Sub-Design 1: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Darrieus Input w/ Direct Input
Form Factor 2360 1860 2060
See Appendix A for the computation of Mobility: Form Factor
Table 4-18 shows that the Design 2 Sub-Design 1 Option 2 Darrieus with Direct Input is the lightest among
the other options stated.

Table 4-19. Efficiency: Power Ratio (%)

Design 2 Sub-Design 1: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Darrieus Input w/ Direct Input
Power Ratio 57.20 64.29 74.48
See Appendix A for the computation of Efficiency: Power Ratio
Table 4-19 shows that the Design 2 Sub-Design 1 Option 3 Darrieus Ducted Type with Direct Input has the
highest efficiency among the other options stated.

Table 4-20. Safety: Safety Factor (%)

Design 2 Sub-Design 1: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Darrieus Input w/ Direct Input
Safety Factor 90.00 93.00 95.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Safety: Safety Factor
Table 4-20 shows that the Design 2 Sub-Design 1 Option 3 Darrieus Ducted Type with Direct Input has the
highest Safety Factor among the other options stated.

Table 4-21. Comparison for Design in all Constraints

Design Options Cost Form Factor Power Ratio (%) Safety Factor (%)
(grams)
Option1: Open
₱ 3950.00 2360 57.20 90.00
Type
Option 2: with
₱ 5450.00 1860 64.29 93.00
Direct Input
Option 3: Ducted
Type w/ Direct ₱ 5950.00 2060 74.48 95.00
Input
Table 4-21 shows that Design 2 Sub-Design 1 Option 3 Darrieus Ducted Type with Direct has the best
option for Design 2 Sub-design 1 with 2 wins out of 4 constraints.

108
Design 2.2 Comparison:
Table 4-22. Economical: Cost
Design 2 Sub-Design 2: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Savonius Input w/ Direct Input
Cost ₱3850.00 ₱5350.00 ₱5850.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Economical: Cost
Table 4-22 shows that the Design 2 Sub-Design 2 Option 1 Horizontal Open type is the cheapest among
the other options stated.

Table 4-23. Mobility: Form Factor (grams)

Design 2 Sub-Design 2: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Savonius Input w/ Direct Input
Form Factor 1960 1910 2050
See Appendix A for the computation of Mobility: Form Factor
Table 4-23 shows that the Design 2 Sub-Design 2 Option 2 Horizontal with Direct Input is the lightest
among the other options stated.

Table 4-24. Efficiency: Power Ratio (%)

Design 2 Sub-Design 2: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Savonius Input w/ Direct Input
Power Ratio 61.15 67.42 76.83
See Appendix A for the computation of Efficiency: Power Ratio
Table 4-24 shows that the Design 2 Option 3 Horizontal Ducted Type with Direct Input has the highest
efficiency among the other options stated.

Table 4-25. Safety: Safety Factor (%)

Design 2 Sub-Design 2: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Ducted Type
Option1: Open Type
Savonius Input w/ Direct Input
Safety Factor 90.00 93.00 95.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Safety: Safety Factor
Table 4-25 shows that the Design 2 Option 3 Horizontal Ducted Type with Direct Input has the highest
safety factor among the other options stated.

Table 4-26. Comparison for Design in all Constraints

Design Options Cost Form Factor Power Ratio (%) Safety Factor (%)
(grams)
Option1: Open
₱ 3850.00 1960 61.15 90.00
Type
Option 2: with
₱ 5350.00 1910 67.42 93.00
Direct Input
Option 3: Ducted
Type w/ Direct ₱ 5850.00 2050 76.83 95.00
Input
Table 4-26 shows that Design 2 Sub-Design 2 Option 3 Horizontal Ducted Type with Direct Input has the
best option for Design 1 with 2 wins out of 4 constraints.

109
Design 3 Comparison:
Table 4-27. Economical: Cost
Design 3: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: with Multiple
Option1: Open Type
Multidirectional Input Direct Input
Cost ₱9050.00 ₱10550.00 ₱11050.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Economical: Cost
Table 4-27 shows that the Design 3 Option 1 Horizontal Open type is the cheapest among the other options
stated.

Table 4-28. Mobility: Form Factor (grams)

Design 3: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: with Multiple
Option1: Open Type
Multidirectional Input Direct Input
Form Factor 2260 2210 2410
See Appendix A for the computation of Mobility: Form Factor
Table 4-28 shows that the Design 3 Option 2 Horizontal with Direct Input is the lightest among the other
options stated.

Table 4-29. Efficiency: Power Ratio (%)

Design 3: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: with Multiple
Option1: Open Type
Multidirectional Input Direct Input
Power Ratio 50.32 57.12 64.51
See Appendix A for the computation of Efficiency: Power Ratio
Table 4-29 shows that the Design 3 Option 3 Horizontal with Multiple Direct Input has the highest efficiency
among the other options stated.

