Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Thermodynamic and exergoenvironmental analyses, and multi-objective

optimization of a gas turbine power plant
Pouria Ahmadi*, Ibrahim Dincer
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), 2000 Simcoe St. North, Oshawa,
ON L1H 7K4, Canada

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

Article history: The present study deals with a comprehensive thermodynamic and exergoeconomic modeling of a Gas
Received 13 November 2010 Turbine (GT) power plant. In order to validate the thermodynamic model, the results are compared with
Accepted 12 April 2011 one of the largest gas turbine power plants in Iran (known as Shahid Salimi Gas Turbine power plant).
Available online 23 April 2011
Moreover, a multi-objective optimization is performed to find the best design variables. The design
parameters considered here are air compressor pressure ratio (rAC), compressor isentropic efficiency
Keywords:
(hAC), gas turbine isentropic efficiency (hGT), combustion chamber inlet temperature (T3) and gas turbine
Energy
inlet temperature (TIT). In the multi-objective optimization approach, certain exergetic, economic and
Exergy
Efficiency
environmental parameters are considered through two objective functions, including the gas turbine
Optimization exergy efficiency, total cost rate of the system production including cost rate of environmental impact. In
Exergoeconomics addition, fast and effective non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) is applied for the opti-
Genetic algorithm mization purpose. The thermoenviroeconomic objective function is minimized while power plant exergy
Sustainability efficiency is maximized using a power full developed genetic algorithm. The results of optimal designs
Environmental impact are obtained as a set of multiple optimum solutions, called ‘the Pareto optimal solutions’. Moreover, the
optimized results are compared with the working data from the case study. These show that by selecting
the optimized data 50.50% reduction in environmental impacts is obtained. Finally, sensitivity analysis of
change in objective functions, when the optimum design parameters vary, is performed and the degree
of each parameter on conflicting objective functions has been determined.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Energy is a key driver for almost everything and is essential in
our daily life and activities in various sectors, ranging from resi-
dential to industrial application. Due to the increasing fuel prices
and decreasing fossil fuel resources, the optimum management of
energy resources and applications is of great importance.
Gas Turbine (GT) power plants are widely utilized throughout
the world for electricity generation, and natural gas is often used
as a common fuel in such plants. Today, many electrical gener-
ating utilities are striving to improve the efficiency (or heat rate)
at their existing thermal electric generating stations; many of
them are over 25 years old. Often, a heat rate improvement of
only a few percent appears desirable since it is thought that the
costs and complexity of such measures may be more manageable
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pouryaahmadi81@gmail.com, pouria.ahmadi@uoit.ca
(P. Ahmadi).
than more expensive options. In this regard, exergy based opti-
mization is considered as one of the best tools for performance
assessment of power plants [1]. Energy utilization is very much
governed by thermodynamic principles (particularly by exergy)
and, therefore, an understanding of exergetic aspects can help us
understand pathways to sustainable development [2,3]. GTs are
known for their low-capital cost to power ratio, high flexibility,
high reliability without complexity, short delivery time, early
commissioning and commercial operation and very short start
up and running times. Moreover, the combined cycle (CC) uses
the exhaust heat from the gas turbine engine to increase the
power plant output and boost the overall efficiency to beyond
50% [1,2].
Recently, exergy analysis has been used by many researchers in
thermal systems, especially for power plants. It is well-known that
the exergy can be used to determine the location, type and true
magnitude of exergy destructions and losses. Therefore, it can play
an important role in developing strategies and providing guidelines
for more effective use of energy in the existing power plants. Some
key points about exergy are well explained in the literature [1,2,3]:

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.04.018
2530 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540

Exergy has become increasingly important across a diverse
array of fields and throughout developing and developed world
in order to increase efficiency, reduce wastes and losses, and
improve processes and systems.

Exergy has become more integrated with economics and
applications as a new discipline like thermoeconomics or
exergoeconomics.

Exergy has been a tool to foster sustainability and contribute to
making development more sustainable.

