Chapter 24

Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization

Chapter Outline
24.1 Introduction 483 24.5.2.3 Constraints 488
24.2 Optimization Formulations 484 24.5.2.4 Multiobjective Optimization 488
24.2.1 System Boundaries 484 24.6 Case Study: GT Power Generation Plant 489
24.2.2 OFs and System Criteria 484 24.6.1 Thermodynamic, Economic, and Environmental
24.2.3 Decision Variables 484 Modeling and Analysis 489
24.2.4 Constraints 484 24.6.1.1 Thermodynamic Modeling 490
24.3 Optimization Methods 485 24.6.1.2 Exergy Analysis 490
24.3.1 Classical Optimization 485 24.6.1.3 Exergoeconomic Analysis 490
24.3.2 Numerical Method Optimization 485 24.6.1.4 Exergoenvironmental Analysis 492
24.3.3 Evolutionary Algorithm 485 24.6.2 Optimization 492
24.3.3.1 GA 485 24.6.2.1 Definition of OFs 492
24.3.3.2 ANN 485 24.6.2.2 Decision Variables 492
24.3.3.3 Fuzzy Logic 486 24.6.2.3 Model Validation 493
24.4 Multiobjective Optimization 486 24.6.2.4 Optimal Solutions 493
24.5 Illustrative Example: Air Compressor Optimization 486 24.6.2.5 Optimal Relation between Total Cost
24.5.1 Thermodynamic and Economic Modeling and Rate and Exergy Efficiency 495
Analysis 486 24.6.2.6 Distribution of Design Parameters 495
24.5.1.1 Modeling 486 24.6.2.7 Use of Sensitivity Analyses to
24.5.1.2 Exergy Analysis 487 Describe Effect of Decision Variables
24.5.1.3 Exergoeconomic Analysis 487 on OFs 497
24.5.2 Optimization 488 24.7 Closing Remarks 497
24.5.2.1 OFs 488 Problems 497
24.5.2.2 Decision Variables 488

ABSTRACT 24.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the integration of exergy analysis with multi-
objective optimization, and the application of such a combined
method, is described. It is usually important to optimize processes
so that a chosen quantity, known as the objective function (OF), is
maximized or minimized. Engineering design has thus become
increasingly coupled with optimization, and exergy methods can
enhance such approaches. Here, we describe several optimization
methods and the formulation of an optimization problem. To
improve understanding, several components are first considered
individually and OFs, constraints, and optimization are developed
and applied. After, a case study is considered based on a gas
turbine power generation plant in which a complete system is
modeled and optimized.
KEYWORDS
Exergy; Optimization; Multiobjective optimization; Objective
function; Evolutionary algorithm; Economics; Environment;
Decision variable; Air compressor; Gas turbine; Hydrogen
production.
Increasing global competition and the desire for better and
more efficient processes have placed expanded pressures on
design. Interest is growing in producing higher quality prod-
ucts at minimal cost, while satisfying increasing concerns
regarding environmental impact, safety, and other factors. It
is no longer adequate to develop a system that simply per-
forms a desired task, from the perspective of society.
For various reasons, it is important to optimize processes
so that a chosen quantity, known as the objective function
(OF), is maximized or minimized. For example, the output,
profit, productivity, product quality, and so forth, may be
maximized, or the cost per item, investment, energy input,
and so forth, may be minimized. The success and growth of
industries today is strongly based on their ability to optimize
designs and systems. With the advent in the recent years of
new materials, such as composites and ceramics, and new
manufacturing processes, several traditional industries (e.g.,

