4E Analyses and Tri-objective Optimization of a Gas Turbine-Based Combined Heat and Power System J.Nondy ®, T. K. Gogoi, and Anoop Kumar Shukla Abstract In this paper, a combined heat and power (CHP) system is proposed that ‘comprises a recuperative gas turbine (GT) cycle, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), and a recuperative-regenerative organic Rankine eycle (RR-ORC) for the cogeneration of process heat and power. The low-grade heat from the GT exhaust is utilized to operate the HRSG and the RR-ORC. The CHP system is modelled based on energy, exergy, economic and environmental (4E) analyses. The results showed that at the base condition, the GT eycle and RR-ORC provide a net power of 30 MW and 671.40 kW, respectively, while HRSG recovers 40.74 MW of thermal energy from the GY exhaust gas to produce 8.43 tonnes/h of saturated steam for process heat application. ‘The thermal and exergy efficiency of the overall system are 86.81% and 53.38%, respectively, whereas the total product cost rate and the specific COs emission are 1569.6 Sh and 234.13 kg/MWh, respectively. Further, & Pareto optimal envelope-based selection algorithm-II (PESA-I1 is applied forthe tri- objective optimization of the CHP system considering the overall exergy efficiency, total product cost rate, and specific CO; emission as the objective functions with five decision variables. The intent of this study is to maximize the first objective function and minimize the remaining two, Lastly, the multi-criteria decision analyses is performed by applying the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to select the best optimal solution that gives an improvement of 11.12%, 5.73%, and 9.88%, respectively, over the base case condition. Keywords Gas turbine - Organic Rankine cycle » PESA-II - ‘TOPSIS » 4E analyses J. Nondy (&3) 7. K. Gogoi ‘Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tezpur Univesity, e-mail joynondy21_ju@gmailcom Napa, Tezpur 784028, India TK. Gogoi email: [email protected] AK. Shukla Departnent of Mechanical Engineering, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida 201313, India e-mail shukls anoophbti@ gmail.com {© The Authors), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pee Lid. 2023443, ‘A.K. Shukla et l (eds), Recent Adances in Mechanical Engineering, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, hpsdo\or/10.1007/978 98199-1894 2.38we J.Nondy ea. 1 Introduction Global energy consumption has increased dramatically along with rising industi- alization, which results in an unregulated use of fossil fuels. As a consequence, the greenhouse effect caused by the burning of fossil fuels has reached new levels, of severity. This scenario has brought many researchers’ attention to find a more efficient way of energy conservation. In this regards, cogeneration systems have ‘emerged as an optimal energy generation system with promising energy conversion efficiency. Cogeneration systems arc also known as combined heat and power (CHP) systems when they involve the simultancous production of thermal energy in the form of hot water or steam and power [1]. The Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) is ‘another innovative power-generating system that converts the low-grade energy into electricity ‘Several studies have been carried out in order to propose ORC-integrated cogen- eration systems [2]. Eveloy et al. (3] proposed an integrated system that comprises of a Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), gas turbine (GT) cycle, and the basic layout of ORC. They reported that employing ORC enhanced the combined system's thermal efficiency by 6%. Ahmadi et al. [4] conducted an energy and exergy analyses of a T-ORC combined system and found that the ORC’s energetic and exergetic perfor- mance improved with increasing evaporator pressure. Mufoz. De Escalona etal. [5] carried out the performance compatison of a GT-ORC system anda GT:steam turbine (ST) system, They reported that the GT-ORC system outperforms the GT-ST system in terms