EWCO 10.1007 - s00366-020-01008-9 PDF

Rao algorithms for multi-objective
optimization of selected thermodynamic

cycles
R. Venkata Rao & Hameer Singh Keesari
Engineering with Computers

An International Journal for Simulation-
Based Engineering
ISSN 0177-0667

DOI 10.1007/s00366-020-01008-9
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer-Verlag
London Ltd., part of Springer Nature. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01008-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Rao algorithms for multi‑objective optimization of selected

thermodynamic cycles
R. Venkata Rao1 · Hameer Singh Keesari1
Received: 30 October 2019 / Accepted: 13 March 2020

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
This work proposes multi-objective Rao algorithms. The basic Rao algorithms are modified for solving multi-objective
optimization problems. The proposed algorithms have no algorithm-specific parameters and no metaphorical meaning.
Based on the interaction of the population with best, worst, and randomly selected solutions, the proposed algorithms explore
the search space. The proposed algorithms handle multiple objectives simultaneously based on dominance principles and
crowding distance evaluation. In addition, multi-attribute decision-making method-based selection scheme for identifying
the best solutions from the Pareto fronts is included. The proposed algorithm performances are investigated on a case study
of solar-assisted Brayton heat engine system and a case study of Stirling heat engine system to see whether there can be any
improvement in the performances of the considered systems. Furthermore, the efficiencies of the Rao algorithms are evalu-
ated in terms of spacing, hypervolume, and coverage metrics. The results obtained by the proposed algorithms are compared
with those obtained by the latest advanced optimization algorithms. It is observed that the results obtained by the proposed
algorithms are superior. The performances of the considered case studies are improved by the application of the proposed
optimization algorithms. The proposed optimization algorithms are simple, robust, and can be easily implemented to solve
different engineering optimization problems.
Keywords Rao algorithms · Multi-objective optimization · Solar-dish Stirling heat engine · Solar-assisted Brayton heat
engine · Decision making in multi-objective optimization
1 Introduction and by optimizing the proposed model, optimum system