Exergy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097089-9.00024-3
2013 Ibrahim Dincer and Marc A. Rosen. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved 483
484
steel) have faced significant challenges and, in some cases,
diminished in size, while many new fields have emerged. It
is important to exploit new techniques for product
improvement and cost reduction in traditional and new
industries. Even in an expanding area, such as consumer
electronics, the prosperity of a company is closely connected
to its ability to apply optimization to new and existing
process and system designs. Consequently, engineering
design, which has always been important, has become
increasingly coupled with optimization.
Optimization is a significant tool in engineering for
determining the best, or optimal, value for the decision
variable of a system. Energy engineering is a field where
optimization plays a particularly important role. Engineers
involved in thermal energy engineering, for instance, are
required to answer the questions such as:
l What processes or equipment should be selected for
a system, and how should the parts be arranged for the
best outcome?
l What are the best characteristics for the components
(e.g., size, capacity, cost)?
l What are the best process parameters (e.g., temperature,
pressure, flow rate, and composition) of each stream
interacting with the system?
In order to answer such questions, engineers are required to
formulate an appropriate optimization problem. Proper
formulation is usually the most important and sometimes
the most difficult step in optimization. To formulate an
optimization problem, there are numerous elements that
need to be defined, including system boundaries, optimi-
zation criteria, decision variables, and OFs.
In this chapter, we describe several optimization methods
and the formulation of an optimization problem. To improve
understanding, several components are first considered
individually and OFs, constraints, and optimization are
developed and applied. Then, a case study is considered in
which a complete system is modeled and optimized.
24.2 OPTIMIZATION FORMULATIONS
24.2.1 System Boundaries
The first step in any optimization problem is to define the
system boundaries. All subsystems that affect system
performance should be included. When the system is overly
complex, it is often desirable to break it down into smaller
subsystems. In this case, optimization should be done on
each subsystem independently, that is, suboptimization of
the subsystems is performed.
24.2.2 OFs and System Criteria
The next step in an optimization problem is to define the
system criteria, which is sometimes called the OF. The OF
Exergy
is based on the desire or purpose of the decision maker, and
it can be either maximized or minimized.
Optimization criteria can vary widely. For instance, it
can be based on efficiency (energy, exergy, or other effi-
ciencies), economic (total capital investment, total annual
levelized costs, cost of exergy destruction, and cost of
environmental impact), technological (production rate,
production time, and total weight), and/or environmental
(rate of emitted pollutants).
Note that we can consider more than one OF to find the
optimal solution for an optimization problem. This method
is called multiobjective optimization.
24.2.3 Decision Variables
Another essential element in formulating an optimization
problem is the selection of the independent decision vari-
ables that adequately characterized the possible design
options. To select these decision variables, it is important
to: (1) include all important variables that could affect the
performance and cost effectiveness of the system, (2) not
include variables with minor importance, and (3) distin-
guish among independent variables whose values are
amenable to change. In each optimization problem, only
decision variables are changing. Variables whose values are
calculated from the independent variables using mathe-
matical models are dependent variables.
24.2.4 Constraints
The constraints in a given design problem arise due to
limitations on the ranges of the physical variables, basic
conservation principles that must be satisfied, and other
limitations. The restrictions on the variables may arise due
to the space, equipment, and materials that are employed.
These may restrict, for example, the dimensions of the
system, the highest temperature that the components can
safely attain, the allowable pressure, the material flow rate,
the force generated, and so on. Also, minimum values of
the temperature may be specified for thermoforming of
a plastic and for ignition to occur in an engine. Thus, both
minimum and maximum values of the design variables may
be involved in constraints.
Many constraints in thermal systems arise because of
conservation laws, particularly those related to mass,
momentum, and energy. For instance, under steady-state
conditions, mass inflow to the system must equal mass
outflow. This condition gives rise to an equation that must
be satisfied by the relevant design variables, thus restricting
the values that may be employed in the search for an
optimum. Similarly, energy balance considerations are
important in thermal systems and may limit the range of
temperatures, heat fluxes, dimensions, and so forth, that
may be used. Several such constraints are often satisfied
Chapter | 24 Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization
during modeling and simulation because the governing
equations are based on conservation principles. In this way,
the OF being optimized already considers these constraints.
In such cases, only the additional limitations that define the
boundaries of the design domain remain to be considered.
24.3 OPTIMIZATION METHODS
24.3.1 Classical Optimization
Classical optimization techniques are useful in finding the
optimum solution or unconstrained maximum or minimum
of continuous and differentiable functions. Some specifi-
cations for classical optimization can be selected based on
this understanding, as described below:
l These are analytical methods that make use of differ-
ential calculus in locating the optimum solution.
l Classical methods have limited scope in practical
applications as some involve OFs that are not contin-
uous and/or differentiable.
l These methods assume that the function is differentiable
twice with respect to the design variables and that the
derivatives are continuous.
l Three main types of problems can be handled by clas-
sical optimization techniques:
l Single variable functions
l Multivariable functions with no constraints
l Multivariable functions with both equality and
inequality constraints
In problems with equality constraints, the Lagrange
multiplier method can be used. If the problem has
inequality constraints, the Kuhn-Tucker conditions can be
used to identify the optimum solution.
24.3.2 Numerical Method Optimization
This optimization technique can be categorized according
to specific method, as follows:
l Linear programming: Studies the case in which the
OF f is linear and the set A, where A is the design
variable space, is specified using only linear equalities
and inequalities.
l Integer programming: Studies linear programs in
which some or all variables are constrained to take on
integer values.
l Quadratic programming: Allows the OF to have
quadratic terms, while the set A must be specified with
linear equalities and inequalities.
l Nonlinear programming: Studies the general case in
which the OF or the constraints or both contain
nonlinear parts.
l Stochastic programming: Studies the case in which
some of the constraints depend on random variables.
485
l Dynamic programming: Studies the case in which the
optimization strategy is based on splitting the problem
into smaller subproblems.
l Combinatorial optimization: Concerns problems
where the set of feasible solutions is discrete or can be
reduced to a discrete one.
l Evolutionary algorithm: Involves numerical methods
based on random search.
24.3.3 Evolutionary Algorithm
An evolutionary algorithm utilizes techniques inspired by
biological evaluation reproduction, mutation, recombina-
tion, and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization
problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the
fitness function determines the environment within which
the solutions live. Evolutionary algorithm methods
include genetic algorithms (GAs), artificial neural
networks (ANNs), and fuzzy logic (Ghaffarizadeh, 2006).
These approaches are discussed further in the following
sections. Each of the approaches is available in toolboxes
developed by MathWorks and can thus be used easily with
MATLAB software.
24.3.3.1 GA
A GA is a search method used for obtaining an optimal
solution that is based on evolutionary techniques similar to
processes in evolutionary biology, including inheritance,
learning, selection, and mutation. The process starts with
a population of candidate solutions called individuals, and
progresses through generations, with the fitness of each
individual being evaluated. Fitness is defined based on the
OF. Then multiple individuals are selected from the current
generation based on fitness and modified to form a new
population. This new population is used in the next iteration
and the algorithm progresses toward the desired optimal
point (Schaffer, 1985; Goldberg, 1989).
24.3.3.2 ANN
ANNs are interconnected groups of processing elements,
called artificial neurons, similar to those in the central
nervous system of the body. The approach is thus analogous
to some elements of neuroscience. The characteristics of
the processing elements and their interconnections deter-
mine the processing of information and the modeling of
simple and complex processes. Functions are performed in
parallel and the networks have both nonadaptive and
adaptive elements, which change with the inputs and
outputs and the problem. The ANN approach leads to
nonlinear, distributed, parallel, local processing and adap-
tive representations of systems (Ghaffarizadeh, 2006).
486
FIGURE 24.1 Multiobjective optimization with
two OFs, OF1 and OF2, that are to be minimized,
showing the (a) dominant designs and (b) the Pareto
frontier.
24.3.3.3 Fuzzy Logic
Fuzzy logic allows us to deal with inherently imprecise
concepts, such as cold, warm, very, and slight, and is useful
in a wide variety of thermal systems where approximate,
rather than precise, reasoning is needed. Fuzzy logic can be
used for the control of systems and in problems where
a sharp cut off between two conditions does not exist.
24.4 MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
Optimal conditions are generally strongly dependent on the
chosen OF. However, several aspects of performance are
often important in most practical applications. In thermal
and energy systems design, efficiency (energy and/or
exergy), production rate, output, quality, and heat transfer
rate are common quantities that are to be maximized, while
cost, input, environmental impact, and pressure are quan-
tities to be minimized. Any of these can be chosen as the
OF for a problem, but it is usually more meaningful and
useful to consider more than one OF.
In a single-objective optimization problem, the task is to
find the value for the OF, which optimizes a sole OF. When
more than one OF is considered in the optimization, we
refer to the procedure as multiobjective optimization.
One of the common approaches for dealing with
multiple OFs is to combine them into a single OF that is to
be minimized or maximized. For example, in the design of
heat exchangers and cooling systems for electronic equip-
ment, it is desirable to maximize the heat transfer rate.
However, this often comes at the cost of increased fluid
flow rates and corresponding frictional pressure losses.
Another approach that has attracted much attention in
recent years is multiobjective optimization. With this
approach, two or more OFs that are of interest in a given
problem are considered, and a strategy is developed to
balance or trade off each OF relative to the others (Deb,
2001).
To illustrate, we consider two OFs, OF1 and OF2.
We assume that these are to be minimized (although
maximization can be similarly handled since it is equiv-
alent to minimization of the negative of the function).
Exergy
Figure 24.1a shows values for the two OFs at five design
points. As shown in this figure, design 2 is clearly pref-
erable to design 4 because both OFs are smaller for
design 2 compared to design 4. Similarly, design 3 is
preferable to design 5. However, designs 1, 2, and 3 are
not preferable, or dominated, by any other designs. The
set of nondominated designs is introduced as the Pareto
frontier, representing the best collection of design points.
This is shown in Figure 24.1b. Note that any point on the
Pareto frontier can be considered as an optimal design
condition. The selection of a specific design from the set
of points constituting the Pareto frontier is at the discre-
tion of the decision maker, which may be an engineer or
designer.
24.5 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: AIR
COMPRESSOR OPTIMIZATION
To enhance understanding of the application of optimiza-
tion, an example involving an air compressor (AC), a rela-
tively simple device, is illustrated in detail. OFs, constraints,
and multiobjective optimization are involved.
An (AC) is a device that converts electrical power
(usually from an electric motor, a diesel engine, or a gaso-
line engine) into compressed air by compressing and
pressurizing air, which can be released on demand for
applications. There are numerous methods of air
compression, including positive-displacement or negative-
displacement types. To optimize an AC using thermody-
namic and other factors, we first have to model the device
using energy balances and other relations. Figure 24.2
shows an AC as a control volume for the thermodynamic
modeling.
24.5.1 Thermodynamic and Economic
Modeling and Analysis
24.5.1.1 Modeling
For the AC, we can write expressions for the outlet
temperature T2 and the work rate requirement W_ AC ,
respectively, as follows:
Chapter | 24 Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization 487