Table 4-30. Safety: Safety Factor (%)

Design 3: Option 2: with Direct Option 3: with Multiple
Option1: Open Type
Multidirectional Input Direct Input
Safety Factor 40.00 50.00 60.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Safety: Safety Factor
Table 4-30 shows that the Design 3 Option 3 has the highest Safety Factor among the other options stated.

Table 4-31. Comparison of Design in all Constraints

Design Options Cost Form Factor Power Ratio (%) Safety Factor (%)
(grams)
Option1: Open
₱ 9050.00 2260 50.32 40.00
Type
Option 2: with
₱ 10550.00 2210 57.12 50.00
Direct Input
Option 3: with
Multiple Direct ₱ 11050.00 2410 64.51 60.00
Input
Table 4-31 shows that Design 3 Option 3 Horizontal Ducted Type with Direct Input has the best option for
Design 1 with 2 wins out of 4 constraints.

110
Design 4 Comparison:
Table 4-32. Economical: Cost
Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 4: Vortex Option1: Ducted Type
Input Minimizer
Cost ₱10050.00 ₱11550.00 ₱14550.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Economical: Cost
Table 4-32 shows that the Design 4 Option 1 Vortex Ducted Type is the cheapest among the other options
stated.

Table 4-33. Mobility: Form Factor (grams)

Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 4: Vortex Option1: Ducted Type
Input Minimizer
Form Factor 2960 2910 3110
See Appendix A for the computation of Mobility: Form Factor
Table 4-33 shows that the Design 3 Option 2 Vortex with Direct Input is the lightest among the other
options stated

Table 4-34. Efficiency: Power Ratio (%)

Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 4: Vortex Option1: Ducted Type
Input Minimizer
Power Ratio 50.32 57.12 64.51
See Appendix A for the computation of Efficiency: Power Ratio
Table 4-34 shows that the Design 3 Option 3 Vortex with Direct Input Force Minimizer has the highest
efficiency among the other options stated.

Table 4-35. Safety: Safety Factor (%)

Option 2: with Direct Option 3: Drag Force
Design 4: Vortex Option1: Ducted Type
Input Minimizer
Safety Factor 40.00 50.00 60.00
See Appendix A for the computation of Safety: Safety Factor
Table 4-35 shows that the Design 3 Option 3 Vortex Drag Force Minimizer has the highest Safety Factor
among the other options stated.

Table 4-36. Comparison of Design in all Constraints

Design Options Cost Form Factor Power Ratio (%) Safety Factor (%)
(grams)
Option1: Ducted
₱ 10050.00 2960 50.32 40.00
Type
Option 2: with
₱ 11550.00 2910 57.12 50.00
Direct Input
Option 3: Drag
₱ 14550.00 3110 64.51 60.00
Force Minimizer
Table 4-36 shows that Design 3 Option 3 Vortex Drag Force Minimizer has the best option for Design 3
with 2 wins out of 4 constraints.

111
Scaling, Linear Shift, and Normalization [5]

In applications, it is usually meaningful to rank order the importance of the various performance criteria.
Moreover, it is meaningful to assign percent (%) importance to each criterion. It is customary to form a
weighted linear combination of the numerical values of the criteria. When criteria have different dimensions,
it does not make sense to add them directly, so we need to normalize to convert all to be dimensionless.

When raw low numerical values are associated with more desirable values. Use:
Maxraw - PCraw
PCnorm = 9 ( )+ 1
Maxraw - Minraw

Where:
PCnorm= Performance criterion normalization
PCraw= Performance criterion raw
Maxraw= Maximum values for raw performance criterion
Minraw= Minimum values for raw performance criterion

When raw high numerical values are associated with more desirable values. Use:
PCraw - Minraw
PCnorm = 9 ( )+ 1
Maxraw - Minraw

Where:
PCnorm= Performance criterion normalization
PCraw= Performance criterion raw
Maxraw= Maximum values for raw performance criterion
Minraw= Minimum values for raw performance criterion

Table 4-37. Pairwise Comparison of Design 1 in all Constraints

Performance Performance Performance Performance
Option Number
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
1 8.82 7.27 4.96 5.50
2 7.13 7.57 6.69 7.00
3 6.57 6.97 8.76 7.75

In Table 4-16 for raw values for performance criterion 3 in column 4, the normalized values are: Option 1,
4.96; Option 2, 6.69; Option 3, 4.95, as shown in column 4 of table 4-37. The complete normalization of the
data in Table 4-16 is shown in Table 4-37. The relative rank ordering of the values of each Performance
Criterion is preserved. The pairwise comparison of rows in Table 4-37 will result in the same conclusion as
the one in Table 4-16, whereby Option 3 dominates most of the performance criterion compare to the other
two options.

