Energy 114 (2016) 868e884

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Real-time exergoeconomic optimization of a steam power plant using

a soft computing-fuzzy inference system
Mostafa Baghsheikhi, Hoseyn Sayyaadi*
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering-Energy Division, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, P.O. Box: 19395-1999, No. 15-19, Pardis St., Mollasadra Ave., Vanak
Sq., Tehran 1999 143344, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Because of the non-linear and non-explicit relationships between system parameters and incomplete
Received 14 March 2016 and/or complicated mathematical model, iterative approaches that work based on the experts' knowl-
Received in revised form edge to optimize or improve complex energy systems. Main focus on this study was to encode the
13 August 2016
iterative approach in the form of a fuzzy inference system, FIS, to maximize prot of a power plant
Accepted 14 August 2016
Available online 29 August 2016
through controlling the effective operating parameters, while the load of a power plant is changed. As a
benchmark power station, a 250 MW unit in the Shahid-Rajaei steam power was considered for opti-
mization. The prots of the power plant at various loads were estimated using exergoeconomic analysis;
Keywords:
Soft computing optimization tools
then, it was optimized through optimal regulating the ow rates of extracted steam from the high and
Power plant feed-water heaters low pressure turbines in an iterative procedure. The FIS worked based on the magnitude of the cost of
Fuzzy inference system exergy destruction of feed-water heaters. The faster computation time of the FIS compared to the GA,
Iterative exergoeconomic optimization make it as a suitable option for the real-time optimization in form of fuzzy controllers. Using the
Real-time optimization developed FIS, the prot of the power plant at 100, 80, and 60% of the nominal power was increased
153.0, 322.0, and 280.0 $ h
1, respectively.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There are several interactions between sub-components of the
complex energy systems, including mass, energy, exergy, and
nancial interactions. In optimization, the designer must nd the
best inter-relationships between these interactions as well as the
foremost structural specications of sub-components. Over the last
few decades, exergoeconomic (thermoeconomic) method of energy
system analysis was developed to deal with the nancial charac-
teristics of the energy and exergy interactions. In this regards,
exergy and economic analysis are combined in exergoeconomic
approach to nd out the cost of exergy streams as well as the cost of
thermodynamic inefciencies. The knowledge of inefciency cost
formation process may conduct designer to control the optimiza-
tion procedure.
The exergy analysis has been extensively employed for assess-
ment and/or optimization of thermal power plants. Main re-
searchers in this eld were reviewed and comparisons between
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hoseynsayyaadi@gmail.com (M. Baghsheikhi), sayyaadi@kntu.
ac.ir (H. Sayyaadi).
energy and exergy analysis of some power plant were given by
Kaushik et al. [1]. Energy and exergy analysis of an ultra-super
critical power plant was done by Hasti et al. [2]. They suggested
an effort to reduce the irreversibilities of the furnace. Another
exergy based study on the ultra-super critical power plant was
performed by Yang et al. [3]. The conventional and advanced exergy
analyses were conducted to quantify the exergy dissipations of the
system and reveal the energy-saving ideas. They found that the
energy-saving ideas for both the whole of the system, and the in-
dividual component level are not in accordance with the magni-
tude of the reduced exergy destruction of the system. Egea et al.
used a black box model to nd the uncertainties in energy and
exergy analysis of a coal power plant [4]. They performed the
method for ve loads within the range of 40e100% of full power by
using the sensitivity analysis for some effective parameters. It was
shown that LHV determination was the most important source of
the uncertainty in energy and exergy analysis.
On the other side, some researches were dedicated to a com-
bination of energy or exergy and economic analyzes i.e. exer-
goeconomics (thermoeconomics). Thermoeconomic analysis of a
coal-red steam power plant was conducted by Rosen and Dincer
[5]. They showed that a correlation exists between the capital cost

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.044
0360-5442/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 869

Nomenclature Q_ Heat (kW)

r Relative cost difference
ANN Articial neural network Rimproved increase in revenue of the power plant (US$ s
1)
c Unit cost of the steam (US$ kW
1) S Entropy per mass unit (kJ kg
1 K
1)
C_ Cost (US$ s
1) T Temperature (K)
CCobjective Objective function (net prot of the power plant TRAPMF Trapezoidal membership function
US$ s
1) TRRIMF Triangular membership function
CCelectricity Unit cost of electricity (US$ kwh
1) Vl Very low
CCgas Unit cost of natural gas (US$ m
3) W _ Power (kW)
CP Condense pump Z purchased cost (US$)
Cincreased Increase in the fuel consumption of the power plant Z_ k Total cost rate of the kith component including the
(US$ s
1) capital investment and operating and maintenance
DP Deaerator pump cost (US$ h
1)
DR Deaerator
_
Ex Rate of exergy (kW) Greek letters
ex Exergy per mass unit (kJ kg
1) b capital recovery factor
EXT Steam extraction from the turbines t Annual operating time (h)
f Exergoeconomic factor Exergetic efciency
FIS Fuzzy inference system hex Exergy efciency
GA Genetic algorithm m Membership function
h High g operating & maintenance cost factor
h Enthalpy per mass unit (kJ kg
1)
HP High pressure turbine Subscripts
HPFWH High pressure feed water heater 1,2, ,28 States 1,2, ,28 for various locations of the power
IP Intermediate pressure turbine plant system
l Low D Destruction
LHV Low heating value F Fuel
LP Low pressure turbine i, j ith and jth elements
LPFWH Low pressure feed water heater In Inlet ow
m Medium K kith component
m_ Mass ow rate (kg s
1) L Loss
max Maximum Out Outlet ow
MEMFUN Membership function P Product
min Minimum
MODE Multi-objective differential evolution Superscripts
nh Negative high CI Capital investment
nm Negative medium D Destruction
nl Negative low OM Operating and maintenance
NSGA Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm st Steam
nvh Negative very high W Work
P Pressure (kPa)
PWR Pressurized water reactor