Exergy has become more broadly covered in educational
programs, and used as a basis for explaining and giving prac-
tical meaning to the second-law of thermodynamics.
These remarks clearly show the importance of exergy in thermal
engineering, especially for power plants. On the other hand, ther-
moeconomics combines the exergy analysis with the economic
principles and incorporates the associated costs of the thermody-
namic inefficiencies in the total product cost of an energy system.
These costs may help 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 [4,5]. Several
researchers have carried out analyses with exergy and exer-
goeconomics for gas turbine based integrated systems.
Sahin and Ali [6] carried out an optimal performance analysis of
a combined Carnot cycle in a cascade form, including internal
irreversibilities for steady-state operation. They obtained the
maximum power and efficiency analytically and demonstrated the
effects of irreversibility parameters on maximum power output.
Although exergy and exergoeconomic analysis are so important
and indispensable in power generation, they cannot find the
optimal design parameters in such systems. Therefore, using an
optimization procedure with respect to thermodynamics laws as
well as thermoeconomics is essential.
Ahmadi et al. [7] performed the multi-objective exergy based
optimization of a CHP system for both heating and cooling
production. They also carried out the sensitivity analysis to see the
variation of each design parameter on the system performance
through energy and exergy analysis. In fact, the objectives in this
regard involved in the design optimization process were as follows
[8]: thermodynamic (e.g., maximum efficiency, minimum fuel
consumption, minimum irreversibility and so on), economic (e.g.,
minimum cost per unit of time, maximum profit 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 cogene-
ration system which produced 50 MW of electricity and 15 kg/s of
saturated steam at 2.5 bar. He optimized the unit using exer-
goeconomic 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. Ahmadi and Dincer [10] performed
the exergoeconomic optimization of a dual pressure combined
cycle power plant with supplementary firing. They considered the
cost of exergy destruction in their objective function and optimized
it using a genetic algorithm.
Since environmental impact is one of the challenging problems
in this century, studying this kind of problem is of greatest
importance in all engineering fields. Therefore, some studies have
been undertaken by considering this challenging problem. Dincer
[11] considered the environmental and sustainability aspects of
hydrogen and fuel cell systems. He also analyzed the exergetic and
environmental aspects of drying systems [12]. In addition to the
exergetic and monetary costs of mass and energy streams in the
thermal systems, environomic considers the costs related to flows
of pollutants [8,13]. However, by applying the unit damage cost
related to NOx and CO emissions [13], 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]. Mozafari et al. [15] performed
the optimization of micro gas turbine by exergy, economic and
environmental analysis. They performed their analysis for various
fuels. The optimization results showed that objective functions
were minimally affected by the type of fuel considered and the
trends of variations of second law efficiency and cost rate of
owning and operating the whole system are independent of
the fuels.
Suresh et al. [16] performed the 3E (Energy, Exergy and Envi-
ronment) 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 specific emissions of
CO2, SOx, NOx, and particulates. They concluded that the maximum
possible plant energy efficiency under the Indian climatic condi-
tions using high ash Indian coal is about 42.3%.
In the present study, the thermodynamic modeling, second-
law based thermodynamic analysis and multi-objective optimi-
zation of a gas turbine power plant are conducted. Two complete
objective functions including the gas turbine exergy efficiency,
total cost rate of the system product and the cost rate of envi-
ronmental impact are considered. Further, the environmental
impact is integrated with the thermoeconomic objective function
and defined as a new objective function in this study. The present
thermoenvironomic objective function is minimized while power
plant exergy efficiency is maximized using a genetic algorithm.
Moreover, the sensitivity analysis of the changes in both objective
functions with variations of design parameters is carried out in
details. In this regard, the design parameters are compressor
pressure ratio (rAC), compressor isentropic efficiency (hAC), gas
turbine isentropic efficiency (hGT), combustion chamber inlet
temperature (T3) and gas turbine inlet temperature (TIT). More-
over, the sensitivity analysis is done in order to provide a good
insight into this study. In this regard, the specific objectives of this
paper are as follows:

To model a gas turbine power plant and compare the simula-
tion code with an actual gas turbine power plant in Iran to
ensure the correctness of a simulation code.

To introduce an objective function including exergy efficiency,
total cost rate of the plant (including fuel cost, purchase cost,
cost of exergy destruction and the cost rate of environmental
impact)

To use a modified version of evolutionary algorithm (i.e.,
Genetic Algorithm (GA)) to use for multi objective optimization
purpose.

To define a new closed form equation for the exergy efficiency
in terms of total cost rate at the optimal design point.

To perform sensitivity analysis of the design parameters on
objective functions to find the degree of dependency of each
parameter on objective functions conflicting.
2. Thermodynamic modeling
To find the optimum physical and thermal design parameters of
the system, a simulation program is developed in Matlab software.
 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540 2531

 
The temperature profile in gas turbine power plant, input and lCx1 Hy1 þ xO2 O2 þ xN2 N2 þ xH2 O H2 O þ xCO2 CO2 þ xAr Ar /yCO2
output enthalpy and exergy of each line in the plant are estimated
to study the multi objective optimization of the plant. The energy
CO2 þ yN2 N2 þ yO2 O2 þ yH2 O H2 O þ yNO NO þ yCO CO þ yAr Ar
balance equations for various parts of the gas turbine plant that are
shown in Fig. 1 are as follows:  
yCO2 ¼ l  x1 þ xCO2  yCO
yN2 ¼ xN2  yNO

Air compressor
l  y1
yH2 O ¼ xH2 O þ (8)
2


 l  y1 yCO yNO
1 g 1 yO2 ¼ xO2  l  x1   
T2 ¼ T1  1 þ rAC a 1 (1) 4 2 2
hAC ga yAr ¼ xAr

_ _ a Cpa ðT2  T1 Þ
W AC ¼ m (2)
nfuel
l ¼
The Cpa in our analysis is considered a temperature variable nair
function as follows [17]:
!
Gas Turbine


3:8371T 9:4537T 2
CPa ðTÞ ¼ 1:04841  þ
104 107
! ! 8 2 39
5:49031T 3 7:9298T 4 > 1  gg >
 þ (3) >
<
 >
=
1010 1014 6 p4 gg 7
T5 ¼ T4 1  hGT 6
4 1  7
5 (9)
>
> p5 >
>
: ;

Air Preheater
_ _ g $Cp;g ðT5  T6 Þ
W GT ¼ m (10)

m _ g ðh5  h6 ÞhAP
_ a ðh3  h2 Þ ¼ m (4) _ Net ¼ W
_ _
W GT  W AC (11)

P3 m _ f þm
_g ¼ m _a (12)
¼ ð1  DPCC Þ (5)
P2
where the Cpg is again considered a temperature variable function
as follows [17]:

Combustion Chamber (CC)


6:99703T
CPg ðTÞ ¼ 0:991615 þ
105
_ a h3 þ m _ g h4 þ ð1  hcc Þm
_ f LHV ¼ m _ f LHV ! !
m (6) 2:7129T 2 1:22442T 3
þ  (13)
107 1010
P4
¼ ð1  DPcc Þ (7)
P3 These combinations of energy and mass balance equations were
numerically solved and the temperature and enthalpy of each line
The combustion equation is: of the plant were calculated.

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the gas turbine power plant.

2532 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540

It should be noted, the thermodynamic model is developed Table 1

based on the following basic assumptions [4,17e19]: The exergy destruction rate and exergy efficiency equations for plant components.

