Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
Ef ﬁ ciency enhancement of a gas turbine cycle using an optimized tubular recuperative heat exchanger
Hoseyn Sayyaadi * , Reza Mehrabipour
Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringEnergy Division, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, P.O. Box: 193951999, No. 1519, Pardis Str., Mollasadra Ave., Vanak Sq., Tehran 1999 143344, Iran
article info
Article history:
Received 28 February 2011 Received in revised form 19 November 2011 Accepted 22 November 2011 Available online 30 December 2011
Keywords:
Ef ﬁ ciency enhancement Payback time minimization Multiobjective optimization BellmanZadeh decisionmaking LINMAP decisionmaking TOPSIS decisionmaking
abstract
A simple gas turbine cycle namely as the Kraftwerk Union AG unit including a Siemens gas turbine model
V93.1 with 60 MW nominal power and 26.0% thermal ef ﬁ ciency utilized in the Fars power plant located
is considered for the ef ﬁ ciency enhancement. A typical tubular vertical recuperative heat exchanger is
designed in order to integrate into the cycle as an air preheater for thermal ef ﬁ ciency improvement. Thermal and geometric speci ﬁ cations of the recuperative heat exchanger are obtained in a multi objective optimization process. The exergetic ef ﬁ ciency of the gas cycle is maximized while the payback time for the capital investment of the recuperator is minimized. Combination of these objectives and decision variables with suitable engineering and physical constraints makes a set of the MINLP optimization problem. Optimization programming is performed using the NSGAII algorithm and Pareto optimal frontiers are obtained in three cases including the minimum, average and maximum ambient air temperatures. In each case, the ﬁ nal optimal solution has been selected using three decisionmaking approaches including the fuzzy BellmanZadeh, LINMAP and TOPSIS methods. It has been shown that the TOPSIS and LINMAP decisionmakers when applied on the Pareto frontier which is obtained at average ambient air temperature yields best results in comparison to other cases. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In this paper a simple gas turbine cycle namely as the Kraftwerk Union AG unit utilized in the Fars gas power plant located in the Shiraz city of Iran is considered for the ef ﬁ ciency enhancement. This unit is a Siemens gas turbine model V93.1 with 60 MW nominal power and 26.0% thermal ef ﬁ ciency at ISO condition. There are two categories of methods for ef ﬁ ciency enhancement of gas cycles. In the ﬁ rst category the ef ﬁ ciency of gas cycles is enhanced using compressor inlet air cooling [1 e3] . In this method, the inlet air of the air compressor is cooled using evaporative coolers, absorption chillers, electric chillers and similar apparatuses in order to increase volumetric ef ﬁ ciency of the compressor and reducing compression work which leads to an increasing in the ef ﬁ ciency of the cycle and power generation. Second category of methods dealing with increasing the combustion ef ﬁ ciency and therefore the ef ﬁ ciency of the cycle is heat and gas recirculation [4 e 8] . In the mass recirculation system, a portion of ﬂ ue gas after
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 98 21 8867 4212; fax: þ 98 21 8867 4748.
(H. Sayyaadi).
addresses:
03605442/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.048
leaving the turbine is recirculated and mixed with the compressed air coming from the air compressor or directly entered into the combustion chamber. FGR (Flue gas recirculation) which some times called as EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) leads to both heat recirculation by preheating of the inlet air of the combustion chamber and dilution of the airfuel mixture leading to less NO _{x} formation. The FGR system systems offer the substantial reduction of the thermal NO _{x} formation (There is three mechanism of NO _{x} formation including thermal nitrogen oxidation, prompt NO _{x} and fuel NO _{x} [9] ) due to reduction of N _{2} and O _{2} contents which are substituted with CO _{2} and H _{2} O, shorter residence time of reactants due to preheating and dilution, and reduction of local peak temperatures due to better intermixing [4] . In the heat recircula tion systems the heat of combustion is recirculated to the inlet air of the combustion chamber through the use of recuperative heat exchanger or a regenerative one [4] . In heat recirculation the thermal energy is transferred from combustion products into cold substrates without mass transfer and thus without any dilution of reactant [4] . Consequently, the total reactant enthalpy is increased enabling sustained combustions. This leads to a selfsustained or autothermal combustion that are sometimes referred to as superadiabatic or excess enthalpy combustion [4] . The ideal of heat recirculation is typical in the combustion science [4,5] and several
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362e375
363
Nomenclature 
n 
Speci ﬁ c volume (m ^{3} kg ^{} ^{1} ) 

m 
Membership function 

A _{o} 
Heat transfer area (calculated based on tubes outside diameter)(m ^{2} ) 
ε 
Exergetic ef ﬁ ciency 

l 
fuelair ratio (mass base) 

BL 
Booked life (years) 
l 
Molar fuelair ratio Compressor isentropic ef ﬁ ciency Gas turbine isentropic ef ﬁ ciency 

C 
Cost (US $) 
h 
_{s}_{c} 

CI 
Capital investment (US $) Levelized carrying charge (US $) 
h 
_{s}_{g} 

CC _{L} 

c 
Unit Cost (US $ per unit of the proposed parameter) Distance of point i th from the ideal point Distance of point i th from the nonideal point 
Subscripts 

d _{i} _{þ} d _{i} _{} 
0 
Index for ambient condition of the atmospheric air, Index for the ﬁ rst year of the system operation 

D 
Diameter (mm) 

_ 

E 
The rate of exergy (kW) 
1,2, . ,5,6 States 1,2, . ,5,6 on regenerative gas cycle 

e 
Speci ﬁ c exergy (kJ kg ^{} ^{1} ) Speci ﬁ c molar exergy (kJ/kmol ^{} ^{1} ) 
a 
Air 

e 
ac 
Air compressor 

F 
An objective function 
bray 
Brayton gas cycle (simple gas cycle with no air preheater) 

h 
Heat transfer coef ﬁ cient (W m ^{} ^{2} K ^{} ^{1} ) 

h 
Molar enthalpy (kJ kmol ^{} ^{1} ) Interest rate (cost of money) 
cc 
Combustion chamber 

i _{e}_{f}_{f} 
duct 
Ducting for air and ﬂ u gas transfer to/from the recuperator 

j 
j th year of operation Molar Lower Heat Value of fuel (kJ kmol ^{} ^{1} ) Tube pitch in tube bundle (mm) Number of tubes Number of baf ﬂ es 

LHV 
fab 
Fabrication 

L _{t}_{p} 
f 
Fuel 

N 
_{t} 
hx 
Heat exchanger 

N 
_{b} 
g 
Gas ( ﬂ ue gas) 

M 
Molecular weight (kg kmol ^{} ^{1} ) 
gt 
Gas turbine 

max 
Maximum operator in the fuzzy logics 
i 
i th element 

min 
Minimum operator in the fuzzy logics 
it 
Tube inside 

MOEA 
Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm 
itl 
Inner tube limit in tube bundle 