and exergy destructions. Exergy and exergoeconomic evaluation of
the Isfahan steam power plant was performed by Khanmohammadi
et al. [6]. They determined the exergy destructions and the cost of
exergy destructions of plant's components through solutions of the
exergy and cost balances' equations. The maximum exergy de-
structions were found in the boiler and a box comprising from rst
preheater, condenser and cooling tower. In addition, they showed
that increasing the number of feed water heaters from zero to six
leads to signicant reduction of the price of electricity. Exergy and
thermoeconomic analysis of a thermal power plant in Turkey was
conducted by Bollaturk et al. via EES package software [7]. The
highest exergoeconomic factor was found in turbines, whereas the
maximum amount of exergy destruction and its cost were calcu-
lated in the boiler. In the recent year, some researchers also have
presented new development in exergy and exergoeconomic anal-
ysis. For example, Akkalp et al. introduced an advanced exergy
and exergoeconomic analysis to investigate the power generation
systems [8,9]. In this method, they divided the exergy destruction
and investment cost rates of components into four parts: avoidable,
unavoidable, endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction. They
believed that against the conventional exergy-based method, this
method can nd the relationships between the components in
addition to realize the sources and magnitudes of the irreversibil-
ities. So it is an efcient method to offer the correct improvement
strategies. They performed this method into a trigeneration system
[8] and an electricity-generating facility [9]. Engine and turbo air
charger in Ref. [8] and gas turbine and combustion chamber in
Ref. [9] were the most important components of the systems to
improve the terms of investment cost rates.
Exergetic and/or exergoeconomic optimization of thermal po-
wer plants were also attended by researchers. In this regards, soft
computing techniques such as articial neural networks, ANN, and
genetic algorithms, GA, have been employed. Wang et al. used the
differential evolution in multi-objective optimization of a thermal
power plant [10]. They applied the MODE algorithm to nd the
trade-off solutions in decision making problem. They reduced the
870 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884
cost of electricity 2e4% while the efciency was increased up to
2%. Exergoeconomic operation optimization of a coal-red steam
power plant in China was performed by Xiang et al. [11]. Two
strategies of global and local optimization were used and the re-
ductions of 2.5% and 3.5% in total annual cost and total investment
cost were achieved, respectively. Ameri et al. [12] used GA and
exergy methods in optimization of steam cycle power plant and
reduced the cost of destruction about 17.11%. Optimum design of
the process variables in a combined-cycle power plant was found
using GA by Koch et al. [13]. In that research, both process struc-
ture and process variables of a 240 MW combined cycle conju-
gated with a 150 MW gas turbine were optimized. Bertini et al.
used a combination of fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm as a
coupled technique to optimize parameters of a combine cycle
plant in start-up condition [14]. Furthermore, they proposed a
software simulator to test the results in the real cases. They used a
tness approximation approach to reduce the calculation-time
and load. Hajabdollahi et al. performed a multi-objective optimi-
zation of steam cycle power plant using a kind of genetic algo-
rithm, known as the NSGA-II and the articial neural network,
ANN [15]. They regulated fteen design variables to optimize both
objective functions of total cost rate and thermal efciency. In
some states, it simultaneously led to 3.7% increase and 3.8%
decrease in the thermal efciency and total cost rate, respectively.
Ghaffari et al. represented a combination of soft computing
methods to model the dynamic behavior of a 440 MW steam
power plant. They used fuzzy rules for training the model from
eld data and genetic algorithm to optimize that. The comparison
between their model and other thermodynamic methods vali-
dated the good accuracy of the proposed approach [16]. On the
other side of researches, optimization of a 1000 MW nuclear po-
wer plant (PWR) was performed by Sayyaadi et al. in two re-
searches [17,18]. They used the genetic algorithm to improve the
thermoeconomic performance of the system in single and multi-
objective optimization approaches. Sayyaadi et al. performed this
method for a 1000 MW PWR nuclear power plant coupled with a
desalination system [19,20]. The multi-objective optimization
problem was done while the exergoeconomic and exergetic ob-
jectives were optimized, simultaneously. In another research, they
compared the conventional PWR nuclear power plant with two
similar hybrid PWR nuclear plants with the same loads from
exergetic and economic aspects [21]. Ganjehkaviri et al. applied
exergoeconomic analysis for the modeling of a combined-cycle
power plant. Exergy destruction costs of components were
calculated in this analysis. Furthermore, optimal values of design
of parameters were obtained using the genetic algorithm in a
multi-objective optimization problem [22].
Application of iterative approach for optimization or improving
energy systems is another option. This iterative procedure can be
computerized using fuzzy tools. The fuzzy tool employs the
knowledge base of expert to optimize or improve energy systems.
In this regards, fuzzy tools have two advantages. First advantage is
that it does not use a complete mathematical model that required
by GA. This advantage is remarkable in optimizing of a very
complex energy system that their mathematical model is too
complicated. On the other hand, optimization of complex energy
systems with complicated mathematical model is a very time-
consuming process. The second advantage of fuzzy tools is that
they can be implemented for optimal control of processes through
the use of a fuzzy controller. Therefore, a dynamic control of a
system in their entire working regime is possible so that the
optimal performance of a system in all working regimes is guar-
anteed. The idea of the using the fuzzy inference system, FIS, in
optimization of a benchmark cogeneration system known as the
CGAM problem, was examined by Cziesla and Tsatsaronis [22].
They developed a fuzzy inference system for exergoeconomic
optimization of the CGAM problem, according to iterative hand
calculations that were already performed by Tsatsaronis and
Moran in Ref. [23]. It was trying to facilitate the application of
iterative optimization technique by encoding the knowledge of
experts in a computer program based on a method that was
already presented in Ref. [22]. However, the method in Ref. [22]
was not presented very briey so that it was very difcult for
other researchers to continue the research and key concepts for
any developments on method was missed. Later, Sayyaadi et al.
[24] elaborated complete methodology of the FIS for exer-
goeconomic improvement of the CGAM cycle based on iterative
optimization procedure of Tsatsaronis and Pisa [25]. The meth-
odology of Sayyaadi et al. [24], unlike the method of Cziesla and
Tsatsaronis [22], does not require exact values of parameters such
as exergoeconomic factor and relative cost difference, and sum of
the cost of exergy destruction and capital investment for the plant
and its subcomponents. Methodology of [24] worked based on
approximated values for optimal exergetic efciency and relative
cost difference and deviations of the actual estimated values of
these parameters for optimal estimated values. Therefore, it could
be more suitable when incomplete thermal and economic
modeling exists as in this method, uses an approximated model
based on empirical correlations of optimal exergetic efciency and
relative cost difference. The goal of that paper was to reach an
optimum design conguration of the CGAM problem through
adjusting the decision variables, including turbine and compressor
isentropic efciencies, compressor pressure ratio, and inlet/outlet
temperatures of turbine. Finally, the exergoeconomic objective
function of the CGAM problem (the cost rate of the power as the
product of the system) was optimized from 1964 $ h
1 to 1324
$ h
1.
The traditional optimization tools are very time consuming so it
is difcult to utilize them in case that objective is an optimal real-
time response to variation of operational parameters of the plant,
i.e. load variations. Due to relativity long lags between their
response and variation of operating parameters, it is difcult to
integrate them into real-time optimal controllers of the power
plant. The objective of this paper is designing a fuzzy inference
system, FIS, that can quickly optimize the performance of a power
plant through controlling its operating variables in response to any
variation in electricity demands from the power station. The
objective of the optimal control is to maximize the prot of the
plant through selling the electricity as the product of the power
plant. In this regard, the goal is optimal controlling the performance
of the power plant over its entire working regime. The real-time
optimization was performed through controlling the extracted
steam ow rate in response to variations of the plant's load. Shahid-
Rajaei power plant located in Qasvin, Iran was considered as the
case study. In the rst part of current paper, the exergy and exer-
goeconomic analysis of the proposed power plant were carried out
and irreversibilities of the various components of the power plant
were obtained. Then, a new exergoeconomic procedure based on
FIS was applied to optimize the dynamic operating mode of the
Shahid-Rajaei power plant.
Among numerous operating parameters, mass ow rate of
extracted steams from turbines were selected as optimal control
parameters. These extracted steams are directed to feed-water
heaters for pre-heating the feed water. The FIS of this research
can be converted to a fuzzy controller that alters ow rates of the
extracted steams so that the prot of the power plant is maximum
over the entire loading regime of the power station. Hence, the
designed fuzzy system and its consequent fuzzy controller, will
control automatic valves that will be installed on connecting pipes
of turbines and feed water heaters; therefore, the ow rates of
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 871

extracted steams can be controlled. The considered iterative Table 1

calculation method for designing the FIS was as per iterative pro- Comparison of modeling results and actual operational data.

cedure presented by Tsatsaronis et al. [25]. Then, the designed FIS Modeling parameter Modeling results Power plant data Error (%)
was examined for different loading regimes of the Shahid-Rajaei _ 236.8 235.4 0.6
W Steam;net MW
power plant. Heat rate (kJ/kWh) 646.9 645.1 0.28
In summary, the novel outcome of this paper is providing the hThermal,net (%) 36.17 36.49 0.9
methodology of FIS in a more efcient manner as an alternative for
conventional optimization approaches. It will be shown that this
method is much faster in computation than the GA and it can
convert to optimal fuzzy controllers. It enables to optimize the X  T
 X X
Q_ 1
0
W_ m_ in ein
m_ out eout E_ D (2)
prot of the power plant in real-time response to variation of the T out
in
plant's load. In addition, maximizing the prot of plant through
adjusting the ow rate of extracted steams in respond to variation The equations for exergy balance and exergetic efciency of the
of the electricity demand of the power station is another new power plant's components were indicated in Appendix A
approach that was concerned here. (Table A1). The performance specications of the power plant
from this model were indicated in Appendix A (Table A2).
The calculated thermal and exergetic efciencies of the pro-
2. Case study
posed power plant are 36.17% and 35.09% respectively. The com-
parison between results of modeling with actual operational data
Shahid-Rajaei power plant in the Qazvin county of Iran con-
was indicated in Table 1.
sisting of four separate steam units with 250 MW nominal capacity
for each unit was considered as the case study. Each unit consists of
seven turbines, including three high-pressure (HP) and four low 3.2. Economic model
pressure (LP). The condenser is Heller's type with minimum pres-
sure of 0.02 MPa supporting by a dry type cooling tower. The feed- One of the major parts of the plant economic is the evaluation of
water leaves the condenser passes through three low pressure the purchased equipment cost. The purchased equipment cost is
feed-water heaters, one deaerator, and two high pressure feed- evaluated based on vendor quotations, data bank of designing
water heaters. The main fuel is natural gas; however, the power company, experience of previous project, etc. On the other hand,
plant is also fueled by the Mazut (a heavy fuel oil), alternatively. The some empirical correlations have been developed to estimate
schematic ow-diagram of the power plant was illustrated in Fig. 1. approximate values of purchased equipment costs when there are
no aforementioned sources of data. This kind of empirical cost
3. Modeling equation is useful for modeling and optimization tasks as these
equations are user-friend for such tasks. Typical empirical corre-
3.1. Thermodynamic model lation for evaluation of the purchased cost of power plant equip-
ment, Z, as functions operating parameters were presented in
In the rst part of this research, the thermodynamic model, Appendix B (Table B1).
including energy and exergy analyzes was created and encoded in In exergoeconomic modeling of an energy system, as cost allo-
the EES software. This modeling was based on parameters and as- cation of exergy streams leads to a time rate form of cost ows, in
sumptions presented in Refs. [26,27]. exergoeconomic cost balance equation, the purchased cost of
The steady-state energy and exergy balance equations for the equipment needs to be converted to the time rate format. On the
power plant's components is based on the following equation: other hand, other costs, including operating and maintenance cost
and capital recovery factor are needed to be integrated into the
X X
m_ in hin
m_ out hout
W_ Q_ 0 (1) model. A simple model for evaluating the cost rate of equipment
in out associated with the capital investment and operating &

Fig. 1. Schematic ow diagram of the Shahid-Rajaei power plant.

