Optimal Sizing of Gas Engine in Combined Cooling
Heat and Power Systems by a Proposed Evaluation
Function and Genetic Algorithm Optimization
Methods Based on 4E Analysis
Hasan Saadi-Quchan Atigh, Mahdi Deymi-Dashtebayaz , and Abdolamir Bak-Khoshnevis
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran; m.deimi@hsu.ac.ir (for correspondence)
Published online 00 Month 2019 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.13202
Determining the optimum size of the prime mover of
combined cooling heating and power (CCHP) systems due to
significant impact on energetic, environmental and eco-
nomic results of these systems is very vital and essential. In
this study, based on energy, exergy, environmental, and eco-
nomic (4E) analysis the optimum capacity of the gas engine
(GE) for CCHP systems have been investigated. The evalua-
tion study performed by using a proposed evaluation func-
tion (EF) and genetic algorithm (GA) optimization methods
for a sample official building in Iran. Regarding eight con-
straints, the optimum size of GE based on EF and GA optimi-
zation methods calculated 70 and 74.3437 kW, respectively.
By comparing the results obtained from EF and GA methods,
it was concluded that EF method calculate the same optimal
capacity with little difference and with the same accuracy of
GA method. This is while proposed EF method does not have
the complexity of GA optimization algorithm and is simpler.
© 2019 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 2019
Keywords: CCHP system, EF function, gas engine (GE),
genetic algorithm (GA) optimization, optimal sizing
INTRODUCTION
The world’s increasing energy demand, reducing energy
sources and the environmental impacts of fossil fuel utilization,
such as global warming, have attracted much interest to the
development of energy systems with higher efficiency [1]. One
approach is using combined cooling heating and power (CCHP)
technology, also known as Tri-generation system, is capable of
generating electricity as main product and heating/cooling as by-
product [2]. The researchers have shown that the CCHP system,
compared to the conventional separate production (SP) of cool-
ing, heating, and power, has a higher potential for energy sav-
ings, high efficiency, better economic performance and less
polluting emission characteristics. Various prime movers can be
used in CCHP systems, including reciprocating internal combus-
tion engine (ICE), micro-turbine, fuel cell, steam turbine, diesel
engine as well as reciprocating external combustion stirling
engine [3].
CCHP systems are used in different applications with vari-
ous capacities and therefore, choosing the type of prime
© 2019 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep
mover is an important factor in designing these systems. The
thermal and electrical loads and the type and characteristics of
the case study are effective in choosing the type of prime
mover with which many researchers have dealt [4–6]. Sanaye
et al. [7] studied choosing the type of prime mover for the
combined heating and power (CHP) system using the time-
dependent curves of the required electricity and heating load
during a year. They studied three types of prime movers that
include gas turbine, diesel engine, and gas engine (GE). Their
research illustrated that the ambient conditions, electricity and
heating loads, fuel type, and economic parameters affect
choosing the type of prime movers. Ghadimi et al. [8] worked
on improving the efficiency of the CCHP systems taking into
account the real operation of CCHP components to meet the
on-site energy demands. They examined the system improve-
ment by means of the system sizing and selecting of different
operational strategies. In another study, Roman et al. [9] inves-
tigated the various types of prime movers including the ICE,
micro-turbine, and phosphoric acid fuel cell for using in the
CCHP systems. They ran simulations for the prime movers in
one climate zone and compared the results to a reference case
with a typical SP system. Their results indicated that the pri-
mary energy consumption savings for three prime movers
were >8%. Abbasi et al. [10] used an ICE with natural gas fuel
as prime mover in the CHP system for an educational building.
The CHP system for building is measured under various sizes
of engine, between 200 to 1800 kW. The optimum size of the
engine in the desired building for the proposed CHP system is
1200 kW. Moreover, Farahnak et al. [11] utilized a natural gas
fueled ICE as prime mover in CCHP system for a residential
building with different capacities. They compared the perfor-
mance of the CCHP system and the SP system and showed
that there are mathematical relations between the optimal
capacity of the ICE and the building. Jing et al. [12] selected
the capacity of GE in the CCHP system for a hotel building
using total annual cost saving, primary energy saving and car-
bon dioxide emission (CDE) reduction as selection constraints.
They compared the results of three criteria separately. There-
fore, in the selection of the CCHP system, the performance of
the system should also be investigated at non-design points by
different constraints.
There are various parameters and constraints in CCHP sys-
tems design that can be effective in the performance and the
1
choice of the optimal engine capacity. Cho et al. [13] evaluated
the performance of the CCHP systems using three analyses
including energy, economic and environmental analyses for
different climate conditions. They examined different con-
straints such as primary energy consumption, operational cost,
and CDE in the analysis process, respectively. The results indi-
cated that changes to a parameter may decrease or increase
two other parameters. Sanaye et al. [14] estimated the power
and number of micro turbines as prime mover in small-scale
CHP systems based on energy–economic analysis. In addition,
Mago et al. [15] optimized the performance of the CCHP sys-
