INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403

Published online 23 March 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.1696

Thermo-economic-environmental multiobjective
optimization of a gas turbine power plant with
preheater using evolutionary algorithm
H. Barzegar Avval1, P. Ahmadi2,,y, A. R. Ghaffarizadeh3 and M. H. Saidi2
1

Energy-Optimization Research and Developement Group, Tehran, Iran

Center of Excellence in Energy Conversion, School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology (SUT), PO Box
11155-9567, Tehran, Iran
3
Young Researchers Club, Department of Computer Science, Azad University of Arak, Arak, Iran
2

SUMMARY
In this study, the gas turbine power plant with preheater is modeled and the simulation results are compared with
one of the gas turbine power plants in Iran namely Yazd Gas Turbine. Moreover, multiobjective optimization has
been performed to nd the best design variables. The design parameters of the present study are selected as: air
compressor pressure ratio (rAC), compressor isentropic efciency (ZAC), gas turbine isentropic efciency (ZGT),
combustion chamber inlet temperature (T3) and gas turbine inlet temperature. In the optimization approach, the
exergetic, economic and environmental aspects have been considered. In multiobjective optimization, the three
objective functions, including the gas turbine exergy efciency, total cost rate of the system production including
cost rate of environmental impact and CO2 emission, have been considered. The thermoenvironomic objective
function is minimized while power plant exergy efciency is maximized using a genetic algorithm. To have a good
insight into this study, a sensitivity analysis of the results to the interest rate as well as fuel cost has been performed.
In addition, the results showed that at the lower exergetic efciency in which the weight of thermoenvironomic
objective is higher, the sensitivity of the optimal solutions to the fuel cost is much higher than the location of Pareto
Frontier with the lower weight of thermoenvironomic objective. Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS
multiobjective optimization; gas turbine plant; exergy analysis; thermoeconomics; thermal modeling; exergy destruction; genetic
algorithm
Correspondence
P. Ahmadi, Center of Excellence in Energy Conversion, School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology (SUT), PO
Box 11155-9567, Tehran, Iran.
y
E-mail: Pouryaahmadi81@gmail.com, Pouria_ahmadi@mech.sharif.ir
Received 29 July 2009; Revised 17 January 2010; Accepted 26 January 2010

1. INTRODUCTION
The optimization of power generation systems is one of
the most important subjects in the energy engineering
eld. Due to the high prices of energy and the
decreasing fossil fuel recourses, the optimum application of energy and the energy consumption management methods are very important. In the thermal
system engineering, gas turbines (GTs) have been
employed in three applications: rst one is open cycle
GTs, which produces only power, second is cogeneration systems in which heat and power are produced
together and third is combined cycle (CC) systems in
Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

which GTs and steam turbines are used together. The

GT is known to feature low capital cost to power ratio,
high exibility, high reliability without complexity,
short delivery time, early commissioning and commercial operation and very short-time start-up and
running. Moreover, the CC uses the exhaust heat from
the GT engine to increase the power plant output and
boost the overall efciency to more than 50% [1,2].
Recently, exergy and exergoeconomic analyses have
been used in thermal systems especially power plants. It
is well known that the exergy can be used to determine
the location, type and true magnitude of exergy loss
(or destruction). Therefore, it can play an important

H. B. Avval et al.

issue in developing strategies and in providing guidelines for more effective use of energy in the existing
power plants [3,4]. Thermoeconomics combines the
exergy analysis with the economic principles and
incorporates the associated costs of the thermodynamic
inefciencies in the total product cost of an energy
system. These costs may conduct designers to understand the cost formation process in an energy system
and it can be utilized in optimization of thermodynamic
systems, in which the task is usually focused on
minimizing the unit cost of the system product [5].
Several researchers carried out the exergy and exergoeconomics in which GT played a signicant part. Sahin
and Ali [6] carried out an optimal performance analysis
of a combined Carnot cycle (two single Carnot cycles in
cascade), including internal irreversibilities for steadystate operation. They obtained the maximum power
and efciency analytically and demonstrated the effects
of irreversibility parameters on maximum power output. Ameri et al. [7] performed the exergy analysis of
the supplementary ring in heat recovery steam
generator in a CC power plant. Their results showed
that if a duct burner is added to heat recovery steam
generator, the rst and second law efciencies are
reduced. Nevertheless, the results show that the CC
power plant output power increases when the duct
burner is used. Although exergy and exergoeconomic
analyses are so important and indispensable in power
generation, they cannot nd the optimal design
parameters in such systems. Therefore, using the
optimization procedure with respect to thermodynamic
laws as well as thermoeconomics is essential. In fact,
objectives in this regard involved in the design
optimization process are as follows [8]: thermodynamic
(e.g. maximum efciency, minimum fuel consumption,
minimum irreversibility and so on), economic (e.g.
minimum cost per unit of time, maximum prot per
unit of production) and environmental (e.g. limited
emissions, minimum environmental impact). Some
researchers have carried out the optimization in power
plant and CHP systems. They usually use evolutionary
algorithm in their studies. Sahoo [9] carried out the
exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a cogeneration system using evolutionary programming. He
considered a cogeneration system, which produced
50 MW of electricity and 15 kg s1 of saturated steam at
2.5 bar. He optimized the unit using exergoeconomic
principles and evolutionary programming. The results
showed that for the optimum case in the exergoeconomic analysis, the cost of electricity and production
cost are 9.9% lower in comparison with the base case.
Sayyaadi and Sabzaligol [10] performed the exergoeconomic optimization of a 1000-MW light water
reactor power generation system using a genetic
algorithm (GA). They considered 10 decision variables.
Moreover, it was shown that by optimization techniques considered in their research although fuel cost of
optimized system is increased in comparison with the
390

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

base case plant, nevertheless this shortcoming of

optimized system is compensated by larger monetary
saving on other economic sectors. Sanaye et al. [11]
analyzed the optimal design of a CHP plant in Iran.
Although they used the single objective function
representing the total cost of the plant in terms of
dollar per second, results showed that by increasing the
fuel cost, the numerical values of decision variables
using GA in the thermoeconomically optimal design
tend to those of the thermodynamically optimal design.
On the contrary, there are some studies in the literature
carried out by considering the environmental aspect of
thermal systems. Dincer [12] considered the environmental and sustainability aspects of hydrogen and fuel
cell systems.
Dincer also analyzed the exergetic and environmental aspects of drying systems [13]. In addition to the
exergetic and monetary costs of mass and energy
streams in the thermal systems, environomic considers
the costs related to ows of pollutants [14]. However,
by applying the unit damage cost related to NOx and
CO emissions [15], this objective function is formulated
in the cost terms and it can be considered as an additional economic objective. In this sense, the non-abbreviated term thermoenviroeconomic would be more
appropriate, as recognized by Frangopoulos [14].
Ehyaei and Mozafari [16] performed the optimization
of micro-GT by exergy, economic and environmental.
They performed their analysis for various fuels. The
results showed that optimization results are little affected by the type of fuel considered and trends of
variations of second law efciency and cost rate of
owning and operating the whole system are independent of the fuels.
Suresh et al. [17] performed the 3E analysis of
advanced power plants based on high ash coal.
Although they considered the environmental impact,
they did not optimize the cycle. In their study,
the environmental impact of the power plants is estimated in terms of specic emissions of CO2, SOx, NOx
and particulates. They concluded that the maximum
possible plant energy efciency under the Indian
climatic conditions using high ash Indian coal is
about 42.3%.
In the present study, which is the extended and developed version performed by Ahmadi co-workers
[18,19], the simulation and multiobjective optimization
of a GT power plant with preheater is performed.
Three objective functions including the GT exergy efciency, total cost rate of the system product and the
cost rate of environmental impact have been considered. Furthermore, the environmental impact has
been integrated with the thermoeconomic objective
function and dened as a new objective function in
this study. The thermoenvironomic objective function
is minimized while power plant exergy efciency is
maximized using a GA. Moreover, to have a good insight into this analysis, the amount of CO2 emission is
Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