of thermal efficiency. Mohammadi etal. [6] investigated the possibility of integrating ORC to an GT-ST integrated combined plant. They found that the overall, exergy efficiency of the proposed system is 40.75%. Khaljani et al. [7] suggested a (CHP system using a single pressure heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and a recuperative ORC to recover heat from GT exhaust. They found that after incorpo- rating the recuperative ORC, the suggested system’s thermal efficiency increased by 1.28% when compared to the GT-HRSG system. They also asserted that the combus- tion chamber is responsible for the most exergy destruction in the system. Tn another siudy, Khaljani etal. [8] performed the multi-objective optimization ofthe proposed CHP system and observed that atthe optimal condition, system's exergy efficiency ‘nereases, whereas the system cost rate reduces. Anvari etal, 9] proposed another CHP system where in place of recuperative ORC, they introduced regenerative ORC. ‘They revealed that the CHP system with regenerative ORC has 2.62% higher energy efficiency than the CHP system with the recuperative ORC [8] ‘According to the brief literature review, various layouts of ORCs are employed in several studies to use the GT exhaust gas. However, among the widely used ORC layouts such as basic ORC, recuperative ORC and regenerative ORC, recuperative- regenerative ORC (RR-ORC) is reported to have greater overall performance {10} Therefore, it would be a worthwhile idea to explore the integration of RR-ORC with a Geyele. However, because ORC isa low-temperature power cycle, itis not viable to seit directly to utilize GT exhaust, As result, frst using an HRSG to recover high- temperature exhaust heat for process heat and then integrating an RR-ORC to extract,4 Analyses and Ti-objective Optimization of a Gas Turbine Based 4s the remaining heat is a viable approach. The performance of the CHP system also exhibits a substantial dependence on the top GT cycle’s efficiency. In essence, there are multiple types of GT cycles, the most common of which are basic GT eycles and recuperative GT cycles. Numerous investigations [11, 12] have demonstrated the high performance of the recuperative GI cycle. Therefore, a recuperative GT cycle is a potential candidate for CHP application, In addition, a CHP system's performance in terms of CO; emissions is crucial given the rising concem over _preenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the proposed CHP system must also need to be cost-effective in a competitive market, Therefore, in this study, the performance of the proposed CHP system is evaluated using 4E analyses. Furthermore, PESA-Il is, applied for the tri-objective optimization of the CHP system considering the overall, exergy efficiency, total product cost rate, and specific CO; emission as the objective functions with five decision variables. Lastly, the multi-criteria decision analysis is performed by applying TOPSIS to pick the best optimal solution from the Pareto front, The advantages of optimization are then shown by comparing the values ofthe ‘objective function under the base ease and optimal conditions. 2. System Description ‘The CHP system includes a recuperative GT cycle, an HRSG, and a RR-ORC, as shown in Fig. 1. The ambient air is first compressed employing an air compressor (AC). The compressed air then preheats passing through the air preheater (APH) while recovering heat from GT exhaust gas. Fuel and compressed air are burned in the combustion chamber (CC), and the resulting hot gas is expanded at the GT, The GT is coupled to a generator (G), which gencrates power. The GT exhaust gas then passed through the APH and reaches the HRSG, Te waste heat is used to generate the required process heat at the HRSG. Finally, the exhaust gas from the HRSG is used to generate the organic vapour that drives the RR-ORC, The RR-ORC is composed of a VG, two feed pumps (FP-1 and FP-ID, a vapour turbine (VT), a feed heater (FH), an internal heat exchanger (HE), and condenser (COND). The vapour reaches the VT and first expands to feed heater pressure, after which a portion of itis, extracted and the remaining vapour is expanded to condenser pressure, The extracted vapour is delivered to the FH, while the rest is sent to the COND via an THE. The pressure of the organic fluid exiting the COND is increased using FP-I up to the pressure of the FH. The organic fluid is then passed through the IHE, where itis, preheated employing heat from the vapour leaving the VT. Then the fluid is mixed ‘with the extracted vapour at the FH, and then the mixture is pumped to the VG using FPL.46 J.Nony el. EVA ursc| rione ig. 1. Schematic diagram ofthe CHP system 3 Mathematical Modelling 3.1 Energy Analysis “The energy analysisis performed applying conservation of mass and energy equations given in Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively [13]: Di Dre =0 o Veam, - Voi, + O-w=0 @4 Analyses and Ti-objective Optimization of a Gas Turbine Based “7 ‘Table 1 Operating condition of CHP system (7,14, 16,17) Description ‘Symbol Value Ui AC pressure ratio re 0 - [AC isentropic eficieney ‘ae 86 i GTisentopicefcieney nor 6 ae [APH oudet temperature By 550) ik ‘GT inet temperature % 1520 K Fuel inlet temperature To 298.15 K Fuel inlet pressure Po 1200 APs Ne GT eye power Weast 30 MW Tale vate temperature Th 298.18 K ule water emperacure im 3500) Ks ‘VT inlet temperatre Tia 380) K FH pressure Fa 220 ia ‘VT isentropic elcieney ve 80 6 Feed punp isentropic eficionsy ae 85 se ‘Cooling water inet temperature To 28.15 K Cooling water inlet pressure Pa 1013 cc Cooling water ut temperate Ta 303.15 K Condenser temperate Ta 304 | K Effectiveness ofthe IE fe 0 g ‘The state properties of air and exhaust gas in GT cycle are calculated using the ‘method shown in Ref. [14]. The molar fuel-air ratio is determined using heat balance and combustion stoichiometry. The HRSG is modelled considering pinch point temperature difference (PPTD) of 30 K. The state properties of water throughout, the system are determined using REFPROP 9.0 [15]. The working fluid used in the RR-ORC is R-123 which is proven to be a good option for medium temperature ‘waste heat recovery [10]. The state properties of R-123 are determined by employing REFPROP 9,0 [15]. The VG is modelled as shell and tube heat exchanger by consid- ering aPPTD of 10K. The energy balance atthe FH is used to assess the mass fraction of vapour extracted at the V'T. The base case condition considered for evaluating the performance of CHP system are shown in Table | 3.2. Exergy Analyses Exergy analysis provides an alternative approach to compare the systems more judi- iously. Exergy ata given site includes physical and chemical components. Physical exergy is the amount of useful work produced by a system during a reversible process48 J.Nondy ea. froma specific inital condition tothe state ofits surroundings. The physical exergy is calculated by applying Eq. (3) 114 EP = pil(h — ho) — Tols — 50) @ TThe chemical exergy is the maximum work that can be done when a system's limited dead state reaches its actual dead state. The estimation of chemical exergy {or R-123 is avoided in this study, while the correlation reported in Ref. [14] is applied for the remaining fluids. Meanwhile, the exergy destruction which signifies the lost opportunity for converting energy into useful work is calculated using the cexergy balance relation as given by [14] Ept Bo + By o where Ep, Ep, Bp and By denotes the rate of fuel exergy, product exergy, exergy destroyed, and exergy lost to the environment. Exergy efficiency isthe measure ofthe approach to tue ideality and provides more ‘meaningful information when investigating an energy system. It is the percentage ratio of the product exergy to the fuel exergy. The expression for exergy efficiency is given by (14] Ep 3.3, Economic Analysis The economic analysis deals with the estimation of expenses such as capital cost, {uel cost, and maintenance and operation cost, involved in the thermal system. These expenses