tem and evaluated the CCHP operation strategies considering
operation cost, primary energy consumption and CDE. The
results show that their optimal performance strategy provided
a good balance for all the variables considered. In the other
study, Li et al. [16] optimized the CCHP system performance
upon three viewpoints: energetic analysis, economic opera-
tion, and environment effect in hotels, offices and residential
buildings.
Recent studies show that the exergy analysis in addition to
energy, economic, and environmental analyses can play an
important role in the CCHP systems optimization [17]. Ara-
bkoohsar et al. [18] conducted the energetic and economic
analyses on sizing of CHP systems for providing the required
heat in several gas expansion stations in Iran and reported
these stations as good choices for employing the CHP systems.
In a research, Wang et al. [19] have analyzed the energy flow
in the SP and the CCHP systems for a commercial building
using three indicators including the exergy efficiency, CDE
reduction, and primary energy saving. They also evaluated the
performances of CCHP system for case study. And in another
study, Ebrahimi et al. [20] used a micro-steam CCHP cycle to
supply the energy requirements of a residential building. They
took advantage of energy and exergy analyses to find the opti-
mal design point. So, the right choice of analyses constraints
and parameters and the type of optimization method can also
help to optimize the system better.
Many methods and optimization algorithms have been pro-
posed for selecting the optimum capacity of prime movers in
the CCHP systems with different applications and capacities.
Energy, exergy, environmental, and economic (4E) analysis
plays a significant role in finding the optimal design parame-
ters of the CCHP systems. 4E analysis consists of four different
analyses including 4E analysis. Sanaye et al. [21] performed
4E analysis using multi-objective particle swarm optimization
algorithm in order to maximize RAB and exergy efficiency as
two objective functions. In addition to selecting the type of
analysis, choosing the type of optimization method to find the
optimal values of design parameters has a significant effect on
the design of the CCHP system.
Genetic algorithm (GA) is a special class of evolutionary
algorithm and a research method in computer science that is
used to find the exact solution for optimization and other
issues. As a result, GA can be used to optimize the size and
capacity of the CCHP systems. Wang et al. [12] evaluated the
performance of the CCHP system based on three criteria:
annual total cost saving, CDE reduction, and primary energy
saving; they optimized the capacity and operation of CCHP
system by means of GA. Additionally, Sanaye and Khakpaay
[22] determined the optimal capacity of gas engines in CCHP
systems using GA optimization method by defining an objec-
tive function called the relative annual benefit. In another
research, Sanaye and Ghafurian [23], using GA optimization
method for residential buildings, optimized a GE in the CCHP
system. They also performed energy, economic, and environ-
mental modeling/analysis. There are studies based on 4E
parameters in GA that deal with the capacity selection of
prime mover in the CCHP systems. Sanaye and Katebi [24]
used 4E analysis for optimization of a CHP system powered
by a micro gas turbine and solid oxide fuel cell hybrid prime
2 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep
mover. They obtained the optimal values of design parame-
ters using a multi-objective optimization approach based on
GA. Also Sanaye and Asgari [25] performed 4E modeling and
analysis of the CHP system with a multi-stage flash desalina-
tion. They applied GA to obtain the optimum values of
design parameters of 4E.
The main objective of this study is to find the optimum
capacity of the GE, as prime mover, in the CCHP system for a
sample building. 4E analysis is based on the energy analysis
constraints (total energy efficiency and fuel energy consump-
tion), exergy analysis constraints (exergy efficiency and exergy
destruction rate, EDR), environmental analysis constraints (CDE
and carbon dioxide reduction ratio [CDRR]) and economic anal-
ysis constraints (payback period [PB] and equivalent uniform
annual benefit [EUAB]). Then, a proposed evaluation factor
(EF) is introduced for selecting optimum size of prime mover in
the CCHP system considering 4E analysis. Finally, the results
obtained from the proposed EF method is compared with GA
optimization method.
CCHP AND SP SYSTEMS
The flow diagrams of the proposed CCHP and SP system
are presented in Figure 1. The CCHP system is composed of
a GE as prime mover, boilers as backup device, and
thermally-activated heating and cooling equipment. The fuel
used in the components is also natural gas. The main pur-
pose of employing the CCHP system is to supply the electri-
cal, heating and cooling energy demands of the building.
Natural gas is fueled to the GE in order to produce the elec-
tricity (electricity demand of the building includes lighting,
equipment, cooling, heating, etc.). If the electrical energy
produced by GE is less than the electrical demand of the
building, the shortage is imported from grid. Also, the
amount of additional electricity generated by the GE is
exported to grid. The waste heat can be recovered from the
exhaust gas, oil cooling, and jacketing and can be used to
produce cooling or heating. If the building needs more heat,
auxiliary boilers will be used.
In SP system, the electricity demand is supplied by the local
electrical grid while the gas boiler provides heating energy to
the end users through heating coils. In addition, an absorption
chiller is used to meet the cooling energy demand.
CASE STUDY
In this study, the central building of gas company in the city
of Bojnourd (located in north eastern Iran) has been investigated