112
Table 4-38. Pairwise Comparison of Design 2.1 in all Constraints
Performance Performance Performance Performance
Option Number
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
1 8.93 5.92 4.87 8.50
2 7.24 7.42 6.46 8.95
3 6.68 6.82 8.76 9.25

In Table 4-21 for raw values for performance criterion 3 in column 4, the normalized values are: Option 1,
4.87; Option 2, 6.46; Option 3, 8.76, as shown in column 4 of table 4-38. The complete normalization of the
data in Table 4-21 is shown in Table 4-38. The relative rank ordering of the values of each Performance
Criterion is preserved. The pairwise comparison of rows in Table 4-38 will result in the same conclusion as
the one in Table 4-21, whereby Option 3 dominates most of the performance criterion compare to the other
two options.

Table 4-39. Pairwise Comparison of Design 2.2 in all Constraints

Performance Performance Performance Performance
Option Number
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
1 9.04 7.12 5.76 8.50
2 7.36 7.27 7.17 8.95
3 6.79 5.77 9.29 9.25

In Table 4-26 for raw values for performance criterion 3 in column 4, the normalized values are: Option 1,
5.76; Option 2, 7.17; Option 3, 9.29, as shown in column 4 of table 4-39. The complete normalization of the
data in Table 4-26 is shown in Table 4-39. The relative rank ordering of the values of each Performance
Criterion is preserved. The pairwise comparison of rows in Table 4-38 will result in the same conclusion as
the one in Table 4-26, whereby Option 3 dominates most of the performance criterion compare to the other
two options.

Table 4-40. Pairwise Comparison of Design 3 in all Constraints

Performance Performance Performance Performance
Option Number
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
1 3.19 6.22 3.32 1.00
2 1.51 6.37 4.85 2.50
3 0.94 5.77 6.51 4.00

In Table 4-31 for raw values for performance criterion 3 in column 4, the normalized values are: Option 1,
3.32; Option 2, 4.85; Option 3, 6.51, as shown in column 4 of table 4-40. The complete normalization of the
data in Table 4-31 is shown in Table 4-40. The relative rank ordering of the values of each Performance
Criterion is preserved. The pairwise comparison of rows in Table 4-40 will result in the same conclusion as
the one in Table 4-31, whereby Option 3 dominates most of the performance criterion compare to the other
two options.

113
Table 4-41. Pairwise Comparison of Design 4 in all Constraints
Performance Performance Performance Performance
Option Number
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
1 2.07 4.12 3.32 1.00
2 0.38 4.27 4.85 2.50
3 -2.99 3.67 6.51 4.00

In Table 4-36 for raw values for performance criterion 3 in column 4, the normalized values are: Option 1,
3.32; Option 2, 4.85; Option 3, 6.51, as shown in column 4 of table 4-41. The complete normalization of the
data in Table 4-36 is shown in Table 4-41. The relative rank ordering of the values of each Performance
Criterion is preserved. The pairwise comparison of rows in Table 4-41 will result in the same conclusion as
the one in Table 4-36, whereby Option 3 dominates most of the performance criterion compare to the other
two options.

Table 4-42. Summary of winning Option per Design using Pairwise Comparison
Performance Performance Performance Performance
Design Options
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
D1 – O3 6.57 6.97 8.76 7.75
D2-SD1 – O3 6.68 6.82 8.76 9.25
D2-SD2 – O3 6.79 5.77 9.29 9.25
D3 – O3 0.94 5.77 6.51 4.00
D4 - O3 -2.99 3.67 6.51 4.00
*Reference: Cruz, J., Almario, E. (n.d.), “When is the Pareto Choice from a Finite Set Invariant to Variations in Weights and Values of Multiple
Performance Criteria”, Philippine Science Letters

Table 4-42 shows the dominated design option in Table 4-37 for design 1, the normalized values are the
following: Performance Criterion 1, 6.57; Performance Criterion 2, 6.97; Option 3, 8.76; Performance Criterion
4, 7.75. In Table 4-38 for design 2.1, the normalized values are: Performance Criterion 1, 6.68; Performance
Criterion 2, 6.82; Performance Criterion 3, 8.76; Performance Criterion 4, 9.25. In Table 4-39 for design 2.2,
the normalized values are: Performance Criterion 1, 6.79; Performance Criterion 2, 5.77; Performance
Criterion 3, 9.29; Performance Criterion 4, 9.25. In Table 4-40 for design 3, the normalized values are:
Performance Criterion 1, 0.94; Performance Criterion 2, 5.77; Performance Criterion 3, 6.51; Performance
Criterion 4, 4.00 and in Table 4-41 for design 4, the normalized values are: Performance Criterion 1, -2.99;
Performance Criterion 2, 3.67; Performance Criterion 3, 6.51; Performance Criterion 4, 4.00.

