## 4 Application Example
For example, when TNI is the main changing criterion, results from the 40 simulation runs are illustrated Table 9. The criteria weights, the overall performance for each alternative and the optimal alternative are summarized in Table 8. It can be concluded when the weight of TNI criterion changes within the range between -40% and 40%, the optimal alternative is Alternatives 2 or 3. Specifically, the optimal alternative is Alternative 2 in most conditions. On the other hand, Alternative 1 is never the optimal alternative. Figure 4: Weight of each sub-criterion for the case study: (**a**) the radar chart; and (**b**) weight value of each criterion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Change (\%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Weight (\%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Volume (\%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Optimal**} \\ \cline{2-19}  & **PHO** & **CIGZ** & **CIM** & **TN** & **STE** & **ESU** & **UVE** & **SCD** & **ACT** & **FCK** & **WSC** & **FSC** & **RTC** & **RTC** & **RTC** & **RMC** & **WTC** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**A1**} & 75 & 80 & 68 & 40 & 75 & 60 & 48 & 70 & 72 & 83 & 50 & 74 & 65 & 65 & 82 & 45 \\  & 42 & 50 & 90 & 70 & 40 & 40 & 70 & 80 & 85 & 70 & 40 & 50 & 65 & 82 & 70 \\  & 43 & 60 & 40 & 65 & 70 & 78 & 48 & 75 & 80 & 54 & 40 & 60 & 80 & 80 & 86 & 88 & 50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Performance of each criterion in each alternative. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Change (\%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Weight (\%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Optimal**} \\ \cline{2-19}  & **PHO** & **CIGZ** & **CIM** & **TN** & **STE** & **ESU** & **UVE** & **SCD** & **ACT** & **FCK** & **WSC** & **RTC** & **RTC** & **RMC** & **WTC** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**A2**} & 0.00 & 0.0048 & 0.0048 & 0.0048 & 0.0048 & 0.0047 & 0.0040 & 0.0042 & 0.0048 & 0.0048 & 0.0048 & 0.0048 & 0.0042 & 0.0048 & 0.0041 & 0.0047 & 0.0047 & 0.0047 & 0.0047 & 0.0  
In addition to the TNI criterion changing case, there are another 15 criteria changing cases. Six typical cases were selected to evaluate the result changes, as illustrated in Figure 5. In addition to the six typical cases shown in Figure 5, the results of the other 10 typical cases are similar to the case of PEO criterion (shown in Figure 5a). In the selected cases, the main changing criteria are individually PEO, CHZ, CHM, TNI, ESU and FRC criterion. As shown in Figure 5, it can be concluded that:  
* CHZ and TNI are the most sensitive criteria among all criteria. When the weight of CHZ or TNI criterion changes, significant change can be caused to the results and final decision. As shown in Figure 5b, with the main criterion CHZ changing, the most suitable layout alternative changes from Alternative 3 (shown in the red dashed line) to Alternative 2 (shown in the black dashed line), while Alternative 2 is optimal in most cases. As shown in Figure 5d, the optimal layout alternative changes from Alternative 2 to Alternative 3 while Alternative 2 is optimal in most simulation runs. * As illustrated in Figure 5a,c,e,f, Alternative 2 is always the optimal plan. With the weight changing, the performance of Alternative 2 may be improving or decreasing; however, its performance value is always higher than the other two alternatives. * In all cases, Alternative 1 is never the optimal plan. Therefore, Alternative 1 is considered to be the most unacceptable plan among all plans, which indicates that planners should avoid selecting Alternative 1 in the final decision. Through the sensitivity analysis, the result stability of the optimal alternative is evaluated and assessed. All potential optimal alternatives are generated from the simulation runs.