as a case study (latitude 37.47
N, longitude 57.34 E and altitude
1070 m). Designing the CCHP systems requires an adequate
understanding and complete checking of the existing system and
its equipment. At the present building, an SP system is currently
used, with equipment in the powerhouse including boilers,
absorption chiller, and cooling tower fan. The technical informa-
tion of equipment used in the powerhouse is presented in
Table 1. The thermal and electrical loads consumed during the
year are shown in Figure 2.
METHODS
The objective of this study is to find the optimum capacity
of the GE prime mover in the CCHP system based on 4E anal-
ysis parameters. In 4E method, energy, exergy, environmen-
tal, and economic analyses, play a significant role in the
optimal design of the CCHP systems. Based on 4E analysis,
two methods including EF and GA optimization are studied
simultaneously.
4E Analysis
4E method, by considering the constraints and parameters
governing the system, can find the optimal design point of the
CCHP system. 4E analysis is based on the energy analysis con-
straints (total energy efficiency and fuel energy consumption),
exergy analysis constraints (exergy efficiency and EDR),
Figure 1. Flow diagram of (a) the proposed CCHP system and (b) the SP system. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

environmental analysis constraints (CDE and CDRR) and eco- added to the system by the electric grid (EGrid) while in case of
nomic analysis constraints (PB and EUAB). In fact, 4E analysis excess production, additional electricity (EExcess) will be sold to
is the basis of calculation of objective function for both EF and the grid as explained in Equation (1):
the GA methods.
E Grid = E B − E nom , E nom < E B
Energy Analysis EExcess = E nom − E B , E nom > E B ð1Þ
In energy analysis, using the thermodynamic rules, the
analysis of the energy produced and consumed by each com- If excess heat is needed for building, auxiliary boilers (Qb)
ponent of the CCHP system is investigated. will be used as heat generators, then we have:
In the CCHP systems, the building’s required electricity (EB)
and heat (QB) will be supplied by the GE (Enom). In the short-
Qb = QB − Qrec , Qrec < QB ð2Þ
age of electricity, the rest of the electricity required will be
The recoverable heat of GE can be written as follows [26]:
Table 1. The equipment in the powerhouse building.
Qrec = 1.854 × Enom, 0 ≤ Enom(kW) < 30
Component Variable Value Number
Qrec = ð1:368 × E nom Þ + 14:57, 30 ≤ E nom ðkWÞ ≤ 400 ð3Þ
Absorption chiller COP COPCh = 0.7 2
Capacity 472 kW
where, Qrec includes the heat generated by the jacketing sys-
Boiler Efficiency ηb = 0.8 2
tem (Qjacketing), the heat generated by the oil cooling system
Capacity 581 kW
(Qoil), and output exhaust heat (Qexhaust), whose share in Qrec
Cooling tower fan Power factor 0.85 3
are 35%, 15%, and 50%, respectively [26]:

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep 3

Figure 2. The monthly average thermal and electrical loads of building. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Qrec = Qoil + Qjacketing + Qexhaust ð4Þ Exergy Analysis

Exergy efficiency. The exergy efficiency, which is known as
Finally, the efficiency and fuel energy consumption of the the efficiency of the second law of thermodynamics, is one of
boiler auxiliary is obtained by Equations (5) and (6), the constraints studied in this research, which is written
respectively: below [32,33]:

Qb Exergy recovered Exergy loss

ηb = ð5Þ ηex = = 1− ð11Þ
Fb Exergy supplied Exergy supplied
F b = LHVf × m_ b ð6Þ
By analyzing the intended CCHP system in Figure 1a, the
The effective constraints of energy analysis are the total exergy efficiency can be written as follows:
energy efficiency and the total fuel energy consumption in the
following section. E B + E excess + Ex Qrec + Ex Qb
ηex = × 100 ð12Þ
E Grid + Ex f
Total energy efficiency. By analyzing the intended CCHP sys-
Ex Qrec is recoverable heat exergy for GE as shown in
tem in Figure 1a, the total energy efficiency is written as fol-
Equation (13):
lows [27,28]:



E B + QB + E excess + Qexcess T0 T0
ηTotal = × 100 ð7Þ Ex Qrec = Qoil 1 − + Qjacketing 1 −
PECcchp T oil T jacketing