114
Trade-off Design between Two Constraints
Economical and Mobility Constraints
Table 4-43. Trade off Design between Economical vs Mobility Values
Design Option Economical Mobility
Design 1 Option 3 (x1) 6050 2010
Design 2.1 Option 3 (x2) 5950 2060
Design 2.2 Option 3 (x3) 5850 2050
Design 3 Option 3 (x4) 11050 2410
Design 4 Option 3 (x5) 14550 3110

Equation of Economical and Mobility Constraints based on Table 4-43:

f1 = 6050x1 +5950 x2 + 5850x3 + 11050x4 + 14550x5 ≤ 11000

f2 = 2010x1 + 2060x2 + 2410x3 + 2410x4 + 3110x5 ≤ 4000

Figure 4-8. Trade off Design between Economical vs Mobility Values

In Figure 4-8, the maximum and minimum values of Economical Constraints are 11,000 and 3,000 and for
the maximum and minimum values of Mobility Constraints are 4,000 and 1,000. It explained that the area
bounded by Design 2.2 Option 3, Design 3 Option 3 and Design 4 Option 3 are the accepted design options
with respect to the Economical and Mobility constraints.

115
Economical and Efficiency Constraints
Table 4-44. Trade off Design between Economical vs Efficiency Values
Design Option Economical Efficiency
Design 1 Option 3 (x1) 6050 74.5
Design 2.1 Option 3 (x2) 5950 74.48
Design 2.2 Option 3 (x3) 5850 76.83
Design 3 Option 3 (x4) 11050 64.51
Design 4 Option 3 (x5) 14550 64.51

Equation of Economical and Efficiency Constraints based on Table 4-44:

f1 = 6050x1 +5950 x2 + 5850x3 + 11050x4 + 14550x5 ≤ 11000

f2 = 74.5x1 + 74.48x2 + 76.83x3 + 64.51x4 + 64.51x5 ≤ 80

Figure 4-9. Trade off Design between Economical vs Efficiency

In Figure 4-9, the maximum and minimum values of Economical Constraints are 11,000 and 3,000 and for
the maximum and minimum values of Efficiency Constraints are 80 and 40. It explained that the area bounded
by Design 2.2 Option 3, Design 3 Option 3 and Design 4 Option 3 are the accepted design options with
respect to the Economical and Efficiency constraints.

116
Economical and Safety Constraints
Table 4-45. Trade off Design between Economical vs Safety Values
Design Option Economical Safety
Design 1 Option 3 (x1) 6050 85.00
Design 2.1 Option 3 (x2) 5950 95.00
Design 2.2 Option 3 (x3) 5850 95.00
Design 3 Option 3 (x4) 11050 60.00
Design 4 Option 3 (x5) 14550 60.00

Equation of Economical and Safety Constraints based on Table 4-45:

f1 = 6050x1 +5950 x2 + 5850x3 + 11050x4 + 14550x5 ≤ 11000

f2 = 85.00x1 + 95.00x2 + 95.00x3 + 60.00x4 + 60.00x5 ≤ 100

Figure 4-10. Trade off Design between Economical vs Safety

In Figure 4-10, the maximum and minimum values of Economical Constraints are 11,000 and 3,000 and for
the maximum and minimum values of Safety Constraints are 100 and 40. It explained that the area bounded
by Design 2.2 Option 3 and Design 4 Option 3 are the accepted design options with respect to the Economical
and Safety constraints.

117
Mobility and Efficiency Constraints
Table 4-46. Trade off Design between Mobility vs Efficiency Values
Design Option Mobility Efficiency
Design 1 Option 3 (x1) 2010 74.5
Design 2.1 Option 3 (x2) 2060 74.48
Design 2.2 Option 3 (x3) 2050 76.83
Design 3 Option 3 (x4) 2410 64.51
Design 4 Option 3 (x5) 3110 64.51

Equation of Mobility and Efficiency Constraints based on Table 4-46:

f1 = 2010x1 + 2060x2 + 2410x3 + 2410x4 + 3110x5 ≤ 4000

f2 = 74.5x1 + 74.48x2 + 76.83x3 + 64.51x4 + 64.51x5 ≤ 80

Figure 4-11. Trade off Design between Mobility vs Efficiency

In Figure 4-11, the maximum and minimum values of Mobility Constraints are 4,000 and 1,000 and for the
maximum and minimum values of Efficiency Constraints are 80 and 40. It explained that the area bounded
by Design 1 Option 3, Design 2.1 Option 3 and Design 2.2 Option 3 are the accepted design options with
respect to the Mobility and Efficiency constraints.