872 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884

_
- WhenEx
maintenance cost as per methodology of [25] was given in P;k is constant:
Appendix B (Table B2).
Finally, the equation for investment and maintenance costs of C_ D;k cF;k Ex
_
D;k (7b)
the ith component per $ h
1 is,

_
Z_ i Zi $b g=t (3) - WhenExF;k is constant:

In Eq. (3), b is the capital recovery factor assumed 18.2%, t is the C_ D;k cP;k Ex
_
D;k (7c)
annual operation time of the power plant at its nominal capacity
assumed as 8000 h. Also g1.092 considered for operating & where Ex _
D;k is exergy destruction in the k
ith
component. The unit
maintenance cost. cost of fuel,cF.k , and product, cP.k are [28]:
Another important factor in economic modeling of a power .
plant is the fuel cost. The cost rate of fuel is dened as follows, cF;k C_ F;k Ex
_
F;k (8a)

C_ f cf $m_ f $LHV (4) .

where cf refers to the unit cost of fuel energy based on its LHV. For
the natural gas as the main fuel of the proposed power plant, it was
assumed as 0.004 $ MJ
1.
3.3. Exergoeconomic model
Evaluation of the system behavior is necessary in the optimi-
zation process. Each system with the numbers of inlet parameters,
show a response that reects the system behavior. On the other
word, this response consists of system behavior, which depends on
the system governing rules. Using the rules based on the experts'
knowledge that related to the exergoeconomic specications of the
system, refers to the iterative exergoeconomic optimization
concept [23,27].
First part of an exergoeconomic assessment is the calculation of
the streams' exergy costing C_ i . The governing equation of ther-
moeconomic model for the cost balancing of a component of an
energy system is written as follows:
cP;k C_ P;K Ex
_
P;k (8b)
During the exergoeconomic optimization of energy systems,
special attention should be paid to the components with relatively
higher values for Z_ k ; C_ D;k ; C_ P;k ; rk, and lower for fk.
According to the denitions, during the optimization process in
exergoeconomic method, components with high values of
Z_ k ; C_ D;k ; C_ P;k ; rk or low value of fk being so important. As against the
previous paper by these authors that rk and fk were used to obtain
the fuzzy rules, in this paper C_ D;k was applied, because the invest-
ment costs of the power plant components were xed and could
not be changed in various loads and designs.
4. Objective function, decision variables and constraints
The objective function is the net prot (the difference between
revenues and costs) of the power plant. As previously mentioned,
the goal is maximizing the net prot of the power plant at various
loading regimes of the plant by proportional controlling some
essential operating parameters. The objective function is:

n 
X  m 
X  CCobjective Rimproved
Cincreased (9)
CI OM
_
cj Ex Z_ k Z_ k _
cj Ex (5)
j j
k;in k;out The term Rimproved represents the increase in revenue of the
j1 j1
power plant resulted from the increasing the net generated power.
Where cj is the unit cost of exergy ($ kJ
1) for the jth stream to/from The term Cincreased refers to the increase in the fuel consumption of
the component, Ex _ is exergy ow of the jth stream to/from the the unit resulted in decreasing the pre-heating of the main water
j
CI OM
stream. These two terms were dened as follows:
component (kW) and Z_ k and Z_ k are the related cost of capital
 
investment and operating and maintenance for the component kth Rimproved W_ net
W_
net;design  1000  CCelectricity (10)
obtained using the economic model ($ h
1).
  .
C_F C_P
C_D
C_L (6) Cincreased m_ f ;net
m_ f ;design  CCgas rgas (11)
After that exergoeconomic performance of the system is eval- The unit cost of electricity (CCelectricity) and natural gas (CCgas)
uated by some exergoeconomic parameters of components, are assumed 0.027 $ kWh
1 and 0.02$ m
3.
including the exergy efciency(k), the cost, exergy destruction In this research as stated earlier, the mass ow rates of extracted
C_ D , relative cost difference (rk) and exergoeconomic factor (fk). As steams are intended to be controlled as the load of the power
the purchased costs of equipment do not alter during operation and station is changed; therefore, decision variables or controlling
the aim of this research is optimal control on performance of the variables are:
power plant, the last two factors (rk and fk) remain constant; hence,
they were not used in our evaluation. Parameters used in this study 1. An indicator of the mass ow of the extracted steam from HP1
include the exergy efciency (k) and the cost of exergy destruction turbine, EXTHP1
C_ D were dened as follows. 2. An indicator of the mass ow of the extracted steam from HP2
turbine, EXTHP2
 Exergetic efciency of a sub-components [13]: 3. An indicator of the mass ow of the extracted steam from LP1
. turbine, EXTLP1
_
k Ex _ 4. An indicator of the mass ow of the extracted steam from LP2
P;k ExF;k (7a)
turbine,EXTLP2
5. An indicator of the mass ow of the extracted steam from LP3
 Cost of exergy destruction [28]: turbine,EXTLP3
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 873

These variables (indicators) could vary in the optimization

process, but each decision variable is required to be within the
range of 0.0e9.0 Extraction value of 0.0 implies that the ow rate of
extracted steam was set at its design value that specied at a
nominal operating condition by the plant's designer. In other
words, when the power plant works in design mode, all EXTs are
set to 0. The extraction value of 9.0 means the ow rate of extrac-
tion is 90% lower than the designed value of extracted mass ow
rate.

5. Designing the FIS

5.1. General specications

A fuzzy inference system was designed to regulate the magni-

tude of indicators of the extracted mass ow rate (EXTHP1,
EXTHP2,EXTLP1, EXTLP2, and EXTLP3) based on the assessed values
ofC_ D;k of feed water heaters.
In this part, fuzzy rules were developed to obtain the optimized
operating condition of the plant, Based on values of C_ D;k , these
rules regulate the magnitude of decision variables. In developing
the fuzzy rules of this plant, the components C_ D;k were stated in the
form of low, medium and high. This judgment was different for
various kinds of elements and similar elements in various locations
on the site. Table 2 shows the appropriate ranges of C_ D;k for various
closed feed water heaters of the power plant. These ranges were
guessed based on the investigation of the system behavior in
several iterations of the model made for the proposed power plant.
In other words, these values are very qualitative and estimated
based on the knowledge which is obtained during different itera-
tive optimizations. Fig. 2. Typical membership functions of the FIS for controlling the value of the EXTHP1.
The FIS determined the magnitude of changing in decision
variables based on the magnitude ofC_ D;k . Feed water heaters with
higher value of C_ D;k that were out of the appropriate ranges of
Table 2 had a preference in the optimization process. rule, high and negative very high were fuzzy values, which
Membership functions have an important role in this optimi- were determined using fuzzy membership functions.
zation approach. Typical membership functions of the FIS for Fig. 2 shows how the FIS controls the magnitude of the extracted
assessment of C_ D;k and EXTHP1 of the HPFWH1 were plotted in steam mass ow of the HP1 (EXTHP1) when C_ D;k is specied.
Fig. 2a and b, respectively. According to this gure, four member- Typical rules for controlling the value of EXTHP1 were listed as
ship functions were dened for C_ D;k as follows: very low, low, follows:
medium and high. The fuzzy value of each entry was found in
the fuzzication process by membership functions. For example, 1 If (C_ D
HPFWH1 very low) then (DEXTHP1 negative low) 1
the value of 0.375 for C_ D;k at the same time belongs to the m 2 If (C_ D
HPFWH1 low) then (DEXTHP1 negative medium)
(medium) and h (high) sets with a value of 0.50, respectively. 3 If (C_ D
HPFWH1 medium) then (DEXTHP1 negative high)
Another important part of FIS is IF-THEN rules. In the power 4 If (C_
D
HPFWH1 high) then (DEXTHP1 negative very high)
plant problem, a typical IF-THEN rule was as follows:
IF C_ D for the kth feed-water heater is high, THEN mass ow Based on the rst part of the rules, the magnitude of C_ D
HPFWH1
rate of the extracted steam for that feed-water heater should be was mapped into fuzzy values of vl, l, m and h. This value
Highly reduced (negative very high). was between 0 and 1. After that, the second part sets a fuzzy value
During simulation, it was observed that variation of the ow for the output variable. This value could be nl, nm, nh and
rate of each extraction affects the cost of exergy destruction of its nvh.
relevant feed-water heater, and its effects on other heaters are In a similar manner, other rules for other feed-water heaters
insignicant. Therefore, C_ D of each component was used to specify were set encoded in MATLAB software. The weights of all the rules
the magnitude of the reduction of the extraction ow rate. In this were set one. Complete set of fuzzy rules and membership function
was presented in Appendix C. Supplementary notes about FIS were
described in Ref. [24].
Table 2 It should be mentioned that changing the magnitude of one
Appropriate values of C_ D;k for each feed water heater of the decision variable (mass ow rate of one feed water heater) just
power plant.
affects the exergy destruction cost of the related feed-water heater;
Component C_ D;k $:s
1 therefore, it did not have a signicant effect on the cost of exergy
HPFWH1 < 0.22
destruction of other feed-water heaters. Hence, the FIS was
HPFWH2 < 0.04 designed based on the feedback value of the cost of exergy
LPFWH1 < 0.1 destruction of a feed-water heater on the extracted mass ow rate
LPFWH2 < 0.15 of steam for the same heater. Specication of the FIS used in this
LPFWH3 < 0.1
paper was given in Table 3
874 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884