 ð13Þ
T0
where, PECCCHP is the primary energy consumption of the + Qexhaust 1 −
T exhaust=PM
CCHP system on the basis of equivalent source energy from
site energy consumption in which the national average site-to- Also Ex Qb is defined as heat exergy produced by boiler.
source energy conversion factors have been used for electricity
(ECF) and natural gas (FCF) [28], then we have:

T0
Ex Qb = Qb 1 − ð14Þ
PECCCHP = ðECF × E Grid Þ + ½FCF × ðF b + F PM Þ ð8Þ T exhaust=b

FPM is the fuel energy consumption of the GE and can be Finally, the fuel exergy can be determined using the follow-
expressed as Equation (9). The values of ECF and FCF are ing equations:
given in Table 2. Ex f = m_ f × LHVf ð15Þ
E nom + Qrec
F PM = ð9Þ Ex f = ðEx f ÞBoiler + ðEx f ÞPM ð16Þ
ηPM
The values of Toil, Tjacketing, and Texhaust/PM for GE
Total fuel energy consumption. Another important parameter and Texhaust/b for boiler are given in Table 2.
of energy analysis is the amount of energy consumed by fuel,
which includes the fuel consumption of the boiler and the Exergy destruction rate. The destructed exergy is a relative
GE, so: parameter; in order to be able to see its effect on 4E analysis,
the exergy destruction rate constraint is used, which is
F ÞTotalÞ = F b + F PM ð10Þ given by:

4 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep

Table 2. The required input parameters for computing The “μ” factor is known as emission conversion factor
objective functions of EF and GA. whose values are given in Table 2. In Equation (19), because
the fuel used in the GE and the boiler is natural gas, μ can be
Input parameters Notation Values Reference written as:
Efficiency of boiler (%) ηb 80 [29] μCO2 , f PM = μCO2 :f b = μCO2 :NG ð20Þ
Efficiency of prime mover ηPM 85 [23]
(GE) (%)
Lower heating value of LHVf 55,496 [30] Carbon dioxide reduction ratio. CDRR is defined as the ratio
of CO2 emission difference between SP system and CCHP sys-
kJ
fuel (kg Þ
tem to the CO2 emission of SP system. In SP system, the fuel
National average site-to- ECF 3.34 [28] consumed is the same natural gas, and all electricity will be
source energy conversion supplied from the grid. The amount of CO2 produced in the SP
factors for electricity system is calculated as follows:
National average site-to- FCF 1.047 [28]
source energy conversion CDESP = μCO2 :NG F B + μCO2 :e E B ð21Þ
factors for natural gas
Oil temperature of engine Toil 60 [26]
CDRR is.
(
C)
Jacketing water temperature Tjacketing 100 [26]

of engine (
C) CDESP − CDE
CDRR = × 100 ð22Þ
Exhaust temperature of Texhaust/PM 540 [26] CDESP
engine (
C)
Exhaust temperature of Texhaust/b 260 [23]
Economic Analysis
boiler (
C)
Payback period. For calculating the payback period, it is cru-
Carbon dioxide emission μCO2 , NG 0.20405 [19,31]
cial to determine the cash flow of the system, at first. Cash
conversion factor for
kgco2 flow is the net profit of a project during the project lifetime,
natural gas ( kWh ) which should be annually calculated. The annual cash flow
Carbon dioxide emission μCO2 , e 0.923 [19,31] (cfy) is the difference between the earning function (C(ern))
conversion factor for and the expenses function (C(exp)). Obviously, in the
kgco2
electricity ( kWh ) expenses function, the initial cost (CI ) is calculated only in the
Cost of electricity exported Cs 0.06 [8] first year [33], so:
$
to gird (kWh )
Cost of electricity imported Cb 0.1 [8] X
t=y

$ cf y = ½C ðernÞ − C ðexpÞ y = 1, 2, 3, …, n ð23Þ

from gird (kWh ) t=1
$ Cf 0.02 [8]
Cost of natural gas (kWh ) yX
=n
Cost of generated Ch 0.04 [8] cf = cf y ð24Þ
$
heat (kWh ) y=1
Pollutant emitted Cp 0.024 [30] C ðernÞ = C E + ðC H ÞPM + C env ð25Þ
cost (kg$ ) C ðexpÞ = C I + C OM + C Grid + ðC F ÞBoiler + ðC F ÞPM ð26Þ
co2

Lifetime of the project n 20 [32]

