Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Thermoeconomic optimization of gas turbine cogeneration plants

b, *

_
Rabi Karaali a, 1, Ilhan
Tekin Oztrk
a
b

Bayburt Univ., Engineering Faculty Mechanical Engineering, 69000 Merkez, Bayburt, Turkey
Kocaeli Univ., Engineering Faculty Mechanical Engineering, Umuttepe Kamps, 41380 Kocaeli, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 14 August 2013
Received in revised form
30 November 2014
Accepted 2 December 2014
Available online 3 January 2015

In this study, a novel thermoeconomic optimization method that is simple and efcient, for real complex
cycles is introduced. First, a thermoeconomic analysis method that is called non-linear simplex direct
search method is improved for the purposes of this study. The objective of this paper is to apply this
method to four cogeneration cycles that are simple cycle, inlet air cooling cycle, air preheated and air-fuel
preheated cycles for analyzing and optimizing. The four cycles are thermoeconomically optimized for
constant power and steam mass (30 MW and 14 kg/s saturated steam ow rate at 2000 kPa), for constant
power (30 MW) and for variable steam mass, and for variable power and steam mass by using the cost
equation method and the effect of size on equipment method. The results obtained by the effect of size
on equipment and by the cost equations methods are very different from each other. For the case of
global optimization, the optimum electricity costs which also correspond to minimum are obtained as
0,0432 $/kWh for simple cycle, 0,0514 $/kWh for inlet air cooling cycle 0,0577 $/kWh for air preheated
cycle and 0,058 $/kWh for air-fuel preheated cycle by using cost equations method.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Cogeneration
Thermoeconomic
Optimization
Cost methods

1. Introduction
Thermoeconomic analysis, which combine exergy and economic
methods for analyzing thermal and cogeneration plants, are
convenient methods, because they provide detailed insight about
thermal cycles. Thermoeconomic analyses are very important to
understand the behavior of cycles thermodynamically and
economically. Exergy destruction, and cost ow in the components
of the cycles can be traced and understood by using thermoeconomic methods [1e3].
Thermoeconomic methods are based on algebraic and calculus
methods. The average costs can be obtained by using the algebraic
thermoeconomic methods that use cost equations for each
component. The calculus methods that use differential equations
for each component and stream, allows us to obtain exergetic costs
and marginal costs [4e6]. Thermoeconomic methods can be classied mainly as thermoeconomic evaluation and optimization,
exergetic cost theory, thermoeconomic functional analysis and
engineering functional analysis methods.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 90 262 303 34 06; fax: 90 262 303 30 03.
E-mail addresses: rabikar@gmail.com (R. Karaali), ilhan@kocaeli.edu.tr

_ Oztrk).
(I.T.
1

Tel.: 90 458 211 1178; fax: 90 458 211 1172.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.004
0360-5442/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Rosen [7] has reviewed the methods that combine thermodynamics and economics such as exergoeconomy, thermoeconomy,
exergetic costing, etc. He critically reviewed relations between
exergy and economics and exergy based economic methods. Rosen
[7], and Rosen and Dincer [8] have developed a new method called
exergy-cost-energy-mass (EXCEM) analysis. This method is based
on the balance of mass, energy, exergy and cost. In addition, applications of this method for some other cycles are shown in their
different articles.
Exergetic cost theory, which was developed by Valero, Torres
and Lozano uses an average cost approach [9]. Tsatsaronis, Tsatsaronis and Moran [10,11] developed an iterative exergoeconomic
optimization method in the 1990's, and applied it to the CGAM
problem (air preheated gas turbine cogeneration cycle) and showed
how to minimize exergy related costs of a system. Iterative exergoeconomic optimization method is based on optimizing cost and
efciency of a thermal system. Specic costs and average costs are
the two submethods of the iterative exergoeconomic optimization
method [10e12].
In the 1990's a group of exergoeconomists (C. Frangopoulos, G.
Tsatsaronis, A. Valero, M. von Spakovsky) compared their methodologies by solving a predened problem which is known as
CGAM problem produced from the initials of their names. The parameters of CGAM system to facilitate the comparisons between
exergy-costing methodologies presented by Valero et al. [13].


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

Nomenclature
C
C
c_
CC
COP
e,e
E_
EQ
h,h
IN
J
LHV
LMTD
m_
M
P
Q_
R ;R
r
s,s
T
_
W
x

compressor
cost ($)
cost per unit of exergy ($/kJ)
combustion chamber
coefcient of performance
specic exergy (kJ/kg), (kJ/kMol)
exergy ow rate (kW)
equipment
specic enthalpy (kJ/kg), (kJ/kMol)
index
generator
lower heating value (kJ/kg)
logarithmic mean temperature difference
mass ow rate (kg/s)
molecular weight (kg/kmol)
pressure (kPa)
heat ow rate (kW)
universal gas constant (kJ/kmol K), specic gas
constant (kJ/kg K)
compressor pressure rate
specic entropy (kJ/kg K), (kJ/kmol K)
temperature (K)
power (kW)
mole fraction (kmol/kmol)

Greek letters
h
efciency
l

constant

Erlach et al. [14], demonstrated that the most developed thermoeconomic optimization and cost accounting methodologies, as
all of them employ thermoeconomic models that can easily be
linearized, can be dealt with by the mathematical formalism of
structural theory.
In recent years Kwon et al., Kwak et al. [15,16], Lazzaretto et al.
[17,18] and Tsatsaronis et al., and Koch et al. [11,12] have used search
algorithms (genetic, evolutionary) for exergo-economic analysis.
Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis [18] showed that multi-objective evolutionary algorithms are powerful and effective methods to optimize
thermal systems. The thermoeconomic functional analysis method,
developed by Frangopoulos [19], uses an optimization method that
employs marginal costs. These methods use a set of linear exergy
equations that dene the objective function of each component.
Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis [18] have introduced SPECO (specic
exergy costing) method in which the product and the fuel of a
component is dened and then its exergy and costs are calculated.
Cost balances for each component and auxiliary costing equations
are taken under consideration for exergoeconomic evaluation or
Lagrangian-based approaches. The basic principle of Specic
Exergy Costing method is to evaluate local average costs of exergy
of each stream and the variations in cost. Identication of exergy
streams, denition of fuel and product and obtaining cost equations
are the main steps of SPECO method. SPECO method also includes
SAA (structural analysis approach) , LIFOA (last in rst out
approach), EFA (engineering functional analysis), EEA (exergy
economics approach), FEA (rst exergoeconomic approach), (thermoeconomic functional approach) (TFA) and ECT (exergetic cost
theory) [6,12e14,18e22].

