You are on page 1of 14
Energy 38 (2012) 362 e 375 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Energy journal homepage:

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy

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

Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy Ef fi ciency enhancement of a gas turbine cycle using an

Ef ciency enhancement of a gas turbine cycle using an optimized tubular recuperative heat exchanger

Hoseyn Sayyaadi * , Reza Mehrabipour

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering-Energy Division, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, P.O. Box: 19395-1999, No. 15-19, 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 ciency enhancement Payback time minimization Multi-objective optimization Bellman-Zadeh decision-making LINMAP decision-making TOPSIS decision-making

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 ciency utilized in the Fars power plant located

is considered for the ef ciency enhancement. A typical tubular vertical recuperative heat exchanger is

designed in order to integrate into the cycle as an air pre-heater for thermal ef ciency improvement. Thermal and geometric speci cations of the recuperative heat exchanger are obtained in a multi- objective optimization process. The exergetic ef 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 NSGA-II algorithm and Pareto optimal frontiers are obtained in three cases including the minimum, average and maximum ambient air temperatures. In each case, the nal optimal solution has been selected using three decision-making approaches including the fuzzy Bellman-Zadeh, LINMAP and TOPSIS methods. It has been shown that the TOPSIS and LINMAP decision-makers 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 ciency enhancement. This unit is a Siemens gas turbine model V93.1 with 60 MW nominal power and 26.0% thermal ef ciency at ISO condition. There are two categories of methods for ef ciency enhancement of gas cycles. In the rst category the ef 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 ciency of the compressor and reducing compression work which leads to an increasing in the ef ciency of the cycle and power generation. Second category of methods dealing with increasing the combustion ef ciency and therefore the ef ciency of the cycle is heat and gas recirculation [4 e 8] . In the mass recirculation system, a portion of ue gas after

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 98 21 8867 4212; fax: þ 98 21 8867 4748.

E-mail

(H. Sayyaadi).

addresses:

0360-5442/$ 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 air-fuel 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 self-sustained or auto-thermal 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 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 ciency

l

fuel-air ratio (mass base)

BL

Booked life (years)

l

Molar fuel-air ratio Compressor isentropic ef ciency Gas turbine isentropic ef ciency

C

Cost (US $)

h

sc

CI

Capital investment (US $) Levelized carrying charge (US $)

h

sg

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 non-ideal point

Subscripts

 

d i þ d i

0

Index for ambient condition of the atmospheric air, Index for the 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 c exergy (kJ kg 1 ) Speci 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 pre-heater)

h

Heat transfer coef cient (W m 2 K 1 )

h

Molar enthalpy (kJ kmol 1 ) Interest rate (cost of money)

cc

Combustion chamber

i eff

duct

Ducting for air and 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 es

LHV

fab

Fabrication

L tp

f

Fuel

N

t

hx

Heat exchanger

N

b

g

Gas ( 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

Multi-objective evolutionary algorithm

itl

Inner tube limit in tube bundle

_

Flow rate (kg s 1 )

Molar 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 FC

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 c entropy (kJ kmol 1 K 1 ) Overall heat transfer coef 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 ciency