parameters have been identified.
Due to the increased demand for cleaner production of Duan et al. [2] presented a Stirling engine thermodynamic
energy, researchers have more focused on ways of extract- model considering internal irreversibilities and regenerative
ing the abundantly available solar energy. The recent studies power losses. Also, optimum design parameters are identi-
suggest that applications of the thermodynamic cycles such fied using the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm
as the Stirling cycle, organic Rankine cycle, and Brayton and the LINMAP decision-making method. Toghyani et al.
cycle have been widely studied to extract the solar energy [3] optimized the performance of a Stirling engine system
and convert that into useful energy. Also, optimum design by applying the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm
and process parameters have been identified through multi- (NSGA-II). The power losses due to pressure drop and ther-
objective optimization (MOO) of these systems. Ahmadi mal efficiency were considered as the objectives, and by
et al. [1] presented a thermodynamic model of a solar-driven implementing the TOPSIS method, optimal design param-
Stirling heat engine based on finite-time thermodynamics, eters of the system were identified from the Pareto front
obtained by NSGA-II.
* Hameer Singh Keesari Ahmadi et al. [4] presented a thermodynamic model of
hameerkeesari@yahoo.co.in a Stirling heat pump considering irreversibilities. In addi-
R. Venkata Rao tion, they have carried out multi-objective optimization
ravipudirao@gmail.com implementing the NSGA-II to identify the system param-
eters, which give the maximum coefficient of performance
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai and heating load and minimum power input of the system.
National Institute of Technology, Surat 395007, India
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Furthermore, by using multi-attribute decision-making Luo et al. [15] proposed a hybrid MOO algorithm that
(MADM) methods such as LINMAP, fuzzy Bellman-Zadeh, combined differential evolution, genetic algorithm, and
and TOPSIS, the best solutions were identified from the simulated annealing for MOO of a GPU-3 Stirling engine.
Pareto front obtained. Soltani et al. [5] presented a solar Then, optimal design parameters of the system were identi-
hybrid cogeneration system and found optimum design fied for maximum power output and thermal efficiency, and
parameters through MOO using a multi-objective genetic minimum power losses due to flow resistance. Nemati et al.
algorithm (MOGA). The performance of this solar hybrid [16] proposed a thermoelectric heat pump system and its
cogeneration system was further improved by Khoshgoftar parametric analysis in energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic
and Ameryan [6] through MOO using the Cuckoo search perspectives. Also, optimum system parameters were identi-
algorithm. fied through MOO using the MOGA.
Li et al. [7] presented a thermodynamic model of a Bray- Jokar et al. [17] presented the thermodynamic analysis of
ton engine, which was driven by the combination of solar a hybrid power system, which consisted of the S CO2 Brayton
energy and fossil fuel. The proposed model was then opti- cycle and molten carbonate fuel cell. The thermodynamic
mized using an elitist NSGA-II. Furthermore, using MADM model was optimized using NSGA-II, and optimal design
methods such as TOPSIS, LINMAP, and Shannon entropy, parameters were selected using MADM methods such as
optimal system parameters were selected from the Pareto TOPSIS, fuzzy, and LINMAP. Yang et al. [18] presented a
front of the elitist NSGA-II. Additionally, to enhance the thermodynamic model of a dual-loop organic Rankine cycle
performance of this system further, Li et al. [8] had perfor the purpose of recovering the waste heat of a compressed
formed MOO through NSGA-II considering the effective- gas engine system on the basis of thermodynamic and eco-
ness of regenerator and heat exchangers, the temperature of nomic aspects. The proposed model was then optimized by
the working fluid, cooling water, and absorber as the design employing the MOGA to find the optimal net output power
variables. Sánchez et al. [9] presented a thermodynamic and investment cost.
model of a multi-step Brayton cycle power plant. Also, the Mehrpooya et al. [19] proposed an integrated regenerative
effect of the various system parameters on the performance 2-stage organic Rankine cycle with a parabolic trough col-
of the system was demonstrated through parametric analysis lector. Thermodynamic parametric analysis was presented
and MOO using NSGA-II on the proposed model. Arora on the performance of the system based on the exergoeco-
et al. [10] presented optimal system parameters of a regen- nomic perspectives. MOO was performed considering the
erative irreversible Brayton cycle through MOO using the product cost rate and exergy efficiency as objectives, and
MOGA. an optimum design point was selected using the TOPSIS
In addition, Arora et al. [11] presented a thermodynamic method. Starke et al. [20] investigated four different configu-
model for a regenerative Brayton system with irrevers- rations of a solar-assisted heating system for swimming pool
ibilities on the basis of finite-time thermodynamic analy- heating and performed MOO using NSGA-II for these con-
sis. The proposed model was optimized using the NSGA- figurations to reduce the annual life cycle cost and increase
II and multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on the comfort levels.
decomposition (MOEAD), and optimal system variables Dai et al. [21] presented a thermodynamic model of a
have been found from the Pareto fronts by implementing Stirling engine on the basis of finite-time thermodynam-
MADM methods such as Shannon entropy, LINMAP, fuzzy ics considering conductive thermal bridging losses, finite
Bellman-Zadeh, and TOPSIS. Kumar et al. [12] performed rate heat transfer, and regenerative heat losses at the heat
MOO of the Brayton heat engine model through NSGA- source. The proposed model was optimized using the multi-
II and identified optimal design variables from the Pareto objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) algorithm,
fronts by employing MADM techniques such as Shannon and the optimal design point was selected using the TOPSIS
entropy, LINMAP, fuzzy, and TOPSIS. method.
Zare and Hasanzadeh [13] presented energy and exergy Kim et al. [22] presented a solar-assisted heat pump sys-
analysis-based thermodynamic models for a combined tem for hot water supply. The proposed system uses a hybrid
power cycle, which consisted of two organic Rankine cycles solar collector. The hybrid solar collector uses a solar ther-
and a closed Brayton cycle. Furthermore, the effect of vari- mal receiver and air source–receiver to collect solar energy.
ous system parameters on the overall system performance Furthermore, they presented a thermodynamic model of the
was studied. Naserian et al. [14] presented optimal system proposed system and performed a parametric analysis of the
parameters of a regenerative Brayton heat engine, which critical parameters of the system. Sanaye and Taheri [23]
have resulted in optimal power output, total cost rate of the proposed a hybrid liquid desiccant heat pump system and
product, and exergy destruction through MOO using the considering energy, exergy, environmental, and economic
genetic algorithm. aspects optimized using the MOGA. Total annual cost and
13
exergy efficiency were considered as the objectives to iden- In the present work, a case study of a solar-assisted Bray-
tify the optimum parameters of the system. ton engine system and a case study of solar-dish Stirling
Ye et al. [24] presented a regression model for a free-pis- heat engine system have been considered for single- and
ton Stirling engine by employing response surface methodol- multi-objective optimization to see whether there can be any
ogy and desirability approach. Furthermore, the operating improvement in the system performance. These case studies
and structural parameters of the system were optimized to are selected from the literature. Optimization of these case
obtain maximum power output and thermal efficiency. Kleef studies has been carried out using recently developed Rao
et al. [25] presented a framework that used computer-aided algorithms [32]. The effectiveness of the Rao algorithms
molecular design techniques for designing organic Rankine in solving the constrained and unconstrained optimization
cycle systems. benchmark problems presented by Rao [32] and in solving
Rao et al. [26, 27] proposed an adaptive multi-team per- engineering design optimization problems was presented
turbation guiding Jaya (AMTPG-Jaya) algorithm for MOO by Rao and Pawar [33, 34]. However, the performances of
of solar-dish Stirling engine considering dimensionless these algorithms in the multi-objective optimization scenario
power output, thermal efficiency, and thermo-economic were not investigated. The primary motive of this article is
function as the objectives. Furthermore, an optimum design to investigate the performances of the Rao algorithms in
point was reported on the basis of the TOPSIS decision- solving thermodynamic-related optimization problems and
making method. Rao and Keesari [28] proposed AMTPG- to show that these algorithms can be used for various engi-
Jaya algorithm for MOO of two solar-assisted heat engine neering applications.
systems that work on regenerative Brayton cycle and a Car- The proposed algorithms are simple and straightforward.
not-like cycle. Furthermore, a decision-making procedure on The Rao algorithms can be directly used in the MOO sce-
the basis of average rank given by selected MADM methods nario using the priori articulation of the preferences method.
has been proposed to identify the best solution from a Pareto In this method, the objectives of a MOO problem are com-
front. bined into a single-utility function by assigning some
Bellos and Tzivanidis [29] investigated a hybrid cogen- weights (priorities) to them. However, in this method, the
eration system consisting of PV collectors and a heat pump search domain will be restricted to some areas of the solu-
for space heating and electricity production and identified tion domain, depending on the weights assigned. Hence, to
that the R32 is the suitable working fluid for the heat pump explore the entire solution domain without depending on
through MOO. Bellos and Tzivanidis [30] have proposed the weights of the objectives, modified Rao algorithms are
a solar-assisted heat pump system for space heating and proposed for solving MOO problems.
electricity production. The proposed system is driven by In the proposed algorithms, the non-dominated sorting
nano-fluid-based hybrid PV collectors. MOO was carried method and crowding distance values are implemented for
out on the proposed system on the basis of energy, exergy, handling multiple objectives simultaneously. Furthermore,
and economic aspects. the MADM method-based scheme for identifying the solu-
Kwan et al. [31] compared the performances of various tion that has the best compromise among the objectives
heat pump technologies such as the Peltier device, trans- is included at the end of the algorithms. The final Pareto
critical R744 cycle, and VCC and identified the most suit- optimal solutions reported by the algorithms are ranked
able one for a hybrid system consisting of fuel cell and heat using various MADM methods first, and then, based on the
pump systems. The comparison was performed through the average values of the ranks an optimal solution is identi-
MOO using NSGA-II to satisfy the energy demands of a fied from the Pareto fronts. Also, the performances of the
domestic home. Their experiments revealed that the vapor proposed algorithms are compared with those of the Jaya,
compression cycle is the most suitable one with the highest multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya (MTPG-Jaya), NSGA-
coefficient of performance. II, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. The contributions of this
From the above literature, it can be observed that various work are:
thermodynamic cycles have been proposed by the research-
ers to extract low-grade solar energy. Furthermore, optimum • Modified Rao algorithms for multi-objective optimiza-
design and process parameters have been identified through tion are proposed on the basis of non-dominated sorting
MOO, considering different objectives. Various optimization principles and crowding distance calculation approach.
meta-heuristics such as NSGA-II, MOPSO, Cuckoo search • Furthermore, the effectiveness of the proposed algo-
algorithm, differential evolution algorithm, and AMTPG- rithms in MOO is investigated in terms of the MOO per-
Jaya algorithm have been employed for multi-objective opti- formance indicators such as spacing, hypervolume, and
mization and identified optimal solutions using decision- coverage metrics.
making methods such as TOPSIS, LINMAP, SAW, fuzzy, • The performances of the proposed algorithms have been
and Shannon entropy. tested on single- and multi-objective optimization case
13
studies of a solar-assisted Brayton engine system and a Step 1 Define the quantity of population (N); define the
solar-dish Stirling heat engine system. quantity design variables (D) and their boundaries: lower (LB),
• The proposed algorithms are able to improve the perfor- upper (UB); termination criterion: it can be number of func-
mances of the selected case studies when compared to tion evaluations or level of accuracy required for the objective
those of the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG- function
Jaya algorithms. Step 2 Randomly initialize the population of size N and
evaluate the objective function Z (x) values.
The subsequent section presents the proposed Rao algo- Step 3 Identify the best solution and worst solution from
rithms’ working principle. the population on the basis of their objective function value.
If the Z (x) is a minimization function, then the solution with
the least Z (x) value is the best solution, and the solution with
2 Rao optimization algorithms the most Z (x) value is the worst solution. Similarly, if the Z (x)
is a maximization function, then the solution with the most Z
Rao [32] had introduced the three Rao algorithms: Rao-1, (x) value is the best solution, and the solution with the least Z
Rao-2, and Rao-3. The Rao algorithms are population-based (x) value is the worst solution.
algorithms, simple, and easy to implement for optimization Step 4 Locate the new solutions for all the population (p = 1,
applications. These algorithms have no algorithm-specific 2…N): during the ith iteration, let xv,p,i be the value of vth vari-
parameters and have no metaphorical explanation. The able for the pth solution, xv,b,i be the value of vth variable for
general control parameter, i.e., population size, is the only the best solution, xv,w,i be the value of vth variable for the worst
parameter that needs to be adjusted once the termination cri- solution, and xv,p,i be the newly located value of xv,p,i . Then,
′
terion is fixed. Therefore, the implementation of these algo- For the Rao-1 algorithm, the new solutions are found using
rithms for engineering applications becomes much easier. the following equation:
During the iterative process, these algorithms use iteration � ( )
best solution, iteration worst solution, and random interac- xv,p,i = xv,p,i + r1,v,i xv,b,i − xv,w,i (1)
tions among the population to explore and exploit the search
region. For more details about the Rao algorithms, users For the Rao-2 algorithm, the new solutions are located
may refer to the following website: https://sites.google.com/ using the following equation:
view/raoalgorithms/. The flow of these three algorithms is � ( )
xv,p,i =xv,p,i + r1,v,i xv,b,i − xv,w,i
similar, but the movement equation used is different for each ( ) (2)
algorithm. | | | |
+ r2,v,i |xv,p,i or xv,q,i | − |xv,q,i or xv,p,i |
Figure 1 presents the flowchart of Rao algorithms. The | | | |
necessary steps of the Rao algorithms for the optimization For the Rao-2 algorithm, the new solutions are located
of an objective function Z (x) are as follows: using the following equation:
� ( )
xv,p,i =xv,p,i + r1,v,i xv,b,i − ||xv,w,i ||
( ))
| | (
+ r2,v,i |xv,p,i or xv,q,i | − xv,q,i or xv,p,i
| | (3)
where r1,v,i and r2,v,i are the two random numbers selected in
the range [0, 1] for the vth variable during the ith iteration.
The third terms in the equations of Rao-2 and Rao-3 algo-
rithm indicate the random interaction among the population.
Here, the current solution xv,p,i is compared with a randomly
selected solution xv,q,i . If the objective function value of pth
solution
( is better than that of the qth ) solution, then
( the terms
r2,v,i |xv,p,i or xv,q,i | − |xv,q,i or xv,p,i | and r2,v,i |xv,p,i or xv,q,i |
| | | | | |
( | )) | | | ( | ) |
| | | |
− xv,q,i or xv,p,i b e c o m e r2,v,i |xv,p,i | − |xv,q,i | and
( )) | | | |
| | (
r2,v,i |xv,p,i | − xv,q,i . Similarly, If the objective function
| |
value of qth solution ( is better than that of the pth solution,)
| | | |
then the terms r2,v,i |xv,p,i or xv,q,i | − |xv,q,i or xv,p,i | and
| | | |
Fig. 1 Flowchart of Rao algorithms
13
( )) ( )
| (
r2,v,i |xv,p,i orxv,q,i | − xv,q,i orxv,p,i become r2,v,i |xv,q,i | − |xv,p,i |
| | | | |
| ( | ( )) | | | |
| |
and r2,v,i |xv,q,i | − xv,p,i .
| |
Step 5 Evaluate the objective function values for the new
population and apply the greedy selection process. If the
objective function value corresponding to the new solution
xv,p,i is better than that of the old solution, then replace the
′
old solution with the new solution or otherwise discard the