Subcripts
aph
C
CC
ch
CI
D
ec
ex
exh
ev
f
HRSG
he
i
i; ch
L
lm
OM
P
ph
preh
ref
R
s
st
sys
T
tot
w
0
1
2

475

air preheater
compressor
combustion chamber
chemical
capital investment
destruction
economizer
exergy
exhaust
evaporator
fuel
heat recovery steam generator
heat exchanger
i. mixture component
i. mixture component, chemical
loss
logarithmic mean temperature difference
operating and maintenance
product
physical
preheated
reference
recuperator
isentropic
steam
system
turbine
total
equipment item
environment conditions
compressor inlet state
compressor outlet state

Kim et al. [23], have introduced MOPSA (modied productive

structure analysis) method where an exergy costing method is used
without ow-stream cost calculations. For the entire system a set of
equations for the unit exergy costs are obtained by assigning a unit
exergy cost for the cost balance equation for each component.
Kwon et al. [15], compared SPECO and MOPSA methods by applying
them to the CGAM problem.
C.Frangopoulos [19] developed a Lagrangian method that is
called Thermoeconomic Functional Approach (TFA) where the
system is optimized as a Lagrangian function. This method is not
convenient for increasing number of components unless the system
is decomposed into subsystems.
Valero et al. [9], developed a Lagrangian method named Exergetic Cost method based on fuel-product-entropy matrixes. In this
method, the system is decomposed into subsystems and their
Lagrangian functions are optimized.
Vieira et al. [24], introduced a new process simulation program
based on the cost equations that were proposed by Lazzaretto and
Tsatsaronis [18]. Tsatsaronis and Moran [11] have showed that the
cost equations cannot provide current cost for purchasing equipment of the thermal system.
Hua et al. [25], Munoz and Spakovsky [26] and Lazzaretto et al.
[17], have analyzed the decomposition of complicated thermal
systems in exergoeconomic analysis and optimization and applied
it to appropriate examples by nding local and then global optima.
Alvarado and Gherardelli [27], have presented a new
Lagrangian approach based on the exergetic efciency and the
elasticity for the selection of the components of the CGAM
problem.

476

_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

Ahmadi and Dincer [28], developed exergoenvironmental

analysis and optimization by using MGA (Multimodal Genetic Algorithm) for a cogeneration plant. In their study, cost equations of
the equipment (cost functions) are used, and NOx and CO2 emissions are taken into consideration. They found that increasing the
turbine inlet temperature, and the isentrophic efciencies of the
compressor and the gas turbine decreases fuel consumption and
exergy destruction of the cycle. Agudelo et al. [29], have introduced
a new methodology named allocation of waste cost. They have
obtained the denition of the ratios of the waste cost distribution to
use in thermoeconomic analysis. Kim [30], introduced a new
thermoeconomic methodology for energy systems. To evaluate the
worth of each product, wonergy as a new term is dened, and the
gradient search technique is used in his study.
There are two groups of approaches in formulating auxiliary
costing equations and efciencies. The rst one is the Lagrangian
based approaches that aim optimization of the overall system and
the second one is the Exergoeconomic Accounting methods that
use iterative optimization of the system or components. There is a
signicant need for using a clear and efcient thermoeconomic
procedure for optimizing energy systems. Our main goal is to
develop an appropriate thermoeconomic iterative optimization
method for the overall system.
Thermoeconomic evaluation has two competing objectives that
are minimizing cost and maximizing efciency. In the literature, the
optimization of the CGAM problem is solved by nding local optima
for the constant power and steam mass (30 MW and 14 kg/s steam
at 2000 kPa).
In the literature thermoeconomic optimization of thermal systems is mostly performed for a constant power production. This
means that answers to the question What are the optimum
working conditions for a thermal system to produce the constant
power? are sought. However, in order to nd global optimum
working conditions of the system, the question should be set as
what are the optimum working conditions for a thermal system to
produce power? It is clear that, the answers of the rst question
deal with the local optima of the system. However, the answer of
the second question is about the global optimum. With the information about the global optimum at hand, we have a better insight
on the working conditions of the thermal system that gives the
maximum benets.
In this study, the simple cycle, the inlet air cooling cycle using
the absorption cooling, the air preheated cycle and the air-fuel
preheated cycle are analyzed and optimized thermoeconomically
by using non-linear simplex direct search method that is improved
by the authors of this study. By taking variable parameters of the
systems that are explained in the literature for CGAM (air preheated) cycle [31], iterative optimization process is performed for
the four cycles that are explained below. In our analyses, enthalpies
and entrophies are taken as functions of temperature and pressure,
which are non-linear equations, and then the mathematical models
as a function of temperature of the four cycles are obtained. These
models have been simulated with computer programs generated
by the authors using FORTRAN codes. All working conditions, such
as compression rates, excess air rates, recuperator outlet temperatures, isentropic efciencies of the compressors and the turbines
and the capacities of the devices of the systems are taken into
consideration and the performance characteristics obtained.

adding recuperators and an absorption cooling system in the

sample cycle, the four cycles are obtained and analyzed. The rst
cycle that is called simple cycle is shown in Fig. 1. In this cycle, the
compressed air of the outlet of the compressor enters the combustion chamber and after the combustion, the exhaust gases are
expanded in a gas turbine to obtain work. Some of the thermal
energy of the exhaust gases of the outlet of the gas turbine is used
to obtain steam in a heat exchanger. The second cycle that is called
inlet air cooling cycle, is shown in Fig. 2. In this cycle, the ambient
air is taken into an absorption cooling system to cool the air by
using exhaust heat energy. The cooled air is compressed and after
that, the cycle works as the simple cycle explained above. The third
cycle that is called air preheated cycle, is shown in Fig. 3. In this
cycle, the compressed air is heated by the hot exhaust gases at the
recuperator and then enters into the combustion chamber. The hot
gases, which exit from the combustion chamber, expand in the gas
turbine. After that, they are further cooled down by providing their
heat content at the recuperator and the heat recovery steam
generator. The fourth cycle that is called air-fuel preheated cycle is
shown in Fig. 4. In this cycle, the compressed air and the fuel is
heated by the hot exhaust gases at the recuperator and then enters
into the combustion chamber. After that, the cycle works as the air
preheated cycle that is explained above [31e33].