Table 3 power plant. This study demonstrated that these variables have
The specication of the designed FIS. meaningful relationships with the exergoeconomic variable and
FIS name Power plant exergy destruction rate of feed water heaters.
Type Mamdani
Objective function in this investigation was the difference be-
AND method Min tween the prot of the modied system (dened as the difference
OR method Max between incomes and costs of the power plant), and the corre-
Defuzzication method Centroid sponding prot of the base designed power plant. It is clear that
decreasing the mass ow rate of extracted steam lead to increase in
the ow rate of the steam passing through downstream turbines.
5.2. Method of application This leads to an increase in the net power of the turbines; conse-
quently, the incomes of the power plant will be increased. On the
The designed FIS system was employed in the case study power other hand, this decreases the pre-heating of the feed-water trav-
station (Shahid-Rajaei power plant) to optimize the ow rate of eling to the boiler; hence, the fuel consumption of the power plant
extracted steam entering to each feed-water heater, so that the fuel and its consequent costs will be increased. The rst effect in-
objective function stays at its optimal value while the load of the tends to increase the power plant prot, and the second one de-
power plant is changed. The logic of this FIS can be used to design creases it. As a result, there is an optimal value for this parameter,
fuzzy controllers of ow control valves that located between tur- and it could be a proper objective function for the power plant
bines and these heaters. It was experienced that mass ow rates of owners to get the maximum prot. In the design state of the power
closed feed-water heaters had a signicant role in net prot of the plant, this function was set to zero. The negative value of this

Fig. 3. Flow chart of the developed FIS for optimizing the prot of the proposed power plant.
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 875

parameter means that the prot of the power plant is decreased 80% and 100%, respectively. This led to remarkable prot for the
from the corresponding prot at the nominal design condition of owners of the power plant; considering that the overall plant
the plant. The positive value of the objective function implies that consists of four 250 MW units, the total prot of the plant could be
the current prot of the power plant is higher than its nominal multiplied by four.
value at design condition. The variation of the objective function (increasing the prot of
The simple schematic of the iterative optimization process of the the power plant compared to the corresponding prot of the based
designed FIS was illustrated in Fig. 3. In the rst run, exergetic and design plant) as well as extraction indexes, while the load of the
exego-economic variables were calculated using the EES software power plant varies in the range of 40e100% of the nominal power,
and extracted correlations for C_ D;HPFWH1, C_ D;HPFWH2 , C_ D;LPFWH1 , were depicted in Fig. 5a and b, respectively.
C_ D;LPFWH2 , C_ D;LPFWH3 , revenue function and based on decision
variables (EXTHP1,EXTHP2,EXTLP1,EXTLP2,EXTLP3) delivered to the FIS as
input variables in Matlab programming. In this state, initial values Table 4
Iteration steps of the FIS.
of decision variables were set to zero. Modied values of decision
variables were suggested by the FIS. These values had a positive Decision variable (1st step) Value Component C_ D $ : s
1
effect on the objective function and fed back to the EES code for the EXTHP1 0.0 HP-FWH1 0.135
next step. This procedure continued until the signicant enhance- EXTHP2 0.0 HP-FWH2 0.175
ment of objective function was obtained or constraints of Table 2 EXTLP1 0.0 LP-FWH1 0.063
were satised. EXTLP2 0.0 LP-FWH2 0.076
EXTLP3 0.0 LP-FWH3 0.072
Objective function (US$ h
1) 0.0
6. Results and discussion FIS offer DEXTHP10.0, DEXTHP2
1.0001 ,
DEXTLP10.0, DEXTLP20.0, DEXTLP30.0
The designed FIS was examined on the Shahid-Rajaei power Decision variable (2nd step) Value Component C_ D $ : s
1
plant as the case study at three different loading including 60%, 80%
and 100% of the nominal capacity of the power plant. In the case of EXTHP1 0.0 HP-FWH1 0.152
EXTHP2 1.0001 HP-FWH2 0.169
100% loading i.e. the nominal operating condition of the power 0.0 LP-FWH1 0.064
EXTLP1
station, the iteration step of the FIS was indicated in Table 4. In the EXTLP2 0.0 LP-FWH2 0.076
rst iteration, the decision variables were set to EXTHP10 , EXTLP3 0.0 LP-FWH3 0.072
EXTHP20 , EXTLP10 , EXTLP20 , EXTLP30 ; accordingly, the prot Objective function (US$ h
1) 16.59
DEXTHP10.0, DEXTHP2
1.0002 ,
(objective function) was set to 0.0 US$ h
1. It is clear that decision FIS offer
DEXTLP10.0, DEXTLP20.0, DEXTLP30.0
variables and objective function were altered to EXTHP14.3 ,
EXTHP29 , EXTLP10 , EXTLP20 ,EXTLP30 and 149.98 US$ h
1 in 47 Decision variable (7th step) Value Component C_ D $ : s
1
steps. In each step of the iteration, the values of C_ D;k as indicated in EXTHP1 0.0505 HP-FWH1 0.238
Table 4, was used to evaluate the required change of extensions for EXTHP2 5.8461 HP-FWH2 0.114
that step. For example, in the rst step, Based on the calculated EXTLP1 0.0 LP-FWH1 0.069

values of C_ D;k , the value of DEXTHP2
1.0001 was suggested by the

EXTLP2 0.0 LP-FWH2 0.081
EXTLP3 0.0 LP-FWH3 0.074
FIS for improving the initial state. In fact, in the rst-run C_ D;HPFWH2 Objective function (US$ h
1) 85.67
was not in the suitable range of Table 2. Therefore, this decision FIS offer DEXTHP1
0.0505, DEXTHP2
0.1999 ,
variable was selected for improving in the next step. The base DEXTLP10.0, DEXTLP20.0, DEXTLP30.0
designed mode was transferred to the 2nd state while the prot Decision variable (8th step) Value Component C_ D $ : s
1
(objective function) was improved from 0 to 16.59 US$ h
1. In step
EXTHP1 0.1009 HP-FWH1 0.242
47, by adjusting extensions to the optimal values indicated in EXTHP2 6.0460 HP-FWH2 0.110
Table 4, the prot of the plant was increased about 152.98 EXTLP1 0.0 LP-FWH1 0.069
US$ h
1compared to the current prot of the Shahid-Rajaei power EXTLP2 0.0 LP-FWH2 0.081
plant. EXTLP3 0.0 LP-FWH3 0.074
Objective function (US$ h
1) 88.87
Visualization of the FIS optimization in one step of improving FIS offer DEXTHP1
0.1342, DEXTHP2
0.1999 ,
the energy system has been shown in Fig. 4. DEXTLP10.0, DEXTLP20.0, DEXTLP30.0
The FIS iterative optimizer was examined also for the load of 80%
Decision variable (9th step) Value Component C_ D $ : s
1
and 60%, and the related objective functions were obtained 321.92
US$ h
1 (in 108 steps) and 280.26 US$ h
1 (in 78 steps), respec- EXTHP1 0.2351 HP-FWH1 0.2446
EXTHP2 6.2460 HP-FWH2 0.1072
tively. The optimum decision variables for 80% and 60% loads were
EXTLP1 0.0 LP-FWH1 0.0702
DEXTHP19.0, DEXTHP29.0, DEXTLP19.0, DEXTLP29.0, DEXTLP3 EXTLP2 0.0 LP-FWH2 0.0816
0.0 and DEXTHP19.0, DEXTHP29.0, DEXTLP19.0, DEXTLP29.0, EXTLP3 0.0 LP-FWH3 0.0745
DEXTLP30.0 , respectively. Objective function (US$ h
1) 92.88
As it is seen, in the peak load (100%), just decreasing the mass FIS offer DEXTHP1
0.1649, DEXTHP2
0.1999 ,
DEXTLP10.0, DEXTLP20.0, DEXTLP30.0
ow rate of the extracted steam from high pressure turbines can
improve the prot of the power plant. In this case, altering the mass Decision variable (47th step) Value Component C_ D $ : s
1
ow rates of the extracted steams of low pressure turbines has a EXTHP1 4.2995 HP-FWH1 0.2192
destructive effect on the prot of the power plant. At 80% or 60% EXTHP2 9.0 HP-FWH2 0.0397
loads, the low-pressure feed water heaters inuence the objective EXTLP1 0.0 LP-FWH1 0.0802
EXTLP2 0.0 LP-FWH2 0.0897
function. In these loads, the objective function is improved by
EXTLP3 0.0 LP-FWH3 0.0779
decreasing the ow rate of extracted steams from both high and Objective function (US$ h
1) 152.98
low pressure turbines. Error
Assuming the annual operating time of 8000 h, for each 250MW One of the constraint was violated.
unit of the Shahid-Rajaei power plant, the total prot of 2242080, FIS offer Go back to the last design (step 47th) as
optimum design
2575360 and 1223840 US $ were obtained for the loading of 60%,
876 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884