new solution.
Step 6 Check for the termination criterion. If the termina-
tion criterion is not satisfied, go to Step 3, or else report the
optimum solution from the final population.
In this work, the posteriori version of Rao algorithms has
been proposed for solving MOO problems. In this version
of the Rao algorithms, the new solutions are located in the
same manner as in Rao algorithms. However, the superior-
ity among the solutions is identified on the basis of non-
dominance rank and crowding distance evaluation approach
[35, 36].
In this version of Rao algorithms, the set of N solutions
are ranked using dominance principles, and proximity of
Fig. 2 Flowchart of Rao algorithms for multi-objective optimization
the solutions with each other is calculated using crowd-
ing distance measurement. The solution with the best rank
(rank = 1) and largest crowding distance is regarded as the optimal solution that has better trade-off among the conflict-
best solution. On the other hand, the solution with the worst ing goals is difficult.
rank and least crowding distance is regarded as the worst In this work, single-objective, bi-objective, and MOO
solution. After identifying the best and worst solutions, a case studies of a solar-dish Stirling heat engine and a solar-
new set of N solutions are located using movement equa- dish Brayton heat engine system are considered for imple-
tions of the respective Rao algorithm. Now, the set of new mentation and validation of the proposed algorithm. The
solutions is combined with the set of earlier solutions form- Brayton heat engine case study was presented by Li et al.
ing a set of 2N solutions. Then, the combined solutions are [7], and the solar-dish Stirling heat engine case study was
again ranked using dominance principles, and the crowding presented by Ahmadi et al. [1].
distance is calculated for every solution. Based on the new The proposed Rao algorithms are employed for single-
ranking and crowding distance value, set of N solutions will and multi-objective optimization of these case studies. The
be selected for the next iteration. posteriori approach [35, 36] that works on the non-dom-
Figure 2 presents the flowchart of Rao algorithms for inated sorting and crowding distance is implemented for
MOO through the posteriori approach. For more details multi-objective optimization through the proposed Rao algo-
about non-dominance ranking and crowding distance cal- rithms. Also, multi-attribute decision-making method-based
culation, readers may refer to Deb et al. [35] and Rao et al. selection methodology [28] is used for identifying the best
[36]. The following section presents the MOO case studies solution from the Pareto optimal solutions of a Pareto front.
and their computational results. According to this method, all the solutions in a Pareto front
are ranked first using MADM methods such as weighted
product method (WPM), Preference Ranking Organization
Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE), sim-
3 Single‑objective and MOO case studies ple additive weighting (SAW), modified TOPSIS (MTOP-
and computational results SIS), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution (TOPSIS), Compromise Ranking Method (also
Obtaining the decision variables of a system with multi- known as VIKOR), Gray Relational Analysis (GRA), and
ple conflicting objectives is performed by multi-objective Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS). Then, the
optimization. In these situations, Pareto optimal solutions correlation between the rankings given by different pairs of
are identified for the considered system, and these solutions these methods is calculated using Spearman’s correlation
will have a better value for at least one objective compared function. If the rankings given by two methods are identical,
to other solutions in the Pareto front. Hence, finding a Pareto then the Spearman’s correlation value will be equal to 1, and
13
( )( )( )
if the rankings given by two methods are entirely opposite, a1 = 1 − 𝜀H 1 − 𝜀L 1 − 𝜀R 𝜀R (4)
then the Spearman’s values will be equal to − 1. Now, the
decision-making methods which have positive correlation
value with other methods are considered for calculating the
a2 = a4 T1 + a5 (5)
average rank of each Pareto optimal solution. The solution
with the least average rank (i.e., near to 1) is considered as a3 = a1 T12 + a6 T1 + a7 (6)
the best solution. In this way, the best Pareto optimal solu-
tions are identified in this work for MOO problems. ( )( ) ( )( )( )2
a4 = 1 − 𝜀H 1 − 𝜀L 𝜀2R + 1 − 𝜀H 1 − 𝜀L 1 − 𝜀R − 1
The objective functions of the case studies and the pro-
posed algorithms are coded in MATLAB R2016b, and (7)
( )( ) ( )
computational tests are performed by using a CPU with a5 = 𝜀H 1 − 𝜀R 1 − 𝜀L TH + 1 − 𝜀H 𝜀L 𝜀R TL (8)
3.40 GHz Intel (R) Core i5-7500 processor and 8 GB RAM.
Computational results of the proposed Rao algorithms are ( ) ( ) ( )
compared with those obtained by NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-
a6 = 𝜀H 1 − 𝜀L 𝜀R TH + 1 − 𝜀H 𝜀L 1 − 𝜀R TL (9)
Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. Also, the proposed Rao
algorithm performances in MOO are compared with three a7 = 𝜀H 𝜀L TH TL (10)
MOO performance indicators, namely coverage, spacing,
and hypervolume. In all the computations of the proposed [ √( )
]
Rao algorithms, the population size is taken as 25, and maxi- a8 = −a2 − a22 − 4a1 a3 ∕2a1 (11)
mum function evaluations are taken as 10,000. The subse-
quent sections present the case studies considered in this [ ( ) ]
work and the analysis of the computational results. P =Cwf 𝜀H TH − 1 − 𝜀R T1 − 𝜀R a8
[( ) ] (12)
− Cwf 𝜀L 1 − 𝜀R a8 + 𝜀R T1 − TL
3.1 Single‑ and multi‑objective optimization
of solar‑assisted Brayton engine system Let hc be the convection heat transfer coefficient, δ be
the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, THavg be average absorber
The solar-assisted regenerative Brayton engine system case temperature, 𝜂0 is the collector optical efficiency, RC be the
study considered in this work was formulated by Li et al. collector concentrating ratio, I be the solar irradiance, and
[7]. This system is a regenerative system that is driven by eC be the emissivity factor of the collector; then, thermal
the combination of solar energy and fossil fuel. Maximiza- efficiency (ηb) and solar concentrator efficiency (ηs) of the
tion of the thermal efficiency (ηm), non-dimensional thermo- solar system are given by:
economic performance function (F), and power output (P) [ ( ) ] [( ) ]
of this system are considered as the objective functions of 𝜀H TH − 1 − 𝜀R T1 − 𝜀R a8 − 𝜀L 1 − 𝜀R a8 + 𝜀R T1 − TL
𝜂b = [ ( ) ] ( )
this case study. 𝜀H TH − 1 − 𝜀R T1 − 𝜀R a8 + 𝜉 TH − TL
The schematic representation and T–S diagram of this (13)
system are shown in Fig. 3. The Brayton cycle (with ideal 1
[ ( ) ( )]
regenerator) consists of four processes. Process 1–2: an iso- 𝜂s = 𝜂0 − hc THavg − T0 + eC 𝛿 TH4 − T04 (14)
IRC avg
baric heat addition, in which the working fluid is heated