3. Analysis of the cycles

3.1. Thermodynamic analyses of the cycles
In this section, thermodynamic analyses of each component of
the cycles introduced in the previous section are performed and the
mathematical models used in these analyses are explained. The
working uid is assumed to be an ideal gas; the cogeneration
systems operate at steady state; natural gas is taken as methane,
the combustion is complete and N2 is inert and heat losses from the
combustion chamber are 2% of the fuel's LHV and all other components operate without heat loss [31,32,34]. Kinetic and potential
energy effects are ignored. In order to avoid corrosive sulfuric acid
formation in the exhaust, the outlet temperature of the heat recovery steam generator is taken as 400 K. It is assumed that the
pressure drops in the combustion chamber is 5%; in the HRSG (heat
recovery steam generator) is 5%; in the air pre-heater air side is 5%
and in the air pre-heater gas side, 3%. The environmental conditions
are taken to be xed with the following values: T0 T1 298.15 K
and P0 101.3 kPa. The mass ow rate for the air compressors and
for the saturated steam at 2000 kPa for the HRSG, are m_ 1 91.4 kg/
s, m_ st 14 kg/s respectively. The electricity power production of the
turbine is 30 MW and the mass ow rate of methane as combustion
chamber fuel is m_ f 1.64 kg/s.

2. Description of the cycles

The four cycles are gas turbine cogeneration cycles with
different designs, and are obtained by adding different components
to them. Adding any component into a cycle affects all the working
conditions and the characteristics of the cycle. In this study by

Fig. 1. Simple cycle.


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

h2

477

h2s  h1
h1
hs;C

(7)

T2 can be found from h2 by solving equation (1). The work of the

compressor can be found as follows.

_ m_ h  h
W
C
1 2
1

(8)

The exergy balance equation can be written as

:

E_ D;C E_ 1  E_ 2 W C

(9)

Exergetic efciency of the air compressor is,

Fig. 2. Inlet air cooling cycle.

hex;C

E_ 2  E_ 1
_
W

(10)

The compressor and the turbine operate adiabatically. The

isentropic temperature of the gas turbine, the compressor outlet,
the combustion chamber outlet, the recuperator exhaust side outlet
and the heat recovery steam generator inlet exhaust side are
calculated by inserting specic entropy expressions for N2, O2, CO2
and H2O taken from Ref. [31]. In addition, the entropies of the
streams are calculated from the same reference. The thermodynamical model and optimization procedure is applied step by step
for the CGAM cycle (air preheated cycle) as follows.
Specic enthalpies and specic entropies are calculated for each
stream from the equations that are given in Ref. [31] and Table 1.

hi f Ti ; Pi

(1)

si f Ti ; Pi

(2)

- Recuperator
h3 and s3 can be found from equations (1) and (2) respectively,
for a given T3 which is the inlet temperature of the recuperator. The
energy balance of the recuperator is,

m_ 5 h6  h5 m_ 2 h2  h3

(11)

The exergy balance equation can be written as,

E_ D;R E_ 2  E_ 3 E_ 5  E_ 6

(12)

Then the exergetic efciency of the recuperator is,

hex;R

E_ 3  E_ 2
E_ 5  E_

(13)

E_ E_ ph E_ ch

(3)
- Combustion chamber

_  h0  T0 s  s0
E_ ph mh

(4)


X
m_
X
E_ ch
xi ln xi
xi ei;ch RT0
M

(5)

The chemical reaction in the combustion chamber can be

written as follows [29].

lCH4 0:7748N2 0:2059O2 0:0003CO2




0:019H2 O/ 1 l xN2 N2 xO2 O2 xCO2 CO2 xH2 O H2 O
(14)

- Compressor
T2s can be found from the s1 by solving equation (2) taken from
Ref. [31].

S1 S2

xN2

0:7748
1l

(15)

(6)

h2s is calculated from equation (1). Then h2 can be found.

Fig. 3. Air preheated cycle.

Fig. 4. Air-fuel preheated cycle.


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

478

Table 1
Variation of specic enthalpy and entropy with temperature at 1 bar for various substances that taken from reference [31].
h0 (kJ/kmol), s0 (kJ/kmol K)
y10-3T , (T (K))

Substance

M
(kg/mol)

For
Tmax>T>T0
(K)

CH4

16,043

298,152000

h0 103

CO2

44,01

298,153000

s0 96; 731 11; 933 lnT 77; 647 y  0; 142 y2  18; 414


2
h0 103  413; 886 51; 128y 4; 368 y2 1; 469y1

 81; 242 11; 933y 77; 647 y2 0; 142 y1  18; 414 y3
2

y2
2

2

H2O (g)

18,015

298,152000

s0 87; 078 51; 128 lnT 4; 368 y 1; 469 y2



2
h0 103  253; 871 34; 376y 7; 841 y2 0; 423 y1

H2O (l)

18,015

298,15500

s0 11; 750 34; 376 lnT 7; 841y 0; 423 y2



2
h0 103  289; 932 20; 355y 109; 198 y2  2; 033y1

2

2

N2

28,013

298,153000

s0 67; 147 20; 355 lnT 109; 198y  2; 033 2y



2
h0 103  9; 982 30; 418y 2; 544 y2 0; 238 y1

O2

31,999

298,153000

s0 16; 203 0; 418 lnT 2; 544y  0; 238 2y



2
3
h0 103  9; 589 29; 154y 6; 477 y2 0; 184 y1  1; 017 y3

2

s0 36; 116 29; 154 lnT 6; 477y 0; 184

xCO2



0:0003 l

xH2 O

xO2

1l


0:019 2l
1l

0:2059  2l
1l

(16)

y2
2

 1; 017 y2

s4 s5s

(24)

h5s is calculated from equation (1). Then h5 can be found from;

(17)


h5 h4  hs;T h4  h5s

(25)

T5 can be found from h5 by solving equation (1). The net work

obtained from the gas turbine is,

(18)

_
_ net;T m_ h5  h  W
W
4
4
C

(26)

The mass balance of the combustion chamber is,

m_ 3 m_ 10 m_ 4

(19)

and the heat loss can be written as,

Q_ L;CC 0:02m_ fuel LHVCH4

(20)

The energy balance equation of the combustion chamber is,

m_ 3 h3 m_ 10 h10 m_ 3 m_ 10 h4 Q_ L;CC

(21)

where T4 can be calculated from hexh h4 by using equation (1) and

then s4 can be found from equation (2) taken from Ref. [31]. The
exergy balance equation can be written as,

E_ D:CC E_ 3 E_ 10  E_ 4

(22)

and the exergetic efciency of the combustion chamber is,

hex;CC

E_ 4
_
E3 E_ 10

(23)

By neglecting heat transfer to ambient, the energy and the

exergy balance equations of the gas turbine are;

_ W
_ net;T
m_ 4 h4 m_ 5 h5 W
C

(27)

_ W
_
E_ D;T: E_ 4  E_ 5  W
T
C

(28)

And the exergetic efciency of the gas turbine is,

hex;T

_
_ net;T W
W
C
_
_
E  E5

(29)

For the recuperator h5 is known and h6 can be calculated from

equation (11). T6 can be found from equation (1).
- Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)
T7, T8 and T9 are known, so h7, h8, h9, s7, s8 and s9 can be
calculated by using equations (1) and (2). The energy balance
equation of the HRSG is,

m_ 8 h9  h8 m_ 6 h6  h7

(30)

The exergy balance equation can be written as,

- Gas turbine
T5s can be found from s4 by solving equation (2) taken from
Ref. [31].