_ 
Flow rate (kg s ^{} ^{1} ) Molar ﬂ ow rate (kmol.s ^{} ^{1} ) 
j 
j th element; j th year of the system operation 

m 

_ 

n 

P 
Pressure (kPa) 
L 
Levelized value 

payback 
Payback time for the capital investment 
lm 
Log mean temperature difference (LMTD) 

_ 

Q 
Heat transfer rate (kW) Annual escalation rate for the fuel cost 
net 
Net 

r _{F}_{C} 
ot 
Tube outside 

T 
Temperature ( ^{} C or K) Total revenue requirement for jth year of the system operation (US $) 
otl 
Outer tube limit in tube bundle 

TRR _{j} 
rec 
recuperator 

reg 
Regenerative gas cycle 

s 
Molar speci ﬁ c entropy (kJ kmol ^{} ^{1} K ^{} ^{1} ) Overall heat transfer coef ﬁ cient (calculated based on 
s 
Isentropic, shell side 

U _{o} 
t 
Tube side 

outside tube surface) (W m ^{} ^{2} K ^{} ^{1} ) 
stack 
Stack 

_ 

W 
Power (kW) Fabrication weight (kg) Pressure difference or pressure drop (kPa) 

W 
Superscripts 

DP 
max 
Maximum value for an objective function 

Greek letters 
min 
Minimum value for an objective function 

r 
Density (kg m ^{} ^{3} ) 

h 
Ef ﬁ ciency 
n 
Nondimensional 
combustion technologies such as mild combustion, recirculating combustion have been developed based on this idea [6] . Moreover, such approach can be bene ﬁ cial for a combustion process because main exergy losses in the combustion arise from the heat transfer from hot products to cold reactants while this temperature differ ence is bene ﬁ cially minimized in the gas turbine system involving the air preheating [7] . Another technologies for heat recirculation is the using a regenerative heat exchanger, however these equip ments are not usual in gas cycles but widely used as the air pre heatres of steam boilers namely as Ljungström. There are several works involving heat recirculation approach for ef ﬁ ciency enhancement of gas turbines [5 e 8,10,11] . Ruixian et al. analyzed the recuperative gas turbine cycle with a recuperator located between HP and LP turbines namely as ARC (alternative recupera tion cycles) and compared it with the simple gas cycle and the CRC
(conventional recuperative gas cycle) [10] . They showed that the ef ﬁ ciency of this cycle might be higher than the CRC in the case of same temperature ratio [10] . Further they indicated that the maximum optimum ef ﬁ ciency of practical ARCs is always lower than that of CRCs and the optimum pressure ratio for ef ﬁ ciency of ARC is always higher than that of CRC. Kim and Hwang analyzed part load performance of the recu perated gas cycle and speci ﬁ ed which part load control strategy is suitable for various con ﬁ gurations of the cycle [11] . In the current work, we consider integration of the air preheater into the gas cycle for ef ﬁ ciency enhancement of the proposed Siemens gas turbine model V93.1. In this regard a typical tubular vertical heat exchanger is designed as an air preheater of the proposed gas cycle. Further we employ optimization approach for integrating of the new component (air preheater) into the existing
364
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362 e375
gas cycle. Optimization is usually employed when a system is in design stage; however we will show that in improvement stage of existing systems optimization could be useful. Thermal and geometric speci ﬁ cations of the recuperative heat exchanger are obtained in a multiobjective optimization process with the exer getic efﬁ ciency and payback time of the recuperator investment as objectives of optimization. Indeed multiobjective approach in optimization of energy systems have been implemented by researchers [12 e18] to deal with energetic, economic and environ mental criteria, simultaneously. Energetic, economic and environ mental modeling of energy systems usually leads to a set of MINLP (mixed integer nonlinear) optimization problem. Therefore, in order to avoid obtaining a local optimum instead of the global optimum, metaheuristic optimization approaches (e.g. genetic algorithm or simulated annealing) have been utilized by researchers nowadays [13,15,18 e 20]. Chang and Hwang [13] developed a MINLP multiobjective model for an energy system to reduce the cost and environmental impact. Roosen et al. [17] implemented multi objective optimization to balance between the capital investment and operating cost of a combined power cycle. Multiobjective optimization of a benchmark cogeneration system namely as CGAM problem was conducted by one of authors [13]. In that work, three objective functions including the exergetic, the total levelized cost rate of the system product and the cost rate of the environ mental impact were considered simultaneously. In a most relevant work Sayyaadi et al. designed a particular nonTEMA type recuperative heat exchanger utilized as a regener ator of a regenerative gas turbine cycle, for a gas cycle [21] . They considered a tubular heat exchanger with a vertical annular tube bundle and disk and doughnut types baf ﬂ es. The exergetic ef ﬁ  ciency of the entire gas cycle together with the purchased equip ment cost of its recuperative heat exchangers was considered as objectives of optimization. It was assumed that the recuperator is designed for an existing gas turbine cycle to be retro ﬁ tted. Three scenarios for optimization of the system including the minimiza tion of the recuperator cost, maximizing the cycle exergetic ef ﬁ  ciency and simultaneous optimization of both objectives were performed. An example of decisionmaking was presented to select a ﬁ nal optimal solution from the Pareto frontier. Finally the results which were obtained by three optimization scenarios were compared together and also compared with the base case system. In this work, the cost of recuperator which was the second objective function of the ref. [21] is substituted with the payback time of the recuperator investment. Therefore, the payback time of the recuperator is minimized instead of the recuperator cost. This new objective function is comprised from the capital investment of the recuperator and the fuel cost of the gas cycle. Therefore, it means that in the current research the three objectives including the exergetic efﬁciency, the cost of the recuperator and the saving of the fuel cost are optimized. The last two objectives are integrated in the payback time objective in fact. Therefore, minimizing the payback time of the recuperator investment leads to either minimizing the recuperator cost or maximizing the fuel cost saving through using of the recu perative gas cycle. Hence, in this work one more objective beside those objectives which were considered in ref. [21] is optimized. Further the economic model for evaluation of the carrying charge and fuel cost is modiﬁ ed based on the value of interest rate and fuel escalation factor; hence levelized values for capital investment and fuel cost are employed in evaluation of the payback time. Combina tion of aforementioned objectives and decision variables including tubes length, tubes outside/inside diameters, tube pitch in the tube bundle, outer and inner tube limits of the tube bundle and the total number of disc and doughnut baf ﬂ es plus the air outlet temperature from the recuperator with suitable engineering and physical constraints makes a set of the MINLP optimization problem.
Optimization programming in MATLAB is performed using one of the most powerful and robust multiobjective optimization algorithms namely as the NSGAII. Since operation of the gas cycle is highly dependent to the ambient air temperature, the multiobjective optimization is performed in three cases of ambient condition including the minimum, average and maximum annual condition at the site of gas cycle (Shiraz city in Iran). Further, in additional improvement on previous work [21], three decisionmaking approaches including the fuzzy BellmanZadeh [22], LINMAP [23,24] and TOPSIS [23,24] are utilized for selection of ﬁ nal optimal solutions from the Pareto frontiers which obtained at the minimum, average and maximum environmental temperature. Therefore, three optimal solutions are selected using aforementioned decision makers at three ambient cases (minimum, average and maximum annual air temperature at the site). Since the performance of the gas cycle is signi ﬁcantly affected by the ambient air condition, the question is which ambient condition should be considered as the best design condition. In this paper we try to answer this question and we will present a systematic method to specify which ambient temperature should be taken account for designing of the regener ative gas cycle.
2.
Problem de ﬁ nition
As is previously mentioned in this paper, the proposed gas turbine cycle is a simple Brayton gas cycle. This gas cycle is a Siemens unit model V93.1 namely as the Kraftwerk Union AG unit with 60 MW nominal power and 26.0% thermal ef ﬁ ciency at ISO condition (15 ^{} C ambient air temperature at sea level). One Siemens V93.1 gas turbine has been installed in the Fars gas power plant located in the Shiraz city, Iran and has been in operation since 1980. As the unit is an old unit with a relatively low ef ﬁ ciency in comparison to current technologies of gas turbines, the objective of this project is enhancement of the proposed V93.1 unit as much as possible in order to operate it with a more reasonable ef ﬁ ciency. Table 1 show general speci ﬁ cations of the V93.1 Brayton gas cycle. In this paper, the thermal ef ﬁ ciency of the proposed gas turbine will be enhanced by integration of a recuperative heat exchanger as an air preheater. Fig. 1 shows a schematic arrangement of the proposed regenerative gas turbine cycle with a recuperative heat exchanger as an air preheater. Combustion chamber inlet air is preheated using the ﬂ ue gas exhausts from the gas turbine. The recuperative heat exchanger that will be integrated into the gas cycle as an airpreheater comprises of a vertical tubular shell and tube heat exchanger that directly is connected to a conical stack at the top of the heat transfer area. The compressed air at the outlet of the air compressor enters to the shell side of the recuperator from the top and is preheated by the ﬂ ue gas that enters in tubes from the bottom of heat exchanger. The preheated air exits from the bottom of shell side and directed to the combustion chamber. Flue gas exits from tubes at the top and directed into the stack section (conical section at the top of heat transfer area). The proposed heat exchanger has an annular tube bundle with disk and doughnut baf ﬂ es. More detail on speci ﬁ cations of the proposed recuperative heat exchanger can be found in [21] . The aim is ﬁ nding the geometrical speci ﬁ cations of the recu perative heat exchanger including tube length, outside/inside diameters of tubes, tube pitch in the tube bundle, outer and inner tube limits of tube bundle and the number of baf ﬂ es plus the pre heated air outlet temperature from the recuperator so that the exergetic ef ﬁ ciency of the cycle is maximized and the payback time for capital investment of the recuperator is minimized, simultaneously.
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362e375
365
Table 1 Speci ﬁ cations of the simple gas turbine.
Manufacturer 
Kraftwerk 
union AG 