by the regenerator from state-1 to state-5 and then by the Now, the thermal efficiency of the solar-assisted Bray-
heat source (TH) from state-5 to state-2. Process 2–3: useful ton heat engine system is given by:
work is performed by the hot working fluid by expanding 𝜂m = 𝜂s 𝜂b (15)
at a turbine (an isentropic expansion process). Process 3–4:
an isobaric heat rejection process, in which working fluid The non-dimensional thermo-economic performance
releases some heat to the regenerator from state-3 to state-6 function is given by:
and then to heat sink (TL) from state-6 to state-4. Process [ ( ) ] [( ) ]
𝜀H TH − 1 − 𝜀R T1 − 𝜀R a8 − 𝜀L 1 − 𝜀R a8 + 𝜀R T1 − TL
4–1: the working fluid is compressed by a compressor from F= [ ln 1−𝜀 ]
[ ( ) ]
state-4 to state-1 (an isentropic compression process). 𝜀H TH − 1 − 𝜀R T1 − 𝜀R a8 − k
( H ) ln (1−𝜀L )
+
h h
Let Cwf be the working fluid heat capacity rate, T1 be the
H L
(16)
temperature of the working fluid at state-1, T0 be the ambient
The three objectives of this case study are the power
temperature, εH be the hot-side heat exchanger effectiveness,
output, thermo-economic function, and thermal efficiency,
εR be the regenerator effectiveness, and εL be the cold-side
which need to be maximized, and the decision variables
heat exchange effectiveness; then, the power output is given
by Eq. (12).
13
Fig. 3 Schematic represen-
tation of a a solar-assisted
Brayton engine system and b
T–S diagram
considered are TH, TL, T1, εH, εL, and εR. The ranges of 0.5 ≤ 𝜀L ≤ 0.7 (21)
these variables are as follows:
700 K ≤ TH ≤ 1000 K (17) 0.5 ≤ 𝜀R ≤ 0.8 (22)
The characteristics of solar-driven engine system taken
400 K ≤ TL ≤ 500 K (18) are same as given by the Li et al. [7]. Those are as follows:
I = 1000 Wm−2 , eC = 0.9, 𝜂0 = 0.85, 𝛿 = 5.67 × 10−8 WK−4 m−2 ,
T L ≤ T 1 ≤ TH (19) RC = 1300, hC = 20 Wm−2 K−1 , T0 = 300 K, k = 4, 𝜉 = 0.02,
hH = hL = 2000 WK−1 m−2 , and Cwf = 1050 WK−1 . L i
0.5 ≤ 𝜀H ≤ 0.7 (20) et al. [7] had reported optimal solutions by employing the
NSGA-II algorithm, and Rao and Keesari [28] had
reported optimal solutions by applying the Jaya algorithm,
13
MTPG-Jaya algorithm, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithm. Li thermo-economic function obtained by Rao algorithms are
et al. [7] had performed the computations by taking 71.60 kW, 23.77%, and 0.3144, respectively.
125,000 function evaluations as termination criterion and Table 2 presents the three scenarios of the bi-objective
reported three optimal solutions using the TOPSIS, Shan- optimization results of the Rao algorithms. In bi-objective
non’s entropy, and LINMAP methods. Rao and Keesari optimization of thermal efficiency and power output, the
[28] had performed the computations by taking 40,000 Rao-1 solution has higher power output, and the Rao-3 solu-
function evaluations as termination criterion and reported tion has superior thermal efficiency. Similarly, in simulta-
the Pareto optimal solutions using the average rank based neous optimization of power output and thermo-economic
on the multiple decision-making methods that followed in function, the Rao-3 solution has superior power output, and
this work. Firstly, single-objective optimization is per- the Rao-2 solution has a higher thermo-economic function.
formed for each objective function independently, and In simultaneous optimization of thermal efficiency and
then, bi-objective and multi-objective optimizations are thermo-economic function, the Rao-3 solution has a higher
performed in this work. value for thermal efficiency, and the Rao-1 solution has a
Table 1 presents the single-objective optimization results higher value for the thermo-economic function.
of this case study. The Rao algorithms have obtained better The Pareto fronts obtained by the Rao algorithms in
results compared to those obtained by the NSGA-II algo- the bi-objective optimization scenarios are presented in
rithm in three scenarios. Also, the three Rao algorithms Figs. 4, 5, 6. Table 3 shows the hypervolume and spacing
have got almost identical solutions in the three scenar- values achieved by the Rao algorithms in bi-objective opti-
ios. The maximum power output, thermal efficiency, and mization scenarios. The conflicting nature of the thermal
efficiency and power output of the solar-assisted Brayton
Table 1 The results of the single-objective optimization of the solar-assisted Brayton heat engine system
Objective Algorithm εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F
Maximize P NSGA-II [7] 0.69 0.69 0.8 999.83 400.19 604.92 71.42 0.2203 0.2932
Rao-1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.2242572 71.6037147 0.227691839 0.299498228
Rao-2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.2242649 71.6037147 0.227691836 0.299498224
Rao-3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.2242598 71.6037147 0.227691838 0.299498227
Maximize ηm NSGA-II [7] 0.7 0.69 0.79 999.84 400.15 567.97 68.06 0.2376 0.3124
Rao-1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.3030783 67.86533184 0.237761329 0.314428658
Rao-2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.3030837 67.86533277 0.237761329 0.314428658
Rao-3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.3030826 67.86533258 0.237761329 0.314428658
Maximize F NSGA-II [7] 0.69 0.69 0.79 999.78 400.11 564.21 67.42 0.2372 0.3144
Rao-1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 563.26384 67.32261972 0.237706495 0.314499821
Rao-2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 563.2638437 67.3226204 0.237706495 0.314499821
Rao-3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 563.2638472 67.32262105 0.237706495 0.314499821
Bold value indicates better performance
Table 2 The solutions obtained by the proposed algorithms in bi-objective optimization for solar-assisted Brayton engine system case study
Objective Algorithm εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F
P–ηm Rao-1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.9561958 70.8469369 0.234592333 0.30924794
Rao-2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.7728871 70.83351355 0.234636791 0.309312992
Rao-3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.2243676 70.79260662 0.234768146 0.309505523
P–F Rao-1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.181059 70.78932947 0.234778409 0.309520589
Rao-2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 588.9684656 70.6947493 0.235059354 0.30993426
Rao-3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.3668122 70.80333646 0.234734276 0.309455832
ηm–F Rao-1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 564.7413096 67.59155759 0.237746956 0.314482868
Rao-2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 564.753266 67.59369439 0.237747177 0.314482593
Rao-3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 564.9051957 67.62079157 0.237749824 0.314478916
13
Fig. 6 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (ηm–F)

Fig. 4 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (P–ηm) optimization of solar-assisted Brayton engine system case study
optimization of the solar-assisted Brayton engine system case study
and Rao-3 algorithm, respectively. The Rao-3 algorithm

Pareto front has a higher hypervolume, which is 0.242236.
Similarly, the conflicting nature of the thermo-economic
function and power output objectives can be seen in Fig. 5.
It can be observed from Table 3 that the Rao-1 algorithm
has a better spacing value, which is 20.5%, 47.6%, 42.1%,
4.5%, and 23.24% less compared to that of the AMTPG-
Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, Jaya, Rao-2, and Rao-3 algorithms,
respectively. The Rao-2 algorithm Pareto front has a higher
hypervolume value, which is 0.413726.
Figure 6 presents the conflicting nature of the thermo-
economic function and thermal efficiency of the solar-
assisted Brayton engine system. In this bi-objective scenario,
the Rao-3 algorithm has a better spacing value, which is
63.8%, 66.7%, 75.5%, 9.9%, and 27.4% less compared to that
of the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, Jaya, Rao-1, and Rao-2
algorithms, respectively. All the algorithm’s Pareto fronts
Fig. 5 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (P–F) have identical hypervolume in this scenario.
optimization of solar-assisted Brayton engine system case study Table 4 shows the Pareto optimal solutions obtained
by the Rao-1 algorithm in multi-objective optimization of
engine system can be seen in Fig. 4. The power output var- the solar-assisted Brayton engine system case study. These
ies from 67.7 to 71.6 kW, and thermal efficiency is varied solutions are non-dominated in nature, and all the solutions
from 22 to 23.8%. The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms can be considered as equivalent. However, the compromise
appear to be overlapping with each other, but the spacing among the objectives is different in these solutions. And the
and hypervolume values of these Pareto fronts are different. solution that has the best compromise among the objectives
The hypervolume of the Rao-3 algorithm’s Pareto front is can be considered as the best solution. Hence, to identify the
higher in this scenario, and the spacing of the Rao-1 algo- solution with the best compromise, MADM methods can be
rithm is better in this scenario. used. In the multi-attribute decision-making scenario, the
Furthermore, these performance indicator values of the MADM methods are used to rank various alternatives based
Rao algorithms are compared with those achieved by the on their values of attributes. By considering each solution as
Jaya algorithm, MTPG-Jaya algorithm, and AMTPG-Jaya an alternative, and each objective function as an attribute,
algorithm in Table 3. The spacing value of the Rao-1 algo- these solutions are ranked using decision-making methods.
rithm is better, which is 32%, 51%, 61%, 43%, and 33% Here, each method uses different principles to rank the solu-
lesser compared to that of the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm, tions. Hence, instead of depending on a single method, eight
MTPG-Jaya algorithm, Jaya algorithm, Rao-2 algorithm, MADM methods are considered in this work for ranking
13
Table 3 Hypervolume and spacing values of the proposed algorithm’s Pareto fronts obtained in bi-objective optimization of the solar-assisted
Brayton engine system case study
Algorithm P–ηm P- F ηm- F
Spacing Hypervolume Spacing Hypervolume Spacing Hypervolume
AMTPG-Jaya [28] 0.023560521 0.241983083a 0.024322493 0.413561416a 0.039572211 0.002435598