T2 and where T0 and P0 denote the reference environment

temperature and pressure. These values are taken here to be
the ambient temperature and pressure, which are 20 C and
. 1 atm.
WAC The compression ratio for the AC and the specific
AC
exergy of the outlet air, respectively, can be expressed as
follows:

P2
RAC (24.7)
T1 P1
FIGURE 24.2 Model of an AC.
ex2 h2  h0  T0 s2  s0
    
T2 P2
Cp T2  T0  T0 Cp ln  R ln
T0 P0

 ga 1  (24.8)
1 g
T2 T1 1 gACa 1 (24.1)
hAC An exergy balance for the AC can be written as:
W_ AC m_ a Cpa T2  T1 (24.2)
m_ 1 ex1 W_ AC m_ 2 ex2 Ex
_ D (24.9)
where m_ a is air mass flow rate, hAC is the compressor
The exergy efficiency of the compressor can be evalu-
isentropic efficiency, ga cp =cv , and cpa is the specific
ated as follows:
heat at constant pressure of air, which can be expressed
a function of temperature as follows (Hajabdollahi et al., _ 2  Ex _ 1
Ex
2011): AC (24.10)
W_ AC
3:837  T 9:453  T 2 5:490  T 3
cpa 1:048  
104 107 1010 24.5.1.3 Exergoeconomic Analysis
7:929  T 4
An exergoeconomic analysis is provided here for the AC.
1014
(24.3) Further details on exergoeconomic analysis, cost balances,
and exergoeconomic factors are discussed earlier in this
Also, T1 is the ambient air temperature entering the AC and book and elsewhere (Kotas, 1985; Bejan et al., 1996;
T2 is the hot air temperature leaving the AC. Ahmadi and Dincer, 2010). To find the cost of exergy
destruction for the AC, a cost rate balance can be utilized.
24.5.1.2 Exergy Analysis The cost rate balance for this component can be written as
As exergy analysis is discussed extensively in other follows:
chapters, we focus here on the exergy destruction and _ 1 cw W_ AC Z_ AC c2 Ex
c1 Ex _ 2 (24.11)
exergy efficiency of the AC, which can exist in isolation
or be a component of a larger system. More details about where c1, c2, and cw are the unit costs of the inlet air, outlet
exergy analyses of compressors, applied within gas air, and work. Here, the inlet air is taken to be free, so its
turbine (GT)-based power generation, are given else- unit cost is zero, that is,
where (Ahmadi, 2006; Kanoglu et al., 2007a; Ahmadi c1 0 (24.12)
and Dincer, 2011a,b). An exergy analysis for the AC
Also, Z_ AC is the purchase cost rate of AC, which can be
follows.
expressed as follows:
The specific exergy of the air entering the compressor
can be written as follows:
ZAC  CRF  4
Z_ AC (24.13)
N  3600
ex1 h1  h0  T0 s1  s0 (24.4)
where ZAC is the purchase cost of the AC and CRF is the
where capital recovery factor, which is dependent on the interest
rate i and equipment life time n, and is determined as:
h1  h0 Cp T1  T0 (24.5)
    i1 in
T1 P1 CRF
s1  s0 Cp ln  R ln (24.6) 1 in  1
(24.14)
T0 P0
488 Exergy

Here, n denotes the annual number of operation hours for

the unit, and 4 is the maintenance factor, which is often TABLE 24.1 Physical Constraints for Optimization of
1.06 (Bejan et al., 1996). an AC
The purchase cost of the AC can be approximated as Constraints Reason
follows (Bejan et al., 1996):
RAC < 22 Material temperature limit
1
ZAC c11 m_ a RAC lnRAC (24.15) hAC < 0.92 Commercial availability
c12  hAC
where
c11 44:71$=kg s1 (24.16)
are considered, and these are given and explained in
c12 0:95 (24.17) Table 24.1.