Type Number of turbine stages Rotor speed (rpm) Air ﬂ ow rate at ISO condition (kg s ^{}^{1} ) Flue Gas ﬂ ow rate with gas oil at ISO condition (kg s ^{}^{1} ) 
Siemens V93.1 
4 

3000 

343.4 

348.6 
Flue Gas ﬂ ow rate with natural gas at ISO condition (kg s ^{}^{1} ) 347.8
Turbine inlet temperature for the base load operation 
850 
at rated output ( ^{} C) Turbine inlet temperature for the peak load operation 
870 
at rated output ( ^{} C) Compressor type 
Single ﬂ ow axial type V 93.1 
Number of compressor stages 
16 
Compressor air ﬂ ow rate at the ISO condition (kg s ^{}^{1} ) 
343.4 
Compression ratio of the compressor at the ISO condition 
8.70 
Compression ratio of the turbine at the ISO condition 
8.35 
Isentropic ef ﬁ ciency of the air compressor 
0.84 
Isentropic ef ﬁ ciency of the turbine 
0.85 
Combustion chamber type 
Vertical silo type 
Number of combustors 
4 
Pressure loss in the combustion chamber 
2% of the inlet pressure 
3. System modeling
4. Heat loss from the combustion chamber is considered to be 2% of the fuel lower heating value. All other components are assumed adiabatic.
5. Constant pressure loss ratios are considered in the system components except in the recuperator (pressure losses in recuperator are calculated based on hydraulic calculations).
6. Molar fractions for composition of the inlet air are assumed to be 0.7594N _{2} , 0.2038 O _{2} , 0.0003 CO _{2} and 0.0274H _{2} O.
7. Isentropic ef ﬁ ciencies of the air compressor and gas turbine are
assumed constant.
Therefore, thermodynamic equation of the cycles (simple and recuperative gas cycles) are developed as follows,
3.1.1. Air compressor In order to achieve the outlet isentropic temperature of the air compressor we have:
^{T} 2 s
T 1
k 1
k
pc
¼ r
(1)
Where r _{p}_{c} is the compression ratio of the compressor ( ¼ 8.7). The real outlet temperature of the compressor is:
3.1. Thermodynamic modeling
Thermodynamic model of the entire regenerative gas turbine cycle is built based on the following basic assumptions
1. All processes are steady state.
2. The principle of idealgas mixtures is applied for the air and combustion products.
3. The fuel is the natural gas and it is assumed to be 100% methane and ideal gas.
_{T} _{2} _{¼} ^{} T 2 s T 1
^{h}
SC
þ T _{1}
(2)
Isentropic ef ﬁ ciency of the compressor, h _{S}_{C} , is 0.84. Assuming an adiabatic compressor, the consumed power of the air compressor is,
_
W ac ¼
m _{a} ð h _{2} h _{1} Þ
_
(3)
Fig. 1. Schematic for a regenerative gas turbine cycle.
366
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362 e375
3.1.2. Recuperator
Detail thermohydraulic formulas and thermodynamic correla tion for modeling of the recuperator have been presented in [21] .
3.1.3. Combustion process
Chemical reaction equation of the reaction process can be
formulated as,
lCH _{4} þ ^{} x _{N} _{2} _{;} _{a} N _{2} þ x _{O} _{2} _{;} _{a} O _{2} þ x _{C}_{O} _{2} _{;} _{a} CO _{2} þ x _{H}_{O} _{2} _{;} _{a} H _{2} O ^{} / ½ 1 þ l
^{} x N _{2} ; g N 2 þ x O _{2} ; g O 2 þ x CO _{2} ; g CO 2 þ x HO _{2} ; g H 2 O ^{}
(4)
Where l is the molar fuel to air ratio and
^{x} N _{2} ; g ^{¼} x ^{N} ^{2} ^{;} ^{a}
1 þ
_{l} ; x O _{2} ; g ¼ ^{x} ^{O} 1 ^{2} ^{;} ^{B} þ ^{} l ^{2} ^{l}
_{¼}
x HO _{2} ; B þ 2 l
1 þ l
þ l
^{;} ^{x} CO _{2} ; g ^{¼} x ^{C}^{O} ^{2} ^{;} ^{B}
1 þ l
^{;} ^{x} HO _{2} ; g
(5)
In Eq. (5) subscripts ’ a ’ and ’ g ’ denote the property of species (molar composition) in the atmospheric air and ﬂ ue gas, respec tively. The energy balance for the combustion chamber is:
0
¼
_
_
Q CV W CV þ
n _{f} h _{f} þ n _{a} h _{a} n _{p} h _{p}
_
_
_
(6)
Where index ‘ f ’ presents the fuel, index ‘ a ’ points to the air and index ‘ p ’ points to products of the combustion. In Eq. (6) we have
_
W _{C}_{V} ¼ 0 and since we assumed the heat loss from the combustion
chamber to be 2% of LHV of the fuel,
_
Q _{C}_{V} ¼ 0 : 02 n _{f} LHV ¼ 0 : 02 n _{a} l LHV
_
_
(7)
Therefore Eq. (6) is converted to the following form,
0 ¼ 0 : 02 lLHV _{f} þ h _{a} þ lh _{f} ð 1 þ lÞ h _{p}
(8)
LHV _{f} for the methane as a fuel is 3124 kJ kmol ^{} ^{1} . Further we have:
h _{a} ¼ x _{N} _{2} _{;} _{a} h _{N} _{2} þ x _{O} _{2} _{;} _{a} h _{O} _{2} þ
h _{p} ¼ x _{N} _{2} _{;} _{g} h _{N} _{2} þ x _{O} _{2} _{;} _{g} h _{O} _{2} þ
x _{C}_{O} _{2} _{;} _{a} h _{C}_{O} _{2} þ 
x _{H}_{O} _{2} _{;} _{a} h _{H} _{2} _{O} _{a}_{t} _{T} _{3} 
x _{C}_{O} _{2} _{;} _{g} h _{C}_{O} _{2} þ 
x _{H}_{O} _{2} _{;} _{g} h _{H} _{2} _{O} _{a}_{t} _{T} _{6} 
(9a)
(9b)
Hence l is obtained from solution of Eq. (8) , therefore, the mass ﬂ ow rate of the fuel is calculated as,
_
m _{a}
(10)
Where M _{f} and M _{a} are molecular weights of the fuel and air, respectively.
3.1.4. Gas turbine
In similar way to the air compressor, the isentropic outlet
temperature of the gas turbine is determined as,
T 4
^{T} 6 s
k 1
k
pg
¼ r
(11)
Where r _{p}_{g} is the expansion ratio of the gas turbine ( ¼ 8.35) and k ¼
c
p
R
_{} _{R} in which R ¼ _{M} t . M _{t} is the molecular weight of outlet gas.
c p
Therefore,
T _{5} ¼ T _{4} h _{s}_{g} ð T _{4} T _{5} _{s} Þ
(12)
The isentropic ef ﬁ ciency, h _{s}_{g} , of the gas turbine is 0.85 here.
Considering the turbine as a control volume and an adiabatic turbine, from energy balance we have:
_
W _{g}_{t}
¼ ð 1 þ lÞ n _{a} ð h _{4} h _{5} Þ ¼
_
m _{p} ð h _{4} h _{5} Þ
_
(13)
3.1.5. Exergetic ef ﬁ ciency of the gas cycle The exergetic ef ﬁ ciency of the gas cycle is determined as follows,
ε tot ¼
_
W net
_
m f e
f
ch
¼
_
W gt
_
W ac
_
m f e
f
ch
(14)
_
Where W _{n}_{e}_{t} is the net generated power and e
f
ch
is the chemical
exergy of the fuel assumed as 53155.8 kJ kg ^{} ^{1} for methane.
3.2. Thermohydraulic modeling of the recuperative heat exchanger
Thermohydraulic model is used here in order to calculate the required heat transfer area for the recuperative heat exchanger in the one hand and calculating of the hot and cold streams pressure drops which affect performance of the gas cycle on the other hand.
An especial type of the shell and tube heat exchanger with a vertical annular tube bundle and disk and doughnut shape baf ﬂ es is used here as the air preheater of the gas cycle. Complete thermohy draulic model for this type of heat exchanger was presented by Sayyaadi et al. in [21] .