Fig. 4. Visualization of the rst iteration in the optimization process.

Fig. 5a indicates that the maximum increasing prot from the
base design power plant was obtained when the load of the power
plant is 80% of the nominal load.
According to Fig. 5b, for obtaining the maximum prot at every
load, the extraction mass ow of the LP3 turbine should not be
changed from the corresponding value of the designed system.
However, the extraction mass ow of the HP2 should be changed to
90% of the related corresponding values of the designed system for
all loading prole of the power plant. The mass ow rates of other
extractions, should be 90% of the corresponding values of the
designed system, while the load increased up to 80% of full load; at
higher loads (>80%), those extractions should be adjusted to values
indicated in Fig. 5b.
7. Assessment of the FIS
To validate the quality and accuracy of the results obtained by
this method, the genetic algorithm, GA, was employed to nd the
optimum state in EES software. The defaults tuning parameters of
the GA sub-program of the EES software were used to nd the
optimum regulation of the ow rates of the extracted steams (de-
cision variables of this research). The performances of the GA and
FIS to nd the optimal operating conditions of the Shahid-Rajaei
power plant at different loading condition were compared in
Tables 5 and 6.
Comparison of the results of Tables 5 and 6 reveals that the FIS is
faster than GA. In addition, the accuracy of the FIS is more than the
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 877

Table 7
GA result in various numbers of individuals.

Load 100% Load 80% Load 60%

No. of individuals 16 100 16 100 16 100

Objective function ($ h
1) 151.21 151.82 309.82 317.6 273.4 276.6
Convergence time (s) 321.9 1054.4 314.3 2065.1 317.2 2110.9

100. The effect of the number of individuals on the convergence

Fig. 5. Variation of (a) increasing the prot; (b) extraction indexes at various loads of
the power plant.
GA. It is clear that the tuning of the input parameters to reduce the
consumed time of the GA, lead to the less accurate results. For a
higher accuracy, the GA must be tuned with another value, for
example, number of individuals should be increased to say 50 or
time of the GA method was shown in Table 7.
As it is seen, increasing the number of individuals for higher
accuracy to nd the optimal value of the objective function, leads to
drastic increasing of the computation time; by the way, the accu-
racy of the GA is still lower than the FIS (compare the value of the
objective function of Table 7 with corresponding values of Table 5).
It was seen that the corresponding CPU time of the GA is
1573e2790 times of the corresponding CPU time of the FIS. On the
other hand, the FIS has the capability to transform into a fuzzy
controller that can be installed with ow control valves located
between turbines and feed-water heaters. This can control pro-
cesses of steam extraction for a higher prot real time. Such po-
tential does not exist in optimization algorithms like GA. Therefore,
the FIS approach is suitable tool for the real-time optimization.
From the presented results of this paper, it can be found that the
fuzzy inference system is a powerful tool to be implemented for
process control of thermal systems, especially complex energy
systems such as steam power plants. High convergence speed and
exact results of this method make it a favorite tool for researchers.
The desired results from the FIS require a complete and
adequate knowledge base for developing fuzzy rules and shape of
membership functions. Such knowledge base may come from the
Experts' experiences and knowledge of the experts since, well
dening the fuzzy rules and membership functions has a signicant
effect on the performance of the FIS.
8. Conclusion
Exergoeconomic is a powerful tool in the demonstration of the

Table 5
Results of the FIS.

Extraction no. Load 100% Load 80% Load 60%

Extracted Objective Extracted Objective Extracted Objective

steam (kg s
1) function ($ h
1) steam (kg s
1) function ($ h
1) steam (kg s
1) function ($ h
1)

HP1 4.3 152.98 9.0 321.92 9.0 280.26

HP2 9.0 9.0 9.0
LP1 0.0 9.0 9.0
LP2 0.0 9.0 9.0
LP3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Convergence time (s) 0.67 0.79 0.49

Table 6
Results of the GA.

Extraction no. Load 100% Load 80% Load 60%

Extracted Objective Extracted Objective Extracted Objective

steam (kg s
1) function ($ h
1) steam (kg s
1) function ($ h
1) steam (kg s
1) function ($ h
1)

HP1 5.71 151.21 9.0 309.82 9.0 273.4

HP2 8.99 9.0 9.0
LP1 0.22 9.0 9.0
LP2 0.09 9.0 9.0
LP3 0.5 9.0 9.0
No. of individuals 16 16 16
Generation number 128 128 128
Max. mutation rate 0.2625 0.2625 0.2625
Convergence time (s) 321.9 314.3 317.2
878 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884

cost resources of a plant. It could be used in the optimization
procedure of complex energy systems. Steam power plant is a kind
of complex energy system that optimization concept refers to a
better state than current condition. Because of the incomplete or
the complicated mathematical model of this kind of energy sys-
tems, experts' knowledge and experiences plays an important role
in optimization of this kind of problems. This kind of knowledge
base can be encoded to fuzzy inference systems, FIS, to optimize or
improve system iteratively.
In this paper, an FIS as a new optimizing tool was introduced and
implemented on a 250 MW unit of the Shahid-Rajaei thermal po-
wer plant as a case study. The dynamic operation of the power plant
was controlled through regulating the mass ow rates of extracted
steam from the turbines toward feed-water heaters. The objective
of the optimization was the prot that power plant can acquire due
to altering these operating parameters (ow rates of extracted
steams).
The FIS was developed based on our knowledge regarding the
exergoeconomic performance and features of the proposed power
plant. This FIS was developed to regulate the mass ow rates of
extracted steams so that the prot of the plant through reduction of
the cost of exergy destruction of feed-water heaters to be maxi-
mized. Applying this method led to an increase of the annual net
prot of the power plant (for each unit) about 2242080 US$,
2575360 US$ and 1223840 US$ at 60%, 80% and 100% of full load
(nominal load), respectively.
It was shown that the FIS tool is much faster and more accurate
than the genetic algorithm, GA. In addition, it was discussed that
the FIS tool has the capability to be used in designing fuzzy con-
trollers that could be used in installed ow control valves of
extracted steams. Such potential does not exist in GA tool. The
computation time of the new approach (the FIS system) was
1573e2790 times faster than the genetic algorithms; making it a
suitable tool for the real-time optimization.
It can be concluding that the FIS is very efcient tool for real-
time optimal response to variation of operating condition of an
energy system due to its very fast convergence compared to con-
ventional optimizers. In case of power plants, it would be imple-
mented as fuzzy controllers to control actuators of controlling
valves as well as other controllers. Nevertheless, the performance
of the FIS strongly depends on a knowledge base developed based
on experts' experience and exergoeconomic knowledge. Such
knowledge bases are essential to obtain the accurate fuzzy rules
and suitable shapes of membership functions. By applying the
ANFIS method in forthcoming researches, the development process
of fuzzy rules might be more automated.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge fertile scientic support of
Mr. Abdollah Mehrpanahi.
Appendix A. Thermodynamic equations and data
Exergy balance equation (Eq. (2)) was applied to each compo-
nent of the proposed power plant (illustrated in Fig. 1). In addition,
based on exergetic analysis, the exergetic efciency analysis was
performed on each component. Therefore, exergy balance equa-
tions and expressions of the exergetic efciency for each compo-
nent were summarized in Table A1.