n

Non-dimensional

combustion technologies such as mild combustion, recirculating combustion have been developed based on this idea [6] . Moreover, such approach can be bene 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 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 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 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 ciency of practical ARCs is always lower than that of CRCs and the optimum pressure ratio for ef 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 ed which part load control strategy is suitable for various con gurations of the cycle [11] . In the current work, we consider integration of the air pre-heater into the gas cycle for ef 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 pre-heater of the proposed gas cycle. Further we employ optimization approach for integrating of the new component (air pre-heater) 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 cations of the recuperative heat exchanger are obtained in a multi-objective optimization process with the exer- getic efciency and payback time of the recuperator investment as objectives of optimization. Indeed multi-objective 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 non-linear) optimization problem. Therefore, in order to avoid obtaining a local optimum instead of the global optimum, meta-heuristic 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 multi-objective 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. Multi-objective 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 non-TEMA 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 es. The exergetic ef - 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 tted. Three scenarios for optimization of the system including the minimiza- tion of the recuperator cost, maximizing the cycle exergetic ef - ciency and simultaneous optimization of both objectives were performed. An example of decision-making was presented to select a 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 efciency, 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 modied 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 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 multi-objective optimization algorithms namely as the NSGA-II. Since operation of the gas cycle is highly dependent to the ambient air temperature, the multi-objective 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 decision-making approaches including the fuzzy Bellman-Zadeh [22], LINMAP [23,24] and TOPSIS [23,24] are utilized for selection of 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 cantly 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 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 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 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 ciency. Table 1 show general speci cations of the V93.1 Brayton gas cycle. In this paper, the thermal ef ciency of the proposed gas turbine will be enhanced by integration of a recuperative heat exchanger as an air pre-heater. Fig. 1 shows a schematic arrangement of the proposed regenerative gas turbine cycle with a recuperative heat exchanger as an air pre-heater. Combustion chamber inlet air is pre-heated using the ue gas exhausts from the gas turbine. The recuperative heat exchanger that will be integrated into the gas cycle as an air-preheater 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 pre-heated by the ue gas that enters in tubes from the bottom of heat exchanger. The pre-heated 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 es. More detail on speci cations of the proposed recuperative heat exchanger can be found in [21] . The aim is nding the geometrical speci 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 es plus the pre- heated air outlet temperature from the recuperator so that the exergetic ef 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 cations of the simple gas turbine.

Manufacturer

Kraftwerk

union AG

Type Number of turbine stages Rotor speed (rpm) Air ow rate at ISO condition (kg s -1 ) Flue Gas ow rate with gas oil at ISO condition (kg s -1 )

Siemens V93.1

4

3000

343.4

348.6

Flue Gas 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 ow axial type V 93.1

Number of compressor stages

16

Compressor air 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 ciency of the air compressor

0.84

Isentropic ef 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 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 pc 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 ideal-gas 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 ciency of the compressor, h SC , 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)

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 CO 2 ; a CO 2 þ x HO 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 CO 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 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 CV ¼ 0 and since we assumed the heat loss from the combustion

chamber to be 2% of LHV of the fuel,

_

Q CV 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 CO 2 ; a h CO 2 þ

x HO 2 ; a h H 2 O at T 3

x CO 2 ; g h CO 2 þ

x HO 2 ; g h H 2 O at T 6

(9a)

(9b)

Hence l is obtained from solution of Eq. (8) , therefore, the mass ow rate of the fuel is calculated as,

M f n F ¼ l n a / m F ¼ l _ _
M
f
n F ¼ l n a / m F ¼ l
_
_
_
M
a

_

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 pg 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 sg ð T 4 T 5 s Þ

(12)

The isentropic ef ciency, h sg , 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 gt

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 ciency of the gas cycle The exergetic ef 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 net 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 es is used here as the air pre-heater 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 hx þ C stack þ C duct

(15)

The capital investment of a heat exchanger (the heat transfer area) can be estimated using the following expression [25] ,

C hx ¼ 8500 þ 409 A 0 : 85

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

(16b)

W stack is the fabricated weight of the stack section obtained in mechanical design, c fab is the fabricated price of the stack per kg of its weight taken as 3.0 $.kg 1 (in the Iran). In Eq. (18) the ducting cost, C duct , based on the site investigation is considered as 38,500$

in this case (ducts are used in order to transfer the air and 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 capital-recovery

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 BL

(17c)

In Eqs (17a e c) i eff 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 eff 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

CC L BL

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 constant-escalation r FC 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 rst year of the project c f 0 by the constant-escalation levelization factor CELF as follows

c f L ¼ c f 0 CELF ¼ c f 0

With

k FC 1 k BL

FC

ð 1 k FC Þ

CRF

(19a)

k FC

¼ 1 þ r FC 1 þ i eff

and r FC ¼ constant :

(19b)

The terms r FC and CRF denote the annual escalation rate for the

fuel cost (assumed to be 5%) and the capital-recovery 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 cation

Thermodynamic and thermohydraulic modeling of the cycle is performed using the MATLAB programming. For verication 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 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,

2.4%. Therefore, our thermodynamic model is able to predict, Fig. 2. Comparison of the exhaust gas

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 nition of the objectives

As is already discussed, in this paper two objectives including the exergetic ef 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 - ciency (Eq. (14) ) is maximized while the recuperator investment payback time (Eq. (18) ) is minimized. These objectives are consid- ered simultaneously in a multi-objective optimization process.