3.3. Economic modeling
As is previously mentioned, the payback time for the capital
investment of the recuperative heat exchanger is considered as the secondary objective of this work. Total capital investment of the recuperator is comprised from the cost of heat transfer area plus the cost of stack section and the piping cost. Therefore, the capital investment of the gas cycle enhancement is,
CI ¼ C _{h}_{x} þ C _{s}_{t}_{a}_{c}_{k} þ C _{d}_{u}_{c}_{t}
(15)
The capital investment of a heat exchanger (the heat transfer area) can be estimated using the following expression [25] ,
C _{h}_{x} ¼ 8500 þ 409 A ^{0} ^{:} ^{8}^{5}
o
(16a)
Where A _{o} is the total outside area of the tube bundle which is
calculated using the thermohydraulic model of the recuperative
heat exchanger [21] . The cost of stack section is obtained based on the fabricated weight of the stack and the manufacturing cost per kg of the fabricated weight as follow,
^{C} stack ^{¼} ^{c} fab ^{W} stack
^{(}^{1}^{6}^{b}^{)}
W _{s}_{t}_{a}_{c}_{k} is the fabricated weight of the stack section obtained in mechanical design, c _{f}_{a}_{b} is the fabricated price of the stack per kg of its weight taken as 3.0 $.kg ^{} ^{1} (in the Iran). In Eq. (18) the ducting cost, C _{d}_{u}_{c}_{t} , based on the site investigation is considered as 38,500$
in this case (ducts are used in order to transfer the air and ﬂ ue gases to/from the recuperator).
A levelized value for the total annual cost of the capital
investment, CC _{L} , can be computed by applying a discounting factor (the cost of money or interest rate) and the capitalrecovery
factor CRF :
BL
CC _{L} ¼ CRF ^{X}
1
TRR _{j}
1 þ i
eff _{} _{j}
(17a)
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362e375
367
CRF
BL
¼ i eff 1 þ i eff
1 þ i eff n
1
(17b)
Where TRR _{j} is the total revenue requirement in the j th year of the system operation [13] obtained as,
CI
TRR _{j} ¼ _{B}_{L}
(17c)
In Eqs (17a e c) i _{e}_{f}_{f} is the average annual effective discount rate (cost of money), and BL denotes the system economic life (booked life) expressed in years. The operating life of the system is assumed to be 20 years and i _{e}_{f}_{f} in Iran is 17%. Therefore, the payback time for the capital investment of the recuperator is calculated based on the levelized capital investment, CC _{L} , (Eq. (17a) ) and the annual saving on the fuel cost reduction as follow,
payback ¼
^{C}^{C} ^{L} ^{} ^{B}^{L}
c _{f} _{L} 86400 365 1 _{=} _{r} _{f} !
^{m} ^{f} Simple cycle ^{} ^{m} ^{f} Re cuperativ e cycle
_
_
(18)
Where c _{f} _{L} is the levelized cost of each cubic meters of the natural gas. If the series of payments for the annual fuel cost is uniform over time except for a constantescalation r _{F}_{C} then the levelized value for the fuel cost per cubic meters, c _{f} _{L} , of the series can be calculated by multiplying the unit cost of fuel at the beginning of the ﬁ rst year of the project c _{f} _{0} by the constantescalation levelization factor CELF as follows
c _{f} _{L} ¼ c _{f} _{0} CELF ¼ c _{f} _{0}
With
k _{F}_{C} 1 k ^{B}^{L}
FC
ð 1 k _{F}_{C} Þ
CRF
(19a)
_{k} FC
_{¼} 1 þ r _{F}_{C} 1 þ i eff
and r _{F}_{C} ¼ constant :
(19b)
The terms r _{F}_{C} and CRF denote the annual escalation rate for the
fuel cost (assumed to be 5%) and the capitalrecovery factor (Eq. (17b) ), respectively.
is 0.08 $ m ^{} ^{3} in Iran (the international price for
natural gas is approximately 0.30 $ m ^{} ^{3} about 3.75 times higher
than the local price in Iran).
In Eq. (19a)
^{c} f 0
3.4. Model veri ﬁ cation
Thermodynamic and thermohydraulic modeling of the cycle is performed using the MATLAB programming. For veriﬁ cation of the model, the registered data at the site of the proposed gas turbine for the exhaust temperature of the gas is compared with correspond ing data predicted by the thermodynamic model. The thermody namic model has been performed for site condition with 84.7 kPa atmospheric pressure and the ambient registered temperature. Fig. 2 illustrates this comparison for 27 days selected during an operating year 2009, randomly. This ﬁ gure indicates that the maximum error is 2.2%. Further operation of the simple gas cycle at ISO condition predicted by the developed model is compared with the system catalogue (reported by the manufacturer) as indicated in Table 2 . As is clear, Table 2 indicates that in this case the maximum error is also 2.4%. Therefore, our thermodynamic model is able to predict,
Fig. 2. Comparison of the exhaust gas temperatures predicted by the model and real values.
the gas cycle behavior with a maximum 2.4% error which is
reasonable for our purpose.
4. Objective functions, decision variables and constraints
4.1. De ﬁ nition of the objectives
As is already discussed, in this paper two objectives including the exergetic ef ﬁ ciency of the regenerative gas turbine and the payback time for the capital investment of recuperator denoted by Eqs. (14) and (18) , respectively, are considered. The exergetic ef ﬁ  ciency (Eq. (14) ) is maximized while the recuperator investment payback time (Eq. (18) ) is minimized. These objectives are consid ered simultaneously in a multiobjective optimization process.
4.2. Choice of decision variables
Following geometrical and thermal speci ﬁ cations of the recu perative heat exchanger are considered as decision variables,
L _{t} : Tube length (m) D _{t}_{o} : Tube outside diameter (m) D _{t}_{i} : Tube inside diameter (m) L _{t}_{p} : Tube pitch in the tube bundle (center to center distance of tubes in m ) D _{o}_{t}_{l} : Outer tube limit in the tube bundle (m) D _{i}_{t}_{l} : Inner tube limit in the tube bundle (m) N _{b} : Total number of baf ﬂ es (including disk and doughnut baf ﬂ es) T _{3} : The outlet temperature of the preheated air from the recuperator (K)
4.3. Constraints and limitations
Following limitations are considered for the regenerative gas turbine cycle:
Table 2 Comparison of the performance of the simple gas cycle at the ISO condition pre dicted by the thermodynamic model and catalogue reported values.
Speci ﬁ cation 
Catalogue data 
Predicted by the code 
Error 
Ef ﬁ ciency Air ﬂ ow rate ( kg s ^{} ^{1} ) Fuel ﬂ ow rate ( kg s ^{} ^{1} ) 
0.26 
0.266 
2.3% 
343.4 
335.3 
2.4% 