Table A1
The equations of exergy balance and exergy efciency of the component.

Control volume Exergy balance equation Exergy efciency

D Ex_
W
Ex_st
1
Ex_st
2
Ex_st
4
_W

Ex E_ HPT1 Ex_1
Ex_2
Ex_4
st st st

D Ex_
W
Ex_st _st _st _W E_ HPT2
5
Ex6
Ex6
o
Ex Ex_5
Ex_6
Ex_6
o
st st st

D Ex_
W
Ex_st _st _st _W E_ HPT3
6
o
Ex8
Ex8
o
Ex Ex_6
o
Ex_8
Ex_8
o
st st st

D Ex_
W
Ex_st _st _st _W E_ LPT1
8
o
Ex10
Ex10
o
E x Ex_8
o
Ex_10
Ex_10
o
st st st
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 879

Table A1 (continued )

Control volume Exergy balance equation Exergy efciency

D Ex_
W
Ex_st
10
o
Ex_st
12
Ex_st
12
o
Ex _W E_ LPT2 Ex_10
o
Ex_12
Ex_12
o
st st st

D Ex_
W
Ex_st _st _st _W E_ LPT3
12
o
E x14
E x14
o
Ex Ex_12
o
Ex_14
Ex_14
o
st st st

D Ex_
_W E_ LPT4
W
Ex_st _st
14
o
E x16
E x Ex_14
o
Ex_16
st st

Ex_st _st _st e

28 Ex16
Ex17
o
D
Ex_ Cold water _

Ex Hot water
E_ Condenser

Ex_17
Ex_17
o
D st st
Ex_st _st _W E_ C:P:
17
o
E x17 E x Ex_
W

Ex_18
Ex_17
D st st
Ex_st _st _st _st _st _
17
E x18 E x15
o E x27
o
E x28 E LPFWH3 Ex_15
o Ex_27
o
Ex_28
st st st

Ex_19
Ex_18
D st st
Ex_st _st _st _st _st _
18
E x19 E x13
o E x26
o
E x27 E LPFWH2 Ex_13
o Ex_26
o
Ex_27
st st st

Ex_20
Ex_19
st st
Ex_st _st _st _st _D
19
E x20 E x11
o
E x26 E LPFWH1 Ex_11
o
Ex_26
st st

D
 
Ex_st _st _st _st _
20 E x9
o E x25
o
E x21
o E Deaerator
m_ 20
Ex_21
o
Ex_20
st st
m_ 21
o
 
m_ 21
o
m_ 20
Ex_25
o Ex_9
o
Ex_21
o
st st st
m_ 21
o

Ex_21
Ex_21
o
D st st
Ex_st _st _W E_ D:P:
21
o
E x21 E x Ex_
W

Ex_22
Ex_21
D st st
Ex_st _st _st _st _st _
21
E x22 E x7
o E x24
o
E x25 E HPFWH2 Ex_7
o Ex_24
o
Ex_25
st st st

Ex_23
Ex_22
D st st
Ex_st _st _st _st _
22
E x23 E x3
o
E x24 EHPFWH1 Ex_3
o
Ex_24
st st

(continued on next page)

880 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884

Table A1 (continued )

Control volume Exergy balance equation Exergy efciency

Ex_1
Ex_23 Ex_5
Ex_4

D st st st st
Ex_st
23
Ex_st
1 Ex_st
4
Ex_st
5 Ex_fuel E_ Boiler Ex_fuel

In using exergy balances and expression of exergetic efciency Appendix B. Exergoeconomic equations and economic data
indicated in Table A1, it is necessary to have thermodynamic states
and properties at various locations indicated by numbers in Fig. 1. In the economic analysis of the power plant, it is required to
These required data were presented in Table A2. have the purchased cost of various equipment. The purchased costs

Table A2
Thermodynamic properties at different states and results of the exergy analysis of various components of the Shahid-Rajaei power plant.

Component Type State (as per Fig. 1) s (kJ kg
1 K
1) h (kJ kg
1) m_ (kg s
1) T (K) P (MPa) ex (kJ kg
1) exD (kJ kg
1) hex(%)
Boiler Input 23 2.667 1042 214.8 513.7 17.38 53497 355754 47
Output 1 6.515 3425 214.8 811.2 14.19 319564
Input 4 6.612 3096 196.8 622.8 3.779 222277
Output 5 7.27 3537 196.8 811.2 3.475 270578
HP1 Input 1 6.515 3425 214.8 811.2 14.19 319564 6855 91
Output 2 6.612 3096 17.455 622.8 3.779 9710
Output 4 6.612 3096 196.8 622.8 3.779 222277
HP2 Input 5 7.270 3537 196.8 811.2 3.475 270578 1906 96
Output 6 7.302 3327 11.91 707.9 1.753 13750
Output 6-o 7.302 3327 184.9 707.9 1.753 213580
HP3 Input 6-o 7.302 3327 184.9 707.9 1.753 213580 1451 97
Output 8 7.328 3097 11.81 592.2 0.7559 10827
Output 8-o 7.328 3097 11.81 592.2 0.7559 158717
LP1 Input 8-o 7.328 3097 173.13 592.2 0.7559 158717 3747 91
Output 10 7.383 2883 5.9478 481.2 0.2776 4080
Output 10-o 7.383 2883 167.18 481.2 0.2776 114688
LP2 Input 10-o 7.383 2883 167.18 481.2 0.2776 114688 1641 92
Output 12 7.416 2766 6.796 419.8 0.146 3802
Output 12-o 7.416 2766 160.4 419.8 0.146 89714
LP3 Input 12-o 7.416 2766 160.4 419.8 0.146 89714 1515 93
Output 14 7.447 2631 6.127 360.4 0.063 2543
Output 14-o 7.447 2631 154.26 360.4 0.063 64015
LP4 Input 14-o 7.447 2631 154.26 360.4 0.063 64015 2010 93
Output 16 7.491 2468 154.26 332.9 0.01967 36881
Condenser Input 16 7.491 2468 154.26 332.9 0.01967 36881 6109 e
Input 28 1.139 357.5 18.87 358.5 0.05865 358.1
Output 17 0.829 251.4 173.8 333 1.137 1547
LPFWH3 Input 17 0.829 251.4 173.8 333 1.137 1547 607.3 76
Output 18 1.084 339 173.8 354 0.9239 3512
Input 15 7.471 2631 6.127 359 0.05985 2500
Input 27 1.401 454.8 12.74 381.6 0.1359 497.6
Output 28 1.139 357.5 18.87 358.5 0.05865 425.4
LPFWH2 Input 18 1.084 339 173.8 354 0.9239 3512 627.5 82
Output 19 1.341 432.7 173.8 376.3 0.8315 6469
Input 13 7.439 2766 6.796 419.5 0.1387 3754
Input 26 1.619 540.2 5.9478 401.7 0.2584 358.5
Output 27 1.401 454.8 12.74 381.6 0.1359 528.8
LPFWH1 Input 19 1.341 432.7 173.8 376.3 0.8315 6469 519.6 86
Output 20 1.550 513.2 173.8 395.3 0.7483 9619
Input 11 7.406 2883 5.9478 480.9 0.2637 4039
Output 26 1.619 540.2 5.9478 401.7 0.2584 368.6
Deaerator Input 20 1.550 513.2 173.8 395.3 0.7483 9619 1790 84
Output 9 7.333 3097 11.81 592.1 0.7483 10811
Input 25 2.368 863 29.36 475.5 1.632 4741
Output 21 2.012 724.8 215.5 442.2 17.73 27891
HPFWH2 Input 21 2.012 724.8 215.47 442.2 17.73 27891 1493 88
Output 22 2.342 876.2 215.47 477 17.55 39318
Input 7 7.325 3327 11.91 707.3 1.665 13667
Input 24 2.748 1051 17.455 516.1 3.519 4127
Output 25 2.368 863 29.36 475.4 1.632 4875
HPFWH1 Input 22 2.342 876.2 215.47 477 17.55 39318 1186 82
Output 23 2.677 1042 215.47 513.7 17.38 53497
Input t 3 6.634 3096 17.455 621 3.59 19596
Output 24 2.748 1051 17.455 516.1 3.519 4230
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 881

of equipment that are illustrated in Fig. 1 were indicated in

Table B1.
Exergoeconomic cost balance equation (Eq. (5)) along with
auxiliary cost equations (F and P rules) were applied to each
component of the proposed power plant (illustrated in Fig. 1) and

Table B1
Equations of the purchased cost of major components of the power plant.

Element Equation Ref.