4.2. Choice of decision variables

Following geometrical and thermal speci cations of the recu- perative heat exchanger are considered as decision variables,

L t : Tube length (m) D to : Tube outside diameter (m) D ti : Tube inside diameter (m) L tp : Tube pitch in the tube bundle (center to center distance of tubes in m ) D otl : Outer tube limit in the tube bundle (m) D itl : Inner tube limit in the tube bundle (m) N b : Total number of baf es (including disk and doughnut baf es) T 3 : The outlet temperature of the pre-heated 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 cation

Catalogue data

Predicted by the code

Error

Ef ciency Air ow rate ( kg s 1 ) Fuel 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 air 6 m : s 1

(20)

Where v air is the air velocity in the circular cross section area of doughnut baf 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 si 4 m

0 : 80 D otl 0 : 97

D

si

0 : 25 D itl 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 pre-heater in some case may cause ef ciency reduction of the gas cycle even lower than the simple gas turbine with no air pre-heater, in order to avoid such un reasonable condition, the following constraint has been imposed on the optimization process,

ε reg ε bray þ 0 : 01

(32)

Where ε reg and ε bray are exergetic ef ciencies of the regenerative and simple Brayton gas cycles, respectively.

5. Multi-objective optimization

Multi-objective optimization of objectives function expressed by Eqs. (14) and (17) is performed using the multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. A multi-objective optimization problem requires the simultaneous satisfaction of a number of different and often con icting objectives. It is required to mention that no combination of decision variables can optimize all objectives, simultaneously. Multi-objective optimization problems generally show a possibly uncountable set of solutions, whose evaluated vectors represent the best possible trade-offs in the objective function space. Pareto optimality is the key concept to establish a hierarchy among the solutions of a multi-objective optimization problem, in order to determine whether a solution is really one of the best possible trades-off [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 cient in following the Pareto approach for multi-objective optimizations. The class of search algorithms that implement the Pareto approach for multi-objective optimization in the most straightforward way is the class of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) [12] . In this paper, one of most powerful MOEA namely as Non- dominated sorting genetic algorithm, NSGA-II has been employed to nd the Pareto optimal frontier for the proposed recuperative gas cycle. This method was well described by Sayyaadi et al. in [21] .

6. Decision-making in the multi-objective optimization

In multi-objective optimization a process of decision-making for selection of the nal optimal solution from available solutions is required. There are several methods for decision-making process in decision problem. These methods can be employed for selection of a nal optimal solution from the Pareto frontier Since, dimen- sion of various objectives in a multi-objective 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 ed. In this regard, objec- tives vectors should be non-dimensionalized before decision- making. There are some methods of non-dimensionalization utilized in decision making including linear non- dimensionalization, Euclidian non-dimensionalization, and fuzzy non-dimensionalization.

Linear non-dimensionalization

Consider the matrix of objectives at various points of the Pareto frontier is denoted by F ij 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 non-dimensionalized objective, F , is de 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 ij

max 1

= F ij for minimizing objectiv es

(34b)

Euclidian non-dimensionalization

as,

In this method, a non-dimensionalized objective, F , is de 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 non-dimensionalization

as,

In this method, a non-dimensionalized objective, F , is de ned

n

ij

H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362e375

n

ij

F

n

ij

F

¼

¼

F ij min F ij

max F ij min

F ij for

max F ij F ij max F ij 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 Bellman-Zadeh, LINMAP and TOPSIS method is used in parallel in order to specify the nal optimal solution. The Bellman-Zadeh method utilizes the fuzzy non-dimensionalization while the other methods (LINMAP and TOPSIS) employ Euclidian non-dimensionalization. The following sections are presented here in order to describe these decision- making algorithms.

