The algorithm converges after 434 iterations with a maximum error of

9.9667×10–5 for the pre-specifi ed threshold of 10–4. The obtained total cost and
emissions are $ 1,002,551.42/h and 756,288.65 kg/h, respectively. The optimal
solution for power genera tion (MW), fuel delivery (tons) and fuel storage
(tons) is:
􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻
􀂼
􀂺
􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫
􀂬
􀂪
􀀠
300.0000 300.0000 271.5699
58.3430 125.0000 40.0000
175.0000 175.0000 175.0000
125.0000 125.0000 125.0000
41.6570 75.0000 38.4301
k
Gi P;
􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻
􀂼
􀂺
􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫
􀂬
􀂪
􀀠􀁵
2.1790 2.1823 2.2064
1.9934 1.8876 1.7278
1.5326 1.5882 1.6837
0.5496 0.6066 0.6889
0.7455 0.7353 0.6931
k 103
iF
􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻
􀂼
􀂺
􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫
􀂬
􀂪
􀀠􀁵
6.9176 5.8385 5.0714
8.5966 8.2620 8.8202
3.9046 2.8649 1.9207
3.9462 2.9493 2.0347
2.1351 1.8838 2.0028
k 103

iX

Single emission objective

In this case, only the emission objective is observed neglecting the fuel cost
objective. The values corresponding to the slope of the sigmoid function and
penalty factors are fi xed similarly to the case of the single fuel cost objective. The
other parameters are reselected as: 􀄮p = 2.5×10–6, 􀄮f = 􀄮x = 0.0015, 􀄮􀈜 = 0.015,
􀄮􀈖= 􀄮􀈘=2×10–8.
The obtained total cost and emissions in this case are $1,072,673.57/h and
521,793.48 kg/h, respectively. Compared to the single fuel objective case, the total
cost in this case is somewhat higher while the emission level is considerably lower.
Therefore, depending on the selected objective of minimiza tion, a solution will be
obtained accordingly. The obtained values of power outputs (MW), fuel delivery
(tons) and fuel storage (tons) are:
􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻
􀂼
􀂺
􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫
􀂬
􀂪
􀀠
139.2517 175.0000 127.7498
211.6589 250.0000 194.3871
162.6840 175.0000 150.6701
111.4054 125.0000 102.1930
75.0000 75.0000 75.0000
k
Gi P;
􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻
􀂼
􀂺
􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫􀂫
􀂬
􀂪
􀀠􀁵
2.0046 1.8617 1.7249
2.1715 2.2237 2.2506
1.5110 1.5614 1.6159
0.5321 0.5853 0.6377
0.7809 0.7679 0.7710
k 103
iF