(years) The payback period is a comparative method for compar-
Interest rate (%) i 15 [26] ing the projects from economic viewpoint, which indicates
how many years take to compensate the initial capital by
annual revenues. The CCHP system and its components can
Exergy loss
EDRð%Þ = × 100 ð17Þ be designed to achieve the optimal PB [33]:
Exergy supplied
CI
PB = ð27Þ
Environmental Analysis cf
Combustion of natural gas in the boiler and the GE gener-
ates CO2 as one of the most important greenhouse gases. One Equivalent uniform annual benefit. The EUAB method deter-
of the most important factors in choosing a CCHP system is mines the real value of money by calculating the annual
the lower production of CO2. incomes and costs of a system, considering the pass of time
(interest rate (i)). The value of the EUAB parameter is the dif-
ference between Equivalent uniform annual income (EUAI)
Carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of CO2 produced in and costs (EUAC) [23]:
the cogeneration system is obtained by the following equation:
EUAB = EUAI − EUAC ð28Þ
CO2 Total = CO2 PM + CO2 Boiler + CO2 Grid − CO2 Excess ð18Þ
EUAI can be written as follows:
Therefore, the CDE parameter, that is the amount of CO2
emissions of the CCHP system, is one of the constraints affect- EUAI = SV × γ ði:nÞ + C E + ðC H ÞPM + C env ð29Þ
ing the objective function of EF defined as: i
γ ði, nÞ = ð30Þ
ð1 + i Þn − 1
CDE = μCO2 :f PM F pm + μCO2 :f b F b + μCO2 :e E Grid − μCO2 :e E excess
ð19Þ EUAC is given by.

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep 5

Figure 3. Flowchart for optimizing GE size in CCHP system based on EF and GA methods. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Table 3. Parameters of GA method. EUAC = C I × δði:nÞ + C OM + C Grid + ðC F ÞBoiler + ðC F ÞPM ð31Þ

Parameters Values i ð1 + i Þn
δði, nÞ = ð32Þ
Population 100 ð1 + i Þn − 1
Mutation Constraint dependent
Selection Stochastic uniform
Proposed EF Method
Crossover Constraint dependent
Stopping criteria (function tolerance) 1e-10 The analysis of energy system requires a method that can
Search range (capacity) [20:200] achieve the desired objective by considering different design
constraints and conditions with the same impact factor. In 4E

6 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep

 Based on Equation (33), it can be concluded that the maxi-
mum value of EF is 8 where all constraints are in their optimal
state. Considering the amount of thermal and electrical load
consumed by the studied building during the year, the GE
capacity can considered between 30 and 120 kW.

x i = E nom , 30 ≤ x i ðkWÞ ≤ 120 ð34Þ

With respect to the EF function, the desired CCHP system is

placed in its optimal state, with the maximum value of this
function in the range investigated.
 
x i = ½E nom optimum ! Max ðEFÞx i ð35Þ

Figure 4. The changes of total energy efficiency according Genetic Algorithm

to capacity of GE. [Color figure can be viewed at In engineering complex problems with a large number of
wileyonlinelibrary.com] effective parameters, to achieve the optimal values of a partic-
ular parameter, the use of a specific optimization solution with
an objective function can achieve the desired results. GA is a
special class of evolutionary algorithms and a research method
analysis, eight constraints have been investigated in a way that in computer science that is used to find the exact solution for
optimization of each constraint in a specific analysis may affect optimization and other issues. How to choose the parents by
the constraints of other analyses (whether increase or decrease). GA for the next generation is specified by the selection set-
The objective of this study is to find the optimum capacity of the tings. Figure 3 shows the detailed flow chart of the CCHP
GE and for this purpose, an EF is defined as Equation (33). In operational method and algorithm of computation for opti-
this method each constraint has the same effect coefficient as the mum selection of system. The required input parameters for
other constraints, so each of the four analyses mentioned have computing objective function and the parameters of GA
the same share in the objective function. method are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ðηtotal Þxi − ðηtotal Þmin ðF total Þmax − ðF total Þx i The methods described in “Metyhods” section have been
ðEFÞxi = +
ðηtotal Þmax − ðηtotal Þmin ðF total Þmax − ðF total Þmin applied to optimize the performance of proposed CCHP sys-
tem depicted in “CCHP and SP Systems” section during
ðηex Þx i − ðηex Þmin ðEDRÞmax − ðEDRÞx i 8760 hr of a year in the case study mentioned in “Case Study”
+ +
ðηex Þmax − ðηex Þmin ðEDRÞmax − ðEDRÞmin section. In this section, initially, the results of 4E analysis and
its constraints are presented. Then the results of the two
ðCDEÞmax − ðCDEÞx i ðCDRRÞx i − ðCDRRÞmin methods including EF and the GA methods are analyzed based
+ + on 4E analysis, and, finally, the results of these methods are
ðCDEÞmax − ðCDEÞmin ðCDRRÞmax − ðCDRRÞmin
compared to each other.
ðPBÞmax − ðPBÞx i ðEUABÞx i − ðEUABÞmin
+ + 4E Analysis
ðPBÞmax − ðPBÞmin ðEUABÞmax − ðEUABÞmin
Figure 4 demonstrates the values of total energy efficiency in
ð33Þ the CCHP system according to the different capacities of the