4.4 
4.49 
2.0% 
368
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362 e375
3 v _{a}_{i}_{r} 6 m : s ^{} ^{1}
(20)
Where v _{a}_{i}_{r} is the air velocity in the circular cross section area of doughnut baf ﬂ es and the annular area limited between the outer tube limit of the tube bundle and shell inside area.
T _{3} 1420 K
T _{6} 378 : 15 K
6 L _{t} 12 m
L tp
to ˛f 1 : 25 ; 1 : 33 ; 1 : 5 g
D
N _{b} ˛f 3 ; 5 ; 7 ; 9 ; 11 ; 13 ; 15 g
2 D _{s}_{i} 4 m
0 : 80 ^{D} ^{o}^{t}^{l} 0 : 97
^{D}
si
0 : 25 ^{D} ^{i}^{t}^{l} 0 : 45
^{D}
si
T _{3} < T _{4} < T _{5}
DP _{s} 3 : 5 kPa
DP _{t} 5 kPa
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
Since implementing of the air preheater in some case may cause ef ﬁ ciency reduction of the gas cycle even lower than the simple gas turbine with no air preheater, in order to avoid such un reasonable condition, the following constraint has been imposed on the optimization process,
ε _{r}_{e}_{g} ε _{b}_{r}_{a}_{y} þ 0 : 01
(32)
Where ε _{r}_{e}_{g} and ε _{b}_{r}_{a}_{y} are exergetic ef ﬁ ciencies of the regenerative and simple Brayton gas cycles, respectively.
5. Multiobjective optimization
Multiobjective optimization of objectives function expressed by Eqs. (14) and (17) is performed using the multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. A multiobjective optimization problem requires the simultaneous satisfaction of a number of different and often con ﬂ icting objectives. It is required to mention that no combination of decision variables can optimize all objectives, simultaneously. Multiobjective optimization problems generally show a possibly uncountable set of solutions, whose evaluated vectors represent the best possible tradeoffs in the objective function space. Pareto optimality is the key concept to establish a hierarchy among the solutions of a multiobjective optimization problem, in order to determine whether a solution is really one of the best possible tradesoff [26] . Eq. (1) shows how a multi objective optimization problem can be formulated mathematically.
min F _{j} ð X Þ
c j ˛f 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; . :; k g
subject to X ˛ L
(33)
Where we have k 2 objective functions F _{j} : R ^{n} / R ^{1} . The feasible objective region Z is the image of the feasible region ( i.e Z ¼ F ( X ) 3 R ^{k} ). The elements of Z are called objective vectors. The objective vectors are denoted by F(X) or by Z ¼ [ z _{1} , z _{2} , z _{3} . , z _{k} ] ^{T} , where z _{j} ¼ F _{j} ( X ) c j ˛ {1,2, . , k } [27] . Classical search and optimization methods are not ef ﬁ cient in following the Pareto approach for multiobjective optimizations. The class of search algorithms that implement the Pareto approach for multiobjective optimization in the most straightforward way is the class of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) [12] . In this paper, one of most powerful MOEA namely as Non dominated sorting genetic algorithm, NSGAII has been employed to ﬁ nd the Pareto optimal frontier for the proposed recuperative gas cycle. This method was well described by Sayyaadi et al. in [21] .
6. Decisionmaking in the multiobjective optimization
In multiobjective optimization a process of decisionmaking for selection of the ﬁ nal optimal solution from available solutions is required. There are several methods for decisionmaking process in decision problem. These methods can be employed for selection of a ﬁ nal optimal solution from the Pareto frontier Since, dimen sion of various objectives in a multiobjective optimization problem might be different (for example in our case the exergetic objective has no dimension while the dimension of the payback time is in years), therefore, before any decision, dimension and scales of objectives space should be uni ﬁ ed. In this regard, objec tives vectors should be nondimensionalized before decision making. There are some methods of nondimensionalization utilized in decision making including linear non dimensionalization, Euclidian nondimensionalization, and fuzzy nondimensionalization.
Linear nondimensionalization
Consider the matrix of objectives at various points of the Pareto frontier is denoted by F _{i}_{j} where i is the index for each point on the Pareto frontier and j is the index for each objective in the objec tives space. Therefore a nondimensionalized objective, F , is de ﬁ ned as,
n
ij
n
ij
F
_{¼}
F ij
max
_{F} ij for maximizing objecti v es
(34a)
n
ij
F
¼
1 = F _{i}_{j}
max ^{} 1
_{=} _{F} ij for minimizing objectiv es
(34b)
Euclidian nondimensionalization
as,
In this method, a nondimensionalized objective, F , is de ﬁ ned
n
ij
F
n
ij ^{¼}
F ij
q ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ for minimizing and maximizing objecti v es
2
^{P}
m
i ¼ 1 ^{F} ij
2
(35)
Fuzzy nondimensionalization
as,
In this method, a nondimensionalized objective, F , is de ﬁ ned
n
ij
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362e375
n
ij
F
n
ij
F
¼
_{¼}
F _{i}_{j} min ^{} F _{i}_{j} ^{}
max ^{} F _{i}_{j} ^{} min
_{F} ij for
max ^{} F ij ^{} F ij max ^{} F _{i}_{j} ^{} min ^{}
_{F} ij for
maximizing objecti v es
minimizing objecti v es
(36a)
(36b)
f T g ¼
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
F 1 X
F 1 X
:
:
:
F 1 X
0
1
0
2
0
n
F _{2} X .
F _{2} X .
0
1
0
2
F _{2} X .
0
n
F _{n} X
F _{n} X
0
1
0
2
F _{n} X
0
n
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
369
(41)
In this paper most famous and common type of decision making processes including the fuzzy BellmanZadeh, LINMAP and TOPSIS method is used in parallel in order to specify the ﬁ nal optimal solution. The BellmanZadeh method utilizes the fuzzy nondimensionalization while the other methods (LINMAP and TOPSIS) employ Euclidian nondimensionalization. The following sections are presented here in order to describe these decision making algorithms.
6.1. BellmanZadeh decisionmaking method
When using the BellmanZadeh approach, each F _{j} ð X Þ of Eq. (33) is replaced by a fuzzy objective function or a fuzzy set
A _{j} ¼ n X ; m _{A} _{j} ð X Þg
X ˛ L ; j ¼ 1 ; 2 ; . : k
(37)
Where m _{A} _{j} ð X Þ is a membership function of A _{j} [28] . A ﬁ nal decision is de ﬁ ned by the Bellman and Zadeh model as
the intersection of all fuzzy criteria and constraints and is repre sented by its membership function. A fuzzy solution D with setting up the fuzzy sets (38) is turned out as a result of the intersection
D
k
¼ X _{¼} _{1} A _{j} with
j
a membership function
Maximum and minimum bounds for the criteria are de ﬁ ned:
F
F
min
i
max
i
¼
¼
min
j
F j X
0
j
;
max
j
F j X
0
j
;
i ¼ 1 ; . :; n
i ¼ 1 ; . :; n
^{(}^{4}^{2}^{a}^{,}^{b}^{)}
The membership functions are assumed for all fuzzy goals as follows. For minimized objective functions
m _{F}_{i} ð X Þ ¼
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
0
F
max
i
F _{i}
F
max
i
F
1
min
i
if
if
F _{i} ð x Þ > F
max
i
^{;}
F
min
i
< F _{i} F
max
i
if
F _{i} ð x Þ F
min
i
^{;}
For maximized objective functions
m _{F}_{i} ð X Þ ¼
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
1
F _{i} F
min
i
F
max
i
F
0
min
i
if
if
F _{i} ð x Þ > F
max
i
^{;}
F
min
i
< F _{i} F
max
i
if
F _{i} ð x Þ F
min
i
^{;}
Fuzzy constraints are formulated:
(43a)
(43b)
m _{D} ð X Þ ¼
k
X _{¼} _{1} m _{A} _{j} ð X Þ ¼
j
min :; k m _{A} _{j} ð x Þ X ˛ L
j ¼ 1 ; .
(38)
Using Eq. (35) , it is possible to obtain the solution proving the maximum degree as follows,
max m _{D} ð X Þ ¼ max
min :; k m _{A} _{j} ð x Þ
X ˛ L j ¼ 1 ; .
X ^{0} ¼ argmax
X ˛ L
min :; k m _{A} _{j} ð x Þ
j ¼ 1 ; .
(39)
(40)