118
Mobility and Safety Constraints
Table 4-47. Trade off Design between Mobility vs Safety Values
Design Option Mobility Safety
Design 1 Option 3 (x1) 2010 85.00
Design 2.1 Option 3 (x2) 2060 95.00
Design 2.2 Option 3 (x3) 2050 95.00
Design 3 Option 3 (x4) 2410 60.00
Design 4 Option 3 (x5) 3110 60.00

Equation of Mobility and Safety Constraints based on Table 4-47:

f1 = 2010x1 + 2060x2 + 2410x3 + 2410x4 + 3110x5 ≤ 4000

f2 = 85.00x1 + 95.00x2 + 95.00x3 + 60.00x4 + 60.00x5 ≤ 100

Figure 4-12. Trade off Design between Mobility vs Safety

In Figure 4-12, the maximum and minimum values of Mobility Constraints are 4,000 and 1,000 and for the
maximum and minimum values of Safety Constraints are 100 and 40. It explained that the area bounded by
Design 2.2 Option 3 and Design 4 Option 3 are the accepted design options with respect to the Mobility and
Safety constraints.

119
Efficiency and Safety Constraints
Table 4-48. Trade off Design between Efficiency vs Safety Values
Design Option Efficiency Safety
Design 1 Option 3 (x1) 74.5 85.00
Design 2.1 Option 3 (x2) 74.48 95.00
Design 2.2 Option 3 (x3) 76.83 95.00
Design 3 Option 3 (x4) 64.51 60.00
Design 4 Option 3 (x5) 64.51 60.00

Equation of Efficiency and Safety Constraints based on Table 4-48:

f1 = 74.5x1 + 74.48x2 + 76.83x3 + 64.51x4 + 64.51x5 ≤ 80

f2 = 85.00x1 + 95.00x2 + 95.00x3 + 60.00x4 + 60.00x5 ≤ 100

Figure 4-13. Trade off Design between Efficiency vs Safety

In Figure 4-13, the maximum and minimum values of Efficiency Constraints are 80 and 40 and for the
maximum and minimum values of Safety Constraints are 100 and 40. It explained that the area bounded by
Design 2.1 Option 3 and Design 2.2 Option 3 are the accepted design options with respect to the Efficiency
and Safety constraints.

120
Weighted Sum of Performance Criteria and Level of Importance
Table 4- 49. The level of importance and the weighting factor of each constraint.
Design Criteria Level of Importance Weighting Factor
Economical (Cost) 5 0.3333
Mobility (Form Factor) 4 0.2667
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 4 0.2667
Safety (Protection Rating) 2 0.1333
Total 15 1
Table 4-49 shows the level of importance and the weighting factor for each constraint.
Weight Variation and Sensitivity Analysis 5[11]
i i i i i
Form WPC = x1 PC1 + x2PC2 + x3PC3+ x4PC4
j = 1, 2, 3, 4 and i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Where:
PCij = Performance Criterion
xi = Normalized values of constraints, xi ≥ 0
j = Number of constraints
i = Number of options
1
WPC = 6.57x1 + 6.97x2 + 8.76x3 + 7.75x4
2
WPC = 6.68x1 + 6.82x2 + 8.76x3 + 9.25x4
3
WPC = 6.79x1 + 5.77x2 + 9.29x3 + 9.25x4
4
WPC = 0.94x1 + 5.77x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
5
WPC = -2.99x1 + 3.67x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
Weighted Factor Values (non-negative and total of 1.00)
Level of Importance
Weighted Factor =
Total level of Importance
5
x1 = = 0.3333, Where x1 is for Efficiency (Power Ratio)
15
4
x2 = = 0.2667, Where x2 is for Safety (Protection Rating)
15
4
x3 = = 0.2667, Where x3 is for Economical (Cost)
15
2
x4 = = 0.1333, Where x4 is for Mobility (Form Factor)
15
Therefore, the total score for each design:
1
WPC = 6.57(0.3333) + 6.97( 0.2667) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 7.75(0.1333) = 7.42
2
WPC = 6.68(0.3333) + 6.82( 0.2667) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.1333) = 7.62
3
WPC = 6.79(0.3333) + 5.77( 0.2667) + 9.29( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.1333) = 7.80
4
WPC = 0.94(0.3333) + 5.77( 0.2667) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.1333) = 4.12
5
WPC = -2.99(0.3333) + 3.67( 0.2667) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.1333) = 2.25