E_ D:HRSG: E_ 6  E_ 7 E_ 8  E_ 9
The exergetic efciency of the HRSG is,

(31)


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

hex;HRSG

E_ 9  E_ 8
E_  E_

(32)

- Absorption cycle
For this component, LiBr-water is used as working pair and COP
(coefcient of performance) is taken as,
COP 0,70

(33)

- Overall balance equations for the cycles

The overall energy balance of the system is,

m1 h1 m_ 10 LHVCH4  Q_ L;CC  m_ 7 h7  Wnet;T  m_ 8 h8  h9 0

(34)
The exergetic efciency of the cycles is,

hex




_
_
_
W
net;T E9  E8
E_ 10

(36)

The effect of size on equipment cost method named costing

method A, can be calculated from:

Cref :;year Cref

E_ net =E_ ref

a

(38)

Stream costing for entering and exiting exergy and the cost
associated with each stream can be determined from:

C_ i ci :E_ i ci $m_ i $ei

(39)

C_ o co :E_ o co :m_ o :eo

(40)

_
C_ W cW :W

(41)

The cost equation of each component of the air preheated cycle

is given below.
The cost equation for the compressor:

(42)

The cost equation for the combustion chamber:

(43)

Thermoeconomy uses exergy and economic analysis methods

that are called exergetic cost minimization methods. Effects of the
inefciencies and the destruction of exergy on the cost of each
component can be analyzed with the thermoeconomic methods.
For the design of thermal systems, thermoeconomic analysis is very
important. Thermoeconomic analysis considers each product cost,
entropy generation and exergy streams costs, optimization variables of each component and optimization variables of overall
system. In our analysis, the Cost Levelization Approach is used to
determine the cost variation with time [1].
The revenue requirement method is applied for economic analysis and for main product cost calculation of the thermal systems.
The main four steps of the revenue requirement method are as
follows: the rst one is estimating the total capital investment, the
second one is determining economic, operating, nancial and market input parameters for the cost calculation, the third one is total
revenue requirement calculation and the fourth one is levelized
product cost calculation [31]. Estimation of total capital investment
is a one-time cost, and includes xed capital investment that has
direct and indirect costs elements. The direct costs are the costs of all
materials, equipment and other resources and the indirect costs are
the expenses needed to complete the project, such as working
capital, start up costs, research and development costs. Three
methods are used for cost estimating of purchased equipment:
estimating charts, calculation effect of size on equipment cost and
cost indices. In our analysis, the cost is based on the effect of size on
equipment cost named costing method A and, the cost equations of
the equipment named costing method B that are given below
[31,35e38]. The values are taken from CEPCI cost index that is taken
from the web site of Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index [39].

CI
OM
C_ P;tot C_ f ;tot Z_ tot Z_ tot

CCC CCC1 m_ air =CCC2  p4 =p3 1 expCCC3 :T4  CCC4

3.2. Thermoeconomic analysis of the cycles

CEQ Cref 2012 CEPCI EQ : IN:=1994 CEPCI EQ : IN:

the cycles, which are used in our analysis, are given by Bejan et al.
[31]. The cost balance for the overall system operating at steady
state is given as follows.

CC CC1 m_ air =CC2  hs r ln r

(35)

479

The cost equation for the gas turbine:

CT CT1 m_ g

(44)
The cost equation for the recuperator:



0:6
CR CR1 m_ g h5  h6 = U DTlm;aph

The superscript a in the above equation is a scaling exponent.

Details of the calculations of the revenue requirement method for

(45)

The cost equation for the heat exchanger:

Che Che1



0:8

 0:8
Q_ ec =DTlm;ec
Q_ ev =DTlm;ev

(46)

1:2
Che2 m_ water C53 m_ g

Details of the calculations of the cost equation method which is

named costing method B for the air preheated cycle, are given by
Bejan et al. [31].

3.3. Thermoeconomic optimization of the cycles

In an optimization study, the rst step is to clearly dene the
boundaries of the system, which can be the entire system or a
subsystem. The second step is to select the optimization criteria
which can be technological (efciency, production rate, etc.), economic (cost, net prot, etc.) or environmental (rate of pollutants).
An optimization process might have multiple criteria such as
maximum efciency and minimum cost. After these steps, independent variables and parameter selection are considered. Then
the mathematical model, the objective function which is to be
maximized or minimized, and constrains represented by equalities
and/or inequalities are set. In this study the objective function is,

Minimize
(37)


 



CT2  hs ln p4 p5 1 exp CT3 T4  CT4

CI
OM
C_ P;tot C_ f ;tot Z_ tot Z_ tot

(47)

CI
OM
where:C_ f ;tot ; Z_ tot ; Z_ tot are the variables that are functions of the
decision variables. The equality and inequality constraints are
provided by the material and energy balance equations (maximum

480

_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

4. Optimization results of the cycles

Fig. 5. The ow-chart of the iterative process of the computer programs written in
FORTRAN code.

or minimum values of temperatures, pressures etc.). For complex

thermal systems suboptimization methods can be applied [31,36].
In this work by using a non-linear simplex direct search method
that is improved by thermoeconomic analysis, the simple cycle, the
inlet air cooling cycle, the air preheated and the air-fuel preheated
cycles are analyzed and optimized thermoeconomically. In Fig. 5,
the ow-chart of the iterative process of the computer programs
written in FORTRAN code is given.