are calculated to determine the total product cost rate (Cp) Which is the expenditures incurred to generate products from the thermal system. Its estimated using the cost balance equation as follows [14] Cuan = Crna + Ze © ‘where Cho is the fuel cost rate and Zt isthe capital cost rate of component k. ‘The fuel cost rate of the CHP system is evaluated using Eq. (7) [7] Crue = eriyLHTV x 3600 o Where cris the unit fuel cost (0.004 SIMI [18] ‘The capital cost rate can be evaluated using Eq, (8).4 Analyses and Ti-objective Optimization of a Gas Turbine Based 49 “able? The cautions usd “ESspeqaa” [Con nos fovcakealaing purchase fqupmentcoss(. 14) AC (B)(B)aR) arn |farzaqgatycte. °° ce a ll + exp00187, — 264] or (BE) o(H)U + porn — 54.9) esc |os7o{(fe.)"" + (e.)""]+ 27g + 1184 Ai sso) Vo 00.18. 4ye) 2 vr x00 TE [1300+ 570A COND [173 xh AL (527.7/397)'™ x E oe ¢ = 4.20 —0.20819p49 V-+0.1245(lot(¥)) PECLX CRE xo a= ose ® where PEC, stands for purchase equipment cost, isthe maintenance factor (1.06), [isthe yearly operation hours (7446 h) [18], and CRE stands for capital recovery factor whichis calculated using Ea. (9) ixa+ir OE o where 7 isthe rate of interest (12%) and m isthe operating period of components (20 years) (10) ‘The purchase equipment cost for each component ofthe CHP system is calculated by applying the correlations provided in Table 2. 3.4 Environmental Analysis ‘The polluting gases emitted from a fossil fuel-based energy generation system degrade the environment and led to many environmental issues. Among all the polluting gases, CO; is considered one of the most critical being mainly responsible450 J.Nondy ea. for global warming. Therefore, inthis study, the environmental impact is evaluated in tems of specific CO; emission (Sco2) that is defined as [13] Sco, = ao ‘The mass flow rate of CO; (rico,) emitted from the CHP system is caleulated by applying the equation reported in Ref. [14] 3.5. Tri-Objective Optimization ‘Tri-objective optimization is performed by considering exergy efficiency, the total product cost and specific CO, emission ofthe CHP system as the objective func tions. The intent is to maximize the fist function while minimize the remaining two. ‘The following decision variables are considered for the ti-abjective optimization: AC pressure ratio ‘AC isentropic efficiency GT isentropic efficiency APH outlet temperature GT inlet temperature ‘The ranges of the decision variables are shown in Table 4 which are based on previously published articles. “The ti-objective optimization is performed using Pareto envelope-based selection algorithm-I (PESA-ID [19, 20]. The input settings used for implementing the PI Tare taken from Ref. [10]. PESAII provides a set of optimal solutions in the form of Pareto front. Though all Pareto optimal solutions are equally good, one solution _must be chosen based on the priority of the objective functions. In this study, the best ‘optimal solution is selected using TOPSIS which is a multi-criteria decision analysis, tool which is used widely in engincering problems involving resolving decision dilemmas. The algorithm of TOPSIS can be referred from the previous article of the present authors [10]. 4 Results 4.1 Model Validation ‘The recuperative GT-HRSG and RR-ORC models used in this investigation have been validated in previous articles [10, 20] of the respective authors, thus the validation results are not reproduced here,4 Analyses and Ti-objective Optimization of a Gas Turbine Based 4st 4.2, Results at Base Condition ‘The proposed CHP system is modelled applying a MATLAB-based code. The state properties of the system are shown in Table 3. For a fixed net power of 30 MW from the GT cycle, the flow rate of natural gas is found to be 1.678 ke/s with the thermal efficiency of 36.46%. ‘The HRSG recovers 40.74 MW of thermal energy from the GT exhaust gas to produce 8.43 tonnes/h of saturated steam for process heat application. The combined efficiency of the GT-HRSG cycle is found to be 86% upon including HRSG into the GT cycle. Meanwhile, the