Figure 5. The changes of total fuel energy consumed according to capacity of GE. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep 7

Figure 6. The changes of exergy efficiency, destroyed exergy and exergy destruction rate according to capacity of GE. [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 7. The changes of CO2 (emissions, reduction, and reduction ratio) according to capacity of GE. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 8. The changes of cash flow, equivalent uniform annual benefit, and payback period according to capacity of GE. [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

8 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 9. The changes of EF function according to capacity of GE. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 10. The optimization results of the fitness function for the GA. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 11. The difference in values of the eight constraints between EF with GA optimization methods. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep 9

GE. It is obvious that percentage of energy efficiency decreases
with the increase of nominal power of GE; this is due to the fact
that the increase in the engine capacity reduces the efficiency of
the input energy into the system. Increasing the engine capacity
increases the amount of excess electricity and heat produced
which increases the amount of fuel energy consumed by the
boiler and the GE. But the increase in fuel energy consumption is
more than excess heat and electricity and as a result, the total
energy efficiency decreases with increasing capacity. That is
clear; the engine with capacity of 30 kW has the maximum
energy efficiency of 76.3%, and the capacity of 120 kW has the
minimum energy efficiency of 55.85%.
Figure 5 shows the values of total fuel energy consumed by
GE and boiler in the CCHP system in terms of different capaci-
ties of the GE. By increasing the engine capacity, the amount
of fuel energy consumed by the engine increases. Therefore,
more energy demand is supplied by the GE and also using
auxiliary boiler and the amount of fuel energy consumed by
the boiler is reduced. According to the energy generated by
the engine and the monthly demand of the building, it may
not be necessary to use boilers in some months of the year.
With a 120 kW GE, all energy requirements of building are
provided by the engine in all months of the year and there is
no need to use boiler.
Figure 6 represents the values of exergy efficiency,
destroyed exergy and exergy destruction rate in the CCHP
system in terms of the various capacities of the GE. The
destroyed exergy is a relative parameter which means that,
with increasing engine capacity, the amount of exergy losses
in the system increases, but the value of the exergy des-
tructed rate decreases compared to the system’s input
exergy. Thus, the engine with capacity of 120 kW has the
highest exergy destruction and lowest exergy destruction
rate among other GE capacities. The rate of exergy destruc-
tion in the capacity of 120 kW is approximately 45.4%, and
amount of its destroyed exergy is 1397 MW during 1 year.
Figure 7 expresses the variations of three environmental
parameters for various capacities of GE. As it can be seen,
with increasing the engine capacity, the amounts of carbon
dioxide reduction and CDRR are decreased. It is also
observed that the values of these two parameters are even
negative in some capacities. Also, the engine with capacity
of 30 kW has the minimum amount of CDE with 257 tons
per year, maximum amount of carbon dioxide reduction
with 163 tons per year and maximum value of CDRR
with 38.88%.
Figure 8 shows the amount of cash flow, EUAB and pay-
back period in the CCHP system according to the different
capacities of the GE. Based on this figure, the engine with
capacity of 120 kW has the maximum amounts of EUAB and
cash flow of 23,661 $ and 41,705 $, respectively. Changes in
the payback period from 30 to 120 kW do not have a constant
rate; as can be seen, in the range from 70 to 120 kW, changes
experience a very small slope, therefore, this range can be the
optimal range for the capacity of the GE.
Optimization Results for EF Method
The most important issue in designing CCHP system is how
to choose the optimal capacity of prime mover. Figure 9 indi-
cates the results of EF optimization method for the proposed
CCHP system according to the energy demand of the building
in different capacities of the GE. According to Equation (33), it
is evident that the maximum value of EF function is 8. As it is
clear, with increase in the GE capacity from 30 to 70 kW, the
amount of EF factor is increasing. The capacity of 70 kW is the
extreme point of this chart and after that the value of this fac-
tor is declining. Thus, the GE with a capacity of 70 kW, with
an EF function value of 5.51, has the best optimal mode in
designing the CCHP system.
10
Optimization Results for GA
Optimization of the desired CCHP system is also done by
GA based on 4E analysis. The optimization results of the fit-
ness function for the GA are illustrated in Figure 10. Since the