Thermoeconomic optimization of different cogeneration cycles

(minimum electricity cost) in the literature is mostly done by using
cost equations named costing method B and the effect of size on
equipment cost named costing method A in our study. In the cost
equations of compressors and gas turbines, isentropic efciencies
have very important effect on the cost although only the power is
effective on the effect of size on equipment cost. These two
methods are applied on the simple, the preheating air, the preheating air and fuel, the inlet air-cooling cogeneration systems.
Some of our studies have been carried out in order to understand the variations of the global optima of the systems with
recuperator outlet temperatures and with the isentropic efciencies of the compressors and the turbines. Analyses are performed using the costing method A and the costing method B.
Some of the results are given in Figs. 6e8 where power and steam
mass rates are not constrained.
Fig. 6 shows the variations of electricity production costs with
the excess air rate by using the costing method A, and with the
different recuperator outlet temperatures. In these analyses the
following values are used: r 6, hs,C 0,88 and hs,T 0,90. In order
to see the variations in the full range, the constraints on the outlet
temperatures of the combustion chambers are removed. The optimum values of electricity production costs are obtained at low
outlet temperatures of the recuperator. In addition, the optimum
values of the electricity production costs are obtained at a rate
between 1.8 and 2.4 of the excess air. As can be seen in Fig. 6 the
minimum costs are obtained with the air preheated cycle.
Fig. 7 shows the variations of the electricity production costs
with the excess air rate by using the costing method B and, with
different recuperator outlet temperatures. In these analyses the
following values are used: r 6, hs,C 0,86 and hs,T 0,86. To be
able to see the variations, the constraints on the outlet temperatures of the combustion chambers are not taken into consideration.
Optimum values of the electricity costs are obtained at a minimum
recuperator outlet temperature and at a rate between 2.1 and 3.0 of
the excess air.
For each cycle, there is a minimum cost value of the air-fuel ratio
however the air preheated cycle has the best value among other
cycles.

Fig. 6. Variation of the electricity production costs with the excess air rate by using the costing method A for different recuperator outlet temperatures (r 6, hsC 0,88 and
hsT 0,90 and unconstraint outlet temperature of the combustion chamber).


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

481

Fig. 7. Variation of the electricity production costs with the excess air rate by using the costing method B for different recuperator outlet temperatures (r 6, hsC 0,86 and
hsT 0,86 and unconstraint outlet temperature of the combustion chamber).

The variations of the electricity production costs with the excess

air rate by using the costing method B, and with different isentropic
efciencies of the compressors and turbines are given in Fig. 8. In
these analyses r 6 is taken and to see the variations of the production costs, the constraints on the outlet temperatures of the
combustion chambers are not taken into consideration. As can be
seen, by decreasing the isentropic efciencies of the compressors
and the turbines, the production costs of electricity decreases, but
at the same time, the efciencies of the systems decrease. The
reason for the decreasing production costs is that, increasing
isentropic efciencies of the compressors and the turbines increases the cost of these equipment.

As can be concluded from the Figs. 6 and 7 that decreasing the

outlet temperature of the recuperator decreases the electricity cost
for the two costing methods, each gas turbine cogeneration cycle
has an optimum excess air rate value that gives the minimum
electricity cost. Additionally, the results of the costing method B
show that decreasing the compression rate and decreasing the
isentropic efciencies of the compressor and the turbine results in
reduced electricity cost.
The optimum results of the thermoeconomic optimization by
using cost equations are obtained for the four cycles are shown in
Table 2 for constant power (30 MW) and steam mass ow rate
(14 kg/s). In addition, only for constant power (30 MW), and for

Fig. 8. Variation of the electricity production costs with the excess air rate by using the costing method B for different isentropic efciencies of the compressors and turbines (r 6
and unconstraint outlet temperature of the combustion chamber).


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

482

Table 2
Thermoeconomic optimization results for local optimum electricity costs for the
four cycles by using the costing method B for constant power (30 MW) and steam
mass ow (14 kg/s).
Cycle

Simple
cycle

Inlet air
cooling
cycle

Air preheated
cyclea

Air-fuel
preheated
cycleb

Air mass ow (kg/s)

Fuel mass ow (kg/s)
Recuperator outlet (K)

95,5
1,62

78,5
1,62

121,7
1,65
900

118,9
1,65
900

Combustion chamber
outlet temperature (K)
Compressor pressure rate (r)
Combustion chamber
exergy efciency
Recuperator
exergy efciency
Fuel recuperator
exergy efciency
Turbine exergy efciency
Compressor exergy efciency
HRSG exergy efciency
Compressor - turbine
isentropic efciency
System exergy efciency
Excess air rate %
Electricity cost $/kWh

1331

1423

1412

1444

16
0,76

16
0,76

6
0,81

6
0,82

0,86

0,86

a
b

0,49
0,91
0,95
0,70
0,89

0,91
0,95
0,68
0,89

0,91
0,90
0,75
0,83e0,84

0,91
0,90
0,76
0,83e0,84

0,513
265
0,3400

0,5105
218
0,2900

0,5
330
0,0957

0,5013
323
0,0901

Air R. LMTD 130.4 K HRSG LMTD 139.4 K.

Air R. LMTD 136.7 K Fuel R. LMTD 362.8 K.

variable power and steam mass ow rate, the minimum electricity

costs have been analyzed and the results have been compared with
each other. The thermoeconomic optimization has been done for
the four different cycles and six different working conditions. As
can be seen in Table 2, the local minimum electricity costs are obtained for the air-fuel preheated gas turbine cycle.
Minimum electricity costs for the simple and the absorption
cycles are higher than the preheated cycles because these two cycles are not appropriate cycles for constant power and steam ow
rate. In fact, the simple and the absorption cycles are appropriate
for the power plants where steam production is the primary aim
and electricity production is the secondary aim. Also for the variations of electricity and heat production where production depends
on heat or electricity demands, the simple and the absorption cycles are not appropriate. The preheated cycles have better working
conditions for variable demand of electricity and steam production.
For the four cycles, the local minimum production costs and the
exergy efciencies are slightly different. The gas turbine exergy
efciencies for the four cycles are almost the same, but the compressors exergy efciencies of the simple and the absorption cycles
are higher than the air and the air-fuel preheated cycles, because of
the higher air mass rates. The efciencies of the combustion
chambers of the simple and the absorption cycles are lower than
the air and the air-fuel preheated cycles because in the latter air
enters at higher temperature into the combustion chamber because
of the recuperation. Design differences of the cycles are very
effective on production cost as can be seen in the results obtained
with the costing method B. Production costs, for the four different
cycles are given in Figs. 7 and 8.
Table 3 shows the costing method A (Eq. (37)) in the thermoeconomic optimization of the four cycles for constant electricity
production and steam mass ow rate (30 MW and 14 kg/s steam).
The costing method A gives almost the same minimum electricity
production cost (0,12 $/kWh) for the four cycles. For the absorption,
the air and the air-fuel preheated cycles the air mass ow rate are
more or less the same, but for the simple cycle is different and
higher air mass ow rate values are obtained at minimum