To obtain Eq. (39) , it is necessary to build membership functions m _{A} _{j} _{ð} _{X} _{Þ} , j ¼ 1, . , k reﬂ ecting a degree of achieving “ own ”
optima by the corresponding F _{j} ð X Þ ; X ˛ L , j ¼ 1,
, k . This is satis ﬁ ed
by the use of the membership functions [24] . The membership function of objectives and constraints, linear or nonlinear, can be
chosen depending on the context of problem. One of possible fuzzy convolution schemes is presented below [25] .
Initial approximation for Xvector is chosen. Maximum
(minimum) values for each criterion F _{j} ( X ) are established via scalar maxi mization (minimization). Results are denoted as
0
‘‘ ideal ’’ points f X
j
; j ¼ 1 ; . ; m g .
The matrix table {T}, where the diagonal elements are ‘‘ ideal ’’
points, is de ﬁ ned as follows:
G _{j} ð X Þ G
j
max
þ d _{j} ;
j ¼ 1 ; 2 ; . :; k
(44)
Where d _{j} is a subjective parameter that denotes a distance of
of the j th constraint.
Corresponding membership functions are de ﬁ ned in following manner:
admissible displacement for the bound G
max
j
m _{G}_{i} ð X Þ ¼
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
1
0
G _{j} ð x Þ G
max
j
d
j
if G
if G _{i} ð x Þ > G
max
i
max
i
<
G _{i} ð X Þ G
max
i
1 if G _{i} ð x Þ G
max
i
þ d _{j}
(45)
A ﬁ nal decision is determined as the intersection of all fuzzy criteria and constraints represented by its membership func tions. This problem is reduced to the standard nonlinear programming problems: to ﬁ nd the such values of X and k that maximize k subject to
l
l
m _{F} _{i} ; m _{G} _{j} ;
i ¼ 1 ; 2 ; . :; n j ¼ 1 ; 2 ; . :; _{k}
(46)
The solution of the multicriteria problem discloses the meaning of the optimality operator and depends on the decisionmakers experience and problem understanding.
370
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362 e375
6.2. LINMAP decisionmaking method
An ideal point on the Pareto frontier is the point in which each objective is optimized regardless to satisfaction of other objectives. It is clear that in the multiobjective optimization it is impossible to have each objective in its optimal condition obtained a single objective optimization. Therefore, the ideal point is not located on the Pareto frontier. In the LINMAP method, after Euclidian non dimensionalization of all objectives, the spacial distance of each solution on the Pareto frontier from the ideal point denoted by d _{i} _{þ} is determined as follow,
d i þ ¼
r
2
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
^{} 2
X
j ¼ 1 ^{F} ^{i}^{j} ^{} ^{F}
n
j
Ideal
(47)
Where n denotes the number of objective while i stand for each
. ideal value for j th objective obtained in a singleobjective optimi
zation. In LINMAP method, the solution with a minimum distance from the ideal point is selected as a ﬁ nal desired optimal solution, hence, i index for a ﬁ nal solution, i _{ﬁ} _{n}_{a}_{l} is,
solution on the Pareto frontier ( i ¼ 1,2,
is the
.,m ). In Eq. (47) , F
j
Ideal
i _{f}_{i}_{n}_{a}_{l} h i ˛ min ð d _{i}_{þ} Þ
i ¼ 1 ; 2 ; . ; m
(48)
6.3. TOPSIS decisionmaking method
In this method beside the ideal point a nonideal point is de ﬁ ned. The nonideal point is the ordinate in the objectives space in which each objective has its worst value. Therefore, beside the solution distance from ideal point, d _{i} _{þ} , the solution distance from the nonideal point denoted by d _{i} _{} is used as a criterion for selec tion of the ﬁ nal solution. Hence,
d i ¼
r
2
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
^{} 2
X
j ¼ 1 ^{F} ^{i}^{j} ^{} ^{F}
n
j
Non ideal
(49)
In continuing the TOPSIS method a Cl _{i} parameter is de ﬁ ned as follows,
Cl _{i} ¼
^{d} ^{i} ^{}
^{d} i þ ^{þ} ^{d} i
(50)
In the TOPSIS method a solution with a maximum Cl _{i} is selected as a desired ﬁ nal solution, therefore, if i _{ﬁ} _{n}_{a}_{l} is index for the ﬁ nal selected solution, we have,
i _{f}_{i}_{n}_{a}_{l} h i ˛ max ð Cl _{i} Þ i ¼ 1 ; 2 ; . ; m
7. Results and discussion
(51)
The present simple gas cycle is modeled using the thermody namic model for the site minimum, average and maximum annual
temperatures. Table 3 indicates the simple gas cycle performance at aforementioned site conditions. Now a recuperative heat exchanger is integrated to the V93.1 gas cycle in order to convert it into a regenerative gas cycle that schematically is shown in Fig. 1. In this regards, geometric and thermal speci ﬁ cations of the recuperative heat exchanger and the air outlet temperature from the recuperator are speci ﬁ ed in a multiobjective optimization process with objective functions expressed By Eqs. (14) and (18) and constraints speci ﬁ ed by Eqs. (21) e (32) . Multiobjective optimization using NSGAII algorithm is performed in three site cases including annual minimum, average and maximum ambient air temperatures and Pareto frontiers are obtained in these three cases as illustrated in Fig. 3 (a e c), respectively. In each case, ﬁ nal optimal solutions have been selected with fuzzy, LINMAP and TOPSIS decision
makers.
It is clear from Fig. 3 b that at the average annual site tempera ture, LINMAP and TOPSIS recommend the same ﬁ nal optimal solution. Tables 4 e 6 indicates speci ﬁ cations of the regenerative cycles that recommended by fuzzy, LINMAP and TOPSIS decision makers. Now the question is that which decisionmaking method should be considered for a ﬁ nal selection. Table 7 and Fig. 3 (a e c) are presented here to help us to decide between various decision making methods. In the Table 7, it is assumed that the system optimized in each temperature (optimization base temperature) is operated in other two ambient temperatures and the ef ﬁ ciency improvements in those conditions are calculated. From the last column of Table 7, we can see that all decisionmakers lead to approximately the same values for the average exergetic ef ﬁ ciency ( þ 1.63%, þ1.57% and 1.61% for fuzzy, LINMAP and TOPSIS decision makers, respectively). Fig. 4 shows that, in almost same exergetic ef ﬁ ciency improve ment of three decisionmakers, LINMAP and TOPSIS decision makers lead to the lowest payback time for the recuperator investment. Therefore, it seems that in this case, LINMAP and TOPSIS provide a more desirable ﬁ nal optimal solution. It should be mentioning that in general there is no decision making method having superiority over other methods in all cases. Indeed, various decisionmaking methods are applied to help decisionmakers who select the ﬁ nal solution based on their professional experience. In this case, we applied three decision making methods and we found that in our case LINMAP and TOP SIS decisionmakers select a ﬁ nal optimal solution that more suit our engineering and economic criteria. Another question is which ambient annual temperature should be considered as a reference base temperature for optimization of the system. In this regard, once more we assumed that the system optimized at each ambient temperature is operated in other two ambient temperatures. For example we assumed that the system optimized at the minimum temperature is utilized in the average and maximum ambient temperatures. Now, the deviations of the real system (obtained with 3.5 ^{} C base temperature) from the optimal solution at 18.8 ^{} C and 40.6 ^{} C are assessed. This procedure is more elucidated as follows,
Table 3 Performance of the simple Brayton V93.1 gas cycle at site conditions (Fars gas power plant located in ShirazIran).
Ambient temp. ( ^{} C) 
Ambient 
Net power 
Exergetic ef ﬁ ciency (%) 
Fuel mass ﬂ ow rate (kg s ^{} ^{1} ) 
pressure (kPa) 
(kW) 