MTPG-Jaya [28] 0.032752621 0.242146283a 0.036906131 0.413527244a 0.043054451 0.002435598
Jaya [28] 0.041441649 0.242076149a 0.033354676 0.41329259a 0.058665888 0.002435598
Rao-1 0.015979387 0.24217961 0.01931459 0.413531541 0.015913006 0.002435598
Rao-2 0.028237839 0.242212461 0.020223024 0.413725887 0.019730918 0.002435598
Rao-3 0.02417943 0.24223601 0.025163849 0.413690134 0.014324484 0.002435598

a
Corrected values
Table 4 The Pareto optimal Solution εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

solutions of the Rao-1 algorithm
in the solar-assisted Brayton 1 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 612.214376 71.603715 0.227696 0.299504
engine system case study
2 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 566.303404 67.865388 0.237761 0.314429
3 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 563.263924 67.322635 0.237706 0.314500
4 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 585.055641 70.351928 0.235879 0.311159
5 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 590.844165 70.838748 0.234620 0.309288
6 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 581.727393 70.014215 0.236469 0.312064
7 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 605.100839 71.521469 0.230366 0.303222
8 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 583.928917 70.242402 0.236090 0.311480
9 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 606.783730 71.555917 0.229765 0.302381
10 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 568.159424 68.176864 0.237741 0.314317
11 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 579.596513 69.775251 0.236792 0.312575
12 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 591.816818 70.908309 0.234380 0.308938
13 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 573.878388 69.043910 0.237438 0.313664
14 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 593.790118 71.038827 0.233870 0.308198
15 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 611.429416 71.602705 0.228007 0.299935
16 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 600.332829 71.372083 0.231959 0.305466
17 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 610.163550 71.596908 0.228500 0.300619
18 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 572.734309 68.881486 0.237527 0.313831
19 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 576.185205 69.354953 0.237217 0.313275
20 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 607.991576 71.574861 0.229322 0.301763
21 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 563.571928 67.379503 0.237717 0.314499
22 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 594.372792 71.074671 0.233713 0.307972
23 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 609.250489 71.589511 0.228850 0.301105
24 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 570.770813 68.589953 0.237647 0.314075
25 0.70 0.70 0.8 1000 400 600.982782 71.397011 0.231752 0.305173
these solutions. And, the solution with the least average rank have positive correlation coefficient values with the other
value is considered as the best solution. The ranks obtained methods are considered. The Spearman’s correlation for dif-
by each solution using different decision-making methods ferent pairs of rankings given by decision-making methods
are shown in Table 5. is shown in Table 6.
Furthermore, to see whether there is any correlation The Spearman’s correlation coefficients for all the pairs
between the ranks suggested by different pairs of MADM of decision-making methods are positive, and the rankings
methods, the Spearman’s correlation coefficients are calcu- given by these methods can be considered as similar. Hence,
lated for different pairs of MADM methods. For calculating the ranks given by all the MADM methods can be used for
the average rank values, only the ranks of the methods that calculating the average ranks of each solution. Also, the
13
Table 5 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. Rank

by the MADM methods for the
Rao-1 algorithm solutions in the 6 1 1 4 4 1 10 1 10 4
solar-assisted Brayton engine
8 2 2 2 2 1 11 2 11 4.125
system case study
4 4 4 1 1 1 12 4 12 4.875
11 3 3 6 6 1 9 3 9 5
19 5 5 9 9 7 8 5 8 7
5 7 7 3 3 5 13 7 13 7.25
13 6 6 10 10 10 7 6 7 7.75
18 8 8 11 11 11 6 8 6 8.625
12 9 9 5 5 6 14 9 14 8.875
24 10 11 14 14 12 5 10 3 9.875
14 11 10 7 7 8 15 11 15 10.5
10 13 13 15 15 13 2 13 1 10.625
22 12 12 8 8 9 16 12 16 11.625
2 14 14 17 17 16 1 14 2 11.875
21 17 17 20 20 17 3 17 4 14.375
16 15 15 12 12 14 17 15 17 14.625
3 18 18 21 21 18 4 18 5 15.375
25 16 16 13 13 15 18 16 18 15.625
7 19 19 16 16 19 19 19 19 18.25
9 20 20 18 18 20 20 20 20 19.5
20 21 21 19 19 21 21 21 21 20.5
23 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
17 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
15 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
1 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

‘M7’—COPRAS; ‘M8’—GRA
Table 6 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

correlation coefficients between
different pairs of MADM M1 1 0.9992 0.9177 0.9177 0.9711 0.5831 1 0.5954
method’s ranking for Rao-1
M2 0.9992 1 0.9231 0.9231 0.9742 0.5754 0.9992 0.5862
algorithm solutions
M3 0.9177 0.9231 1 1 0.9692 0.3300 0.9177 0.3415
M4 0.9177 0.9231 1 1 0.9692 0.3300 0.9177 0.3415
M5 0.9711 0.9742 0.9692 0.9692 1 0.4886 0.9711 0.4994
M6 0.5831 0.5754 0.3300 0.3300 0.4886 1 0.5831 0.9969
M7 1 0.9992 0.9177 0.9177 0.9711 0.5831 1 0.5954
M8 0.5954 0.5862 0.3415 0.3415 0.4994 0.9969 0.5954 1

pairs SAW-COPRAS and TOPSIS-MTOPSIS have Spear- Brayton engine system case study are presented in Table 7.
man’s correlation coefficient equal to 1, which indicates the The ranking of each solution by MADM techniques is shown
ranking of these pairs is identical. Solution 6, with an aver- in Table 8. The Spearman’s correlation for different pairs
age rank of 4, can be considered as the best solution. In this of rankings given by decision-making methods for Rao-2
way, the best solution from the Pareto optimal solutions is algorithm solutions is shown in Table 9. The Spearman’s
identified from the rest of the results in this article. correlation for all the pairs of MADM methods is positive.
The Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the Rao-2 Solution 16 has the least average rank, which is 3.25. Hence,
algorithm in multi-objective optimization of solar-assisted it is regarded as the best solution.
13

2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.296733 67.864241 0.237761 0.314429
3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.230944 71.603715 0.227689 0.299495
4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 602.433593 71.447427 0.231278 0.304503
5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 598.845172 71.309525 0.232423 0.306124
6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 603.700749 71.485596 0.230851 0.303902
7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 608.094565 71.576254 0.229284 0.301709
8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 592.338269 70.944175 0.234248 0.308746
9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 605.677823 71.534341 0.230162 0.302936
10 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 606.290427 71.546794 0.229943 0.302630
11 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 611.407011 71.602647 0.228016 0.299947
12 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 610.149371 71.596814 0.228506 0.300627
13 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 584.901159 70.337200 0.235909 0.311204
14 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 609.331128 71.590273 0.228819 0.301062
15 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 578.970619 69.701639 0.236878 0.312714
16 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 582.904502 70.138568 0.236272 0.311759
17 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 594.170711 71.062378 0.233768 0.308050
18 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 570.212546 68.504090 0.237674 0.314135
19 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 597.989684 71.270062 0.232681 0.306492
20 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 573.695806 69.018354 0.237453 0.313692
21 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 577.233154 69.489065 0.237099 0.313076
22 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 586.318400 70.468899 0.235629 0.310783
23 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 596.827245 71.212322 0.233024 0.306982
24 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 589.028441 70.699556 0.235046 0.309914
25 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.671601 70.826043 0.234661 0.309349
Similarly, the Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the system for the Rao-1 algorithm solution is highest, which is
Rao-3 algorithm in multi-objective optimization of solar- 3.13%, 2.48%, 2.5%, 0.46%, 0.39%, 0.46, 0.30%, and 0.63%
assisted Brayton engine system case study are presented in higher than that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LIN-
Table 10. The ranking of each solution by decision-making MAP, and TOPSIS), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-
techniques is shown in Table 11. The Spearman’s correla- 2, and Rao-3 algorithm solutions, respectively.
tion values for different pairs of rankings given by decision- Similarly, the thermal efficiency for the Rao-3 algorithm
making methods for Rao-3 algorithm solutions are presented solution is best, which is 1.17%, 1.51%, 1.47%, 0.07%,
in Table 12. The Spearman’s correlation for all the pairs of 0.11%, 0.07%, 0.31%, and 0.15% higher when compared
decision-making methods is positive. Solution 9, with an to that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LINMAP, and
average rank of 3.85, can be regarded as the best solution. TOPSIS), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-1, and
In Table 13, the solutions with the best average rank from Rao-2 algorithm solutions, respectively. In addition, thermo-
the Pareto optimal solutions of the Rao algorithms are com- economic function of the system for the Rao-3 algorithm
pared with those reported by the NSGA-II, Jaya algorithm, solution is best, which is 1.1%, 1.49%, 1.46%, 0.08%, 0.13%,
MTPG-Jaya algorithm, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithm. Fig- 0.09%, 0.37%, and 0.17% higher when compared to that of
ure 7 presents the Pareto fronts achieved by the Rao algo- the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LINMAP, and TOPSIS),
rithms, including the optimal solutions reported for the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-1, and Rao-2 algo-
NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. rithm solutions, respectively.
The NSGA-II algorithm solutions selected by employing The decision-making methods’ ranking of the Pareto opti-
TOPSIS, Shannon entropy, and LINMAP methods belong mal solutions obtained by different algorithms is shown in
to a lower-level Pareto front, which is dominated by the Rao Table 14. The Spearman’s correlation coefficients for differ-
algorithm’s Pareto fronts. The thermal efficiency, thermo- ent pairs of rankings given by decision-making methods for
economic function, and power output of the Rao algorithm different algorithm’s solutions are shown in Table 15. The
solutions are better when compared to those reported for ranks given by the COPRAS, WPM, and SAW for each solu-
the NSGA-II algorithm. Furthermore, power output of the tion are equal. Also, the TOPSIS and MTOPSIS methods’
13
Table 8 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