RR-ORC provides @ net power of 671.40 kW, while the work consumed by the feed pumps is 14.37 kW. ‘The efficiency of the RR-ORC and the overall CHP system are 15.11% and 86.81%, respectively. Ibis noteworthy that the power output of RR-ORC in this study is higher «as compared to the simple ORC (580.3 kW) incorporated in GT-HRSG-ORC system investigated in Ref. [7] under identical operating conditions. ‘Table 3. State properties a diferent state points ofthe CHP system sate [Rud [700 [Pay [naw [A aw [EF OW [Faw 1 [Air 2onis | 10130 | 9330 [000 0.00 0.00 2 [Air 0331 [101300 | 9330 /28,15885 [0.00 2.33.5 3 Ale 850.00 | 962.35 | 98.30 [42,875.05 [0.00 $2,875.06 4 [Rocgas [152000 | 91423 | 9498 [t0sss0 [37456 | 104,900.13, 5 _[Fuegas [10122 | 11333 | 9898 41,037 4141137 © _|Fuegas | 78200 | 1093 | 9498 [23281 23,615.20 7 [Pues | 42040 | 10843 | 9498/3257 3632.04 B|Water | 298.15 | 3500.00 | 15.12 S150 39.7 ‘9 [Water | #8553 [350000 | 15.12 [14836 Taa74.04 10 [Fue | 29815 [120000 | 167 [e272 $5,146.07 1 [Ruegss | 37550 | 10130 | 9698 [I8I7.1 (37836 2191.69 12 [Riz | 32462 | 1990 | 240 [ao |- a0 1 [R128 | S000 | 91268 | 2440 [95048 |- 950.08 1 [Ras | 33998 | 22000 | m2 [ise — 15.64 15 [RI | 32467 | tized | asaK [9525 95.25 16 [R123 | 30611 | i294 | zeae [teas 7833 i (Ras | 30400 | 11294 | 2838 [134 = 1st 18 [R123 | sokos | 22000 | 2838 [328 = 328 1 [Ris | 31713 | 22000 | 238 [iso2_|- 1592 20 [Riz _| 32429 | 20000 | 2640 (2950 |= 2950 21 [Water | 298.15 | 101.30 [1906 (0.00 = 0.00 22 [Water | 30815 | 10130 [1906 (3303 |= 33.03452 J.Nondy ea. “Table 4 The values of decison variables at ase case and optimal Parameters ‘Symbols [Unit [Range | Basecase | Optimal ease AC pressure ratio a = oie 10 10.98 ACisentropiceficiensy [mac | © woe | 86 S55 GTisenttopicefciency [nor |% | 80-91 36 939 [APH oudet temperature | Ts K | 750-850 | ‘850 9.58 (GTinlet temperate | Ts K | 1450-1580 [1520 1452.60 ‘The exergy destruction calculated for all the equipment of the CHP system is shown in Fig. 2. With 23,101 KW, the CC has the maximum exergy destruction rate, accounting for 61.66% of overall exergy destruction. Exergy destruction occurs in 4 system because of itreversibility caused mainly by heat transfer through a finite temperature difference, chemical reaction, and fluid friction, The above-mentioned factors are all present in CC, thus making it most irreversible component. The HRSG is the next biggest contributor, with the exergy destruction rate of 5198.4% (13.87%). Its also worth noting that exergy destruction rate in the GT cycle components is significantly larger than the bottoming RR-ORC components. In fact, exergy destruc mn rate inthe topping GT cycle components (AC, APH, GT, and CC) accounts for {84.16% of the overall exergy destruction rate of the CHP system. In the RR-ORC, ‘VG has the maximum exergy destruction rate of 530 kW followed by VT (153.8 kW). Besides, the overall exergy destruction in the CHP system is 37465 kW. Figure 3 shows the exergy efficiency of each component of the CHP system. tis observed that GT has maximum exergy efficiency (94.9%) followed by FH (93.4%) and AC (92.9%). The COND has the lowest exergy efficiency (43%) because the hneat exchange process causes irreversibility, which restricts the conversion of fuel exergy into product exergy. Meanwhile, GT cycle’s exergy efficiency is 35.23%, whereas RR-ORC's is 46.61%. Alter integrating the HRSG, exergy efficiency of the combined system (GT-HRSG) is improved to 52.59%. Similarly, after further integration of RR-ORC, exergy efficiency of the combined system is improved t0 Fig 2. Bar diagram showing ral exergy destruction rat forall equipment |4 Analyses and Ti-objective Optimization of a Gas Turbine Based 453 Fig.3. Bardiagram showing cexerayeficency foe all caquipment 53.38%, Furthermore, the exergy loss rate of CHP system is 2191.7 kW, which ‘corresponds to the exergy rate at state LI Figure 4 shows that AC and GT are the two expensive components with the respective capital cost rate of 126.5 S/h and 124.7 §/h. Both