H. B. Avval et al.

considered as another objective function. Hence, this

objective function is minimized while exergy efciency
is maximized. Accordingly, the design parameters are
compressor pressure ratio (rAC), compressor isentropic
efciency (ZAC), GT isentropic efciency (ZGT), combustion chamber inlet temperature (T3) and gas turbine
inlet temperature (TIT). Moreover, the sensitivity
analysis is performed to have a good insight into this
research.
In summary, the following are the contribution of
this study in the subject:
 The GT modeling output was compared with the
experimental dada obtained from actual running
GT power plant with preheater.
 Three objective functions, including exergy
efciency, total cost rate of the plant (including
fuel cost, purchase cost, cost of exergy destruction
and the cost rate of environmental impact)
and CO2 emission of the plant, have been
considered.
 A modied version of evolutionary algorithm
(i.e. GA) is developed for multiobjective
optimization.
 This code, which is developed based on GA, has
been applied to nd the set of Pareto optimal
solution [8] with respect to aforementioned objective functions.
 Proposing a new closed form equation for the
exergy efciency in term of total cost rate at the
optimal design point.
 To provide a very helpful tool for the optimal
design of the GT plant, the equation was derived
for the Pareto optimal points curve.
 Showing Pareto optimal solution curves for
various fuel costs and interest rates.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the GT power plant.

The Cpa in this analysis is considered to be a

temperature variable function as [1]:

 

3:8371T
9:4537T2
Cpa T 1:04841 
1
104
107

 

5:49031T3
7:9298T4
1
3

1010
1014

 Air preheater:
m_ a h3  h2 m_ g h5  h6 ZAP

P3
1  DPaph
P2

 Combustion chamber (cc):

m_ a h3 1m_ f LHV m_ g h4 11  Zcc m_ f LHV

P4
1  DPcc
P3

Combustion equation is
lCx1 Hy1 1xO2 O2 1xN2 N2 1xH2 O H2 O
1xCO2 CO2 1xAr Ar
! yCO2 CO2 1yN2 N2 1yO2 O2

2. THERMAL MODELING

1yH2 O H2 O1yNO NO1yCO CO1yAr Ar

To nd the optimum physical and thermal design

parameters of the system, a simulation program was
developed in Matlab software. The temperature prole
in GT, input and output enthalpy and exergy of each
line in the plant were estimated to study the multiobjective optimization of the plant. The energy-balance
equations for various parts of the GT plant as shown in
Figure 1 are as follow:

T2 T1 11

yN2 xN2  yNO

yH2 O xH2 O 1

l  y1
2

yO2 xO2  l  x1 

l  y1 yCO yNO


4
2
2

yAr xAr

 Air compressor:


yCO2 l  x1 1xCO2  yCO

1
ZAC

a 1=ga
rg
 1
c

_ AC m_ a  Cpa T2  T1
W

l
1

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

nf
na

 Gas turbine:

8
(

T5 T4 1  ZGT

"

 1gg =gg #)
P4
1
P5

391

H. B. Avval et al.

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

_ GT m_ g Cpg T5  T4
W

10

_ GT  W
_ AC
_ Net W
W

11

m_ g m_ f 1m_ a

12

The Cpg in this analysis is considered to be a

temperature variable function as [1]:


6:99703T
Cpg T 0:9916151
105

 

2:7129T2
1:22442T3

13
1
107
1010
These combinations of energy- and mass-balance
equations were numerically solved and the temperature
and enthalpy of each line of the plant were predicted.
It should be noted that the utilized thermodynamic
mode is developed based on the following basic assumptions [11,18,19]:
 All the processes in our study are considered based
on the steady-state model.
 The principle of ideal gas mixture is applied for the
air and combustion products.
 The fuel injected to the combustion chamber is
assumed to be natural gas.
 Heat loss from the combustion chamber is
considered to be 3% of the fuel lower heating
value. Moreover, all the other components are
considered adiabatic.
 The dead state is P0 5 1.01 bar and T0 5 293.15 K.
 In the preheater, 4% pressure drop is considered.
In addition, 3% pressure drop is considered in the
combustion chamber.

destruction. Other terms in this equation are as

follows [20,25]:


T _
E_ Q 1 
Qi
15
Ti
_
E_ w W

16

eph h  h  T S  S

17

E_ Q and E_ w are the corresponding exergy of heat

transfer and work, which cross the boundaries of the
control volume, T is the absolute temperature (K) and
(1) the ambient conditions. In Equation (14), term E is
dened as follows:
E_ E_ ph 1E_ ch
18
_
where E_ me.
The mixture chemical exergy is dened as follows
[20,2527]:
"
#
n
n
X
X
ch
chi
E
exmix
19
Xi ex 1RT0
Xi LnXi 1G
i1

i1

GE , which is the excess free Gibbs energy, is negligible

at low pressure at a gas mixture.
For the evaluation of the fuel exergy, the above
equation cannot be used. Thus, the corresponding ratio
of simplied exergy is dened as:
exf
x
20
LHVf
Due to the fact that for most usual gaseous fuels, the
ratio of chemical exergy to lower heating value is
usually close to 1, one may write it as [28]:
xCH4 1:06
xH2 0:985

21

3. EXERGY ANALYSIS

For gaseous fuel with CxHy, the following experimental equation is used to calculate x [28]

Exergy can be divided into four distinct components.

The two important ones are the physical exergy and
chemical exergy. In this study, the two other components, which are kinetic exergy and potential exergy,
are assumed to be negligible as the elevation and speed
have negligible changes [2024]. The physical exergy is
dened as the maximum theoretical useful work
obtained as a system interacts with an equilibrium
state [20]. The chemical exergy is associated with the
departure of the chemical composition of a system from
its chemical equilibrium. The chemical exergy is an
important part of exergy in combustion process.
Applying the rst and the second laws of thermodynamics, the following exergy balance is obtained:
X
X
E_ Q 1
14
m_ i ei
m_ e ee 1E_ w 1E_ D

y 0:0698
22
x 1:03310:0169 
x
x
In this study, for the exergy analysis of the plant, the
exergy of each line is calculated at all states and the
changes in the exergy are determined for each major
component. The source of exergy destruction (or irreversibility) in combustion chamber is mainly combustion or chemical reaction and thermal losses in the ow
path, respectively [7,23]. However, the exergy destruction in the heat exchanger of the system, i.e. air preheater is due to the large temperature difference
between the hot and cold uids.
The exergy destruction rate and the exergy efciency
for each component in the base case and for the whole
system in the power plant (Figure 1) are summarized in
Table I. The operating conditions for base case of
the GT power plant, such as fuel mass ow rate and
caloric value, output electrical power and efciencies
of compressor and GT, are summarized in Table II.