11 M. Erhgott, Multicriteria Optimization. Second Edition, Heidelberg, Germany, Springer, 2015.

121
Table 4-50. Total rating of each design
Level Design Options
of Weighting D1-O3 Rating D2-SD1 Rating D2-SD2 Rating D3 – 03 Rating D4 - 03 Rating
Constraints
Impor Factor O3 O3
tance
Economical
5 0.3333 6.57 2.19 6.68 2.23 6.79 2.26 0.94 0.31 -2.99 -1
(Cost)
Mobility (Form
4 0.2667 6.97 1.86 6.82 1.82 6.85 1.83 5.77 1.54 3.67 0.98
Factor)
Efficiency (Power
4 0.2667 8.76 2.34 8.76 2.34 9.29 2.48 6.51 1.74 6.51 1.74
Ratio)
Safety (Protection
2 0.1333 7.75 1.03 9.25 1.23 9.25 1.23 4.00 0.53 4.00 0.53
Rating)
Total 15 1 7.42 7.62 7.80 4.12 2.25
*Reference: Cruz, J., Almario, E., “When is the Pareto Choice from a Finite Set Invariant to Variations in Weights and Values of Multiple Performance Criteria”, Philippine Science
Letters
Table 4-50 shows that Design 2 Sub-Design 2 Option 3 Savonius Ducted Type with Direct Input
Design Options Rating
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
D1 O3 D2.1 O3 D2.2 O3 D3 O3 D4 O3
Economical (Cost) 2.19 2.23 2.26 0.31 -1
Mobility (Form Factor) 1.86 1.82 1.83 1.54 0.98
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 2.34 2.34 2.48 1.74 1.74
Safety (Protection Rating) 1.03 1.23 1.23 0.53 0.53

Figure 4-14. Rating of each Design Option in each Constrain

122
Weight Variation and Sensitivity Analysis Test A

Weighted sum of performance criteria and level of importance

Table 4-51. The level of importance and weighting factor of each constraints
Design Criteria Level of Importance Weighting Factor
Economical (Cost) 5 0.3333
Mobility (Form Factor) 2 0.1333
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 4 0.2667
Safety (Protection Rating) 4 0.2667
Total 15 1
Table 4-51 shows the level of importance and weighting factor for each constraint
Weight Variation and Sensitivity Analysis
i i i i i
Form WPC = x1 PC1 + x2PC2 + x3PC3+ x4PC4
j = 1, 2, 3, 4 and i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Where:
PCij = Performance Criterion
xi = Normalized values of constraints, xi ≥ 0
j = Number of constraints
i = Number of options
1
WPC = 6.57x1 + 6.97x2 + 8.76x3 + 7.75x4
2
WPC = 6.68x1 + 6.82x2 + 8.76x3 + 9.25x4
3
WPC = 6.79x1 + 5.77x2 + 9.29x3 + 9.25x4
4
WPC = 0.94x1 + 5.77x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
5
WPC = -2.99x1 + 3.67x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
Weighted Factor Values (non-negative and total of 1.00)
Level of Importance
Weighted Factor =
Total level of Importance
5
x1 = = 0.3333, Where x1 is for Economical (Cost)
15
2
x2 = = 0.1333, Where x2 is for Mobility (Form Factor)
15
4
x3 = = 0.2667, Where x3 is for Efficiency (Power Ratio)
15
4
x4 = = 0.2667, Where x4 is for Safety (Protection Rating)
15
Therefore, the total score for each design:
1
WPC = 6.57(0.3333) + 6.97( 0.1333) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 7.75(0.2667) = 7.53
2
WPC = 6.68(0.3333) + 6.82( 0.1333) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.2667) = 7.95
3
WPC = 6.79(0.3333) + 5.77( 0.1333) + 9.29( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.2667) = 8.12
4
WPC = 0.94(0.3333) + 5.77( 0.1333) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.2667) = 3.89
5
WPC = -2.99(0.3333) + 3.67( 0.1333) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.2667) = 2.3

123
Table 4-52. Total rating of each design
Level Design Options
of Weighting D1-O3 Rating D2-SD1 Rating D2-SD2 Rating D3 – 03 Rating D4 - 03 Rating
Constraints
Impor Factor O3 O3
tance
Economical
5 0.3333 6.57 2.19 6.68 2.23 6.79 2.26 0.94 0.31 -2.99 -1
(Cost)
Mobility (Form
2 0.1333 6.97 0.93 6.82 0.91 6.85 0.91 5.77 0.77 3.67 0.49
Factor)
Efficiency (Power
4 0.2667 8.76 2.34 8.76 2.34 9.29 2.48 6.51 1.74 6.51 1.74
Ratio)
Safety (Protection
4 0.2667 7.75 2.07 9.25 2.47 9.25 2.47 4.00 1.07 4.00 1.07
Rating)
Total 15 1 7.53 7.95 8.12 3.89 2.3
*Reference: Cruz, J., Almario, E., “When is the Pareto Choice from a Finite Set Invariant to Variations in Weights and Values of Multiple Performance Criteria”, Philippine Science
Letters
Table 4-52 shows that Design 2 Sub-Design 2 Option 3 Savonius Ducted Type with Direct Input
Sensitivity Analysis Test A
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
D1 O3 D2.1 O3 D2.2 O3 D3 O3 D4 O3
Economical (Cost) 2.19 2.23 2.26 0.31 -1
Mobility (Form Factor) 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.77 0.49
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 2.34 2.34 2.48 1.74 1.74
Safety (Protection Rating) 2.07 2.47 2.47 1.07 1.07