production costs. Because the isentropic efciencies of the compressors and the turbines are not effective on the costing method A
cost calculation, isentropic efciencies are taken as hs,C 0,88 and
hs,T 0,90. The costing method A gives the minimum electricity
production costs in small interval than the costing method B for
the four cycles for constant electricity production and steam mass
ow rate.
For the four cycles by using the costing method A (Eq. (37)), the
optimum values are obtained at the compression rates of r 16. In
the air and the air-fuel preheated cycles, adding recuperators to the
cycles increases the costs. However, adding an absorption unit in
the simple cycle decreases the cost of electricity production. The
simple cycle is not appropriate for constant electricity production
and steam mass ow rate according to the costing method A.
The thermoeconomic optimization results for the constant
electricity production (30 MW) by using the costing method B to
obtain local minimum of the production costs for the four cycles are
given in Table 4. It can be seen that production costs decrease with
increased air-fuel mass ow rates. As can be seen in Table 4 the
minimum production costs of the simple cycle are found to be
better than the others.
The thermoeconomic optimization results for constant electricity production (30 MW) by using the costing method A (Eq. (37))
to obtain local minimum of the electricity production costs for the
four cycles are given in Table 5.
As can be seen in Table 5 the local minimum of the production
costs of electricity for the four cycles obtained around 0,10 $/kWh.
Isentropic efciencies are not effective in the costing method A so
that isentropic efciencies of the compressors and the turbines are
taken as hs,C 0,88 and hs,T 0,9, respectively. It is observed that
adding new equipment increases production costs, so adding
recuperators in the cycles increases exergy efciency but also increases production costs.
The thermoeconomic optimization results obtained by using the
costing method B to obtain global minimum production costs for
the four cycles are given in Table 6. These results agree with the
variations of the production costs with respect to the excess air rate

Table 3
Thermoeconomic optimization results for constant electricity production and steam
mass ow rate (30 MW and 14 kg/s steam) by using the costing method A (Eq. (37))
for the four cycles.
Cycle

Simple
cycle

Inlet air
cooling
cycle

Air preheated Air-fuel

cyclea
preheated
cycleb

Air mass ow (kg/s)

Fuel mass ow (kg/s)
Recuperator outlet
temperature (K)
Combustion chamber
outlet temperature(K)
Compressor pressure rate (r)
Compressor-turbine
isentropic efciency
Combustion chamber
exergy efciency
Recuperator exergy
efciency
Fuel recuperator
exergy efciency
Turbine exergy efciency
Compressor exergy efciency
HRSG exergy efciency
System exergy efciency
Excess air rate %
Electricity cost $/kWh

94,9
1,6

75,8
1,61

75,0
1553
780

76,8
1,56
735,0

1550

1517

a
b

1332

1447

16
16
16
0,88e0,9 0,88e0,9 0,88e0,9

16
0,88e0,9

0,76

0,76

0,8

0,78

0,82

0,73
0,57

0,93
0,95
0,70
0,5166
266
0,1248

0,92
0,94
0,67
0,5133
211
0,1202

Air R. LMTD 141 K HRSG LMTD 198 K.

Air R. LMTD 139 K Fuel R. LMTD 317 K.

0,94
0,93
0,71
0,5313
217
0,1200

0,93
0,95
0,68
0,5297
221
0,1209


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485
Table 4
Thermoeconomic optimization results for constant electricity production (30 MW)
by using the costing method B for the four cycles.

483

Table 6
Thermoeconomic optimization results by using the costing method B for the four
cycles.

Cycle

Simple
cycle

Inlet air
cooling
cycle

Air preheated
cycle

Air-fuel
preheated
cycle

Cycle

Simple
cycle

Inlet air
cooling
cycle

Air preheated
cyclea

Air-fuel
preheated
cycleb

Air mass ow (kg/s)

Fuel mass ow (kg/s)
Steam mass ow (kg/s)
Recuperator outlet
temperature (K)
Combustion chamber
outlet temperature (K)
Compressor pressure rate (r)
Compressor-turbine
isentropic efciency
System exergy efciency
Excess air rate %
Electricity cost $/kWh

124,03
2,99
38

115,6
2,88
34,88

121
1,82
17,0
897,5

117,8
1,82
17,13
897,5

Air mass ow (kg/s)

Fuel mass ow (kg/s)
Steam mass ow (kg/s)
Combustion chamber
outlet temperature (K)
Recuperator outlet
temperature (K)
Compressor pressure rate (r)
Excess air rate %
Electricity power (kWh)
Compressor-turbine
isentropic efciency
System exergy efciency
Electricity cost $/kWh

90,95
2,2
27,98
1462

103,9
2,59
31,37
1460

102
2,32
28,85
1467

108,25
2,41
29,68
1464

600

600

6
185,6
22,017
0,8

6
180,15
26,967
0,8

6
197,44
24,345
0,8

6
201,71
25,828
0,8

0,4182
0,0432

0,4153
0,0514

0,4226
0,0577

0,4248
0,0580

1460

1459

1462

1498

6
0,8

6
0,8

6
0,8e0,84

6
0,8e0,84

0,4184
186,28
0,0440

0,4153
180,25
0,0516

0,4837
298,56
0,0871

0,484
290,66
0,0871

that are given in Figs. 6e8. Increasing air mass ow rates decreases
production costs. From the results obtained by using the costing
method B, the minimum production costs are half of the results
obtained by using the costing method A for the four cycles.
The thermoeconomic optimization results obtained by using the
costing method A (Eq. (37)) to achieve global minimum production
costs for the four cycles are given in Table 7. These results t with
the variations of the production costs with the excess air ow rate
that are given in Figs. 6e8. In the thermoeconomic optimization
analyses r 6, hs,C 0,88, hs,T 0,90 are taken. However, the mass
ow rate used is approximately 115 kg/s. Increasing the air mass
ow rate decreases global minimum of the production costs for the
four cycles. Besides the minimum production cost is obtained for
the simple cycle among the four cycles.
A comparison of the results of the thermoeconomic optimization are presented in Table 8. These results can be summarized as
follows;

b.

c.

d.

a. For each cycle and for both of the costing methods, by using
global optimization research method, optimum production cost
is decreasing. That means that the global optimization search
e.
Table 5
Thermoeconomic optimization results for constant electricity production (30 MW)
by using the costing method A (Eq. (37)) for the four cycles.
Cycle

Simple
cycle

Inlet air
cooling
cycle

Air preheated
cycle

Air-fuel
preheated
cycle

Air mass ow (kg/s)