optimal design points are defined as the smallest values of fit-
ness function in GA method while the fitness function values
proposed in the present article must be maximized, therefore
fitness value can be calculated as inverse of the values of func-
tion in accordance with Equation (36).
1
Fitness Value = ð36Þ
Fitness Function
As shown in Figure 10, the fitness function has achieved
the optimal value after 80 generations. The best value of the
fitness function is 0.153797; according to the calculations of
GA, this value is for a GE with capacity of 74.3437 kW.
Comparison of EF Function and GA Optimization
Methods
The results of both methods (EF and GA) are separately and
completely analyzed in “Optimization Results for EF Method” and
“Optimization Results for GA” sections. For a more accurate anal-
ysis of the capacities selected in two methods, the relative per-
centages of the eight constraints in the capacities selected are
presented in Figure 11. This figure shows the difference between
the constraints values for the capacity of 70 kW versus the capac-
ity of 74.3437 kW based on percentage. As it is evident, the con-
straints (total energy efficiency, total fuel energy consumption,
CDE, and CDRR) in the capacity of 70 kW are much better than
the capacity of 74.3437 kW in terms of technique and design,
and in four constraints (exergy efficiency, exergy destruction rate,
payback period, EUAB) the capacity of 74.3437 kW has superior-
ity over 70 kW. Eventually, according to figure, it can be said that
there is no significant difference in the capacities selected in two
methods. In the design of the CCHP system, considering the ther-
mal and electrical load demand for the building, the difference of
4.3437 kW in the GE capacity is too small. Therefore, EF method
gives the same optimal capacity of GA method with little differ-
ence. So, in choosing the optimal capacity of GE, EF method has
the same accuracy of GA, but this method does not have the
complexity of the genetic optimization algorithm and is simpler.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study is to find the optimum capacity of
GE in the CCHP system for a sample building employing pro-
posed EF and GA methods based on 4E analysis. 4E analysis is
based on the energy analysis constraints (total energy efficiency
and fuel energy consumption), exergy analysis constraints
(exergy efficiency and exergy destruction rate), environmental
analysis constraints (CDE and CDRR) and economic analysis con-
straints (payback period and EUAB). Based on the results, the
optimal capacities of GE using EF and GA methods are 70 and
74.3437 kW, respectively, which are quite close to each other. In
addition, the constraints (total energy efficiency, total fuel energy
consumption, CDE, CDRR) for the capacity of 70 kW are much
better than the capacity of 74.3437 kW in terms of technique and
design. Therefore, EF method gives the same optimal capacity of
GA method with little difference and with the same accuracy of
GA, but this method does not have the complexity of the genetic
optimization algorithm and is simpler.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the research fund of North
Khorasan Gas Company. The authors thank for kind helps of
the supporters.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep
LITERATURE CITED
1. Kialashaki, Y. (2018). A linear programming optimization
model for optimal operation strategy design and sizing of
the CCHP systems, Energy Efficiency, 11, 225–238.
2. Mehdinejad, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Dadashzadeh-
Bonab, R. (2017). Energy production cost minimization in a
combined heat and power generation systems using cuckoo
optimization algorithm, Energy Efficiency, 10, 81–96.
3. Wu, D.W., & Wang, R.Z. (2006). Combined cooling, heat-
ing and power: a review, Progress in Energy and Combus-
tion Science, 32, 459–495.
4. Wakui, T., & Yokoyama, R. (2011). Optimal sizing of resi-
dential gas engine cogeneration system for power inter-
change operation from energy-saving viewpoint, Energy,
36, 3816–3824.
5. Santhanam, S., Schilt, C., Turker, B., Woudstra, T., &
Aravind, P.V. (2016). Thermodynamic modeling and evalu-
ation of high efficiency heat pipe integrated biomass
gasifier–solid oxide fuel cells–gas turbine systems, Energy,
109, 751–764.
6. Hanafizadeh, P., Eshraghi, J., Ahmadi, P., & Sattari, A.
(2016). Evaluation and sizing of a CCHP system for a com-
mercial and office buildings, Journal of Building Engineer-
ing, 5, 67–78.
7. Sanaye, S., Aghaei-Meybodi, M., & Shokrollahi, S. (2008).
Selecting the prime movers and nominal powers in com-
bined heat and power systems, Applied Thermal Engineer-
ing, 28, 1177–1188.
8. Ghadimi, P., Kara, S., & Kornfeld, B. (2014). The optimal
selection of on-site CHP systems through integrated sizing
and operational strategy, Applied Energy, 126, 38–46.
9. Roman, K.K., & Alvey, J.B. (2016). Selection of prime
mover for combined cooling, heating, and power systems
based on energy savings, life cycle analysis and environ-
mental consideration, Energy and Buildings, 110, 170–181.