Boiler ZBoiler a1 m_ boiler 4p 4T 4h 4SH=RSH

a2 [15]
!   !
Pe
P e 1
h1 a4 Te
T e
4p exp ; 4h 1 ; 4T 1 a5 exp
a3 1
h1 a6

Te
TiSH m_ T
TiRSH
4SH=RSH 1 RSH : eRSH
Te m_ boiler TeRSH
T e 593+ C; P e 28bar; h1 0:9; a1 208582$kg
1 s
1
a2 0:8; a3 150bar; a4 7; a5 5; a6 10:42+ C
Condenser Q_ [15]
ZCond a61 $ cond a62 :m_ CW 70:5$Q_ cond 
0:6936$LnT CW
Tb 2:1898
k$DTin
a61 280:74$m
2 ; a62 746$kg
1 s
1 ; k 2200Wm
2 K
1
FWH !0:1 [29]
ZFWH 1000  0:02  3:3  Q 1
TTTD;i a  10DPt
0:08  10DPs
0:04 *

Turbine     !3  [29]
1
886 1
hTr
ZTurb 3000  1 5  exp T10:42  1 1
hT;i  WT0:7 **

Pump  !3  [29]
ZPump 378  1 1
0:808  B0:71 ***
1
hP;i

*Q is the rate of heat transfer in the FWH (kW); T TTD the difference between the saturated temperature of the steam extracted from the turbine and the temperature of the
outlet feed water in FWH (oC); DPt and DPs are the pressure drop of the feed water and the extraction steam of the FWH, respectively (MPa).
a6 for FWH1-2, and a4 for others.
** hTis the isentropic efciency of the turbine section; W is the output power (kW).
hTr0.95 for HP turbine, and hTr0.85 for others.
*** hPis the isentropic efciency of the pump; B the exergy of the product of the pump (kW).
summarized in Table B2.

Table B2
Cost balance and auxiliary-exergoeconomic equations of the power plant's components.

Control volume Cost balance equation Auxiliary equations

c1 :Ex_st
c2 :Ex_st
c4 :Ex_st Z_ HPT1 cw :Ex_ W

C_ 4 C_
1 2 4 1st F
rule
_ st Ex
Ex _
4 1

C_ 2 C_
1st F
rule
_ st Ex
Ex _
2 1

c5 :Ex_st _st _st _ _W

5
c6 :Ex6
c6
o :Ex6
o Z HPT2 cw :E x C_ 6 C_
5st F
rule
_ st Ex
Ex _
6 5

C_ 6
o C_
5st F
rule
_ st
Ex _
Ex
6
o 5

c6
o :Ex_st _st _st _ _W

6
o
c8 :E x8
c8
o :E x8
o Z HPT3 cw :Ex C_ 8 C_
6
o F
rule
_ st Ex
Ex _ st
8 6
o

C_ 8
o C_
6
o F
rule
_ st
Ex _ st
Ex
8
o 6
o

c8
o :Exst _st _st _ _W

8
o
c10 :Ex10
c10
o :E x10
o Z LPT1 cw :E x
C_ 10
o C_
8
o F
rule
_ st
Ex _ st
Ex
10
o 8
o

C_ 10 C_
8
o F
rule
_ st
Ex _ st
Ex
10 8
o

(continued on next page)

882 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884

Table B2 (continued )

Control volume Cost balance equation Auxiliary equations

c10
o :Exst
c12 :Ex_st _st _ _W

12
c12
o :Ex12
o Z LPT2 cw :E x C_ 12
o C_
10
o 10
o F
rule
_ st
Ex _ st
Ex
12
o 10
o

C_ 12 C_
10
o F
rule
_ st
Ex _ st
Ex
12 10
o

c12
o :Exst _st _st _ _W

12
o
c14 :E x14
c14
o :Ex14
o Z LPT3 cw :E x
C_ 14
o C_
12
o F
rule
_ st
Ex _ st
Ex
14
o 12
o

C_ 14 C_
12
o F
rule
_ st
Ex _ st
Ex
14 12
o

c14
o :Exst _st _ _W C_ 16 C_ 14
o

14
o
c16 :E x16 Z LPT4 cw :Ex _ st
Ex
_ st
Ex
F
rule
16 14
o

c28 :Ex_st _st _st _

28 c16 :Ex16
c17
o :E x17
o Z Condenser C_ 16 C_
17
o F
rule
cHot water :Ex_Hot water
cCold water :Ex_Cold water _ st
Ex _ st
Ex
16 17
o
c17
o :ex17
o
c28 :ex28 c17
o :ex17
o
c16 :ex16

ex17
o
ex28 ex17
o
ex16

cw :Ex_W Z_ C:P c17 :Ex_st _st

17
c17
o :E x17
o

c15
o :Ex_st _st _st _ F
rule

15
o c27
o :E x27
o
c28 :Ex28 Z LPFWH3
c18 :Ex_st _st c28 :ex28
c15
0 :ex15
o c28 :ex28
c27
0 :ex27
o
18
c17 :Ex17
ex28
ex15
o ex28
ex27
o
c27
o c27

c13
o :Ex_st _st _st _ F
rule

13
o c26
o :E x26
o
c27 :Ex27 Z LPFWH2
c19 :Ex_st _st c27 :ex27
c13
0 :ex13
o c27 :ex27
c26
0 :ex26
o
19
c18 :Ex18
ex27
ex13
o ex27
ex26
o
c26
o c26

c11
o :Ex_st _st _ C_ 26 C_ 11
o

11
o
c26 :E x26 Z LPFWH1 _ st _ st F
rule
Ex Ex
c20 :Ex_st _st
20
c19 :Ex19
26 11
o

c9
o :Ex_st _st _ _ _st c25
oc25

9
o c25
o :Ex25
o
m9
o m25
o :c21
o :ex21
o
Z_ Deaerator m_ 20 :c21
o :ex_st
21
o
c 20 :E x_ st
20

cw :Ex_W Z_ D:P c21 :Ex_st _st

21
c21
o :Ex21
o

c7
o :Ex_st _st _st _ F
rule

7
o c24
o :Ex24
o
c25 :E x25 Z HPFWH2
c22 :Ex_st
c :E _
x st c25 :ex25
c7
0 :ex7
o c25 :ex25
c24
0 :ex24
o
22 21 21
ex25
ex7
o ex25
ex24
o
c24
o c24

c3
o :Ex_st _st _ C_ 24 C_ 3
o

3
o
c24 :Ex24 Z HPFWH1 _ st _ st F
rule
Ex Ex
c23 :Ex_st
23
c22 :E _
x st
22
24 3
o
 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884 883

Table B2 (continued )

Control volume Cost balance equation Auxiliary equations

cfuel :Ex_fuel Z_ Boiler c1 :Ex_st _st _st _st

1
c23 :Ex23 c5 :Ex5
c4 :Ex4
C_ 5
_ st C_ 1
_ st P
rule
Ex 5
Ex 1

Appendix C. Fuzzy data and rules and the second type of membership function is the triangular
membership function, TRIMF. Fig. (C1) illustrate a trapezoidal
Complete list of fuzzy rules used for developing the FIS for the membership functions (TRAPMF). Fig. C2 shows a typical
proposed power plant was given in Table C1. triangular membership function called TRIMF. These functions
are nominated by numeral indicators as indicated in the

Table C1
Complete list of fuzzy rules in the FIS for the power plant problem (100% load).

Parameter to be controlled by FIS Rule number Rule

EXT HPFWH 1 1 If (C_ D,HPFWH1 vl) then (DEXTHPFWH1 nl)

2 If
3 If
4 If
EXT HPFWH 2 1 If
2 If
3 If
4 If
EXT LPFWH 1 1 If
2 If
3 If
4 If
EXT LPFWH 2 1 If
2 If
3 If
4 If
EXT LPFWH 3 1 If
2 If
3 If
4 If
(C_ D,HPFWH1 l) then (DEXTHPFWH1 nm)
(C_ D,HPFWH1 m) then (DEXTHPFWH1 nh)
(C_ D,HPFWH1 h) then (DEXTHPFWH1 nvh)
(C_ D, HPFWH 2 vl) then (DEXT HPFWH 2 nl)
(C_ D, HPFWH 2 l) then (DEXT HPFWH 2 nm)
(C_ D, HPFWH 2 m) then (DEXT HPFWH 2 nh)
(C_ D, HPFWH 2 h) then (DEXT HPFWH 2 nvh)
(C_ D, LPFWH 1 vl) then (DEXT LPFWH 1 nl)
(C_ D, LPFWH 1 l) then (DEXT LPFWH 1 nm)
(C_ D, LPFWH 1 m) then (DEXT LPFWH 1 nh)
(C_ D, LPFWH 1 h) then (DEXT LPFWH 1 nvh)
(C_ D, LPFWH 2 vl) then (DEXT LPFWH 2 nl)
(C_ D, LPFWH 2 l) then (DEXT LPFWH 2 nm)
(C_ D, LPFWH 2 m) then (DEXT LPFWH 2 nh)
(C_ D, LPFWH 2 h) then (DEXT LPFWH 2 nvh)
(C_ D, LPFWH 3 vl) then (DEXT LPFWH 3 nl)
(C_ D, LPFWH 3 l) then (DEXT LPFWH 3 nm)
(C_ D, LPFWH 3 m) then (DEXT LPFWH 3 nh)
(C_ D, LPFWH 3 h) then (DEXT LPFWH 3 nvh)

captions of Figs. C1 and C2. Complete list of membership

In designing the FIS system based on the rules indicated in function along with their numeral indicators was presented in
Table C1, two kinds of membership functions are employed. Table C2.
The rst type is trapezoidal membership function, TRAPMF,

Table C2
Detail of membership functions in the FIS for the power plant problem (100% load).