It should be noted that in Equation (14), subscripts e

and i are the specic exergy of control volume inlet
and outlet ow, respectively and ED is the exergy
392

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

Table I. The exergy destruction rate and exergy efficiency

equations for plant components.
Components

Exergy destruction

Compressor

ED;AC E1  E2  Ew;AC

Zex;AC

E2  E1
WAC

CC

ED;CC E3 1E9  E4

Zex;CC

E4
E3 1E9

GT

ED;GT EC  ED  WGT

Zex;GT

WGT
EC  ED

AP

ED;AP

E

i;AP

Exergy efficiency

ED;AP
Zex;AP 1  P
E

e;AP

i;AP

Table II. Operating conditions of the Yazd Power Plant.

Name
Natural gas mass flow rate
to combustion chamber
Air mass flow rate
Lower heating value of natural gas
Compressor isentropic efficiency
Gas turbine isentropic efficiency
Air preheater effectiveness
Compressor pressure ratio
Gas turbine pressure ratio
Output power

Unit
kg s

1

1

kg s
kJ kg1
%
%
%

MW

Value
9.01
352.3
45 059.43
0.83
0.87
0.81
10.59
10.1
106

4. EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
4.1 Economic model
Due to nite natural resources and world increasing
energy demand by developing countries, it becomes
increasingly important to recognize the mechanisms
that degrade energy and resources and to develop
systematic approaches for improving the design of
energy systems and reducing the impact on the
environment. The second law of thermodynamics
combined with economics represents a very powerful
tool for the systematic study and optimization of
energy systems. This combination forms the basis of the
relatively new eld of thermoeconomics (exergoeconomics). Moreover, the economic model takes into
account the cost of the components including the
amortization and maintenance and the cost of fuel
combustion. To dene a cost function that depends on
optimization parameters of interest, component cost
should be expressed as a function of thermodynamic
design parameters [21]. The rst study in this regard
was proposed in the study called CGAM problem
[2931], which considered the thermoeconomic analysis
of a cogeneration plant to produce 14 kg s1 water at
20 bar. On the contrary, exergy costing involves cost
balance usually formulated for each component separately. A cost balance applied to the kth system
components shows that the sum of cost rates associated
Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

H. B. Avval et al.

with all the existing exergy stream equals the sum of

cost rates of all the entering exergy streams plus the
appropriate charges due to capital investment and
operating and maintenance expenses. The sum of the
last two terms is denoted by Z_ k . For each ow line in the
system, a parameter called ow cost rate C (dollar per
second) was dened and the cost-balance equation of
each component in the following form is used.
Accordingly, for a component that receives heat
transfer and generates power, one can write [21]:
X
X
23
C_ e;k 1C_ w;k C_ q;k 1
C_ i;k 1Z_ k
e

The cost balances are generally written so that all terms

are positive. Using Equation (23), one can write [10,21]:
X
X
_ k cq;k E_ q;k 1
ce E_ e k 1cw;k W
ci E_ i k 1Z_ k 24
C_ j cj Ej

25

The cost-balance equations for all the components of

the system construct a set of nonlinear algebraic
equations, which was solved for Cj and cj.
In this analysis, it is worth mentioning that the fuel
and product exergy should be dened. The exergy
product is dened according to the components under
consideration. The fuel represents the source that is
consumed in generating the product. Both product and
fuel are expressed in terms of exergy. The cost rates
associated with the fuel (C_ f ) and product (C_ P ) of a
component are obtained by replacing the exergy rates
_ For example, in a turbine, fuel is difference be(E).
tween input and output exergy and product is the
generated power of the turbine.
In the cost-balance formulation Equation (23), there
is no cost term directly associated with exergy destruction of each component. Accordingly, the cost
associated with the exergy destruction in a component
or process is a hidden cost. Thus, when combine the
exergy balance and exergoeconomic balance together,
one can obtain the following equations:
E_ F;k E_ P;k 1E_ D;k

26

where E_ F;k represents the fuel exergy rate for kth

component, and E_ P;k stands for the product exergy rate
of kth component, E_ L;k and E_ D;k are the exergy loss and
exergy destruction rate of that component, respectively.
For example, E_ L;k is the useful energy (exergy) that is
wasted to the environment without converting to the
useful form of energy, and E_ D;k is the exergy destruction due to the irreversibilities. For the turbines, if they
are assumed to be adiabatic, E_ L;k is equal to zero. In
addition, if the pumps are supposed to be adiabatic, E_ L
is equal to zero. Moreover, for the heaters, if they are
supposed to operate adiabatically, E_ L;k is equal to zero.
For each ow line in the system, a parameter that is
_
called ow cost rate C(dollar
per second) is dened.
cP;k E_ P;k cf;k E_ F;k  C_ L;k 1Z_ k

27
393

H. B. Avval et al.

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

If one eliminates E_ F;k from Equations (19) and (20),

one can obtain the following relations:
cP;k E_ P;k cf;k E_ P;k 1cf;k E_ L;k  C_ L;k 1Z_ k 1cf;k E_ D;k
28
Eliminating E_ P;k , from Equation (28), we nd:
cP;k E_ F;k cf;k E_ F;k 1cP;k E_ L;k  C_ L;k 1Z_ k 1cP;k E_ D;k
29
The last term on the RHS Equation (29) involves the
rate of exergy destruction. As discussed before, if one
assumes that the product E_ P;k is xed and that the unit
cost of fuel cF;k of the kth component is independent of
the exergy destruction, one can dene the cost of exergy
destruction by the last term of Equation (23).
30
C_ D;k cf;k E_ D;k
More details of the exergoeconomic analysis, cost-balance equations and exergoeconomic factors are completely discussed in References [4,9,10,21].
Thoroughly, several methods have been suggested
to express the purchase cost of equipment in terms of
design parameters in Equation (23) [10,21]. However,
we have used the cost functions that are suggested by
Ahmadi co-workers [4,32] and Roosen et al. [33].
Nevertheless, some modications have been made to
tailor these results to the regional conditions in Iran and
taking into account the ination rate. For converting the
capital investment into cost per time unit, one may write:
_
Zk 
Zk  CRF  j=N  3600

31

where N is the annual number of the operating hours of

the unit, and j 5 1.06 [11] the maintenance factor, Zk is
the purchase cost of kth component in US dollar. The
expression for each component of the GT plant and
economic model is presented in Appendix A. The
capital recovery factor (CRF) depends on the interest
rate as well as estimated equipment lifetime. CRF is
determined using the relationship [21]:
CRF

i11in
11in  1

32

where i is the interest rate and n the total operating

period of the system in years.
Finally, to determine the cost of exergy destruction
of each component, the value of exergy destruction,
ED,k, is computed using exergy-balance equation in the
earlier section.