24.5.2.4 Multiobjective Optimization

24.5.2 Optimization To determine the best among the optimal design parameters
for an AC, a modified version of a GA developed with
24.5.2.1 OFs MATLAB software is used. Figure 24.3 shows the Pareto
For each optimization problem, defining OFs is of great frontier for multiobjective optimization of an AC with the
importance. In this example multiple OFs can be consid- pressure ratio and isentropic efficiency of the compressor as
ered through multiobjective optimization. When high effi- the two main design variables. The range of values shown is
ciency is desired, it is reasonable to include the exergy limited by the problem constraints.
efficiency of the compressor as an OF. As shown in It can be seen in Figure 24.3 that the total compressor
Equation 24.10, the compressor exergy efficiency is cost increases moderately as the compressor exergy effi-
a function of the compressor pressure ratio and the ciency increases up to about 92%. Increasing the total
compressor isentropic efficiency. Another OF can be the exergy efficiency further increases the cost significantly. It
compressor cost, as expressed in Equation 24.13, which is is also shown in Figure 24.3 that the maximum exergy
a function of the compressor pressure ratio, the air mass efficiency exists at design point C (94.44%), while the
flow rate through the compressor, and the compressor compressor cost rate is the greatest at this point (33.1 $/hr).
isentropic efficiency. On the other hand, the minimum value for the compressor
Considering these two OFs, we can write: cost rate occurs at design point A and is about $5.12 per
hour. Design point C is the optimal situation when exergy
_ 2  Ex
Ex _ 1 efficiency is the sole OF, while design point A leads the
OF I AC (24.18)
W_ AC optimum design when total cost rate of product is the sole
OF. Point D is the ideal solution of the multiobjective
1
c11 m_ a RAC ln RAC CRF  4 optimization because both OFs are at their optimal values,
c12  hAC
OF II Z_ AC that is, at higher exergy efficiency and lower total cost rate.
N  3600
(24.19)

24.5.2.2 Decision Variables

The main design parameters or decision variables for
optimization of the AC are the compressor pressure ratio
and the compressor isentropic efficiency. Thus, to perform
a multi-objective optimization they are considered as our
decision variables.

24.5.2.3 Constraints
To formulate a meaningful optimization problem, cons-
traints often exist that must be satisfied while performing
the optimization. Often these constraints are used to ensure FIGURE 24.3 Pareto frontier for the optimization of an AC, highlighting
solutions are reasonable and realistic. Here, two constraints the best trade-off among values for the OFs.
Chapter | 24 Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization 489

Since this point is not located on the Pareto frontier, point B

could be selected as one of the best solutions because it is
close to the ideal solution.
The variations of compressor pressure ratio and
compressor isentropic efficiency are illustrated in Figures
24.4 and 24.5, respectively, where scatter distributions for
the populations in the Pareto frontier are shown for each of
these design parameters. The points in these figures are
obtained from the developed MATLAB code, and they
show how the design parameters change within their
allowable ranges. In a GA, a population (called chromo-
somes or the genotype of the genome), which encodes
candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or
phenotypes) to an optimization problem, evolves toward
better solutions. The scatter distribution of design param-
FIGURE 24.5 Scatter distribution of compressor pressure ratio with
eters are within the range exhibiting good selections of
population in Pareto frontier.
these two parameters for optimization purposes. It is noted
in Figures 24.4 and 24.5 that the points are not just near the
boundaries, they are also scattered almost randomly within
their ranges (8e22 for RAC, and 0.78e0.92 for hAC). In for this energy system, thermodynamic modeling is
real optimization, the selection of decision variables is required and is also explained.
based on the scattered distribution of the decision vari-
ables, providing an efficient search for the best optimal
solution of OF.
24.6.1 Thermodynamic, Economic, and
Environmental Modeling and Analysis
24.6 CASE STUDY: GT POWER
GT plants are widely utilized throughout the world for
GENERATION PLANT
electricity generation, and natural gas is often used as the fuel
To improve understanding of the optimization of energy in such plants. Today, many electrical generating utilities are
systems and how methods are applied, a detailed optimi- striving to improve the efficiency (or heat rate) of existing
zation case study of a complex system is considered here of thermal electric generating stations, many of which are over
in the form of a GT power generation plant. We describe the 25 years old. Often, an energy efficiency improvement of
definition of OFs and constraints and how to perform only a few percent is sought since the costs and complexity of
a sensitivity analysis. The OFs can involve efficiency, cost, the measures required to improve efficiency moderately are
environmental impact, and other factors. To determine OFs more manageable than more extensive options.
The GT power plant considered in this case study is
shown in Figure 24.6. It includes an air preheater (AP),
which is part of a heat exchanger that recovers heat from
the exhaust gas.