10. Abbasi, M., Deymi–Dashtebayaz, M., Farzaneh–Gord, M., &
Abbasi, S. (2015). Assessment of a CHP system based on
economical, fuel consumption and environmental consider-
ations, International Journal of Global Warming, 7, 256–269.
11. Farahnak, M., Farzaneh-Gord, M., Deymi-Dashtebayaz,
M., & Dashti, F. (2015). Optimal sizing of power genera-
tion unit capacity in ICE-driven CCHP systems for various
residential building sizes, Applied Energy, 158, 203–219.
12. Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., & Zhang, C.F. (2010). Optimization
of capacity and operation for CCHP system by genetic
algorithm, Applied Energy, 87, 1325–1335.
13. Cho, H., Mago, P.J., Luck, R., & Chamra, L.M. (2009). Eval-
uation of CCHP systems performance based on opera-
tional cost, primary energy consumption, and carbon
dioxide emission by utilizing an optimal operation
scheme, Applied Energy, 86, 2540–2549.
14. Sanaye, S., & Ardali, M.R. (2009). Estimating the power
and number of micro turbines in small-scale combined
heat and power systems, Applied Energy, 86, 895–903.
15. Mago, P.J., Fumo, N., & Chamra, L.M. (2009). Performance
analysis of CCHP and CHP systems operating following
the thermal and electric load, International Journal of
Energy Research, 33, 852–864.
16. Li, M., Mu, H., Li, N., & Ma, B. (2016). Optimal design and
operation strategy for integrated evaluation of CCHP (com-
bined cooling heating and power) system, Energy, 99,
202–220.
17. Ahmadi, G., Toghraie, D., & Akbari, O. (2019). Energy,
exergy and environmental (3E) analysis of the existing
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy DOI 10.1002/ep
CHP system in a petrochemical plant, Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews, 99, 234–242.
18. Arabkoohsar, A., Gharahchomaghloo b, Z., Farzaneh-Gord
c, M., Kouryd, R.N.N., & Deymi-Dashtebayaz, M. (2017).
An energetic and economic analysis of power productive
gas expansion stations for employing combined heat and
power, Energy, 133, 737–747.
19. Wang, J., Jing, Y., Zhang, C., & Zhai, Z.J. (2011). Perfor-
mance comparison of combined cooling heating and
power system in different operation modes, Applied
Energy, 88, 4621–4631.
20. Ebrahimi, M., Keshavarz, A., & Jamali, A. (2012). Energy
and exergy analyses of a micro-steam CCHP cycle for a
residential building, Energy and Buildings, 45, 202–210.
21. Sanaye, S., & Hajabdollahi, H. (2014). 4E analysis and
multi-objective optimization of CCHP using MOPSOA, Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E:
Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, 228, 43–60.
22. Sanaye, S., & Khakpaay, N. (2014). Simultaneous use of
MRM (maximum rectangle method) and optimization
methods in determining nominal capacity of gas engines
in CCHP (combined cooling, heating and power) systems,
Energy, 72, 145–158.
23. Sanaye, S., & Ghafurian, M.M. (2016). Applying relative
equivalent uniform annual benefit for optimum selection of a
gas engine combined cooling, heating and power system for
residential buildings, Energy and Buildings, 128, 809–818.
24. Sanaye, S., & Katebi, A. (2014). 4E analysis and multi
objective optimization of a micro gas turbine and solid
oxide fuel cell hybrid combined heat and power system,
Journal of Power Sources, 247, 294–306.
25. Sanaye, S., & Asgari, S. (2013). Four E analysis and multi-
objective optimization of combined cycle power plants
integrated with multi-stage flash (MSF) desalination unit,
Desalination, 320, 105–117.
26. Ebrahimi, M., & Keshavarz, A. (2013). Sizing the prime
mover of a residential micro-combined cooling heating
and power (CCHP) system by multi-criteria sizing method
for different climates, Energy, 54, 291–301.
27. Cengel, Y.A., & Boles, M.A. (2006). Thermodynamics an engi-
neering approach. (5th Edition), New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Fumo, N., & Chamra, L.M. (2010). Analysis of combined
cooling, heating, and power systems based on source pri-
mary energy consumption, Applied Energy, 87, 2023–2030.
29. Mago, P.J., & Hueffed, A.K. (2010). Evaluation of a tur-
bine driven CCHP system for large office buildings
under different operating strategies, Energy and Build-
ings, 42, 1628–1636.
30. Sanaye, S., Ghafurian, M.M., & Tavakoli-Dastjerd, F. (2016).
Applying relative net present or relative net future worth
benefit and exergy efficiency for optimum selection of a nat-
ural gas engine based CCHP system for a hotel building,
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 34, 305–317.
31. Government emission conversion factors for greenhouse gas
company reporting, Accessed on June 1, 2016, https://
www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-convers
ion factors-for-company-reporting.
32. Javan, S., Mohamadi, V., Ahmadi, P., & Hanafizadeh, P.
(2016). Fluid selection optimization of a combined cooling,
heating and power (CCHP) system for residential applica-
tions, Applied Thermal Engineering, 96, 26–38.
33. Ebrahimi, M., & Keshavarz, A. (2014). Combined cooling,
heating and power: Decision-making, design and optimi-
zation, Netherlands: Elsevier.
11