Rao-2 algorithm solutions in the 16 1 1 4 4 1 7 1 7 3.25
13 3 2 2 2 1 8 3 8 3.625
system case study
22 4 4 1 1 1 9 4 9 4.125
15 2 3 7 7 6 6 2 6 4.875
24 6 6 3 3 1 10 6 10 5.625
21 5 5 9 9 7 5 5 5 6.25
25 8 7 5 5 5 11 8 11 7.5
20 7 8 12 12 10 4 7 4 8
8 9 9 6 6 8 12 9 12 8.875
18 10 11 14 14 12 3 10 2 9.5
17 11 10 8 8 9 13 11 13 10.375
23 12 12 10 10 11 14 12 14 11.875
2 14 15 18 18 15 1 14 1 12
19 13 13 11 11 13 15 13 15 13
1 16 16 21 21 18 2 16 3 14.125
5 15 14 13 13 14 16 15 16 14.5
4 17 17 15 15 16 17 17 17 16.375
6 18 18 16 16 17 18 18 18 17.375
9 19 19 17 17 19 19 19 19 18.5
10 20 20 19 19 20 20 20 20 19.75
7 21 21 20 20 21 21 21 21 20.75
14 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
12 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
11 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25


M2 0.9969 1 0.9392 0.9392 0.9815 0.7538 0.9969 0.7577
algorithm solutions
M3 0.9215 0.9392 1 1 0.9788 0.5531 0.9215 0.5585
M4 0.9215 0.9392 1 1 0.9788 0.5531 0.9215 0.5585
M5 0.9719 0.9815 0.9788 0.9788 1 0.6882 0.9719 0.6929
M6 0.7800 0.7538 0.5531 0.5531 0.6882 1 0.7800 0.9992
M7 1 0.9969 0.9215 0.9215 0.9719 0.7800 1 0.7846
M8 0.7846 0.7577 0.5585 0.5585 0.6929 0.9992 0.7846 1

ranking for each solution is identical. Furthermore, the the next best average ranks, which are 1.875 and 2.875,
Spearman’s correlation for all the pairs of decision-making respectively. The Rao-2 algorithm solution ranked one by
methods is positive. Hence, the rankings given by these only two methods (VIKOR and PROMETHEE), but by
methods can be considered as similar and can be used for the remaining six methods it is ranked as 2 and achieved a
determining the average ranks of each solution. better average rank value. Furthermore, the power output
The Rao-2 algorithm solution has the least average of the system for the Rao-2 algorithm solution is 2.81%,
rank, which is 1.75. Thus, it can be regarded as the best 2.17%, 2.19%, 0.16%, 0.08%, 0.16%, and 0.33% higher
solution. The Rao-3 and Rao-1 algorithm solutions have than that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LINMAP,
13

2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.297913 67.864444 0.237761 0.314429
3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.228844 71.603715 0.227690 0.299496
4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 583.172287 70.166103 0.236225 0.311687
5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 586.873273 70.518379 0.235515 0.310611
6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 574.807738 69.171853 0.237356 0.313516
7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 578.664168 69.665027 0.236919 0.312781
8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 605.352794 71.527227 0.230277 0.303098
9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 580.778499 69.910018 0.236618 0.312299
10 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 607.884827 71.573380 0.229362 0.301818
11 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 569.337951 68.366906 0.237708 0.314220
12 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 609.849337 71.594668 0.228621 0.300787
13 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 611.077743 71.601612 0.228145 0.300126
14 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 593.912626 71.046465 0.233837 0.308150
15 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 592.006556 70.921474 0.234332 0.308868
16 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 601.867254 71.428603 0.231465 0.304767
17 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 594.656054 71.091656 0.233636 0.307860
18 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 608.580558 71.582360 0.229102 0.301457
19 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 572.331757 68.823037 0.237555 0.313885
20 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 588.495489 70.656374 0.235166 0.310091
21 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 604.495971 71.506779 0.230577 0.303518
22 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 596.223861 71.180471 0.233198 0.307231
23 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 571.704067 68.730543 0.237595 0.313966
24 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 600.684212 71.385740 0.231848 0.305308
25 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 565.190156 67.671340 0.237754 0.314471
and TOPSIS), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, and Rao-3 versus AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-2, and Rao-3 algorithms are 0.08,
algorithm solutions, respectively. 0.04, and 0.04, respectively. This implies that 8% of AMTPG-
Similarly, the thermal efficiency of the system for the Rao-2 Jaya algorithm solutions and 4% of the Rao-2 and Rao-3
algorithm solution is 1.01%, 1.36%, and 1.31% higher when algorithm solutions are dominated by the Rao-1 algorithm’s
compared to that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LINMAP, solutions. Similarly, 8% of the Rao-2 algorithm solutions are
and TOPSIS) algorithm solutions, respectively. The thermo- dominated by Rao-3 algorithm solutions.
economic function of the system for the Rao-2 algorithm solu- The following subsection presents the solar-dish Stirling
tion is 0.93%, 1.32%, 1.29%, and 0.19% higher when compared heat engine system case study and its computational results
to that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LINMAP, and TOP- analysis.
SIS) and Rao-1 algorithm solutions, respectively.
Now the performances of the Rao algorithms in the MOO 3.2 Single‑ and multi‑objective optimization
scenario are evaluated based on the hypervolume, coverage, of a solar‑dish Stirling heat engine system
and spacing indicators. Table 16 presents the coverage, hyper-
volume, and spacing values of the Pareto fronts obtained by The Stirling heat engine case study considered in this work
different algorithms in the multi-objective optimization sce- was formulated by Ahmadi et al. [1]. The performance crite-
nario. The Rao-1 algorithm has a better spacing value, which ria are to maximize output power (P) and thermal efficiency
is 45.57%, 32.66%, 23.72%, 12.22%, and 4.41% less spacing (𝜂m ) and minimize the rate of entropy generation (σ) of a
value compared to that of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG- solar-dish Stirling heat engine system. This system works on
Jaya, Rao-2, and Rao-3 algorithms, respectively. The Rao-2 a Stirling cycle, which consists of two isothermal and two
algorithm Pareto front has a relatively higher hypervolume isochoric processes, as shown in Fig. 8. During the process
value. The coverage of all compared algorithms versus Rao-1, 1–2, heat is rejected by the working fluid to a heat sink at
MTPG-Jaya, Jaya algorithms is zero, which indicates that no TL temperature (an isothermal compression process at Tc
solution of Rao-1, Jaya, and MTPG-Jaya algorithms is domi- temperature). During the process 2–3, heat is added to the
nated by the other methods. The coverage values of Rao-1 working fluid from the regenerator to attain temperature Th
13
Table 11 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