Parameter Variation range Shape of MEMFUN Dened linguistic expression Numerical representation of MEMFUN

C_ D,HPFWH1 [0.21 0.51] TRAPMF vl [0.21 0.22 0.24 0.25]

l [0.24 0.25 0.29 0.30]
m [0.29 0.30 0.37 0.38]
h [0.37 0.38 0.50 0.51]
C_ D,HPFWH2 [0.03 0.41] TRAPMF vl [0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08]
l [0.07 0.08 0.13 0.14]
m [0.12 0.13 0.22 0.23]
h [0.18 0.19 0.40 0.41]
C_ D,LPFWH1 [0.04 0.41] TRAPMF vl [0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07]
l [0.06 0.07 0.10 0.11]
m [0.10 0.11 0.17 0.18]
h [0.17 0.18 0.40 0.41]
C_ D,LPFWH2 [0.04 0.41] TRAPMF vl [0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08]
l [0.07 0.08 0.11 0.12]
m [0.11 0.12 0.17 0.18]
h [0.17 0.18 0.40 0.41]
C_ D,LPFWH3 [0.04 0.41] TRAPMF vl [0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08]
l [0.07 0.08 0.11 0.12]
m [0.11 0.12 0.17 0.18]
h [0.17 0.18 0.40 0.41]
DEXTHPFWH1 [0.0e3.3] TRIMF nl [0.0 e0.05
0.1]
nm [
0.05 e0.2
0.35]
nh [
0.3 e1.0
1.7]
nvh [
1.3 e2.3
3.3]
DEXTHPFWH2 [0.0e3.3] TRIMF nl [0.0 e0.05
0.1]
nm [
0.05 e0.2
0.35]
(continued on next page)
884 M. Baghsheikhi, H. Sayyaadi / Energy 114 (2016) 868e884
Table C2 (continued )

Parameter Variation range Shape of MEMFUN Dened linguistic expression Numerical representation of MEMFUN

nh [
0.3 e1.0
1.7]

nvh [
1.3 e2.3
3.3]
DEXTLPFWH1 [0.0e3.3] TRIMF nl [0.0 e0.05
0.1]
nm [
0.05 e0.2
0.35]
nh [
0.3 e1.0
1.7]
nvh [
1.3 e2.3
3.3]
DEXTLPFWH2 [0.0e3.3] TRIMF nl [0.0 e0.05
0.1]
nm [
0.05 e0.2
0.35]
nh [
0.3 e1.0
1.7]
nvh [
1.3 e2.3
3.3]
DEXTLPFWH3 [0.0e3.3] TRIMF nl [0.0 e0.05
0.1]
nm [
0.05 e0.2
0.35]
nh [
0.3 e1.0
1.7]
nvh [
1.3 e2.3
3.3]

plant. Energy Procedia 2013;37:2544e51.

Fig. C1. Typical trapezoidal-shaped membership function represented by the numeral
indicator of [19 25 45 50].
Fig. C2. Typical triangular-shaped membership function represented by the numeral
indicator of [
0.005 0 0.007].
References
[1] Kaushik SC, Siva Reddy V, Tyagi SK. Energy and exergy analyses of thermal
power plants: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1857e72.
[2] Hasti S, Aroonwilas A, Veawab A. Exergy analysis of ultra-super-critical power
[3] Yang Y, Wang L, Dong C, Xu G, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Comprehensive
exergy-based evaluation and parametric study of a coal-red ultra-super-
critical power plant. Appl Energy 2013;112:1087e99.
[4] Egea A, Sahinb HM. Determination of uncertainties in energy and exergy
analysis of a power plant. Energy Convers Manag 2014;85:399e406.
[5] Rosen M, Dincer I. Exergoeconomic analysis of power plants operating on
various fuels. Appl Therm Eng 2003;23:643e58.
[6] Khanmohammadi S, Azimian AR, Khanmohammadi S. Exergy and exer-
goeconomic evaluation of Isfahan steam power plant. Int. J. Exergy
2013;12(2):249e72.
[7] Bolatturk A, Coskun A, Geredelioglu C. Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic
analysis of ayrhan thermal power plant. Energy Convers Manag 2015;101:
371e8.
[8] Akkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of a trigen-
eration system using a diesel-gas engine. Appl Therm Eng 2014;67:388e95.
[9] Akkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of an
electricity-generating facility that operates with natural gas. Energy Convers
Manag 2014;78:452e60.
[10] Wang L, Yang Y, Dong C, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Multi-objective optimi-
zation of coal-red power plants using differential evolution. Appl Energy
2014;115(15):254e64.
[11] Xiong J, Zhao H, Zhang C, Zheng C, Luh PB. Thermoeconomic operation opti-
mization of a coal-red power plant. Energy 2012;42:486e96.
[12] Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Hamidi A. Energy and exergy and exergoeconomic analysis
of a steam power plant: a case study. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:499e512.
[13] Koch C, Cziesla F, Tsatsaronis G. Optimization of combined cycle power plants
using evolutionary algorithms. Chem Eng Process 2007;46:1151e9.
[14] Bertini I, Felice MD, Pannicelli A, Pizzuti S. Soft computing based optimization
of combined cycled power plant start-up operation with tness approxima-
tion methods. Appl Soft Comput 2011;11:4110e6.
[15] Hajabdollahi F, Hajabdollahi Z, Hajabdollahi H. Soft computing based multi-
objective optimization of steam cycle power plant using NSGA-II and ANN.
Appl Soft Comput 2012;12:3648e55.
[16] Ghaffari A, Chaibakhsh A, Lucas C. Soft computing approach for modeling power
plant with a once-through boiler. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2007;20:809e19.
[17] Sayyaadi H, Sabzaligol T. Various approaches in optimization of a typical
pressurized water reactor power plant. Appl Energy 2009;86:1301e10.
[18] Sayyaadi H, Sabzaligol T. Exergoeconomic optimization of a 1000MW light
water reactor power generation system. Int J Energy 2009;33:378e95.
[19] Ansari K, Sayyaadi H, Amidpour M. A comprehensive approach in optimiza-
tion of a dual nuclear power and desalination system. Desalination
2011;269(1e3):25e34.
[20] Ansari K, Sayyaadi H, Amidpour M. Thermoeconomic optimization of a hybrid
PWR Power plant coupled to a MED-TVC desalination system. Energy
2010;35:1981e96.
[21] Sayyaadi H, Sabzaligol T. Comprehensive comparison of PWR and hybrid fossil
fuel-PWR power plants. Energy 2010;35:2953e64.
[22] Cziesla F, Tsatsaronis G. Iterative exergoeconomic evaluation and improve-
ment of thermal power plants using fuzzy inference systems. Energy Convers
Manag 2002;43:1537e48.
[23] Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Exergy-aided cost minimization. Energy Convers
Manag 1997;38(15e17):1535e42.
[24] Sayyaadi H, Baghsheikhi M, Babaie M. Improvement of energy systems using
the soft computing techniques. Int J Exergy 2016;19(3):315e51.
[25] Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J. Exergoeconomic evaluation and optimization of energy
systems Application to the CGAM problem. Energy 1994;19(3):287e321.
[26] Maghsoodi Mehrabani K, Fani Yazdi SS, Mehrpanahi A, Nikbakht S. Optimi-
zation of exergy in repowering steam power plant by feed water heating
using genetic algorithm. Indian J Sci Res 2014;1(2):183e98.
[27] Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J. Exergoeconomic evaluation and optimization of energy
systems: application to the CGAM problem. Energy 1994;19(3):287e321.
[28] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1996.
[29] Xiong J, Zhao H, Zhang C, Zheng C, Luh PB. Thermoeconomic operation opti-
mization of a coal-red power plant. Energy 2012;42:486e96.