6.1. Bellman-Zadeh decision-making method

When using the Bellman-Zadeh 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 nal decision is de 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 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

(42a,b)

The membership functions are assumed for all fuzzy goals as follows. For minimized objective functions

m Fi 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 Fi 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 reecting a degree of achieving own

optima by the corresponding F j ð X Þ ; X ˛ L , j ¼ 1,

, k . This is satis ed

by the use of the membership functions [24] . The membership function of objectives and constraints, linear or non-linear, can be

chosen depending on the context of problem. One of possible fuzzy convolution schemes is presented below [25] .

Initial approximation for X-vector 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 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 ned in following manner:

admissible displacement for the bound G

max

j

m Gi 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 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 non-linear programming problems: to 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 multi-criteria problem discloses the meaning of the optimality operator and depends on the decision-makers experience and problem understanding.

370

H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362 e375

6.2. LINMAP decision-making 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 multi-objective 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 ij 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 single-objective optimi-

zation. In LINMAP method, the solution with a minimum distance from the ideal point is selected as a nal desired optimal solution, hence, i index for a nal solution, i nal is,

solution on the Pareto frontier ( i ¼ 1,2,

is the

.,m ). In Eq. (47) , F

j

Ideal

i final h i ˛ min ð d iþ Þ

i ¼ 1 ; 2 ; . ; m

(48)

6.3. TOPSIS decision-making method

In this method beside the ideal point a non-ideal point is de ned. The non-ideal 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 non-ideal point denoted by d i is used as a criterion for selec- tion of the nal solution. Hence,

d i ¼

r

2

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2

X

j ¼ 1 F ij F

n

j

Non ideal

(49)

In continuing the TOPSIS method a Cl i parameter is de 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 nal solution, therefore, if i nal is index for the nal selected solution, we have,

i final 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 cations of the recuperative heat exchanger and the air outlet temperature from the recuperator are speci ed in a multi-objective optimization process with objective functions expressed By Eqs. (14) and (18) and constraints speci ed by Eqs. (21) e (32) . Multi-objective optimization using NSGA-II 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, 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 nal optimal solution. Tables 4 e 6 indicates speci cations of the regenerative cycles that recommended by fuzzy, LINMAP and TOPSIS decision- makers. Now the question is that which decision-making method should be considered for a 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 ciency improvements in those conditions are calculated. From the last column of Table 7, we can see that all decision-makers lead to approximately the same values for the average exergetic ef 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 ciency improve- ment of three decision-makers, 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 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 decision-making methods are applied to help decision-makers who select the 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 decision-makers select a 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 Shiraz-Iran).

Ambient temp. ( C)

Ambient

Net power

Exergetic ef ciency (%)

Fuel mass ow rate (kg s 1 )

pressure (kPa)

(kW)

T min ¼ 3.5 T ave ¼ 18.8 T max 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

H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour / Energy 38 (2012) 362 e 375 371 Fig. 3. Pareto optimal

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 cations of the recuperator and the regenerative gas cycle speci ed by the fuzzy decision-maker 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 es( N b ) Shell inside diameter D s (m) Outer tube limit D otl (m) Inner tube limit D itl (m) Outlet temp. of the recuperator ( C) Effectiveness Recuperator cost($) Payback time(years) Exergetic ef ciency (%) Improvement in the exergetic ef 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 cations of the recuperator and the regenerative gas cycle speci ed by the LINMAP decision-maker 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 es( N b ) Shell inside diameter D s (m) Outer tube limit D otl (m) Inner tube limit D itl (m) Outlet temp. of the recuperator ( C) Effectiveness Recuperator cost($) Payback time(years) Exergetic ef ciency (%) Improvement in the exergetic ef 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 cations of the recuperator and the regenerative gas cycle speci ed by the TOPSIS decision-maker 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 es( N b ) Shell inside diameter D s (m) Outer tube limit D otl (m) Inner tube limit D itl (m) Outlet temp. of the recuperator ( C) Effectiveness Recuperator cost($) Payback time (years) Exergetic ef ciency (%) Improvement in the exergetic ef 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 and 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 and 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 +