T _{m}_{i}_{n} ¼ 3.5 T _{a}_{v}_{e} ¼ 18.8 T _{m}_{a}_{x} ¼ 40.6 
84.7 
55683 
26.36 
3.9865 
84.7 
48160 
24.83 
3.6610 

84.7 
40664 
22.93 
3.3472 
d
18 : 8 ^{+} C
þ
_{d} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
þ
^{¼}
^{¼}
q
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
^{} ^{2} þ ^{} ε
2
^{} p
3 : 5 ^{+} C
n
p
18 : 8 ^{+} C
n
3 : 5 ^{+} C
n
ε
18 : 8 ^{+} C
n
q
^{} p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
^{} ^{2} þ ^{} ε
2
3 : 5 ^{+} C _{} _{p} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
n
3 : 5 ^{+} C _{} _{ε} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
n
n
n
(52a)
(52b)
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362e375
371
Fig. 3. Pareto optimal frontiers at (a) Minimum annual temperature; (b) Average annual temperature; (c) Maximum annual temperature.
372
H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362 e375
Table 4 Speci ﬁ cations of the recuperator and the regenerative gas cycle speci ﬁ ed by the fuzzy decisionmaker at various ambient temperatures.
Parameters 
T _{0} ¼ 3.5 ^{} C 
T _{0} ¼ 18.8 ^{} C 
T _{0} ¼ 40.6 ^{} C 
Tube arrangement Tube outside/inside diameter d _{i} / d _{o} (m) Tube pitch ratio in the tube bundle Tube length (m) Number of tubes( N _{t} ) Number of baf ﬂ es( N _{b} ) Shell inside diameter D _{s} (m) Outer tube limit D _{o}_{t}_{l} (m) Inner tube limit D _{i}_{t}_{l} (m) Outlet temp. of the recuperator ( ^{} C) Effectiveness Recuperator cost($) Payback time(years) Exergetic ef ﬁ ciency (%) Improvement in the exergetic ef ﬁ ciency compared to the simple cycle (%) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
0.0173/0.01905 
0.0173/0.01905 
0.0173/0.01905 