FIGURE 24.4 Scatter distribution of compressor isentropic efficiency

with population in Pareto frontier. FIGURE 24.6 Schematic diagram of a GT power plant.
490
During operation of the GT power plant, air at
ambient conditions enters an AC, which is treated as
adiabatic, at point 1. After compression to point 2, the
air enters the AP, where its temperature is increased to
point 3. The hot air exiting the AP is supplied to the
combustion chamber (CC). Fuel at point 9 is injected into
the CC and hot combustion gases exit (point 4) and pass
through a GT to produce power. The hot flue gases
leaving the GT at point 5 pass through the heat recover
heat exchanger, which increases the temperature of the air
before it enters the CC, and then they exit the plant as flue
gases at point 6, when they are emitted to the
surroundings.
24.6.1.1 Thermodynamic Modeling
Energy balances and governing equations for the compo-
nents of the GT power plant are utilized to model the
device. An energy analysis for the AC has been explained
in the previous section. Here, the thermodynamic modeling
of the other components is explained.
Several simplifying assumptions are made here
to render the modeling and analysis more tractable,
while retaining adequate accuracy to ensure meaningful
results:
l All processes are considered to be operating at steady
state.
l Air and combustion products are ideal-gas mixtures.
l The fuel injected into the CC is taken to be natural gas.
l Heat loss from the CC is 2% of the fuel energy entering
the CC, based on lower heating value (LHV), and all
other components are considered adiabatic.
l The dead state is P0 1.01 bar and T0 293.15 K.
A description of the thermodynamic modeling of the
components follows:
AP: We can write the following energy balance for
a control volume around the AP:
m_ a h3  h2 m_ g h5  h6 hAP (24.20)
where hAP is AP efficiency. A pressure drop through the
preheater DPAP is considered, where:
P3
1  D PAP (24.21)
P2
CC: As for the preheater, an energy balance for
a control volume around the CC is written:
m_ a h3 m_ f LHV m_ g h4 1  hcc m_ f LHV (24.22)
Here, the LHV of the fuel, which is 50,000 kJ/kg in this
analysis, and hcc is the CC efficiency. Also, we can
Exergy
express the pressure drop through the CC DPCC as
follows:
P4
1  DPcc (24.23)
P3
GT: An energy balance for a control volume around the
GT shown in Figure 24.6 gives the following:

  1gg 
p4 g g
T4 T3 1  hGT 1 (24.24)
p3
where T3 is the gas turbine inlet temperature (GTIT), hGT is
the GT isentropic efficiency and ga Cpg =Cvg . With this
equation, the GT outlet temperature can be determined and
the GT output power can be evaluated as follows:
W_ GT m_ g cpg T3  T4
24.6.1.2 Exergy Analysis
Here we focus on the exergy destruction and exergy effi-
ciency for each component of the system. A complete
exergy analysis is not provided; extensive details regarding
exergy analyses of GT-based power generation are given
elsewhere (Ahmadi, 2006; Kanoglu et al., 2007; Ahmadi
and Dincer, 2011c,d). Expressions for these exergy
parameters, which are used in the optimization procedures
discussed subsequently, are given in Table 24.2.
24.6.1.3 Exergoeconomic Analysis
Exergoeconomics is the area of engineering that appro-
priately combines, at the level of systems and their
components, thermodynamic evaluations based on an
exergy analysis and economic principles, in order to
provide information that is useful to the design and
operation of a cost-effective system, but that is not readily
obtainable by conventional energy and exergy analyses
and economic analysis (Kotas, 1985; Bejan et al., 1996).
Some suggest that, when exergy costing is not applied, the
general term thermoeconomics is more appropriate as it
characterizes any combination of thermodynamic and
economic analysis (Kotas, 1985; Bejan et al., 1996;
Ahmadi and Dincer, 2010). In order to define a cost
function that is dependent on the optimization parameter,
specific component cost is expressed a function of ther-
modynamic design parameters.
When applying exergoeconomics, a parameter called
flow cost rate C_ ($/hour) is defined for all flows in a system,
and a cost rate balance is written for each component as
follows:
X X
C_ q;k C_ i;k Z_ k C_ e;k C_ w;k (24.25)
i e
Chapter | 24 Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization 491

TABLE 24.2 Expressions for Exergy Destruction Rate and Exergy Efficiency for Each Component of the GT Power Plant

Component Exergy destruction rate Exergy efficiency

Compressor _ 1 W_ AC Ex
Ex _ 2 E x_ D E x_ 2  E x_ 1
AC
W_ ac
AP E x_ 2 E x_ 5 E x_ 3 E x_ 6 E x_ D E x_ 3  E x_ 2
AP
E x_ 5  E x_ 6
CC E x_ 3 E x_ 9 E x_ 4 E x_ D E x_ 4
CC
E x_ 3 E x_ 9
GT E x_ 4 E x_ 5 W_ GT Ex
_ D W_ GT
GT
E x_ 4  E x_ 5

Accordingly, the expression for the cost rate of exergy

Cost rate balances are generally written so that all terms
are positive. Equation 24.25 can be rewritten using unit
costs as follows (Bejan et al., 1996):
X X
_ e cw;k W_ k cq;k E_ xq;k
ce Ex ci E_ x i k Z_ k
k
(24.26)
where
C_ j cj Ex
_ j (24.27)
In this analysis, the fuel and product exergy need to be
defined. The product exergy is defined according to the
component under consideration, while the fuel represents
the energy source that is consumed in generating the
product. Both product and fuel are expressed in terms of
exergy when utilizing an exergoeconomic approach. The
cost rates associated with the fuel C_ F and the product C_ p of
a component are obtained by replacing the exergy rates.
In the cost rate balance formulation (Eq. 24.10), there is
no cost term directly associated with the exergy destruction
of each component. Accordingly, the cost associated with
the exergy destruction in a component or process is
a hidden cost. The exergy balance in terms of fuel and
product exergy rate follows:
E_ xF;k E_ xP;k E_ xD;k (24.28)
destruction can be expressed as follows:
C_ D;k cF;k Ex
_ D;k (24.29)
Several methods have been proposed to express the
purchase cost of equipment in terms of design parameters in
Equation 24.10. We convert the capital investment to a cost
per time in Equations 24.13 and 24.14. To determine the
component exergy destruction cost rate, the exergy
_ D,k is evaluated using exergy balances
destruction rate Ex
from the previous section.
To estimate the cost rate of exergy destruction in each
component of the plant, we first solve the cost balances for
each component. In the cost balance (Eq. 24.10), there is
more than one inlet and outlet flow for some components.
In such cases, the number of unknown cost parameters is
higher than the number of cost balances for that compo-
nent. Auxiliary exergoeconomic equations are developed to
allow such problems to be solved. Writing Equation 24.26
for each component together with the auxiliary equations
forms a system of linear equations as follows:
_ k   ck  Z_ k 
Ex (24.30)
where Ex_ k , ck , and Z_ k are the exergy rate matrix
(obtained via exergy analysis), the exergetic cost vector (to
be evaluated), and the vector of Z_ k factors (obtained via
economic analysis), respectively. That is,