the components alone account for 69.61% of the overall capital cost of the CHP system. The HRSG also hhas an appreciable capital cost rate of 47.8 $/h. It is noteworthy that as compared {to components of GT cycle, the expanses on the components of the RO-RRC are insignificant, Forinstance, FHhas the highest capital costrate of 12.6 S/h, Meanwhile, the CHP system’s capital cost rate and fuel cost rate are 360.82 Sh and 1208.8 ‘Sh, respectively. Consequently, the product cost rate and specific CO emission are computed to be 1569.6 S/h and 234.13 ky/MWh, respectively. Fig 4. Bar diagram showing capital cost rate forall ‘uipment454 J.Nondy ea. Fig. 5. Parcto font obtained Irom the i objective ‘optimization ofthe CHP system ‘Table § The values of objective functions atthe best optimal solution Objective functions | Unit Base case | Optimal case | Deviation () ton * 33.38 5932 stn on sh 1569.9 1479.87 573 Seo koh | 234.13, 21099 9.88 4.3 Results at Optimal Condition Figure 5 shows the Pareto front projected in three-dimensional objective space, with ‘each data point indicating the position of an optimal solution. The best solution evaluated by using TOPSIS is also highlighted in Fig. 5. Each objective function is given equal weights of 1/3, The decision variables at the best design point are sven in Table 4 It can be observed that AC pressure ratio, AC isentropic efficiency, and APH outlet temperature attained the values near to corresponding base case conditions. However, the GT isentropic efficiency and GT inlet temperature attained distinct values within the prescribed range. Table 5 also shows the objective function, ‘values obtained under optimal conditions. The overall exergy efficiency, total product, cost rate, and specific CO» emission of the CHP system are found to be 59.32%, 1479.89 $/h and 210.99 kg/MWh, respectively. Further, the objective function values evaluated at optimal condition are compared with the base ease condition, ILis evident thatthe exergy efficiency hasincreased by 11.12%, whereas total product cost rate and specific CO; emission have decreased by 5.73 and 9.88%, respectively, 5 Conclusions In this study, 4E analyses are used to evaluate the performance of a CHP system. ‘The CHP system includes a 30 MW gas turbine, a single pressure HRSG producing4 Analyses and Ti-objective Optimization of a Gas Turbine Based 455 40.74 MW of process heat and a recuperative-regenerative ORC (RR-ORC). The RR-ORC produces an additional power of 671.40 kW. The thermal efficiency of CHP system is 86.81%. The exergy analysis showed that the combustion chamber is responsible for maximum exergy destruction rate with 23,101 kW accounting for 61.66% of the total exergy destruction, It is also found that GT has the maximum exergy efficiency of 94.9% followed by FH (93.4%) and AC (92.9%). Meanwhile, the exergy efficiency of the overall CHP system is $3.38%. The economic analysis, showed that AC and GT are the two expensive components with the respective capital cost rate of 126.5 and 124.7 S/h, In fact, both the components alone account for 69.61% of the overall capital cost of the CHP system. In the meantime, the fuel cost rate is 1208.8 S/p, and the product cost rate is 1569.6 $/h, According to environmental assessments, the CHP system emits 234.13 kg/MWh of CO}. Lastly, the CHP system is optimized considering exergy efliciency, total product cost rate, and specitic CO» emission as objective functions using PESA-II In addition, the best ‘optimal solution is also selected from the obtained Pareto front using the TOPSIS decision-maker. Then the objective function values evaluated under optimal solution are compared with the base case condition, Its evident thatthe exergy efficiency ha increased by 11.12%, whereas product cost and specific CO2 emission are lowered by 5.73 and 9.88%, respectively. It is also noteworthy that the power output of RR- ORC (670.14 kW) in this study is more than the power output of a simple ORC (580.3 kW) for the GT-HRSG-ORC system investigated in Ref. (7] under