Fuel mass ow (kg/s)
Steam mass ow (kg/s)
Recuperator outlet
temperature (K)
Combustion chamber
outlet temperature (K)
Compressor pressure rate (r)
Combustion chamber
exergy efciency
Air recuperator
exergy efciency
Fuel recuperator
exergy efciency
Turbine exergy efciency
Compressor exergy efciency
HRSG exergy efciency
System exergy efciency
Excess air rate %
Electricity cost $/kWh

89,45
2,45
29,59

85,45
2,41
27,94

90,5
2288
26,63
600

90,34
2242
25,80
600

1550

1550

1550

1550

6
0,70

6
0,70

6
0,72

6
0,73

0,55

0,55

0,91
0,93
0,58
0,45
163,96
0,0986

0,91
0,93
0,58
0,4455
159,23
0,1034

0,94
0,93
0,60
0,459
177,63
0,1043

0,54
0,94
0,93
0,60
0,46,195
180,95
0,1063

Air R. LMTD 490 K.

Air R. LMTD 472 K, Fuel R. LMTD 614,9 K.

method is better than the local optimization one. Especially, this

can be seen very clearly for the simple cycle.
The thermoeconomic optimization results of the global minimums of the production costs for the simple (0,04 kW/$) and for
the absorption (0,05 kW/$) cycles by using the costing method B
are almost the same as the results of the local optima for the
constant power (30 MW), as can be seen in Table 8. That means
the costing method B gives the same local and global optimization results for the two cycles.
In the global optimization method according to the equipment
cost equation model, the global optimum production cost values
of the simple and the air-fuel preheated cycles are 87,3% and
35,6% lower than the local optimum values (for 30 MW power
and 14 kg/s steam ow rate), respectively.
In the global optimization method according to the costing
method A, the global optimum production cost values of the
simple and the air-fuel preheated cycles are 24,3% and 16,3%
lower than the local optimum values (for 30 MW power and
14 kg/s steam ow rate), respectively.
The thermoeconomic optimization results of the global minimums of the production costs for the air and for the air-fuel
preheated cycles by using the costing method B are lower
than the local optima of the constant power (30 MW).

Table 7
Thermoeconomic optimization results by using the costing method A (Eq. (37)) for
the four cycles.
Cycle

Simple
cycle

Inlet air
cooling
cycle

Air preheated
cyclea

Air-fuel
preheated
cycleb

Air mass ow (kg/s)

Fuel mass ow (kg/s)
Steam mass ow (kg/s)
Combustion chamber
outlet temperature (K)
Recuperator outlet
temperature (K)
Compressor pressure rate (r)
Electricity power (kWh)
System exergy efciency
Excess air rate %
Electricity cost $/kWh

114,5
3125
37,68
1547

97,54
2,75
31,88
1550

113,8
2875
33,44
1550

115,8
2875
33,09
1550

600

600

6
38,386
0,4504
164,54
0,0945

6
34,253
0,4455
159,28
0,1009

6
37,718
0,4591
177,76
0,0998

6
38456
0,4619
180,88
0,1012

a
b

Air R. LMTD 527,5 K.

Air R. LMTD 510,8 K, Fuel R. LMTD 653,3 K.

484

_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485

Table 8
Electricity costs results for local and global optimization of the four cycles.
Case
Costing
method B
(Cost equations method)
Costing
method A
(Costing method of the effect of
size on equipment)

Constant electricity production and

steam ow rate (30 MW and 14 kg/s)
Constant power (30 MW)
Unconstrained power and steam mass
Constant electricity production and
steam mass ow (30 MW and 14 kg/s steam)
Constant power (30 MW)
Unconstrained power and steam ow rate

f. The costing method A and the costing method B give very

different results for the electricity production costs. The results
of costing method B agree with the literature. However, this
method should be used with caution since in some working
conditions, it gives non-realistic results [31,36].
g. In case of variable power and steam mass ow rate, in global
optimization for the minimum costs are (0,0432 $/kWh) for the
simple cycle, (0,0514 $/kWh) for the inlet air cooling cycle,
(0,0577 $/kWh) for the air preheated cycle and (0.058 $/kWh)
for the air-fuel preheated cycle by using the costing method B.
h. The prices of the equipment, labor and fuels change every year
even every day and this makes it impossible to make a comparison with the published works of the past years. However, in
this study, the analyses are done by taking the data from the
literature [31] for the prices of the equipment and labor, and
these values are updated. For updating process CEPCI equipment cost index, taken from the web site of Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index [39] are used in Equation (36). The
updated values are compared with the market prices. The fuel
prices are not updated, and were taken from the year 2012
market values.
i. The aim of this study is to show that, for the same data the
global optimization introduced above and the local optimization
processes, costing method A and B, and different designs give
very different results. The advantages and the disadvantages of
the optimization processes, costing methods and different designs are shown by using the thermoeconomic method.
j. A comparison of the thermoeconomic global optimization process with results available in the literature would not be realistic
because this study is the rst in this eld. However, thermodynamic global optimization process by using decomposition of
energy systems is discussed in literature especially by Hua et al.
[25] and Lazzaretto et al. [17].

5. Conclusion
In this study, a new iterative optimization method is applied to
determine the local and the global optima of four cycles; they are
compared with each other and it is seen that the performance
characteristics values are found to be in good agreement with each
other and with the literature. In order to nd the global optimum,
all working conditions of a thermal system should be taken into
account and the power should be considered variable. In the
studies available in the literature, thermoeconomic optimization of
thermal systems is performed for constant power production. It is
clear that with the information about the global optimum, we
would have a better insight of the working conditions of the thermal system that results in maximum benets. Finding the global
optimum is very important at design stages and in working conditions. Global optima might be obtained at low compression rates
as can be seen in the optimization results of the air and the air-fuel

Simple cycle

Inlet air cooling cycle

Air preheated cycle

Air-fuel preheated cycle

0,3400

0,2900

0,0957

0,0901

0,0440
0,0432
0,1248

0,0516
0,0514
0,1202

0,0871
0,0577
0,1200

0,0871
0,058
0,1209

0,0986
0,0945

0,1034
0,1009

0,1043
0,0998

0,1063
0,1012

preheated cogeneration cycles. Adding a recuperator increases the

efciency of the cycles, but also increases the production costs.
There is an optimum excess air rate value for each cycle that gives
the minimum electricity cost. In addition, in the costing method B,
decreasing compression rate and decreasing the isentropic efciencies of the compressor and the turbine decreases the electricity
cost. In this thermoeconomic optimization, the revenue requirement method is used with the costing method B and the costing
method A to nd the local and the global optima. In this study, local
optima are found for constant power and steam mass ow rate
(30 MW and 14 kg/s), and for constant power (30 MW) and variable
steam mass ow rate. The costing method B and the costing
method A give very different optimum costs results. The results of
the costing method B are in good agreement with the reality, but
with different excess air rates unrealistic results are obtained
because of its structure as is indicated in the literature. For that
reason, the costing method B should be used carefully in the
thermoeconomic optimization processes. As the results of the analyses of the global optimization indicate the optimum costs obtained for the simple cycle 0,0432 $/kWh; for the inlet air cooling
cycle 0,0514 $/kWh; for the air preheated cycle 0,0577 $/kWh; and
for the air-fuel preheated cycle 0,058 $/kWh, by using the costing
method B. However, in the case of the variable demands for electricity and steam mass production, the air and the air-fuel preheated cycles give the best solutions.