2 3 2 3 2 3
_ 1
Ex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c1 0
6 Ex
_ _ 2 _ 7 0 7 6 7 6 Z_ AC 7
6 1 Ex 0 0 0 0 Ex 0 7 6 c2 7 6 7
6 0 _
Ex2 Ex_ 3 0 _ 5
Ex _ 6
Ex 0 0 7 6
0 7 6 c3 7 7 6 Z_ AP 7
6 6 7
6 0 0 _
Ex3 Ex_ 4 0 0 0 0 _ 9 7 6 c4 7
Ex 6 Z_ CC 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 0 _ _ 5 _ 7 _ 8 0 7 6 7 6 _ 7
6 0 0 Ex4 Ex 0 Ex Ex 7  6 c5 7 6 Z GT 7 (24.31)
6 0 0 7 6 7 6 0 7
6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 6 c6 7 6 7
6 0 1 7 6
0 7 6 c7 7 7 6 0 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 7
4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 4 c8 5 4 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 c9 Fc
492 Exergy

24.6.1.4 Exergoenvironmental Analysis 24.6.2.1 Definition of OFs

A primary objective for minimizing environmental
impact often is to increase the efficiency of energy
conversion processes and thereby decrease the fuel use. In
recent years, particular emphasis has been placed on
releases of carbon dioxide, since it is the main greenhouse
gas, and optimization of thermal systems based on this
parameter has received much attention. A focus of the
present case study is to consider emissions of pollutants
(e.g., CO and NOx). Note that many approaches reported
for optimizing power plants pay little attention to envi-
ronmental impacts.
The adiabatic flame temperature in the primary zone of
the CC can be expressed as follows (Gulder, 1986):
   sum of thermodynamic and environmental objectives.
Tpz Asa expbs l2 px qy jz (24.32)
where p is dimensionless pressure (P/Pref), q is dimen-
sionless temperature (T/Tref), j is the H/C atomic ratio, s
f for f  1 (where f is mass or molar ratio) and s f 
0.7 for f  1. Moreover, x, y, and z are quadratic functions
of s based on the following expressions:

x a1 b1 s c1 s 2
(24.33)
y a2 b2 s c2 s2 (24.34)
z a3 b3 s c3 s2 (24.35)
where A, a, b, l, ai, bi, and ci are constants. Values for these
parameters and more details on the methodology are pre-
sented elsewhere (Gulder, 1986).
The amount of CO and NOx produced in a given CC
The three OFs considered here for multiobjective opti-
mization are exergy efficiency (to be maximized), the
total cost rate of the product and environmental impact
(to be minimized), and the CO2 emission (to be mini-
mized). The second OF expresses the environmental
impact as the total pollution damage ($/hour) due to
CO and NOx emissions by multiplying their respective
flow rates by their corresponding unit damage costs,
which have been reported elsewhere as CCO 0.02086
$/kg CO and CNOx 6.853 $/kg NOx (Ahmadi and
Dincer, 2010). In the present work, the cost of pollution
damage is assumed to be added directly to the expen-
ditures that must be paid, making the second OF the
Consequently, the OFs in this analysis can be expressed
as follows:
l GT power plant exergy efficiency:
W_ Net
jTotal (24.38)
m_ f ;CC  LHV  x
where W_ net , m_ f ;CC , and x denote, respectively, the GT net
output electrical power, the mass flow rate of fuel injected
into the CC, and a fuel exergy/energy correlation parameter
for gaseous fuels of composition (CxHy).
l Total cost rate:
X
C_ Tot C_ f Zk C_ D C_ env (24.39)
k

and combustion reaction is related to the adiabatic flame where the cost rates of environmental impact and fuel are
temperature (Gulder, 1986). The pollutant emissions (in expressed as follows:
grams per kilogram of fuel) can be determined as follows:
 
71100 C_ env CCO m_ CO CNOX m_ NOX ; C_ f cf m_ f  LHV
0:15  10 s exp
16 0:5
TPZ (24.40)
mNOx   (24.36)
DP3 _ _
Here, Z K and C D are the purchase cost rate of each
P0:05 0:5
3
P3 component and the cost rate of exergy destruction,
  respectively. In addition, m_ CO and m_ NOX are calculated with
7800
0:179  109 exp Equations 24.36 and 24.37, respectively.
T
mCO   PZ (24.37)
DP 3
P23 s 0:5
P3
24.6.2.2 Decision Variables
where s is the residence time in the combustion zone
The decision variables (design parameters) in this case
(assumed constant and equal to 0.002 s), Tpz is the primary
study are compressor pressure ratio RAC, compressor
zone combustion temperature, P3 is the combustor inlet
isentropic efficiency hAC, GT isentropic efficiency hGT, CC
pressure, and DP3 =P3 is the nondimensional pressure drop
inlet temperature T3, and GTIT. Even though the decision
in the CC.
variables may be varied in the optimization procedure, each
decision variable is normally required to be within
a reasonable range so constraints are applied. These
24.6.2 Optimization
constraints and the reasons of their applications are listed in
In this section, we consider OFs, design parameters, and Table 24.3, based on previous analyses (Ahmadi and
constraints, as well as overall optimization. Dincer, 2010, 2011a).
Chapter | 24 Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization 493

TABLE 24.3 Constraints for Optimization of GT Power TABLE 24.4 Comparison of Power Plant Data and
Plant Simulation Code Results

Constraints Reason Simulation

GTIT < 1550 K Material temperature limit Measured code Difference
Quantity Unit data results (%)
P2/P1 < 20 Commercial availability