identical ‘operating conditions. References 1. Bilgen & (2000) Exergtic and engineering analyses of gas turbine based cogeneration systems Energy 25:1215-1229 2. Loni, Naat G, Bells E, Rajace F, Said Z, Mazlan M (2021) A review of industrial waste heat recovery system for power generation with Organic Rankine Cyele: recent challenges and future outlook. J Clean Prod 287:125070 3. Eveloy V, Karunkeyoon W, Rodgers P, AI AA (2016) Energy, exergy and economic analysis of an integrated solid oxide fel eell—Gas turbine—Organic Rankine power generation system. Tat J Hydeogen Energy 41:13843-13858 4. Ahmadi B, Akbar A, Hossein G, Arash A, Quang K. Bach V (2020) Energy and exergy analysis snd optimization of aga turbine cycle coupled by a bottoming organi Rankine cycle, JTherm Anal Calorim 141895510 ‘5. Mufioz De Escalona JM, Séncher D, Chacategui R, Sénchez T (2012) Par-lad analysis of 1s turbine & ORC combined cycles. Appl Therm Eng 36:63-72 6. Mohammadi A, Ashouri M, Ahmadi MH, Bidi M, Sadeghzadeh M, Ming T (2018) Thermocce- omic analysis and mukdobjective optimization of combined gas turbine, team, and organic Rankine cycle. Energy Sei Eng 6:506-522 17. KhaljaniM, Khoshbakiti Saray R, BahlouliK (2015) Comprehensive analysis of energy, exergy and exego-economic of cogeneration of heat und power ina combined gas turbine and organic Rankine cycle, Energy Convers Manage 97:154-165 8. Khaljani M, Khoshbakhti Saray R, Babloli K 2015) Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic ‘optimization of an integrated gas turbine and orgenie Rankine cycle. Energy 93:2136-2145,456 J.Nondy ea. 9. Amari S, Jafarmadar S, Khalilarya § (2016) Proposal of ¢ combined heat and power plant hybridized with regeneration organic Rankine cycle: energy-exergy evaluation. Energy Convers Manage 122:357-365 10, Nondy I, Gogoi TK (2021) Fxergoeconomic investigation and multi-objective optimization of diferent ORC configurations for waste heat recovery: a comparative study. Energy Convers Manage 245:114593 11, Kog ¥, Yabli H, Kay 1 (2020) Energy exergy, and parametric analysis of simple and reeu- erative organic Raakine eyeles using a gas turbine based combined cycle. J Energy ag "6:02020041 12. Mang X, LiT, Li G, Feng 7.2007) Cycle analysis of an integrated soli oxide fac ell and recuperative gas urine with an ar reheating system. J Power Sources 164 752-760 13, Nondy J, Gogoi TK (2022) Energy andexerpy analyses of 2 gas turbine and eheat- regenerative steam urine integrated combined eycle powerplant, Lact Notes Mech Eng 2022:233-48 14, Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran MJ (1995) Thermal design and optimization. Wiley, New York 1S; Lemmon E, Huber M, MeLinden M (nd) NIST standard reference database 23, reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties (REFPROP), version 9.0, National Insutue of Standands and Technology, R1234yf. file dated 22 Dee 22 2010 16. Shukla AK, Sharma A, Sharma M, Nandan G (2018) Thermodynamic investigation of solar ‘nergy based triple combined power eyele. Energy Sources Part A Recover Util Environ S1:1161-1179 17, Nondy J, Gogoi TK (2019) Exergy analysis of combined gus turbine and organic Rankine «yele bused power and absorption cooling systems. In; ASME 2019 gas turbine India conference [GTINDIA 2019, vol 1. American Society of Mechanical Engincers (ASME), IN 18. Nondy5J, Gogoi TK (2020) A Comparative study of metaheuristc techniques forthe dermoen- ‘ironomic optimization of a gs turine-based benchmark combined est and power system. J Energy Resour Technol 143:062104 19. Comme DW, Jeram NR, Knowles JD, Oates Mj (2001) PESA1I: region-based selection in ‘evolutionary multiobjective optimization, In: Spector I. etal (ed) Proceedings of Sed annual conferences on genetic evolution computing, San Francisco, CA, United States, pp 283-290 20, Nondy 3,GogoiTK (2021) Performance comparison of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for exergetc and exergoenvironomic optimization of a benchmark combined heat and power system. Energy 233121135