Figure 4-15. Rating for Sensitivity Analysis Test A

124
Weight Variation and Sensitivity Analysis Test B

Weighted sum of performance criteria and level of importance

Table 4-53. The level of importance and weighting factor of each constraints
Design Criteria Level of Importance Weighting Factor
Economical (Cost) 2 0.1333
Mobility (Form Factor) 4 0.2667
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 4 0.2667
Safety (Protection Rating) 5 0.3333
Total 15 1
Table 4-53 shows the level of importance and weighting factor for each constraint
Weight Variation and Sensitivity Analysis
i i i i i
Form WPC = x1 PC1 + x2PC2 + x3PC3+ x4PC4
j = 1, 2, 3, 4 and i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Where:
PCij = Performance Criterion
xi = Normalized values of constraints, xi ≥ 0
j = Number of constraints
i = Number of options
1
WPC = 6.57x1 + 6.97x2 + 8.76x3 + 7.75x4
2
WPC = 6.68x1 + 6.82x2 + 8.76x3 + 9.25x4
3
WPC = 6.79x1 + 5.77x2 + 9.29x3 + 9.25x4
4
WPC = 0.94x1 + 5.77x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
5
WPC = -2.99x1 + 3.67x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
Weighted Factor Values (non-negative and total of 1.00)
Level of Importance
Weighted Factor =
Total level of Importance
2
x1 = = 0.1333, Where x1 is for Economical (Cost)
15
4
x2 = = 0.2667, Where x2 is for Mobility (Form Factor)
15
4
x3 = = 0.2667, Where x3 is for Efficiency (Power Ratio)
15
5
x4 = = 0.3333, Where x4 is for Safety (Protection Rating)
16
Therefore, the total score for each design:
1
WPC = 6.57(0.1333) + 6.97( 0.2667) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 7.75(0.3333) = 7.66
2
WPC = 6.68(0.1333) + 6.82( 0.2667) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.3333) = 8.13
3
WPC = 6.79(0.1333) + 5.77( 0.2667) + 9.29( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.3333) = 8.30
4
WPC = 0.94(0.1333) + 5.77( 0.2667) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.3333) = 4.74
5
WPC = -2.99(0.1333) + 3.67( 0.2667) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.3333) = 3.65

125
Table 4-54. Total rating of each design
Level Design Options
of Weighting D1-O3 Rating D2-SD1 Rating D2-SD2 Rating D3 – 03 Rating D4 - 03 Rating
Constraints
Impor Factor O3 O3
tance
Economical
2 0.1333 6.57 0.88 6.68 0.89 6.79 0.91 0.94 0.13 -2.99 -0.4
(Cost)
Mobility (Form
4 0.2667 6.97 1.86 6.82 1.82 6.85 1.83 5.77 1.54 3.67 0.98
Factor)
Efficiency (Power
4 0.2667 8.76 2.34 8.76 2.34 9.29 2.48 6.51 1.74 6.51 1.74
Ratio)
Safety (Protection
5 0.3333 7.75 2.58 9.25 3.08 9.25 3.08 4.00 1.33 4.00 1.33
Rating)
Total 15 1 7.66 8.13 8.3 4.74 3.65
*Reference: Cruz, J., Almario, E., “When is the Pareto Choice from a Finite Set Invariant to Variations in Weights and Values of Multiple Performance Criteria”, Philippine Science
Letters
Table 4-54 shows that Design 2 Sub-Design 2 Option 3 Savonius Ducted Type with Direct Input
Sensitivity Analysis Test B
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
D1 O3 D2.1 O3 D2.2 O3 D3 O3 D4 O3
Economical (Cost) 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.13 -0.4
Mobility (Form Factor) 1.86 1.82 1.83 1.54 0.98
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 2.34 2.34 2.48 1.74 1.74
Safety (Protection Rating) 2.58 3.08 3.08 1.33 1.33