T2 C 321.4 332.0 3.2
hGT < 0.92 Commercial availability

T6 C 500 529.0 5.5
hAC < 0.92 Commercial availability

T7 C 448 487.0 8.0
T7 > 400 K To avoid formation of sulfuric
acid in exhaust gases m_ f kg/s 8.44 8.18 3.2

j % 32.0 30.4 5.0

24.6.2.3 Model Validation

To simulate the performance of the GT power plant, a simu-
lation code developed with MATLAB software is used. To
validate the simulation code, the results of this study are
compared with an actual operating GT power plant located in
the Shahid Salimi Power Plant, Neka, Iran. This power plant
is located close to Mazandaran city near the Caspian Sea, in
one of the Northern provinces in Iran. A schematic diagram
of this power plant is shown in Figure 24.6.
Based on power plant data obtained in 2005, the
incoming air has a temperature of 20 C and a pressure of 1
bar. The pressure increases to 10.1 bar in the compressor,
which has an isentropic efficiency of 82%. The GTIT is
971 C. The turbine has an isentropic efficiency of 86%, and
the regenerative heat exchanger has an effectiveness of 87%.
The pressure drop through the AP is considered 3% of the
inlet pressure for both flow streams and through the CC is 3%
of the inlet pressure. The fuel (natural gas) is injected at 20 C
and 30 bar.
Thermodynamic properties of the power plant based on
modeling and simulation are listed in Table 24.4 and con-
trasted with given power plant data. The data from the
simulation code are observed to vary from those for the
actual power plant by about 3%e8%, with the maximum
difference applicable to the AP outlet temperature. This
good agreement suggests that data generated by the simu-
lation code for the GT power plant is reasonably valid.
exergy efficiency further, from 42.1% to 42.5%, results in
a more rapid, but still moderate, increase in the cost rate
of the products. Increasing the exergy efficiency above
42.5% leads to a significantly more rapid increase in the
total cost rate.
Four points (AeD) on the Pareto frontier are shown in
Figure 24.7, and the determined values of these points are
shown in Figure 24.8. It can be seen that the maximum
exergy efficiency (42.9%) occurs at design point A, which
also has the highest total cost rate of products. The
minimum value for total cost rate of product occurs at
design point D. Design point A corresponds to the optimal
point when exergy efficiency is the single OF, while design
point D is the optimum point when total cost rate of product
is a single OF. Points B and C are two different points that
could be selected by a decision maker, but they are just
selected for comparison with points A and D. Specifica-
tions for sample design points A to D in the Pareto optimal
fronts are listed in Table 24.5.

24.6.2.4 Optimal Solutions

To optimize the system, a GA method (Deb and Goel,
2001) is used. The optimization code is developed with
MATLAB software based on the evolutionary algorithm.
Figure 24.7 shows the Pareto frontier solution for the
GT power plant, where the OFs are defined as described
in the multiobjective optimization section of this chapter.
In this figure, while the total exergy efficiency of the
process increases up to about 42.1%, the total cost rate of FIGURE 24.7 Optimal solution points in the Pareto frontier for exergy
products increases only slightly. Increasing the total efficiency and total cost rate for the GT power plant.
494 Exergy

FIGURE 24.8 Scatter of variables for the Pareto optimal frontier in Figure 24.7 for the GT power plant. (a) isentropic efficiency of air compressor versus
population, (b) isentropic efficiency of gas turbine versus population, (c) gas turbine inlet temperature versus population, (d) air compressor pressure ratio
versus population and (e) air preheater temperature versus population.
Chapter | 24 Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization 495

It is emphasized that in multiobjective optimization,

each point in the Pareto frontier can be considered an TABLE 24.6 Comparison between Actual GT Power
optimized point. Therefore, selection of a particular Plant Quantities and Optimized Data from this Case
optimum solution depends on preferences and criteria of Study
the decision maker. Hence, each decision maker may select Actual plant Optimized Difference
a different point as the optimum solution that better suits Quantity value value (%)
with his/her desires.
Exergy efficiency, j 32.0 42.8 34
(%)
24.6.2.5 Optimal Relation between Total Cost
C_ Total ($/hour) 7570 5540 37
Rate and Exergy Efficiency
C_ env ($/hour) 16.4 10.9 51
To provide a helpful tool for the optimal design points of
the GT cycle in Figure 24.6, the following equation is
derived for the Pareto frontier given in Figure 24.7 using
curve fitting: Table 24.7 lists values of several design parameters for
the optimized solution (at point B in Figure 24.7) and the
7:31j3  15:15j 3:65
12:32j2
C_ Tot  1000 actual GT power plant data.
j4 9:27j  8:65j2 1:89j 0:014
3

(24.41)
This fitted equation permits the optimal value of the total 24.6.2.6 Distribution of Design Parameters
cost rate of the power plant to be approximated conve- The distribution of optimal design parameters in the Pareto
niently as a function of exergy efficiency. frontier curve is shown in Figure 24.8 for each of the
In Table 24.6, the product cost rate, the exergy effi- decision variables in Table 24.7. The lower and upper
ciency, and the cost of environmental impacts for the bounds of these variables are represented by dashed lines.
considered power plant (the Shahid Salimi Power Plant in These distributions suggest that the GT isentropic effi-
Iran) are compared with the results from multiobjective ciency (Figure 24.8b) and air preheater temperature
optimization. (Figure 24.8e) are driven by optimization toward their
Note that the values for multiobjective optimization are maximum values. That is, the distributions indicate that
based on point B in Figure 24.7. This point is chosen increases in these two design parameters lead to improve-
because it can, in many ways, be considered the best ments in both OFs, so their maximum values are selected.
point relative to other points in the Pareto solution. This The other design variables in Figure 24.8 show the scattered
point exhibits a good balance, achieving a relatively high distribution. Therefore, it can be predicted that variations of
efficiency and low total cost rate relative to other points. these variables result in conflict between two OFs in a small
Optimization is observed in Table 24.6 to increase the total range of their variations. To better understand this trend and
exergy efficiency of the GT power plant by 34% relative to the effects of these design parameters on both OFs at
its actual value of 32%, to reduce the total cost of exergy optimal points, the variations of OF with changes in design
destruction by 37%. Also, the cost of environmental impact parameters for four different points (AeD) in the Pareto
is significantly decreased by over 50%. curve are examined in next section using sensitivity anal-
yses. Note that points other than AeD exhibit similar
variations.
TABLE 24.5 Values of Selected Design Quantities for
Selected Points on the Pareto Optimal Frontier for the
GT Power Plant TABLE 24.7 Comparison of Some Variables for the
Optimization Results with Actual Plant Data
Point on Pareto frontier
Decision variable Actual plant data Optimization results
A B C D
Quantity RAC 10.1 14.4
Exergy efficiency, 42.93 42.78 42.15 41.26
j (%) hAC 0.82 0.86
C_ D;PP ($/hour) 1463 1453 1428 1418 hGT 0.86 0.89
C_ env ($/hour) 10.89 10.91 12.28 13.75 GTIT (K) 1244 1425
C_ D; Total ($/hour) 5908 5542 5407 5365 T3 (K) 754 850
496 Exergy