4.2. Cost-balance equations

As we know for estimating the cost of exergy
destruction in each component of the plant, rst we
should initially solve the cost-balance equations for
each component. Therefore, in application of the
cost-balance equation (Equation (23)), there is usually
more than one inlet and outlet streams for some
components. In this case, the numbers of unknown cost
394

parameters are higher than the number of cost-balance

equations for that component. Auxiliary exergoeconomic equations are developed to solve this problem
[21,34]. Implementing Equation (23) for each component together with the auxiliary equations forms a
system of linear equations as follows:
E_ k   ck  Z_ k 
33
Here, E_ k , ck  and Z_ k  are the matrix of exergy rate
which were obtained in exergy analysis, exergetic cost
vector (to be evaluated) and the vector of Z_ k factors
(obtained in economic analysis), respectively.
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E_ 1
6
7
6 _
7
0
0
0
0
E_ 7
0
0 7
6 E1 E_ 2
6
7
6
7
6 0
7
_ 2 E_ 3
_ 5 E_ 6
E
0

E
0
0
0
6
7
6
7
6
7
_
_
_
0
0
0
0
E9 7
0
E3 E4
6 0
6
7
6
7
6 0
_ 4 E_ 5
_ 7 E_ 8 0 7
0
0
E
0

E
6
7
6
7
6
7
6 0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0 7
6
7
6
7
6 0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1 0 7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6 0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0 7
4
5
0
2

0
3

0
2

0
3

0
c1
6 7 6
7
6 c 7 6 Z_ 7
6 27 6
AC 7
6 7 6
7
6 7 6
7
6 c3 7 6 Z_ AP 7
6 7 6
7
6 7 6
7
6 7 6 _ 7
6 c4 7 6 Zcc 7
6 7 6
7
6 7 6
7
_
6
7
7
c

Z

6
GT 7
6 57 6
6 7 6
7
6 7 6
7
6 c6 7 6 0 7
6 7 6
7
6 7 6
7
6 c7 7 6 0 7
6 7 6
7
6 7 6
7
6 7 6
7
6 c8 7 6 0 7
4 5 4
5
c9

34

Fc

Therefore, by solving these sets of equations, one can

nd the cost rate of each line in Figure 1. Moreover,
they are used to nd the cost of exergy destruction in
each component of the plant.

5. THERMOENVIRONOMIC
MODELING
To minimize the environmental impacts, a primary
target is to increase the efciency of energy conversion
processes and, thus, decrease the amount of fuel and
the related overall environmental impacts, especially
the release of carbon dioxide, which is one of the
main components of greenhouse gases. Therefore,
Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

optimization of thermal systems based on this fact has

been an important subject in recent years. Although
there are a lot of studies in the literature, which are
dealing with optimization of power plants, generally
they do not pay much attention to environmental
impacts. For this reason, one of the major goals of the
present study is to consider the environmental impacts
as producing the CO and NOx. As it was discussed
in [35], the adiabatic ame temperature in the primary
zone of the combustion chamber is derived as follows:


Tpz Asa expbs1l2 px yy cz

35

where p is dimensionless pressure (P/Pref), y the

dimensionless temperature (T/Tref), c the H/C
atomic ratio, s 5 f for fp1 (f is mass or molar ratio)
and s 5 f0.7 for fX1. Moreover, x, y and z are
quadric functions of s based on the following
equations:


x a1 1b1 s1c1 s

36

y a2 1b2 s1c2 s2

37

z a3 1b3 s1c3 s2

38

In Equations (35)(38), parameters A, a, b, l, ai, bi and

ci are constant parameters. More details are presented
in [7,36]. All the parameters in Equations (36)(38) are
listed in Table III.
As it is stated in the literature, the amount
of CO and NOx produced in the combustion chamber
and combustion reaction also change mainly by
the adiabatic ame temperature. Accordingly, based on
Reference [37], to determine the pollutant emission in
grams per kilogram of the fuel, the proper equations

Table III. Constants for Equations (36)(38).

0.3pjp1.0

1.0pjp1.6

Constants

0.92pyp2

2pyp3.2

0.92pyp2

2pyp3.2

A
a
b
l
a1
b1
c1
a2
b2
c2
a3
b3
c3

2361.7644
0.1157
0.9489
1.0976
0.0143
0.0553
0.0526
0.3955
0.4417
0.141
0.0052
0.1289
0.0827

2315.752
0.0493
1.1141
1.1807
0.0106
0.045
0.0482
0.5688
0.55
0.1319
0.0108
0.1291
0.0848

916.8261
0.2885
0.1456
3.2771
0.0311
0.078
0.0497
0.0254
0.2602
0.1318
0.0042
0.1781
0.098

1246.1778
0.3819
0.3479
2.0365
0.0361
0.085
0.0517
0.0097
0.502
0.2471
0.017
0.1894
0.1037

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

H. B. Avval et al.

are proposed as follows:

m_ NOx

0:15E16t0:5 exp71100=Tpz
P0:05
3 DP3 =P3

39

0:179E99 exp7800=Tpz
P23 tDP3 =P3

40

m_ CO

where t is the residence time in the combustion

zone (t is assumed constant and is equal to 0.002 s);
Tpz is the primary zone combustion temperature;
P3 is the combustor inlet pressure; DP3 =P3 is the nondimensional pressure drop in the combustion chamber.

6. OPTIMIZATION (OBJECTIVE
FUNCTIONS, DESIGN PARAMETERS
AND CONSTRAINTS)
6.1. Definition of the objectives
Three objective functions including exergy efciency
(to be maximized), the total cost rate of product and
environmental impact (to be minimized) and CO2
emission (to be minimized) are considered for multiobjective optimization. The second objective function
expresses the environmental impact as the total
pollution damage (dollar per second) due to CO and
NOx emission by multiplying their respective ow rates
by their corresponding unit damage cost (CCO and
CNOx are equal to 0.02086 dollar per kilogram CO and
6.853 dollar per kilogram NOx) [36]. In the present
study, the cost of pollution damage is assumed to be
added directly to the expenditures that must be paid.
Therefore, the second objective function is sum of the
thermodynamic and environomic objectives. Due to the
importance of environmental effects, the third objective
function is considered as CO2 emission, which is
produced in the combustion chamber. This amount of
CO2 (kg MWh1) emission is obtained from combustion equation discussed in Section 2.
The objective function for this analysis is considered as:
 GT power plant exergy efciency:
_ Net
W
ZTotal
41
m_ f;cc  LHV  x
where WNet, mf,cc and x are GT net output power, mass
ow rate of fuel injected to the combustion chamber,
respectively, and x 1:03310:0169y=x0:0698=x for
gaseous fuel with CxHy formula.
 Total cost rate:
X
C_ Tot C_ f 1
42
Z_ k 1C_ D 1C_ env
k

where
C_ env CCO m_ CO 1CNOx m_ NOx
C_ f cf m_ f  LHV

43

where Z_ k , C_ f and C_ D are purchase cost of each

395

H. B. Avval et al.

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

component, fuel cost and cost of exergy destruction,

respectively. In addition, m_ CO and m_ NOx are calculated
from Equations (39) and (40).
 CO2 emission. To have a complete optimization in
this study, the CO2 emission, which produces in combustion chamber, is considered as an objective function. Therefore, by using the combustion equation
discussed in Equation (8), one can nd the CO2 emission of the plant.
m_ CO2
44
e
_ Net
W