Components Exergy Destruction rate Exergy Efficiency

All the processes are considered steady state. E_ 2  E_ 1
Compressor E_ D; AC ¼ E_ 1  E_ 2  E_ W; AC hex; AC ¼

The principle of ideal-gas mixture is applied for the air and W_
AC
combustion products. E_
Combustion Chamber (CC) E_ D;CC ¼ E_ 3 þ E_ 9  E_ 4 hex; CC ¼ 4

The fuel injected to the combustion chamber (CC) is assumed to E_ 3 þ E_ 9
be a natural gas. _
W
Gas Turbine (GT) E_ D;GT ¼ E_ C  E_ D  W
_
GT hex;GT ¼ _ GT _

Heat loss from the combustion chamber (CC) is considered to EC  ED
be 3% of the fuel lower heating value (LHV). Moreover, all other P _ P _ E_
E_ D; AP ¼
D;AP
Air Preheater (AP) E E hex; AP ¼ 1  P
components are considered adiabatic. i;AP e; AP E_
i;AP

The dead state condition is P0 ¼ 1.01 bar and T0 ¼ 293.15 K.

In the preheater, 3% pressure drop is considered. Also, 3%
pressure drop is considered in the combustion chamber (CC).
determined for each major component. The source of exergy
destruction (or irreversibility) in combustion chamber (CC) is
3. Exergy analysis mainly combustion or chemical reaction and thermal losses in the
flow path respectively [1,23]. However, the exergy destruction in
Exergy can be divided into four distinct components. The two the heat exchanger of the system i.e. air preheater is due to the
important ones are the physical exergy and chemical exergy. In this large temperature difference between the hot and cold fluids. The
study, the two other components which are kinetic exergy and exergy destruction rate and the exergy efficiency for each compo-
potential exergy are assumed to be negligible, as the changes in nent in the cycle (Fig. 1) are shown in Table 1. The operating
them are negligible [1,2,20e25]. The physical exergy is defined as conditions for base case of the gas turbine power plant such as fuel
the maximum theoretical useful work obtained as a system inter- mass flow rate and calorific value, output electrical power and
acts with an equilibrium state [1]. The chemical exergy is associated efficiencies of compressor and GT are listed in Table 2.
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 processes. Applying the first and the second 4. Exergoeconomic analysis
laws of thermodynamics, the following exergy balance is obtained:
X X 4.1. Economic model
_ _ i exi ¼ _ W þ Ex
_ e exe þ Ex _ D
Ex Q þ m m (14)
i e Finite natural resources and world increasing energy demand by
developing countries are becoming increasingly important to
where subscripts e and i represent inlet and outlet specific exergy of
_ D , is the exergy destruction. The recognize the mechanisms that degrade energy and resources and
control volume, respectively and Ex
to develop systematic approaches for improving the design of
other terms become
energy systems and reducing the impact on the environment. The

 second law of thermodynamics combined with economics repre-
_ T+ _ _ W ¼ W
_
Ex Q ¼ 1 Q i and Ex (15) sents a very powerful tool for the systematic study and optimiza-
Ti
tion of energy systems. This combination forms the basis of the
relatively new field of thermoeconomics (exergoeconomics).
ex ¼ exph þ exch (16)
Moreover, the economic model takes into account the cost of the
_
Ex _ components including the amortization and maintenance and the
Q and ExW are the corresponding exergy of heat transfer and
work which cross the boundaries of the control volume, T is the cost of fuel combustion. In order to define a cost function which
absolute temperature (K) and (+) refers to the ambient conditions depends on optimization parameters of interest, component cost
respectively. In Eq. (14), term Ex is defined as follows: should be expressed as a function of thermodynamic design
parameters [22]. The first study in this regard was proposed in the
_ ¼ Ex
_ _
ph þ Exch
Ex (17) paper called CGAM problem [26e28] which considered the ther-
moeconomic analysis of a cogeneration plant to produce 14 kg/s
water at 20 bar. Cost balance equations applied to the kth system
where E_ x ¼ mex:
_
components shows that the sum of cost rates associated with all
existing exergy stream equals the sum of cost rates of all entering
The mixture chemical exergy is defined as follows [1,21,23]: exergy streams plus the appropriate charges due to capital
" # investment and operating and maintenance expenses. The sum of
X
n X
n
exch
mix ¼ Xi exchi þ RT0 Xi LnXi (18)
i¼1 i¼1
Table 2
Operating conditions of the Shahid Salimi Gas Turbine Power Plant.
For the evaluation of the fuel exergy, the following exergy ratio
Name Unit Value
is used:
Natural gas mass flow rate to CC kg/s 8.44
Air mass flow rate
x ¼ exf =LHVf (19) kg/s 491.55
Lower heating value of natural gas kJ/kg 50916.96
Compressor isentropic efficiency % 0.82
For most of usual gaseous fuels, the ratio of chemical exergy to Gas turbine isentropic efficiency % 0.86
lower heating value is usually close to 1. Since the main fuel used in Air preheater effectiveness % 0.82
power plants is methane, one may write xCH4 ¼ 1:06 [1,21]: Compressor pressure ratio e 10.1
Gas turbine pressure ratio e 9.49
In this paper for the exergy analysis of the plant, the exergy of Output power MW 132
each line is calculated at all states and the changes in the exergy are
 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540 2533

the last two terms is denoted by Z_ k. For each flow line in the system, C_ D;k ¼ cF;k Ex
_ (24)
D;k
a parameter called flow cost rate C ($/s) was defined and the cost
balance equation of each component can be written as follows [22]: More details of the exergoeconomic analysis, cost balance equa-
X X tions and exergoeconomic factors are completely discussed in
C_ e;k þ C_ w;k ¼ C_ q;k þ C_ i;k þ Z_ k (20) references [9,10,29].
e i Thoroughly, several methods have been suggested to express
the purchase cost of equipment in terms of design parameters in Eq.
The cost balances are generally written so that all terms are
(20) [22,24e26,30]. However, we have used the cost functions
positive. Using Eq. (20), one can write [1,20,22]:
which are suggested by Roosen et al. [31]. Nevertheless, some
X  X  modifications have been made to tailor these results to the regional
ce E_ e k þcw;k W
_ ¼ c E_ þ
k q;k q;k ci E_ i k þZ_ k (21)
conditions in Iran and taking the inflation rate into account. For
converting the capital investment into cost per time unit, one may
C_ j ¼ cj Ej (22) write:

The cost balance equations for all components of the system
constructs 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 defined. The exergy product is defined according
to the components under consideration. The fuel represents the
source that is consumed in generating the product. Both the
product and fuel are expressed in terms of exergy. The cost rates
associated with the fuel (C_ f ) and product (C_ p ) of a components are
obtained by replacing the exergy rates (Ex _ D ). For example, in
a turbine, fuel is difference between input and output exergy and
product is the generated power of the turbine.
In the cost balance formulation (Eq. (20)), 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, if one combines the
exergy balance and exergoeconomic balance together, one can
obtain the following equations:
-Z_ k ¼ -Zk $CRF$4=ðN  3600Þ (25)
where Zk is the purchase cost of kth component in U.S dollar. The
expression for each component of the gas turbine plant and
economic model is presented in Appendix A. N is the annual
number of the operating hours of the unit, and 4 ¼ 1.06 [21] is the
maintenance factor. Finally, in order to determine the cost of exergy
destruction of each component, the value of exergy destruction,
_
Ex D;k , is computed using exergy balance equation in the previous
section. The Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) depends on the interest
rate as well as estimated equipment life time. CRF is determined
using the relation [18]:
ið1 þ iÞn
CRF ¼ (26)
ð1 þ iÞn 1
Here, i is the interest rate and n is the total operating period of the
system in years.

_ _ _
Ex F;k ¼ ExP;k þ ExD;k (23)
4.2. Cost balance equations
whereEx _
f ;K represents the fuel exergy rate for kth component, and
_Exp;K stands for the product exergy rate of kth component, Ex _ L;K and To estimate the cost of exergy destruction in each component of
_ D;K are the exergy loss and exergy destruction rate of that the plant, we should initially solve the cost balance equations for
Ex
_ L;K is the useful energy each component. Therefore, in application of the cost balance
component respectively. For example, Ex
equation (Eq. (20)), there are usually more than one inlet outlet
(exergy) that is wasted to the environment without converting to
_ D;K is the exergy destruction due to streams for some components. In this case the numbers of
the useful form of energy, and Ex
unknown cost parameters are higher than the number of cost
the irreversibilities. For the turbines, if they are assumed to be
_ L;K is equal to zero. Also, if the pumps are supposed to balance equations for that component. Auxiliary exergoeconomic
adiabatic, Ex
_ L is equal to zero. Moreover, as for the heaters, if equations are developed to solve this problem [13,21]. Imple-
be adiabatic, Ex
_ L;K is equal to zero. For menting Eq. (20) for each component together with the auxiliary
they are supposed to operate adiabatically, Ex
equations forms a system of linear equations as follows:
each flow line in the system, a parameter that is called flow cost
rate C_ ($/s) is defined.    
E_ K  ½ck  ¼ Z_ k (27)
The last term on the RHS Eq. (29) involves the rate of exergy
destruction. As discussed before, if one assumes that the product where½E_ K , ½ck  and ½Z_ k  are the matrix of exergy rate which were
E_ p;k is fixed and that the unit cost of fuel cF;k of the kth component is obtained in exergy analysis, exergetic cost vector (to be evaluated)
independent of the exergy destruction, one can define the cost of and the vector of ½Z_ k  factors (obtained in economic analysis),
exergy destruction by the last term of Eq. (20). respectively.

2 3 2 3 2 3
E_ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c1 0
6 E_ E_ 2 E_ 7 0 7 6 7 6 Z_ AC 7
6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 c2 7 6 7
6 0 E_ 2 E_ 3 0 E_ 5 E_ 6 0 0 0 7 6 c3 7 6 Z_ AP 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 0 E_ 3 E_ 4 E_ 9 7 6 7 6 Z_ CC 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 c4 7 6 7
6 0 0 0 E_ 4 E_ 5 0 E_ 7 E_ 8 7 6 7 6 _
0 7  6 c5 7 ¼ 6 Z GT 7 (28)
6 7
6 0 1 0 7 6 7 6 0 7
6 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 6 c6 7 6 7
6 0 1 7 6
0 7 6 c7 7 7 6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 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
2534 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540

Table 3 As it is stated in the literature, the amount of CO and NOx

Constants for Equations (29e32). produced in the combustion chamber and combustion reaction
Constants 0.3  4  1.0 1.0  4  1.6 change mainly by the adiabatic flame temperature. Accordingly,
0.92  q  2 2  q  3.2 0.92  q  2 2  q  3.2
based on reference [32,33] in order to determine the pollutant
emission in grams per kilogram of fuel the proper equations are
A 2361.7644 2315.752 916.8261 1246.1778
a 0.1157 0.0493 0.2885 0.3819 proposed as follow:
b 0.9489 1.1141 0.1456 0.3479
l 1.0976 1.1807 3.2771 2.0365
 