References
[1] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. Plant design and economics for chemical
engineers. Mc Graw Hill chemical engineering series. 5th ed.. 2003.
[2] Moran JM, Tsatsaronis G. The CRC handbook of thermal engineering. CRC Press
LLC; 2000.
[3] Jaluria Y. Design and optimization of thermal systems. CRC Press; 2008.
[4] Cerqueira SAG, Nebra SA. Cost attribution methodologies in cogeneration
systems. Energy Convers Mgmt 1999;40:1587e97.
[5] El-Sayed YM, Gaggioli RA. A critical review of second law costing methods- I:
background and algebraic procedures. ASME J Energy Resour Technol
1989;111.
[6] Gaggioli RA, El-Sayed YM. A critical review of second law costing methods- II:
calculus procedures. ASME J Energy Resour Technol 1989;111.
[7] Rosen MA. A concise review of exergy-based economic methods. In: 3rd
IASME/WSEAS Int. Conf. on Energy & Environment. UK: University Of Cambridge; 2008.
[8] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergy-Cost-Energy-Mass analysis of thermal systems and
processes. Energy Convers Mgmt 2003;44:1633e51.
[9] Valero A, Torres C, Lozano MA. On the unication of thermoeconomic theories.
AES. ASME Book, Vol. 9; 1989.
[10] Tsatsaronis G. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:3.
[11] Tsatsaronis G, Moran MJ. Exergy aided cost minimization. Energy Convers
Mgmt 1997;38:1535e42.
[12] Koch C, Cziesla F, Tsatsaronis G. Optimization of combined cycle power plants
using evolutionary algorithms. Chem Eng Process 2007;46:1151e9.
[13] Valero A, Lozano MA, Serra L, Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J, Frangopoulos C,
Spakovsky MRV. CGAM problem: denition and conventional solutions. Energy 1994;19:279e86.
[14] Erlach B, Serra L, Valero A. Structural theory as standard for thermoeconomics.
Energy Convers Mgmt 1999;40:1627e49.


_ Oztrk
R. Karaali, I.T.
/ Energy 80 (2015) 474e485
[15] Kwon YH, Kwak HY, Oh SD. Exergoeconomic analysis of gas turbine cogeneration systems. Exergy Int J 2001;1:31e40.
[16] Kwak HY, Byun GT, Kwon YH, Yang H. Cost structure of CGAM cogeneration
system. Int J Energy Res 2004;28:1145e58.
[17] Lazzaretto A, Toffolo A, Morandin M, Spakovsky MRV. Criteria for the
decomposition of energy systems in local/global optimization. Energy
2010;35:1157e63.
[18] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis GSPECO. A systematic and general methodology for
calculating efciencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:
1257e89.
[19] Frangopoulos C. Application of the thermoeconomic functional approach to
the CGAM problem. Energy 1993;19:323e42.
[20] Dipoma J, Teyssedou A, Aube F, Lizon a lugrin L. A grid based multiobjective
evolutionary algorithm for the optimization of power plants. Appl Therm Eng
2010;30:807e16.
[21] Seyyedi SM, Ajam H, Farahat S. A new approach for optimization of thermal
power plant based on the exergoeconomic analysis and structural optimization method: application to the CGAM problem. Energy Convers Manag
2010;51:2202e11.
[22] Spakovsky MR. Application of engineering functional analysis to the analysis
and optimization of the CGAM problem. Energy 1994;19:343e64.
[23] Kim SM, Oh SD, Kwon YH, Kwak HY. Exergoeconomic analysis of thermal
systems. Energy 1998;23:393e406.
[24] Vieira LS, Donatelli JL, Cruz ME. Integration of an iterative methodology for
exergoeconomic improvement of thermal systems with a process simulator.
Energy Convers Mgmt 2004;45:2495e523.
[25] Hua B, Chen QL, Wang P. A new exergoeconomic approach for analysis and
optimization of energy systems. Energy 1997;22:1071e8.

485

[26] Munoz JR, von Spakovsky MR. A decomposition approach for the large scale
synthesis/design optimization of highly coupled, highly dynamic energy
systems. Int J Appl Thermodyn 2001;4:1e17.
[27] Alvarado S, Gherardelli C. Exergo economic optimization of a cogeneration
plant. Energy 1994;19:1225e33.
[28] Ahmadi P, Dincer I. Exergoenvironmental analysis and optimization of a
cogeneration plant system using multimodal genetic algorithm (MGA). Energy 2010;35:5161e72.
[29] Agudelo A, Valero A, Torres C. Allocation of waste cost in thermoeconomic
analysis. Energy 2012;45:634e43.
[30] Kim DJ. A new thermoeconomic methodology for energy systems. Energy
2010;35:410e22.
[31] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. Wiley
Pub; 1996.
[32] Horlock JH. Cogeneration-combined heat and power (CHP). CRIEGER Pub; 1997.
[33] Boyce MP. Handbook for cogeneration and combined cycle power plants.
ASME Press; 2002.
[34] Kehlhofet R, Bachmann R, Nielsen H, Warner J. Combined cycle gas steam
turbine power plants. Penwell P. C; 1999.
[35] ASHRAE. Cogeneration systems and engine and turbine drives. ASHRAE systems and equipment handbook (SI). American society of Heating, Refrigerating and air conditioning Engineers; 2000 [Chapter 7].
[36] Karaali R. Thermoeconomic optimization of cogeneration plants [Ph.D. thesis].
Kocaeli: Kocaeli University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences;
2010 [in Turkish].
[37] http://www.nyethermodynamics.com/trader/outprice.htm.
[38] http://www.ere.com.tr.
[39] http://www.che.com/pci/.