6.3. Decision variables

Characteristic feature of an evolutionary algorithm is a

population of individuals.
An individual consists of the values of the decision
variables (here, structural and process variables)
and is a potential solution to the optimization
problem [38].
6.4.2. Multiobjective optimization. A multiobjective
problem consists of optimizing (i.e. minimizing or
maximizing) several objectives simultaneously, with a
number of inequality or equality constraints. The
problem can be formally written as:
Find x xi

The decision variables (design parameters) in this study

are compressor pressure ratio (rAC), compressor
isentropic efciency (ZAC), GT isentropic efciency
(ZGT), combustion chamber inlet temperature (T3) and
gas TIT. Although the decision variables may be varied
in the optimization procedure, each decision variables
is normally required to be within a reasonable range.
The list of these constraints and the reasons of their
applications are briefed based on [11] and summarized
in Table IV.

6.4. Evolutionary algorithm

6.4.1.GA. Evolutionary algorithms apply an iterative
and stochastic search strategy to nd an optimal
solution (Figure 2) [38]. Principles of biological
evolution are imitated in a very simplied manner.

Table IV. The list of constraints for optimization [11].

Constraints

Reason

TITo1550 K
P2/P1o20
ZACo0.9
T74400 1K

Material temperature limit

Commercial availability
Commercial availability
To avoid formation of sulfuric acid
in exhaust gases

8 i 1; 2; . . . ; NPar such as

45

fi x is a minimum (respectively, maximum) 8i

1; 2; . . . ; NObj
Subject to gj x 0 8 j 1; 2; . . . ; M

hk xp0

8 k 1; 2; . . . ; k

46

47

where x is a vector containing the Npar design

parameters, fi i1;...;Nobj the objective functions and
Nobj the number of objectives. The objective functions
fi i1;...;Nobj return a vector containing the set of Nobj
values associated with the elementary objectives to be
optimized simultaneously. The GAs are semi-stochastic
methods, based on an analogy with Darwins laws of
natural selection [39]. The rst multiobjective GA,
called vector evaluated GA (or VEGA), was proposed
by Schaffer [40]. An algorithm based on nondominated sorting was proposed by Srinivas and Deb
[41] and called non-dominated sorting GA (NSGA).
This algorithm is called NSGA-II, which is coupled
with the objective functions developed in this study for
optimization.
6.4.3. Non-dominated sorting. Following the denition
by Deb [42], an individual X(a) is said to constraindominate an individual X(b), if any of the following
conditions are true:
(1) X(a) and X(b) are feasible, with
a Xa is no worse than Xb in all
objective and
b Xa is strictly better than Xb in at
least one objective:

48

(2) X(a) is feasible while individual X(b) is not.

(3) X(a) and X(b) are both infeasible, but X(a) has a
smaller constraint violation.

Figure 2. Basic concept of evolutionary algorithm (i.e. GA).

396

Here, the constraint violation L(x) of an individual

X is dened to be equal to the sum of the violated
Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

constraint function values

X
LX
ggj X  gj x

49

j1

where g is the Heaviside step function.

6.4.4. Tournament selection. Each individual competes
in exactly two tournaments with randomly selected
individuals, a procedure that imitates survival of the
ttest in nature.
6.4.5. Crowding distance. The crowding distance metric
proposed by Deb and co-workers [42,43] is utilized,
where the crowding distance of an individual is the
perimeter of the rectangle with its nearest neighbors at
diagonally opposite corners. Hence, if individual
X(a)and individual X(b) have same rank, each one has
a larger crowding distance is better.
6.4.6. Crossover and mutation. Uniform crossover and
random uniform mutation are employed to obtain the
offspring population, Qt11. The integer-based uniform
crossover operator takes two distinct parent individuals
and interchanges each corresponding binary bits with a
probability, 0oPco1. Following crossover, the mutation operator changes each of the binary bits with a
mutation probability, 0oPmo0.5.

7. CASE STUDY
To have a good verication results from our simulation
code, the results in this study are compared with the
actual running GT power plant in Yazd Power Plant,
Iran. This power plant is located near the Yazd city,
one of the middle provinces in Iran. The schematic
diagram of this power plant is shown in Figure 1. From
the power plant data gathered in 2006, the incoming air
has a temperature of 17.11C and a pressure of
0.874 bar. The pressure increases to 10.593 bar through
the compressor, which has an isentropic efciency of
83%. The turbine inlet temperature is 10731C. The
turbine has an isentropic efciency of 87%. The
regenerative heat exchanger has an effectiveness of
81%. The pressure drop through the air preheater is
considered 4% of the inlet pressure for both the ow
streams and through the combustion chamber is 3% of

H. B. Avval et al.

the inlet pressure. The fuel (natural gas) is injected at

17.11C and 30 bar. The results of thermodynamic
properties of the cycle form the modeling part and
the power plant data are summarized in Table V.
It should be noted that the results show that the
average of difference between the numerical and the
measured values of parameters is about 2.93% with
maximum of 4.2% in combustion chamber mass ow
rate. This veries the correct performance of developed
simulation code to model this GT power plant.

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

8.1. Optimization results
Figure 3 shows the Pareto frontier solution for a GT
power plant with objective functions indicated in
Equations (41)(44) in multiobjective optimization.
As shown in this gure, while the total exergy efciency
of the cycle is increased to about 41%, the total cost
rate of products increases very slightly. Increasing the
total exergy efciency from 41 to 43.5% is corresponding to the moderate increasing in the cost rate of
product. In addition, increase in the exergy efciency
from 43.5% to the higher value leads to a drastic
increasing of the total cost rate.
It is shown in Figure 3 that the maximum exergy
efciency exists at design point (C) (43.89%), while the
total cost rate of products is the biggest at this point.
On the contrary, the minimum value for total cost rate
of product occurs at design point (A). Design point C is
the optimal situation at which efciency is a single
objective function, while design point A is the optimum
condition at which total cost rate of product is a single
objective function. Specications of these three sample
design points AC in Pareto optimal fronts are summarized in Table VI.
In multiobjective optimization, a process of decisionmaking for the selection of the nal optimal solution
from the available solutions is required. The process of

Table V. Results between the power plant data and

simulation code.
Unit
T2
T6
T7
ma
Zex

1C
1C
1C
kg s1
%

Measured data Simulation code Difference (%)

347.8
557.3
448
352.3
24.63%

342.92
593.5
414.48
352.20
27.16%

1.4
6.5
7.48
0.020
10.27

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Figure 3. Pareto frontier: best trade off values for the objective
functions.