0:15E16s0:5 exp  71100=Tpz
a1 0.0143 0.0106 0.0311 0.0361 mNOx ¼ (33)
b1 0.0553 0.045 0.078 0.085 P30:05 ðDP3 =P3 Þ0:5
c1 0.0526 0.0482 0.0497 0.0517
a2 0.3955 0.5688 0.0254 0.0097  
b2 0.4417 0.55 0.2602 0.502 0:179E9exp 7800=Tpz
c2 0.141 0.1319 0.1318 0.2471 mCO ¼ (34)
a3 0.0052 0.0108 0.0042 0.017 P32 sðDP3 =P3 Þ0:5
b3 0.1289 0.1291 0.1781 0.1894
c3 0.0827 0.0848 0.098 0.1037
where s is the residence time in the combustion zone (s is assumed
constant and is equal to 0.002 s); Tpz is the primary zone
combustion temperature; P3 is the combustor inlet pressure;
Therefore, by solving these sets of equations one can find the DP3 =P3 is the non-dimensional pressure drop in the combustion
cost rate of each line in Fig. 1. Moreover, they are used to find the chamber [33].
cost of exergy destruction in each component of the plant.
6. Multi-objective optimization
5. Thermo-enviroeconomic modeling
6.1. Definition of objective functions, design parameters and
In order to minimize the environmental impacts, the primary constraints
target is to increase the efficiency of energy conversion processes,
and as a result, decreasing the amount of fuel and the related Two important objective functions including exergy efficiency
overall environmental impacts, especially the release of carbon (must be maximized), the total cost rate of product and environ-
dioxide, which is one of the main components of greenhouse gases. mental impact (must be minimized) are considered for multi
Therefore, optimization of thermal systems based on this fact has objective optimization purpose. The second objective function
been an important subject in recent years. Although there are a lot expresses the environmental impact as the total pollution damage
of papers in the literature which are dealing with optimization of ($/s) due to CO and NOx emission by multiplying their respective
power plants, generally they do not pay much attention to envi- flow rates by their corresponding unit damage cost (CCO, CNOx are
ronmental impacts. For this reason, one of the major goals of the equal to 0.02086 $/kgCO and 6.853 $/kgNOx) [31,33]. In the present
present work is to consider the environmental impacts as work the cost of pollution damage is assumed to be added directly
producing the CO and NOx. As it was discussed in [31], the adiabatic to the expenditures that must be paid. Therefore, the second
flame temperature in the primary zone of the combustion chamber objective function is sum of the thermodynamic and Environomic
is derived as follow: objectives.
The objective function for this analysis is considered as:
 * * *
Tpz ¼ Asa exp bðs þ lÞ px q jz
2 y
(29)

Gas Turbine Power Plant Exergy Efficiency
where p is dimensionless pressure (P/Pref), q is dimensionless
temperature (T/Tref), j is the H/C atomic ratio, s ¼ f for f  1 (f is W_
mass or molar ratio) and s ¼ f-0.7 for f  1. Moreover, x, y and z are hTotal ¼ Net
(35)
_ f ;CC  LHV  x
m
quadric functions of s based on the following equations:
where W _ Net , m
_ f ;CC and x are gas turbine net output power, mass
x* ¼ a1 þ b1 s þ c1 s2 (30)
flow rate of fuel injected to the combustion chamber and
x ¼ 1:033 þ 0:0169 yx  0:0698x for gaseous fuel with CxHy formula
y* ¼ a2 þ b2 s þ c2 s2 (31) respectively.

z* ¼ a3 þ b3 s þ c3 s2 (32)
Total Cost Rate

In Eqs. (35)e(38), parameters A, a, b, l, ai, bi and ci are constant

X
parameters. More details are presented in [31,32]. All parameters in C_ Tot ¼ C_ f þ Z_ k þ C_ D þ C_ env (36)
Eq. (36-38) are listed in Table 3. k

Table 4 Table 5
The list of constraints for optimization. Results between the power plant data and simulation code.

Constraints Reason Unit Measured Data Simulation Code Difference (%)


TIT < 1550 K Material temperature limit T2 C 321.4 332.01 3.19

P2/P1 < 20 Commercial availability T6 C 500 529.02 5.48

hGT < 0.9 Commercial availability T7 C 448 487.00 8.01
hAC < 0.9 Commercial availability f
_
m kg/s 8.44 8.18 3.2
T7 > 400 K To avoid formation of sulfuric acid in exhaust gases hex % 32.03% 30.41% 5.06
 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540 2535

where

C_ env ¼ CCO m _ NOx & C_ F ¼ cf m

_ CO þ CNOX m _ f  LHV (37)

where Z_ k , C_ F and C_ D are purchase cost of each component, fuel cost

and cost of exergy destruction, respectively. In addition m _ NOx
_ CO , m
are calculated from Eqs. (33) and (34).

6.2. Decision variables

The decision variables (design parameters) in this study are

compressor pressure ratio (rAC), compressor isentropic efficiency
(hAC), gas turbine isentropic efficiency (hGT), combustion chamber
inlet temperature (T3) and gas turbine inlet temperature (TIT). Even
though 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 summarized based on [18,30] and
listed in Table 4.
Fig. 3. The distribution of Pareto optimal points solutions for exergy efficiency and
7. Case study total cost rate of the plant.

In order to verify the present simulation code, the results of this

study are compared with the actual running gas turbine power
plant in Shahid Salimi Power Plant, Neka, Iran. This power plant is
located near the Mazandaran city near the Caspian Sea, one of the
northern provinces in Iran. The schematic diagram of this power
plant is shown in Fig. 1. From the power plant data gathered in
2005, the incoming air has a temperature of 20  C and a pressure of
1 bar. The pressure increases to10.1 bar through the compressor,
which has an isentropic efficiency of 82%. The turbine inlet
temperature is 971  C. The turbine has an isentropic efficiency of
86%. The regenerative heat exchanger has an effectiveness of 87%.
The pressure drop through the air preheater is considered 3% of the
inlet pressure for both flow streams and through the combustion
chamber is 3% of the inlet pressure. The fuel (natural gas) is injected
at 20  C and 30 bar. The results of thermodynamic properties of the
cycle form the modeling part and the power plant data are illus-
trated in Table 5.
The comparison of simulation code and the actual data from the
power plant shows that the average difference is about 4.98%. The
maximum difference is about 8.01% for air preheater outlet
temperature. This verifies the correct performance of developed
simulation code to model this gas turbine power plant.
8. Results and discussion
8.1. Optimization results
To optimize our system, we have used a genetic algorithm
method as discussed in reference [33e36] (Fig. 2). The optimization
code is developed in Matlab software program based on the
evolutionary algorithm. Fig. 3 shows the Pareto frontier solution for
a gas turbine power plant with the objective functions in the multi
objective optimization section. In this figure, while the total exergy
efficiency of the cycle increases to about 42.15%, the total cost rate
of products increases only slightly. Increasing the total exergy
efficiency from 42.15% to 42.5% is corresponding to the moderate
increase in the cost rate of products. In addition, increase in the
exergy efficiency from 42.5% to a higher value leads to a drastic
increase of the total cost rate. Also Fig. 4 shows the exact value of
points AeD in Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 3, the maximum exergy
efficiency exists at design point (A) (42.93%), while the total cost
rate of products is the highest at this point. On the other hand, the