Rao-3 algorithm solutions in the 9 1 2 4 4 1 9 1 9 3.875
4 2 1 3 3 1 10 2 10 4
system case study
5 4 4 1 1 1 11 4 11 4.625
7 3 3 6 6 5 8 3 8 5.25
20 5 5 2 2 1 12 5 12 5.5
6 6 6 10 10 7 7 6 7 7.375
15 8 7 5 5 6 13 8 13 8.125
19 7 8 11 11 10 6 7 6 8.25
23 9 9 12 12 12 5 9 4 9
14 10 10 7 7 8 14 10 14 10
11 12 12 15 15 13 3 12 2 10.5
17 11 11 8 8 9 15 11 15 11
2 14 14 18 18 15 1 14 1 11.875
22 13 13 9 9 11 16 13 16 12.5
25 15 15 19 19 17 2 15 3 13.125
24 16 16 13 13 14 17 16 17 15.25
1 18 18 22 22 19 4 18 5 15.75
16 17 17 14 14 16 18 17 18 16.375
21 19 19 16 16 18 19 19 19 18.125
8 20 20 17 17 20 20 20 20 19.25
10 21 21 20 20 21 21 21 21 20.75
18 22 22 21 21 22 22 22 22 21.75
12 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
13 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25


M2 0.9985 1 0.9223 0.9223 0.9788 0.6277 0.9985 0.6369
algorithm solutions
M3 0.9169 0.9223 1 1 0.9734 0.3577 0.9169 0.3685
M4 0.9169 0.9223 1 1 0.9734 0.3577 0.9169 0.3685
M5 0.9757 0.9788 0.9734 0.9734 1 0.5218 0.9757 0.5303
M6 0.6338 0.6277 0.3577 0.3577 0.5218 1 0.6338 0.9985
M7 1 0.9985 0.9169 0.9169 0.9757 0.6338 1 0.6431
M8 0.6431 0.6369 0.3685 0.3685 0.5303 0.9985 0.6431 1

(an isochoric heat addition process). During the process 3–4, during the regenerative process is Cv, the ratio of volume dur-
heat is absorbed by the working fluid from the heat source ing expansion and compression is λ, the hot-side and cold-side
at temperature TH (an isothermal expansion process at Th temperatures of the working fluid are Th and Tc, respectively,
temperature). During the process 4–1, heat is rejected by the the number of moles of the working fluid is n, the regenerative
working fluid to the regenerator and attains temperature Tc time constant at the heating and cooling regions is M1 and M2,
(an isochoric heat rejection process). respectively. Heat exchangers’ effectiveness at hot- and low-
The thermodynamic model of this system was presented temperature sides is εH and εL, respectively, the universal gas
by Ahmadi et al. [1] based on the finite-time thermodynamic constant is R, the heat capacitance rates of heat source and
analysis. Let the specific heat capacity of the working fluid sink are CH and CL, respectively, regenerator effectiveness is
13
Table 13 Multi-objective Algorithm εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

optimization Pareto optimal
solutions obtained by different Shannon entropy [7] 0.69 0.7 0.79 999.99 400.1 582.33 68.220 0.234 0.3089
algorithms for solar-assisted
LINMAP [7] 0.69 0.69 0.79 999.99 400 586.87 68.650 0.233 0.3077
Brayton engine system case
study TOPSIS [7] 0.7 0.7 0.8 999.99 400 586.69 68.640 0.233 0.3078
Jaya [28] 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 581.821725 70.024 0.236 0.3120
MTPG-Jaya [28] 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 582.34926 70.081 0.236 0.3119
AMTPG-Jaya [28] 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 581.877339 70.030 0.236 0.3120
Rao-1 0.70 0.70 0.80 1000 400 585.06 70.352 0.236 0.3112
Rao-2 0.70 0.70 0.80 1000 400 582.904502 70.139 0.236 0.3118
Rao-3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 580.778499 69.910 0.237 0.3123
εR, the hot-side temperature varies from TH1 to TH2, and cold- 1
[ ( ) ( )]
𝜂s = 𝜂0 − h THavg − T0 + 𝜀𝛿 TH4 − T04 (27)
side temperature varies from TL1 to TL2, then the power output IC avg
(P), thermal efficiency ( 𝜂m ) and entropy generation rate (σ) are
given by the following equations:
( )
nR Th − Tc ln 𝜆
P=
nRTh ln 𝜆+nCv (1−𝜀R )(Th −Tc ) nRTc ln 𝜆+nCv (1−𝜀R )(Th −Tc )
(
1
)
1 ( ). (23)
CH 𝜀R (TH1 −Th )+𝜁CH 𝜀H (TH1
4
−Th4 )
+ CL 𝜀L (Tc −TL1 )
+ M1
+ M2
T h − T c
( )
QL Q where ε is the emissivity factor of the collector, h is the
1
𝜎= − H (24) convection heat transfer coefficient, C is the collector con-
t TLavg THavg
centrating ratio, T0 is the ambient temperature, 𝜂0 is the col-
lector optical efficiency, I is the solar irradiance, and δ is
𝜂m = 𝜂s 𝜂t (25) the Stefan–Boltzmann constant. The decision variables of
( )
nR Th − Tc ln 𝜆
𝜂t = ( )( ) {( ) ( ) ( )} (26)
nRTh ln 𝜆 + nCv 1 − 𝜀R Th − Tc + 0.5K0 2 − 𝜀H TH1 − 2 − 𝜀L TL1 + 𝜀H Th − 𝜀L Tc t
the considered solar-dish Stirling heat engine system are εR,

εH, εL, CH, CL, Th, and Tc. The ranges of these variables are
as follows:
0.4 ≤ 𝜀R ≤ 0.9 (28)
0.4 ≤ 𝜀H ≤ 0.8 (29)
0.4 ≤ 𝜀L ≤ 0.8 (30)
300 ≤ CH ≤ 1800 (31)
300 ≤ CL ≤ 1800 (32)
800 ≤ Th ≤ 1000 K (33)
Fig. 7 The plot of Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms and solutions

of the compared methods in solar-assisted Brayton engine system
400 ≤ Tc ≤ 510 K (34)
case study
13
Table 14 The ranks suggested Algorithm M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

by the MADM methods for
different algorithm solutions Shannon entropy 7 7 9 9 1 7 7 7 6.75
in the solar-assisted Brayton
LINMAP 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 8 7.75
TOPSIS 9 9 8 8 9 9 9 9 8.75
Jaya 6 6 6 6 1 6 6 5 5.25
MTPG-Jaya 4 4 3 3 1 3 4 3 3.125
AMTPG-Jaya 5 5 5 5 1 4 5 4 4.25
Rao-1 3 3 1 1 1 5 3 6 2.875
Rao-2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1.75
Rao-3 1 1 4 4 1 2 1 1 1.875

The character istics of solar-dish Stir- algorithm, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithm. Ahmadi et al. [1]
ling heat engine system taken are same as given have performed the computations by taking 400,000 func-
by the Ahmadi et al. [1]. Those are as follows: tion evaluations as the termination criterion and reported
𝜀 = 0.9, C = 1300, 𝜂0 = 0.9, I = 1000 Wm−2 , K0 = 2.5 WK−1 , the best solutions using the TOPSIS, fuzzy Bellman-Zadeh,
Cv = 15 J mol−1 k−1 , n = 1 mol, 𝜆 = 2, 𝜁 = 2 × 10−10 , and LINMAP methods. Rao et al. [27] have performed the
R = 4.3 J mol−1 K−1 , TH1 = 1300 K, TL1 = 290K, T0 = 288 computations by taking 10,000 function evaluations as the
( termination criterion and reported the best solutions using
K, h = 20 Wm−2 K−1 , 𝛿 = 5.67 × 10−8 WK−4 m−2 , 1∕M1
) the TOPSIS decision-making method. Similar to the previ-
+1∕M2 = 2 × 10−5 sK−1. Ahmadi et al. [1] had reported ous case studies, in this case study, also first single-objective
optimal design variables of the system by employing the optimization is performed for each objective function inde-
NSGA-II algorithm, and Rao et al. [27] had reported opti- pendently, and then, bi-objective and multi-objective opti-
mal solutions by applying the Jaya algorithm, MTPG-Jaya mizations are performed using the Rao algorithms.