397

H. B. Avval et al.

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

Table VI. Optimum design values for A to C Pareto optimal

fronts for input value
Property
Zex
CD,PP
CO2
Cenv

Unit

%
$ h1
kg MWh1
$ h1

39.59
1227.1
201.5
16.92

43.5
1354.6
183.4
11.88

43.89
2309.6
181.8
11.78

decision-making is usually performed with the aid of

a hypothetical point in Figure 3 named as equilibrium
point where both the objectives have their optimal
values independent of the other objectives. It is clear
that it is impossible to have both the objectives at
their optimum point, simultaneously and as shown in
Figure 3, the equilibrium point is not a solution located
on the Pareto Frontier. The closest point of Pareto
Frontier to the equilibrium point might be considered
as a desirable nal solution. Nevertheless, in this case,
the Pareto optimum Frontier has weak equilibrium, i.e.
a small change in exergetic function due to variation
of operating parameters causes a large variation in the
cost rate of product. Therefore, the equilibrium point
cannot be utilized for decision-making in this problem.
In selection of the nal optimum point, it is desired to
achieve the better magnitude for each objective than its
initial value of the base case problem. Because of this,
as the optimized points in the BC region have the
maximum exergy efciency increment about 1% and
minimum total cost rate increment 82.53% relative
to the design C, this region was eliminated from the
Pareto curve remaining just the region of AB as shown
in Figure 4.
It should be noted that in multiobjective optimization and the Pareto solution each point can be the
optimized point. Therefore, selection of the optimum
solution is depending on preferences and criteria of
each decision-maker. Hence, each decision-maker may
select a different point as optimum solution that better
suits with his/her desires.

8.2. Total cost rate and exergy efficiency

To provide a very helpful tool for the optimal design of
the GT cycle, the following equation was derived for
the Pareto optimal points curve (Figure 3).
C_ Tot

7:42189Z3 116:3579Z2  18:7497Z14:45071

Z4 121:3513Z3  7:18236Z2  6:40907Z12:35422
50

This equation is valid in the range of 0.38oZo0.44.

8.3. Total cost rate and CO2 emission

In this part, two objective functions including total
cost and CO2 emission are considered. The result of
multiobjective optimization is shown in Figure 5.
398

Figure 4. Selecting the optimal solution from Pareto frontier.

Figure 5. Pareto frontier for total cost rate versus CO2 emission.

As it is shown in this gure, if one wants to reduce

the CO2 emission of the cycle, which is mainly associated with thermodynamic properties of the cycle
component such as compressor and GT isentropic efciency, the purchase cost of each equipment in the
cycle should be selected as high as they can. Therefore,
the total cost rate increases although based on high
efcient components. On the contrary, it is clear that by
selecting the best component as well as using the low
mass fuel ow rate injected to the combustion chamber,
the environmental impacts will decrease. Hence, to
provide the trend of this curve, the equation is tted to
all the points obtained by multiobjective optimization.
This equation is as follows:
10:8572e4  1968:00e3  457:707e2  7:86003e10:712843
C_ Tot
e3  284:365e2 118608:6e1287:330
51
where e is the CO2 emission per net output power
(kgCO2 MWh1).

8.4. Comparison between optimization and

Yazd GT power plant
Table VII compares the cost rate of product, exergy
efciency and CO2 emission of the actual running
Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

(B) in Figure 3. In addition, Table IX represents some

important exergoeconomic parameters for the GT
power plant. From this table, it is understood that exergoeconomic factor is an important thermoeconomic
parameter that shows the relative importance of a
component cost to the associated cost of exergy destruction in that component. Accordingly, the higher
value of exergoeconomic factor implies that the major
source of the cost for the component under consideration is related to the capital investment and operating and maintenance costs. The lower value of
exergoeconomic factor states that the associated costs
of thermodynamic inefciencies are much more signicant than the capital investment and operating and
maintenance costs for the component under consideration. In this regard, it can be found out from
Table IX that for combustion chamber, the related cost
of exergy destruction is signicantly higher than the
owning and operating cost of this component, and the
inefciency cost for this component is dominant for
both base case and optimized systems. This is due to
the very high exergy destruction in the combustion
process of combustion chamber. It is worth mentioning
that the greatest amount of exergy destruction for both
base case and optimized case takes place at the combustion chamber because of the chemical reaction and
the large temperature difference between the burners
and the working uid. In fact, its exergy efciency is
less than other components in the cycle. Furthermore,
it can be found from Table IX that the optimization
increases the overall exergoeconomic factor of the
system from 32.79 to 62.24%, implying that optimization process leads to decrease in cost of exergy destruction. Furthermore, Table IX also denotes that in
the all elds, the optimization process improves the
total performance of the system in a way that the exergy destructions is reduced about 23.17%, the related
cost of the system inefciencies decreases about
12.29%.

power plant in Iran (i.e. Yazd Power Plant) and the

results from multiobjective optimization. It should be
noted that the values for multiobjective is estimated
based on point (B) in Figure 3, because this point is the
best point in comparison with other points in the
Pareto solution. This point has the high efciency and
the low total cost rate. Therefore, all the values are
based on this point. According to Table VII, the
optimization leads to the 43.4% increment in the total
exergy efciency of the cycle. Moreover, the optimization results show that by using these design parameters,
one can decrease the total cost of exergy destruction by
almost 31.53%. One thing that is important is
decreasing the cost of environmental impact.
Table VII shows that the difference between the
optimized data and the base case lead to decrease the
cost of CO and NOx by 44.78%. In addition, this table
shows that by using multiobjective GA, the amount of
CO2 obtained from optimization leads to 42.73%
decrease in this objective function in comparison with
the actual running power plant.
Table VIII represents the design parameters for both
optimization point and case study. It is worth mentioning that the optimization data are based on point
Table VII. Comparison between actual power plant parameters
and optimized data in this study.
Property
Zex
CTotal
CO2
Cenv

Unit

Case study

Optimized

Differences

%
$ h1
kg MWh1
$ h1

24.63
8031.3
320.27
17.2

43.5
6105.8
183.4
11.88

143.4%
31.53%
42.73 %
44.78 %

Table VIII. Comparison of design variables between the

optimization and case study.
Decision variable

Case study

Optimization results

10.59
0.83
0.87
1346.15
763.56

13.93
0.86
0.91
1351.23
790.46

rComp
ZComp
ZGT
TIT (1K)
T3 (1K)

H. B. Avval et al.

8.5. Sensitivity analysis

In each optimization problem to have a good insight
into the study, a sensitivity analysis should be
performed. This analysis, which is carried out based

Table IX. Comparison of thermoeconomic parameters of the different components in a power plant for base case and final selected
optimum solution.
ED (MW)
Component
AC
CC
GT
AP
Total

CD ($ h1)

ED/ED,Tot

Z/(Z1CD)