Fig. 4. The distribution of Pareto optimal points solutions for exergy efficiency and
Fig. 2. Basic concept of Evolutionary algorithm (i.e. Genetic Algorithm). total cost rate of the plant with their exact value in Fig. 3.
2536 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540

Table 6 exergoeconomic factor is an important thermoeconomic parameter

Optimum design values for A to D Pareto optimal fronts for input value.
Property Unit A B C D
hex % 42.93 42.78 42.15
C_ D;PP $/hr 1463 1453 1428
C_ env $/hr 10.89 10.91 12.28
C_D; Total $/hr 5908 5542 5407
minimum value for total cost rate of product occurs at design point
(D). Design point A is the optimal point at which, efficiency is
a single objective function, while design point D is the optimum
point at which total cost rate of product is a single objective func-
tion. The specifications of these sample design points namely AeD
in Pareto optimal fronts are listed in Table 6.
It is worth to mention that in multi-objective optimization and
the Pareto solution, each point can be considered as an optimized
point. Therefore, selection of the optimum solution depends on
preferences and criteria of each decision-maker. Hence, each
decision-maker may select a different point as optimum solution
which better suits with his/her desires.
8.2. Total cost rate and exergy efficiency
To provide a helpful tool for the optimal design points of the gas
turbine cycle in Fig. 3, the following equation is derived for the
Pareto optimal points curve (Fig. 3).
7:318h3 þ 12:32h2  15:15h þ 3:65
C_ Tot ¼  1000
h4þ 9:27h3  8:65h2 þ 1:89h þ 0:014
By this useful fitted equation, the optimal value of the total cost
rate of the power plant for each efficiency value can be estimated.
8.3. Comparisons
Table 7 compares the cost rate of product, exergy efficiency, cost
of environmental impacts of the actual running power plant in Iran
(i. e Shahid Salimi Power Plant) and the results from multi-
objective optimization. It should be noted that the values for
multi-objective is estimated based on point (B) in Fig. 3 because this
point is the best point in comparison with other points in the Pareto
solution. This point has the high efficiency and a low total cost rate
in comparison with other points. Therefore, all the values here are
based on this point. According to Table 7, the optimization leads to
the 33.56% increment in the total exergy efficiency 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 36.54%. The important point here is decreasing the cost of
environmental impact. Table 7 shows that the difference between
the optimized data and the base case lead to decrease the cost of CO
and NOx by 50.50%.
Table 8 represents the design parameters for both optimization
point and case study. As it was mentioned previously, the optimi-
zation data is based on point (B) in Fig. 3. In addition, Table 8
represents some important exergoeconomic parameters for the gas
turbine power plant. From this table, it is understood that
that shows the relative importance of a component cost to the
associated cost of exergy destruction rate in the component.
41.26 Accordingly, the higher value of exergoeconomic factor implies that
1418 the major source of the cost for the component under consideration
13.75 is related to the capital investment and operating and maintenance
5365
costs. The lower value of exergoeconomic factor states that the
associated costs of thermodynamic inefficiencies are much more
significant than the capital investment and operating and mainte-
nance costs for the component under consideration. It can be
determined from Table 8 that for combustion chamber (CC), the
related cost of exergy destruction is significantly higher than the
owning and operating cost of this component and the inefficiency
cost for this component is dominant for both base case and opti-
mized systems. This is because of the high exergy destruction rate in
the combustion process of the combustion chamber. It is worth to
mention that the greatest amount of exergy destruction rate for both
base case and optimized case takes place at the combustion chamber
because of the chemical reaction and the large temperature differ-
ence between the burners and the working fluid. In fact, its exergy
efficiency is less than other components in the cycle. Further, it can
be found from Table 8 that by applying the optimization, overall
exergoeconomic factor of the system increased from 32.79 to 62.24%,
due to the optimization process causing a decrease in cost of exergy
destruction. Table 8 also shows that in all fields, the optimization
process improves the total performance of the system in a way that
the exergy destruction rate is reduced about 23.17%, and the related
cost of the system inefficiencies decreased about 12.29%.
(38)
8.4. Distribution of design parameters
Distribution of optimal design parameters in the Pareto curve is
shown in Fig. 5. The lower and upper bounds of these variables are
given in dotted lines. According to this distribution, it is found that
gas turbine isentropic efficiency and air preheater temperature
reach their maximum values. It shows that increase in these two
design parameters leads to improvement in both objective func-
tions. Therefore, their maximum values are selected. Other design
variables have the scattered distribution. Therefore, it can be pre-
dicted that variations of these variables result in conflict between
two objective functions in a small range of their variations. To study
this trend and the effects of these design parameters on both
objective functions at optimal points, the variations of objective
function with changes in design parameters for four different
points (AeD) in the Pareto curve are shown in next section. Vari-
ations of other points have the same trend as these four points.
8.4.1. Sensitivity analyses (Effect of decision variables on objective
functions)
Fig. 6-a shows the variation of objective function with changes
in compressor isentropic efficiency. It is seen that increase in this
design parameter in its allowable range results in increase in gas
turbine cycle exergy efficiency, however, this increase leads to
decrease in the total cost rate at first, followed by an increase in the
total cost rate. Therefore, it causes a conflict between objective

Table 8
Table 7 Comparison of design variables between the optimization and case study.
Comparison between actual power plant parameters and optimized data in this
study. Decision variable Case study Optimization results
rComp 10.10 14.43
Property Unit Case study Optimized Differences hComp 0.82 0.86
hex % 32.03 42.78 þ33.56% hGT 0.86 0.89
Total
C_ $/hr 7567 5542 36.54% TIT(K) 1244.15 1424.8
env C_ $/hr 16.42 10.91 50.50% T3(K) 753.56 850
P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540 2537

Fig. 5. Scattering of variables for the Pareto optimal front in Fig.(3).