1.33 
1.33 
1.25 

7.683 
7.674 
7.688 

6805 
6572 
6348 

577 

2.280 
2.240 
2.070 

2.008 
1.850 
1.689 

1.026 
1.008 
0.931 

397 
412 
427 

0.5935 
0.5930 
0.5925 

470040 
457240 
445180 

2.23 
2.73 
2.84 

28.62 
26.64 
24.65 

þ 2.26 
þ 1.81 
þ 1.72 

Table 5 Speci ﬁ cations of the recuperator and the regenerative gas cycle speci ﬁ ed by the LINMAP decisionmaker at various ambient temperatures. 

Parameters 
T _{0} ¼ 3.5 ^{} C 
T _{0} ¼ 18.8 ^{} C 
T _{0} ¼ 40.6 ^{} C 
Tube arrangement Tube outside/inside diameter d _{i} / d _{o} (m) Tube pitch ratio in the tube bundle Tube length(m) Number of tubes( N _{t} ) Number of baf ﬂ es( N _{b} ) Shell inside diameter D _{s} (m) Outer tube limit D _{o}_{t}_{l} (m) Inner tube limit D _{i}_{t}_{l} (m) Outlet temp. of the recuperator ( ^{} C) Effectiveness Recuperator cost($) Payback time(years) Exergetic ef ﬁ ciency (%) Improvement in the exergetic ef ﬁ ciency compared to the simple cycle (%) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
0.0173/0.01905 
0.0173/0.01905 
0.0173/0.01905 

1.33 
1.33 
1.33 

7.665 
7.659 
7.702 

6118 
5975 
5642 

777 

2.160 
2.140 
2.080 

1.821 
1.842 
1.689 

0.972 
0.963 
0.936 

395 
411 
425 

0.5880 
0.5873 
0.5828 

431990 
423850 
405330 

2.13 
2.63 
2.70 

28.52 
26.58 
24.57 

þ 2.16 
þ 1.75 
þ 1.64 

Table 6 Speci ﬁ cations of the recuperator and the regenerative gas cycle speci ﬁ ed by the TOPSIS decisionmaker at various ambient temperatures. 

Parameters 
T _{0} ¼ 3.5 ^{} C 
T _{0} ¼ 18.8 ^{} C 
T _{0} ¼ 40.6 ^{} C 
Tube arrangement Tube outside/inside diameter d _{i} / d _{o} (m) Tube pitch ratio in the tube bundle Tube length(m) Number of tubes( N _{t} ) Number of baf ﬂ es( N _{b} ) Shell inside diameter D _{s} (m) Outer tube limit D _{o}_{t}_{l} (m) Inner tube limit D _{i}_{t}_{l} (m) Outlet temp. of the recuperator ( ^{} C) Effectiveness Recuperator cost($) Payback time (years) Exergetic ef ﬁ ciency (%) Improvement in the exergetic ef ﬁ ciency compared to the simple cycle(%) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
Triangle(30 e 60) 
0.0173/0.01905 
0.0173/0.01905 
0.0173/0.01905 

1.33 
1.33 
1.33 

7.667 
7.659 
7.724 

6109 
5975 
5663 

777 

2.160 
2.140 
2.080 

1.909 
1.842 
1.666 

0.969 
0.963 
0.936 

395 
411 
425 

0.5879 
0.5873 
0.5834 

431520 
423850 
406850 

2.13 
2.63 
2.70 

28.52 
26.58 
24.58 

þ 2.16 
þ 1.75 
þ 1.65 
Where d
obtained at 3.5 ^{} C from optimal solutions obtained at 18.8 ^{} C and 40.6 ^{} C, respectively. p _{n} and ε _{n} denote Euclidian non
are deviations of the optimal solution
18 : 8 ^{+} C _{a}_{n}_{d} _{d} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
þ
þ
dimensionalized payback and exergetic objective values. There
fore, the total deviation at 3.5 ^{} C denoted by d
3 : 5 ^{+} C
þ
is,
d
3 : 5 ^{+} C _{¼} _{d} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
þ
þ
þ d
18 : 8 ^{+} C
þ
(52c)
Similarly, for systems designed at optimization base tempera
are ob
tures of 18.8 ^{} C and 40.6 ^{} C, deviations d tained as,
18 : 8 ^{+} C _{a}_{n}_{d} _{d} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
þ
þ
_{d} 40 : 6 ^{+} C þ
^{¼}
q
^{} p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
^{} ^{2} þ ^{} ε
^{} 2
18 : 8 ^{+} C _{} _{p} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
n
18 : 8 ^{+} C _{} _{ε} 40 : 6 ^{+} C
n
n
n
d
d
d
3 : 5 ^{+} C
þ
^{¼}
q
^{} p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
2
^{} ^{2} þ ^{} ε
18 : 8 ^{+} C
n
p
3 : 5 ^{+} C
n
18 : 8 ^{+}
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.