BC

Opt

BC

Opt

BC

Opt

BC

Opt

7.8
86.46
12.65
9.9
116.81

2.48
73.5
7.7
6.06
89.74

6.67
74.01
10.82
8.47
100

2.76
81.90
8.58
6.75
100

88.2
1028.6
180.7
131.1
1428.5

55
927.7
145.4
125.5
1253

61.33
0.86
46.9
34.57
32.79

90.04
0.64
91.47
57.58
62.24

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

399

H. B. Avval et al.

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

on the change in a related parameter as well as some

other modeling parameters, helps us to predict the
results while some modications are necessary in
modeling and optimization. Therefore, the sensitivity
analysis of the Pareto optimum solution is performed to
the fuel-specic cost and the interest rate. Figure 6
shows the sensitivity of the Pareto optimal frontier to
the variation of specic fuel cost. This gure shows that
the Pareto Frontier shifts upward as the specic fuel
cost increases. At the lower exergetic efciency in which
the weight of thermoenvironomic objective is higher, the
sensitivity of the optimal solutions to the fuel cost is
much higher than the location of Pareto Frontier with
the lower weight of thermoenvironomic objective. In
fact, the exergetic objective does not have a signicant
effect on the sensitivity to the economic parameters such
as the fuel cost and interest rate. Moreover, at higher
exergy efciency, the purchase cost of equipment in the
plant is increased so that the cost rate of the plant also
increases. Furthermore, at the constant exergy efciency
by increasing the fuel cost, the total cost rate of the
product increases due to the fact that the fuel price plays
a signicant role in this objective function.

Figure 7 presents the sensitivity analysis of Pareto

optimum solution of the CO2 emission and total cost
rate by change in the fuel cost rate. From this gure, it
is obvious that to have a cycle, which produces less
CO2, one may select the components that have higher
thermodynamic properties like isentropic efciency.
Therefore, it leads to increase of the purchase cost of
the equipment. On the contrary, by increasing the fuel
cost, the total cost rate of the product is increased because of the important role of the fuel cost in this objective function.
Similar behavior is observed for sensitivity of Pareto
optimal solution to the interest rate in Figures 8 and 9.
The nal optimal solution that was selected in this research belongs to the region of Pareto Frontier with
signicant sensitivity to the costing parameters. However, the region with the lower sensitivity to the costing
parameter is not reasonable for the nal optimum
solution due to weak equilibrium of Pareto Frontier
in which a small change in exergetic efciency of plant
due to variation of operating parameters may lead
to the danger of increasing the cost rate of product,
drastically.

Figure 6. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solution to the specific

fuel cost (i 5 13%).

Figure 8. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solution to the interest

rate (Cf 5 0.003 $ MJ1).

Figure 7. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solution to the specific

fuel cost (i 5 13%).

Figure 9. Sensitivity of Pareto optimum solution to the interest

rate (Cf 5 0.003 $ MJ1).

400

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

9. CONCLUSION
In this study, the thermodynamic modeling and multiobjective optimization of a GT power plant with
preheater are performed. In addition, to have a good
thermodynamic modeling, the results from the simulation code were compared with data obtained from the
actual running GT power plant in Iran. The results
showed that the average of differences between the
numerical and the measured values of parameters is
about 5.134% with maximum of 10.27% in cycle
exergy efciency. On the contrary, for the optimization
procedure, an alternative to previously presented
calculus-based optimization approaches, namely evolutionary algorithm (i.e. GA), was utilized for multiobjective optimization of typical GT power plant. The
proposed evolutionary algorithm was shown to be a
powerful and effective tool in nding the set of the
optimal solutions for the choice of optimum design
variables in the power plant in comparison with the
conventional mathematical optimization algorithms.
Moreover, the need to quantify the environmental
impacts lead to the introduction of pollution-related
costs in our economic objective function. In this regard,
the environmental objective is transformed to a cost
function encountered the cost of environmental impacts. The new environmental cost function was
merged in thermoeconomic objective and a new
thermoenvironomic function was obtained. On the
contrary, to have a good insight of the CO2 emission in
the plant, the emission of this dangerous gas is
considered as distinguished objective function. It means
that the CO2 emission per MWh of the plant should be
minimized. Hence, the four-objective problem was
transformed to a three-objective optimization problem
facilitating the decision-making process. Furthermore,
the comparison between the optimized plant and the
actual running power plant was performed. The results
of optimization in comparison with actual power plant
showed that the optimization increases the overall
exergoeconomic factor of the system from 32.79 to
62.24%, implying that optimization process mostly
improved the associated cost of thermodynamic inefciencies. The sensitivity of obtained Pareto solutions
to the interest rate and fuel cost were studied. Moreover, it was discussed that selection of the nal
optimum solution from the Pareto Frontier requires a
process of decision-making, which is depending on
preferences and criteria of each decision-maker.

NOMENCLATURE
C
Cp
CDv
Cf

5 cost per unit of exergy ($ MJ1)

5 specic heat (kJ kg1 K1)
5 cost of exergy destruction ($ h1)
5 cost of fuel pet unit of energy ($ MJ1)

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

H. B. Avval et al.

E
e
GE
h
E_ D
LHV
m
P
Q
R
S
T
Tpz
W
x
_Z
Zk

5 exergy (kJ)
5 specic exergy (kJ kg1)
5 excess free Gibbs energy (kJ)
5 specic enthalpy (kJ kg1)
5 exergy destruction (kJ)
5 lower heating value (kJ kg1)
5 mass ow rate (kg h1)
5 pressure (bar)
5 heat transfer (kJ)
5 gas constant (kJ kg1 K1)
5 specic entropy (kJ kg1 K1)
5 temperature (1C)
5 adiabatic temperature in the primary zone
of combustion chamber (K)
5 work (kJ)
5 molar fraction
5 capital cost rate ($ s1)
5 purchase cost of the component ($)

Greek symbols
Z
ZGT
ZAC
e
g
j
x

5 efciency
5 gas turbine isentropic efciency
5 air compressor isentropic efciency
5 CO2 emission per net output power
(kgCO2 MWh1)
5 specic heat ratio
5 maintenance factor
5 coefcient of fuel chemical exergy

Subscripts and Superscripts

a
amb
AP
AC
cc
ch
CRF
D
e
env
GT
f
g
hr
i
in
k
L
Opt
ph
PP
rC
ref
tot
1

5 air
5 ambient
5 air preheater
5 air compressor
5 combustion chamber
5 chemical
5 capital recovery factor
5 destruction
5 exit condition
5 environment
5 gas turbine
5 fuel
5 combustion gasses
5 hour
5 interest rate
5 inlet condition
5 component
5 loss
5 optimum
5 physical
5 power plant
5 compressor pressure ratio
5 reference
5 total
5 reference ambient condition
5 rate
401