2538 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540

Fig. 6. Variation of exergy efficiency with total cost rate for five optimum design parameters in four cases of AeD.
 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540 2539

functions. Moreover, since the region where results in improve- values of this design parameters are selected in the optimiza-
ment in both objective functions is greater than a region which tion procedure.
causes a conflict, this design parameter must have a scattered
distribution near the maximum values. Fig. 5-a confirms this trend. Appendix. Nomenclature
It can be concluded from Fig. 6-b that increase in this parameter
leads to increase in exergy efficiency as well as decrease of total cost
rate. Therefore, higher values of this parameter are favorable for C Cost per unit of exergy ($/Mj)
a decision maker. Cp Specific heat (kJ/kg K)
Fig. 6-c shows the variation of both objective functions when gas C_ D Cost of exergy destruction ($/h)
turbine inlet temperature varies in its allowable range. It is shown Cf Cost of fuel pet unit of energy ($/Mj)
that increase in this design parameter leads to increase in the Ex Exergy (kJ)
exergy efficiency, however, it results in decrease of the total cost e Specific exergy (kJ/kg)
rate first and then this increase causes a drastic increment in total h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
cost rate of the plant. It can be explained that an increase in TIT after _ D
Ex Exergy Destruction (kJ)
a reasonable range results in increase of the cost of a combustion LHV Lower Heating Value (kJ/kg)
chamber which directly affects the total cost rate of the plant. m_ Mass Flow rate (kg/s)
The effects of increasing the compressor pressure ratio on both P Pressure (bar)
objective functions are shown in Fig. 6-d. Increase in compressor Q Heat Transfer (kJ)
pressure ratio leads to increase in gas turbine exergy efficiency for R Gas constant (kJ/kg.  K)
all ranges, but it decreases the total cost rate first and then it s specific entropy (kJ/kg K)

increases the total cost rate of the plant. This trend is like the T Temperature ( C)
variations of TIT on total cost rate in Fig. 6-c. TPZ Adiabatic temperature in the primary zone of combustion

As it is shown in Fig. 6-e, the increase in the air preheater chamber ( K)
temperature (T3) leads to improvement on both objective functions. W Work (kJ)
This is why the optimal points in Fig. 5-e reach their higher values. Molar Fraction
x
Therefore, variations of this parameter do not cause a conflict -Z_ Capital cost rate ($/s)
between two objective functions. Zk purchase cost of the component ($)

9. Conclusions
Greek symbols
In the present study, thermodynamic and exergoeconomic h Efficiency
modeling of a gas turbine power plant with optimization was hGT Gas Turbine isentropic efficiency
carried out. To achieve this aim, a simulation code was developed in hAC Air Compressor isentropic efficiency
Matlab software program. In order to validate the simulation code, e CO2 emission per net output power (kgCO2/MWhr)
the results were compared with the actual data obtained from g Specific heat ratio
actual running gas turbine power plant in Iran. The results showed 4 maintenance factor
a reasonably well agreement between simulation code and exper- x Coefficient of Fuel Chemical exergy
imental data. Moreover, a multi objective genetic algorithm was
used to optimize the two important objective functions. The first Subscripts and superscripts
objective function was the cycle exergy efficiency and the other ones a Air
were total cost rate of the plant including investment cost, cost of amb Ambient
exergy destruction and cost of environmental taxes. In addition, the AP Air Preheater
results of optimization data were compared with the actual data AC Air Compressor
from the power plant. Their results showed that by selecting these CC Combustion Chamber
sets of design parameters 33.56% increment in the total exergy Ch Chemical
efficiency is achieved while this values from multi objective opti- CRF Capital Recovery Factor
mization leads to decrease the environmental impacts of the plant D Destruction
for about 50.50%, which has significant importance. Finally, e Exit Condition
a sensitivity analysis of the variation of each design parameter on env Environment
both objective functions was carried out and discussed in detail. In GT Gas Turbine
summary, we can extract some concluding remarks: f Fuel
g Combustion gasses

Increasing the compressor isentropic efficiency leads to an h Hour
increase in the total exergy efficiency of the cycle while increasing i Interest rate
this parameter decreases the total cost at first, followed by an in Inlet Condition
increase. k Component

Increase in the gas turbine isentropic efficiency results in L Loss
improvement in both objective functions. It means that this Opt Optimum
parameter does not lead to a conflict between objective ph Physical
functions. PP Power Plant

Increase in TIT leads to increase in the exergy efficiency, however, RAC Compressor pressure ratio
it results in decrease of the total cost rate first and then this ref Reference
increase causes a drastic increment in total cost rate of the plant. tot Total

The effect of increase in the air preheater temperature leads to + Reference ambient condition
improvement in both objective functions, thus the maximum $ Rate
2540 P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2529e2540

References plant with preheater using evolutionary algorithm, International Journal of