Figure 4-16. Rating for Sensitivity Analysis Test B

126
Weight Variation and Sensitivity Analysis Test C

Weighted sum of performance criteria and level of importance

Table 4-55. The level of importance and weighting factor of each constraints
Design Criteria Level of Importance Weighting Factor
Economical (Cost) 4 0.2667
Mobility (Form Factor) 5 0.3333
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 4 0.2667
Safety (Protection Rating) 2 0.1333
Total 15 1
Table 4-55 shows the level of importance and weighting factor for each constraint
Weight Variation and Sensitivity Analysis
i i i i i
Form WPC = x1 PC1 + x2PC2 + x3PC3+ x4PC4
j = 1, 2, 3, 4 and i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Where:
PCij = Performance Criterion
xi = Normalized values of constraints, xi ≥ 0
j = Number of constraints
i = Number of options
1
WPC = 6.57x1 + 6.97x2 + 8.76x3 + 7.75x4
2
WPC = 6.68x1 + 6.82x2 + 8.76x3 + 9.25x4
3
WPC = 6.79x1 + 5.77x2 + 9.29x3 + 9.25x4
4
WPC = 0.94x1 + 5.77x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
5
WPC = -2.99x1 + 3.67x2 + 6.51x3 + 4.00x4
Weighted Factor Values (non-negative and total of 1.00)
Level of Importance
Weighted Factor =
Total level of Importance
4
x1 = = 0.2667, Where x1 is for Economical (Cost)
15
5
x2 = = 0.3333, Where x2 is for Mobility (Form Factor)
15
4
x3 = = 0.2667, Where x3 is for Efficiency (Power Ratio)
15
2
x4 = = 0.1333, Where x4 is for Safety (Protection Rating)
15
Therefore, the total score for each design:
1
WPC = 6.57(0.2667) + 6.97( 0.3333) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 7.75(0.1333) = 7.44
2
WPC = 6.68(0.2667) + 6.82( 0.3333) + 8.76( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.1333) = 7.62
3
WPC = 6.79(0.2667) + 5.77(0.3333) + 9.29( 0.2667) + 9.25(0.1333) = 7.80
4
WPC = 0.94(0.2667) + 5.77( 0.3333) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.1333) = 4.44
5
WPC = -2.99(0.2667) + 3.67( 0.3333) + 6.51( 0.2667) + 4.00(0.1333) = 2.69

127
Table 4-56. Total rating of each design
Level Design Options
of Weighting D1-O3 Rating D2-SD1 Rating D2-SD2 Rating D3 – 03 Rating D4 - 03 Rating
Constraints
Impor Factor O3 O3
tance
Economical
4 0.2667 6.57 1.75 6.68 1.78 6.79 1.81 0.94 0.25 -2.99 -0.8
(Cost)
Mobility (Form
5 0.3333 6.97 2.32 6.82 2.27 6.85 2.28 5.77 1.92 3.67 1.22
Factor)
Efficiency (Power
4 0.2667 8.76 2.34 8.76 2.34 9.29 2.48 6.51 1.74 6.51 1.74
Ratio)
Safety (Protection
2 0.1333 7.75 1.03 9.25 1.23 9.25 1.23 4.00 0.53 4.00 0.53
Rating)
Total 15 1 7.44 7.62 7.8 4.44 2.69
*Reference: Cruz, J., Almario, E., “When is the Pareto Choice from a Finite Set Invariant to Variations in Weights and Values of Multiple Performance Criteria”, Philippine Science
Letters
Table 4-56 shows that Design 2 Sub-Design 2 Option 3 Savonius Ducted Type with Direct Input
Sensitivity Analysis Test C
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
D1 O3 D2.1 O3 D2.2 O3 D3 O3 D4 O3
Economical (Cost) 1.75 1.78 1.81 0.25 -0.8
Mobility (Form Factor) 2.32 2.27 2.28 1.92 1.22
Efficiency (Power Ratio) 2.34 2.34 2.48 1.74 1.74
Safety (Protection Rating) 1.03 1.23 1.23 0.53 0.53

Figure 4-17. Rating for Sensitivity Analysis Test

128
The proponents conducted 3 sensitivity analysis tests to determine the best design option. Based on the
sensitivity analysis test with a random constraints level of importance Design 2.2 Option 3 Vertical
Savonius Turbine Ducted Type with Direct Input dominates all the other 4 design options. Therefore,
Design 2.2 Option 3 is the best design option.

129
Design Standards

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

IEC 61400-1(Class S): Air Density of 1.225 kg/m3, average annual wind below 8.5 m/s

IEC 61400-2 Ed. 3.0 b: 2013 – requirements for the safety of small wind turbines

IEC 61400 – 12 – 1: Power coefficient equation

UKAS ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO Guide 34 certified, density: 998.2 kg/m^3 at 20 degrees Celsius

International Standard Atmosphere (ISA)

ISA standard atmosphere: sea level condition air density is 1.225 kg/m3

Philippine Electrical Code (PEC)

Philippine Electrical Code Table 3.10.1.16 Article 3.10- Conductors for General Wiring, Page 350,
2009

130