H. B. Avval et al.

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

APPENDIX A: PURCHASE
EQUIPMENT COST FUNCTIONS [33]
System
component
AC

CC

GT
AP

Capital or investment
cost functions

   
c11 m_ a
P2
P2
ZAC
ln
c12  ZAC
P1
P1
!
c21 m_ a
ZCC
11EXPC23 TTIT  C24 
c22  PP43

  
c31 m_ g
PC
in
11EXPc33 T3  c34 
ZGT
c32  ZT
PD


m_ gh5 h6 0:6
ZAP C41
UDTLMTD

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

REFERENCES
1. Kurt H, Recebli Z, Gredik E. Performance analysis
of open cycle gas turbines. International Journal of
Energy Research 2009; 33(2):285294.
2. Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Khanmohammadi S. Exergy
analysis of a 420 MW combined cycle power plant.
International Journal of Energy Research 2008;
32:175183.
3. Dincer I, Al-Muslim H. Thermodynamic analysis of
reheats cycle steam power plants. International
Journal of Energy Research 2001; 25:727739.
4. Ahmadi P, Ameri M, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy
and exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant
(a case study). International Journal of Energy
Research 2009; 33:499512.
5. Balli O, Aras H. Energetic and exergetic performance
evaluation of a combined heat and power system with
the micro gas turbine (MGTCHP). International
Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31(14):14251440.
6. Sahin B, Ali K. Thermo-dynamic analysis of a
combined Carnot cycle with internal irreversibility.
Energy 1995; 20(12):12851289.
7. Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Khanmohamadi S. Exergy
analysis of supplementary ring effects on the heat
recovery steam generator. Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Mechanical Engineering
2007, Paper no. 2053, Tehran, Iran, 2007.
8. Toffolo A, Lazzaretto A. Evolutionary algorithms for
multi-objective energetic and economic optimization
in thermal system design. Energy 2002; 27:549567.
9. Sahoo PK. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a cogeneration system using evolutionary
programming. Applied Thermal Engineering 2008;
28(13):15801588.
10. Sayyaadi H, Sabzaligol T. Exergoeconomic optimization of a 1000MW light water reactor power
402

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.
22.

23.

24.

generation system. International Journal of Energy

Research 2009; DOI: 10.1002/er.1481.
Sanaye S, Ziabasharhagh M, Ghazinejad M. Optimal design of gas turbine CHP plant. International
Journal of Energy Research 2009; 33(8):766777.
Dincer I. Environmental and sustainability aspects
of hydrogen and fuel cell systems. International
Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:2955.
Dincer I. On energetic, exergetic and environmental
aspects of drying systems. International Journal of
Energy Research 2002; 26:717727.
Frangopoulos CA. An introduction to environomic
analysis and optimization of energy-intensive systems. Proceedings of the ECOS92. New York:
ASME; 1992; 231239.
Toffolo A, Lazzaretto A. Energy, economy and
environment as objectives in multi-criteria optimization of thermal system design. Energy 2004;
29:11391157.
Ehyaei MA, Mozafari AA. Energy, economic and
environmental (3E) analysis of a micro gas turbine
employed for on-site combined heat and power
production.
Energy
and
Buildings
2010;
42(2):259264.
Suresh MVJJ, Reddy KS, Kolar AK. 3-E analysis of
advanced power plants based on high ash coal.
International Journal of Energy Research. DOI:
10.1002/er.1593.
Ahmadi P, Naja AF, Ganjehei AS. Thermodynamic Modeling and Exergy analysis of a Gas
Turbine Plant (Case Study in Iran). Proceedings of
the 16th International Conference of Mechanical
Engineering, 2008, Kerman, Iran, ISME 2243.
Avval HB, Ahmadi P. Thermodynamic modeling of
combined cycle power plant with gas turbine blade
cooling. Proceedings of the First Iranian Thermodynamic Congress, Isfahan, Iran, 2007.
Kotas TJ. The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant
Analysis. Butterworths: London, 1985.
Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal Design
and Optimization. Wiley: New York, 1996.
Ameri M, Ahmadi P. The study of ambient
temperature effects on exergy losses of a heat
recovery steam generator. Proceedings of the International Conference on Power Engineering, 2007,
Hang Zhou, China, 2007; 5561.
Cihan A, Hachafzoglu O, Kahveci K. Energyexergy analysis and modernization suggestions for a
combined-cycle power plant. International Journal of
Energy Research 2006; 30:115126.
Dincer I, Al-Muslim H. Thermodynamic analysis of
reheats cycle steam power plants. International
Journal of Energy Research 2001; 25:727739.

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

Thermo-economic-environmental Multi-objective Optimization

25. Ahmadi P. Exergy analysis of combined cycle power

plants (a case study), 2006, B.Sc. Thesis, Energy
Engineering Department, Power and Water University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 2006.
26. Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis
of thermal, chemical, and metallurgical processes,
Hemisphere, New York, 1988.
27. Aljundi I. Energy and exergy analysis of a steam
power plant in Jordan. Applied Thermal Engineering.
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.02.029.
28. Balli1 O, Aras H. Energetic and exergetic performance
evaluation of a combined heat and power system with
the micro gas turbine (MGTCHP). International
Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:14251440.
29. Valero A, Lozano MA, Serra L, Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J,
Frangopoulos CA et al. CGAM problem: denition
and conventional solution. Energy 1994; 19(3):279286.
30. Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J. Exergoeconomic evaluation
and optimization of energy systems: application to
the CGAM problem. Energy 1994; 19(3):287321.
31. Frangopoulos CA. Application of thermoeconomic
optimization methods to the CGAM problem.
Energy 1994; 19(3):323342.
32. Ahmadi P, Sanaye S. Optimization of combined cycle
power plant using sequential quadratic programming.
Proceedings of the ASME Summer Heat Transfer
Conference, Florida, U.S.A., 2008, HT2008-56129.
33. Roosen P, Uhlenbruck S, Lucas K. Pareto optimization of a combined cycle power system as a decision
support tool for trading off investment vs. operating
costs. International Journal of Thermal Sciences
2003; 42:553560.
34. Ozgur Colpan C, Yesein T. Energetic, exergetic and
thermoeconomic analysis of Bilkent combined cycle

Int. J. Energy Res. 2011; 35:389403 r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er

H. B. Avval et al.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.
43.

cogeneration plant. International Journal of Energy

Research 2006; 30:875894.
Gulder OL. Flame temperature estimation of conventional and future jet fuels. Journal of Engineering
for Gas Turbines and Power 1986; 108(2):376380.
Toffolo A, Lazzaretto A. Energy, economy and
environment as objectives in multi-criteria optimization of thermal system design. Energy 2004; 29:
11391157.
Rizk NK, Mongia HC. Semi analytical correlations
for NOx, CO and UHC emissions. Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 1993;
115(3):612619.
Ghaffarizadeh A. Investigation on evolutionary
algorithms emphasizing mass extinction. B.Sc. Thesis,
Shiraz University of Technology-Shiraz, Iran, 2006.
Goldberg DE. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley:
Reading, MA, 1989.
Schaffer JD. Multiple objective optimization with
vector evaluated genetic algorithms. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Genetic Algorithm
and their Applications, Boston, U.S.A., 1985.
Srinivas N, Deb K. Multiobjective optimization
using no dominated sorting in genetic algorithms.
Journal of Evolutionary Computation 1994; 2(3):
221248.
Deb K. Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley: Chichester, 2001.
Deb K, Goel T. Controlled elitist non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithms for better convergence.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Evolutionary Multi-criterion Optimization, Zurich,
2001; 385399.

403