Energy Research. 35:389e403.
[19] M.A. Ehyaei, S. Hakimzadeh, N. Enadi, P. Ahmadi, Exergy, economic and
[1] I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Exergy: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Devel-
environment (3E) analysis of absorption chiller inlet air cooler used in gas
opment. Elsevier, 2007.
turbine power plants, International Journal of Energy Research, in press, doi:
[2] M. Kanoglu, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Understanding energy and exergy effi-
10.1002/er.1814.
ciencies for improved energy management in power plants, Energy Policy 35
[20] H. Hajabdollahi, P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer, An exergy-based multi-objective opti-
(2007) 3967e3978.
mization of A heat Recovery steam Generator (HRSG) in a combined cycle
[3] P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer, Exergoenvironmental analysis and optimization of
power plant (CCPP) using evolutionary algorithm, International Journal of
a cogeneration plant system using Multimodal Genetic Algorithm (MGA),
Green Energy 8 (1) (2011) 44e64.
Energy 35 (12) (2010) 5161e5172.
[21] T.J. Kotas, The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis. Butterworths,
[4] P. Regulagadda, I. Dincer, G.F. Naterer, Exergy analysis of a thermal power
London, 1985.
plant with measured boiler and turbine losses, Applied Thermal Engineering
[22] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, M. Moran, Thermal Design and Optimization. Wiley,
30 (2010) 970e976.
New York, 1996.
[5] O. Balli, H. Aras, Energetic and exergetic performance evaluation of
[23] M. Kopac, A. Hilalci, Effect of ambient temperature on the efficiency of the
a combined heat and power system with the micro gas turbine (MGTCHP),
regenerative and reheat Catalagzı power plant in Turkey, Applied Thermal
International Journal of Energy Research 31 (14) (2007) 1425e1440.
Engineering 27 (2007) 1377e1385.
[6] B. Sahin, K. Ali, Thermo-dynamic analysis of a combined Carnot cycle with
[24] A. Cihan, O. Hacıhafızoglu, K. Kahveci, Energy-exergy analysis and moderni-
internal irreversibility, Energy 20 (12) (1995) 1285e1289.
zation suggestions for a combined-cycle power plant, International Journal of
[7] P. Ahmadi, A. Almasi, M. Shahriyari, I. Dincer, Multi-objective optimization of
Energy Research 30 (2006) 115e126.
a combined heat and power (CHP) system for heating purpose in a paper mill
[25] P.Ahmadi, Exergy analysis of combined cycle power plants: a case study. B.Sc.
using evolutionary algorithm, International Journal of Energy Research, DOI:
Thesis, energy Eng. Department, Power & Water University of Technology,
10.1002/er.1781. in press.
Tehran, Iran, 2006.
[8] A. Toffolo, A. Lazzaretto, Evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective energetic
[26] A. Valero, M.A. Lozano, L. Serra, G. Tsatsaronis, J. Pisa, C.A. Frangopoulos,
and economic optimization in thermal system design, Energy 27 (2002) 549e567.
CGAM problem: definition and conventional solution, Energy 19 (3) (1994)
[9] P.K. Sahoo, Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a cogeneration
279e286.
system using evolutionary programming, Applied Thermal Engineering 28
[27] G. Tsatsaronis, J. Pisa, Exergoeconomic evaluation and optimization of energy
(13) (2008) 1580e1588.
systems: application to the CGAM problem, Energy 19 (3) (1994) 287e321.
[10] P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer, Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic optimi-
[28] C.A. Frangopoulos, Application of thermoeconomic optimization methods to
zation of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with a supplementary
the CGAM problem, Energy 19 (3) (1994) 323e342.
firing unit, Energy Conversion and Management 52 (5) (2011) 2296e2308.
[29] P. Ahmadi, M. Ameri, A. Hamidi, Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis
[11] I. Dincer, Environmental and sustainability aspects of hydrogen and fuel cell
of a steam power plant: a case study, International Journal of Energy Research
systems, International Journal of Energy Research 31 (2007) 29e55.
33 (2009) 499e512.
[12] I. Dincer, On energetic, exergetic and environmental aspects of drying
[30] P. Roosen, S. Uhlenbruck, K. Lucas, Pareto optimization of a combined cycle
systems, International Journal of Energy Research 26 (2002) 717e727.
power system as a decision support tool for trading off investment vs. oper-
[13] A. Toffolo, A. Lazzaretto, Energy, economy and environment as objectives in
ating costs, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 42 (2003) 553e560.
multi-criteria optimization of thermal system design, Energy 29 (2004)
[31] O.L. Gülder, Flame temperature estimation of conventional and future jet fuels,
1139e1157.
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 108 (2) (1986) 376e380.
[14] C.A. Frangopoulos, An introduction to environomic analysis and optimization
[32] H. Sayyadi, Multi-objective approach in thermoenvironomic optimization of
of energy-intensive systems, in: Proceeedings of ECOS. ASME, New York,
a benchmark cogeneration system, Applied Energy 86 (6) (2009) 867e879.
1992, pp. 231e239.
[33] N.K. Rizk, H.C. Mongia, Semi analytical correlations for NOx, CO and UHC
[15] M.A. Ehyaei, A.A. Mozafari, Energy, economic and environmental (3E) analysis
emissions, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 115 (3) (1993)
of a micro gas turbine employed for on-site combined heat and power
612e619.
production, Energy and Buildings 42 (2) (2010) 259e264.
[34] A. Hammache, M. Benali, F. Aube, Multi objective self- adaptive algorithm for
[16] M.V.J.J. Suresh, K.S. Reddy, A.K. Kolar, 3-E analysis of advanced power plants
highly constrained problems: novel method and applications, Applied Energy
based on high ash coal, International Journal of Energy Research 25 (2010)
(2010) , doi:10.1016.
716e735.
[35] Ghaffarizadeh, A, Investigation on evolutionary algorithms Emphasizing mass
[17] S.C. Kamate, P.B. Gangavat, Exergy analysis of cogeneration power plants in
Extinction. B. Sc Thesis, Shiraz University of Technology-Shiraz, Iran, 2006.
sugar industries, Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 1187e1194.
[36] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine
[18] P. Ahmadi, H. Barzegar Avval, A. Ghaffarizadeh, M.H. Saidi. Thermo-
Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.
economic-environmental multi-objective optimization of a gas turbine power