FIGURE 24.9 Variation of exergy efficiency with total cost rate for five design parameters of the GT power plant, for four optimized cases (AeD).
(a) Effect of increase in AC isentropic efficiency, (b) effect of increase in GT isentropic efficiency, (c) effect of increase in GTIT, (d) effect of increase in
AC pressure ratio and (e) effect of increase in AP temperature.
Chapter | 24 Exergy and Multiobjective Optimization
24.6.2.7 Use of Sensitivity Analyses to Describe
Effect of Decision Variables on OFs
Sensitivity analyses can be used to describe the effect on the
OFs of varying decision variables. The results of such sensi-
tivity analyses are shown in Figure 24.9 for the GT power plant.
The variations of OFs with changes in compressor
isentropic efficiency are shown in Figure 24.9a. It is seen
that an increase in this design parameter, within its allow-
able range, increases the GT power plant exergy efficiency,
while decreasing the total cost rate at lower exergy effi-
ciencies and increasing it for higher exergy efficiencies. A
conflict is thus observed between the OFs. Moreover, since
the region where improvements in both OFs are observed is
greater than the region where conflict is observed, this
design parameter must have a scattered distribution near the
maximum values. Figure 24.8a confirms this trend. In
Figure 24.9b, it is indicated that an increase in GT isen-
tropic efficiency leads to an increase in exergy efficiency as
well as a decrease in total cost rate. Therefore, higher
values of GT isentropic efficiency can be advantageous.
Figure 24.9c shows the variation of both OFs when GTIT
varies within its allowable range. An increase in this design
parameter is seen to increase the exergy efficiency of the
power plant, but to decrease the total cost rate notably when
the exergy efficiency is lower and to increase the total cost
rate notably when the exergy efficiency is higher. This
behavior is because an increase in GTIT above a reasonable
range results in an increase in the cost of the CC, directly
affecting the total cost rate of the plant.
The effects of increasing the compressor pressure ratio
on both OFs are shown in Figure 24.9d. An increase in
compressor pressure ratio increases the GT exergy effi-
ciency for all ranges, but decreases the total cost rate at
lower exergy efficiencies and increases it at higher exergy
efficiencies. This trend is mirrored for variations of GTIT
on total cost rate in Figure 24.9c.
In Figure 24.9e, it is seen that increasing the AP
temperature (T3) leads to improvements in both OFs. This
explains why the optimal points in Figure 24.8e are at the
higher values. Therefore, variations of this parameter do
not cause a conflict between the two OFs.
24.7 CLOSING REMARKS
Optimization techniques and the benefits of each are
described in this chapter. The coverage includes OFs,
constraints, and evolutionary algorithms. A focus is placed
on multiobjective optimization, and validation and
comparisons between base and optimized cases are dis-
cussed. To illustrate this, an AC and a GT power plant are
examined. Contrasting optimization results with actual
plant data often emphasizes the benefits of employing
optimization methods. A sensitivity analysis can indicate
497
the impact of varying selected design parameters on the OF,
or all OFs when multiobjective optimization is utilized.
In the case study of the GT power plant, a multi-
objective GA is applied to optimize two important OFs: (1)
the power plant exergy efficiency and (2) the total cost rate
of the plant (including investment cost, cost of exergy
destruction, and cost of environmental taxes). Multi-
objective optimization is shown to provide significant
benefits for the GT power plant, increasing its overall
exergy efficiency by 34% and decreasing associated envi-
ronmental impacts by 51%, relative to the design parame-
ters. Also:
l Increasing the compressor isentropic efficiency incre-
ases the overall exergy efficiency of the GT power plant,
while decreasing the total cost below a certain exergy
efficiency and increasing it above that exergy efficiency.
Similar qualitative behavior is observed when the GTIT
is increased.
l Increasing the GT isentropic efficiency improves both
OFs, indicating that this parameter does not lead to
a conflict between OFs. Similar qualitative behavior is
observed when the AP temperature is increased. Thus
maximum values are selected for these design parame-
ters in the optimization.
PROBLEMS
24.1 Consider a heat recovery steam generator that is used
to recover the exhaust energy from flue gases exiting
a GT to produce saturated steam. How is the exergy
efficiency defined for this device if it is considered as
one of our OFs? What would the proper decision
variable be for this device? Explain the effect of GT
outlet temperature on the selection of heat recovery
steam generator decision variables.
24.2 Identify the source of exergy destruction in a GT
power plant and explain how this loss can be reduced.
Then optimize a power plant using appropriate
decision variables and consider the total exergy
destruction as your OF.
24.3 When an engineer or designer is deciding on the
preferred optimal point on a Pareto frontier, what
point will be selected and why?
24.4 Does the Pareto frontier change with changing fuel
costs? Explain.
24.5 For GT power plants considered in this chapter, but
without the AP, evaluate the exergy and energy effi-
ciencies, the Pareto frontier, and the total exergy
destruction and compare these with the values for the
GT power plant with the AP. Explain why an AP is
used in GT power plants.
24.6 If we extend the GT power plant considered in this
chapter as a combined heat power system by using
498
a single pressure heat recovery heat exchanger, that
has an economizer and an evaporator to produce
saturated steam at P 15 bar, define the OFs,
constraints, and proper design variables. Also, opti-
mize the system and draw a Pareto frontier and
compare it with the Pareto frontier for the simple GT
cycle.
Exergy
24.7 What is the effect of interest rate i given in Equation
24.14 on the Pareto frontier? Draw a Pareto frontier
for interest rates of 5%, 10%, and 15%.
24.8 For the GT considered in this chapter, perform an
optimization by considering exergy efficiency
and total cost rate as two OFs for multi
objective optimization and discuss the Pareto frontier.