different pairs of MADM M1 1 1 0.8333 0.8333 0.7303 0.9333 1 0.9000
method’s for the compared
M2 1 1 0.8333 0.8333 0.7303 0.9333 1 0.9000
algorithm solutions’ ranking
M3 0.8333 0.8333 1 1 0.5249 0.7667 0.8333 0.6500
M4 0.8333 0.8333 1 1 0.5249 0.7667 0.8333 0.6500
M5 0.7303 0.7303 0.5249 0.5249 1 0.7303 0.7303 0.7303
M6 0.9333 0.9333 0.7667 0.7667 0.7303 1 0.9333 0.9667
M7 1 1 0.8333 0.8333 0.7303 0.9333 1 0.9000
M8 0.9000 0.9000 0.6500 0.6500 0.7303 0.9667 0.9000 1

Table 16 The coverage, hypervolume, and spacing values of the Pareto fronts obtained by the proposed algorithms in multi-objective optimiza-
tion for the solar-assisted Brayton engine case study
Algorithm Spacing Hypervolume Coverage
Jaya MTPG-Jaya AMTPG-Jaya Rao-1 Rao-2 Rao-3
Jaya [28] 0.0562112 0.026508392 – 0 0.08 0 0.08 0.08

MTPG-Jaya [28] 0.0454323 0.026508835 0 – 0.08 0 0.08 0.04
AMTPG-Jaya [28] 0.0401055 0.026510432 0 0 – 0 0 0
Rao-1 0.0305907 0.026509373 0 0 0.08 – 0.04 0.04
Rao-2 0.0348516 0.026513117 0 0 0.04 0 – 0
Rao-3 0.0320051 0.026512031 0 0 0.04 0 0.08 –
13
Fig. 8 T–S diagram (a) and schematic representation (b) of the Stirling heat engine cycle
Table 17 presents the single-objective optimization Table 18 presents the three scenarios of the bi-objective
results of this case study. The Rao algorithms have obtained optimization results of the Rao algorithms. In bi-objective
the same solution in minimizing the rate of entropy genera- optimization of thermal efficiency and power output, the
tion of the system. Also, the three Rao algorithms have got Rao-1 solution has a higher power output, and the Rao-3
the same heating coefficient of performance in maximizing solution has a higher thermal efficiency value. Similarly,
thermal efficiency and power output. in bi-objective optimization of power output and entropy
Table 17 The results of single- Objective Algorithm εR εH εL CH CL Th Tc P (kW) ηm (%) σ (W/K)

objective optimization of the
solar-dish Stirling heat engine Maximize P Rao-1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 510 70.3417 31.5795 139.2852
system case study
Rao-2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 510 70.3417 31.5795 139.2852
Rao-3 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 510 70.3417 31.5795 139.2852
Maximize ηm Rao-1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.1952 36.5151 106.3605
Rao-2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.1952 36.5151 106.3605
Rao-3 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.1952 36.5151 106.3605
Minimize σ Rao-1 0.9 0.4 0.4 300 300 1000 400 8.1778 32.2944 21.9193
Rao-2 0.9 0.4 0.4 300 300 1000 400 8.1778 32.2944 21.9193
Rao-3 0.9 0.4 0.4 300 300 1000 400 8.1778 32.2944 21.9193
Table 18 The solutions obtained by the proposed algorithms in bi-objective optimization for the solar-dish Stirling heat engine system case
study
Objective Algorithm εR εH εL CH CL Th Tc P (kW) ηm (%) σ (W/K)
P–ηm Rao-1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 450.08 67.358 34.3468 123.02
Rao-2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 999.95 444.5 66.8805 34.5944 121.381
Rao-3 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 444.14 66.8484 34.6113 121.266
P–σ Rao-1 0.9 0.8 0.8 593.26 1800 998.23 402.78 48.1132 36.2282 84.9524
Rao-2 0.9 0.8 0.8 496.29 1683.6 1000 400 43.9578 36.3043 77.6798
Rao-3 0.9 0.8 0.7985 1800 1124.9 1000 400 48.0847 36.3682 84.5904
ηm–σ Rao-1 0.9 0.7838 0.4 300 300 999.77 400 9.16573 33.5788 22.6868
Rao-2 0.9 0.8 0.4 300 300 1000 400 9.1902 33.6254 22.6774
Rao-3 0.9 0.8 0.4 300 300 1000 400 9.19025 33.6254 22.6774
13
generation rate, the Rao-1 solution has a higher power out-

put, and the Rao-2 algorithm solution has a lesser rate of
entropy generation values. In bi-objective optimization of
ηm and σ, the Rao-3 and Rao-2 algorithms have found an
identical solution that has the higher thermal efficiency and
a lesser rate of entropy generation values. The Pareto fronts
obtained by the Rao algorithms in bi-objective optimization
scenarios of this case study are presented in Figs. 9, 10, and
11. Table 19 shows the hypervolume and spacing values
achieved by the Rao algorithms in bi-objective optimization
scenarios of this case study.
Furthermore, these performance indicator values of the
proposed algorithms are compared with those achieved by
the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. In this
case study, the spacing and hypervolume values achieved
by Jaya algorithm and its variants were not reported in
Rao et al. [27], but the Pareto optimal solutions reported in Fig. 10 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (P–σ)
Rao et al. [27] are available with the authors of this article. optimization of solar-dish Stirling heat engine system case study
Hence, the hypervolume and spacing values for the Jaya,
MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are calculated
and reported in this article. The Pareto fronts reported in Rao Similarly, the conflicting nature of the power output and
et al. [27] consist of 100 populations; thus, in this work, the rate of entropy generation can be seen in Fig. 10. The Rao-3
hypervolume and spacing values are reported using 100 as algorithm Pareto front has a better spacing value, which is
population size. 4.67%, 7.14%, 53.9%, 9.77%, and 21.91% lesser compared
The conflicting nature of the thermal efficiency and power to that of the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, Jaya, Rao-1, and
output of the solar-dish Stirling heat engine system can be Rao-2 algorithms, respectively. Also, the Jaya algorithm
seen in Fig. 9. The spacing and hypervolume values are bet- Pareto front has a better hypervolume value. Figure 11 pre-
ter for the Rao-2 algorithm Pareto front. The spacing value sents the conflicting nature of the thermal efficiency and rate
of the Rao-2 algorithm is 22.9%, 22.9%, 18.45%, 9.9%, and of entropy generation of the solar-dish Stirling heat engine
16.0% lesser compared to those obtained by the AMTPG- system. In this bi-objective scenario, the Rao-1 algorithm
Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, Jaya, Rao-1, and Rao-3 algorithms, has a better spacing value, which is 7.63%, 36.82%, 46.04%,
respectively. 14.31%, and 26.5% lesser compared to that of the AMTPG-
Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, Jaya, Rao-2, and Rao-3 algorithms,
Fig. 9 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (P–ηm) Fig. 11 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (ηm–
optimization of solar-dish Stirling heat engine system case study σ) optimization of solar-dish Stirling heat engine system case study
13
Table 19 Hypervolume and spacing values of the proposed algorithm’s Pareto fronts obtained in bi-objective optimization of the solar-dish Stir-
ling heat engine system case study
Algorithm P–ηm P–σ ηm–σ
Spacing Hypervolume Spacing Hypervolume Spacing Hypervolume
AMTPG-Jaya [27] 0.007155168 377.1809043 0.004979592 3205.452085 0.005293354 642.5653715

MTPG-Jaya [27] 0.007153907 377.0563188 0.005112016 3425.876856 0.007738622 647.8087429
Jaya [27] 0.006764583 377.2159593 0.010297161 3429.097331 0.009061972 649.6621174
Rao-1 0.006122898 377.3198201 0.005261152 3407.059283 0.0048891 648.403827
Rao-2 0.005516653 377.3288574 0.006078703 3429.068019 0.00570578 649.682228
Rao-3 0.006568065 377.3023644 0.004746783 3422.196955 0.006651842 649.6052863
respectively. The Rao-2 algorithm Pareto front has a better Here, the rankings given by the VIKOR method for Rao-
hypervolume value. 1, Rao-2, and Rao-3 algorithm solutions are violating the
Table 20 presents the Pareto optimal solutions obtained two conditions of the VIKOR method. Hence, the rankings
by the Rao-1 algorithm in multi-objective optimization of suggested by the VIKOR method are not considered for cal-
the Stirling heat engine case study. The ranks obtained by culating the average rank in this case study. The Spearman’s
each solution using decision-making methods are presented coefficients for the COPRAS method versus remaining all
in Table 21. The Spearman’s correlation for different pairs of methods are negative, which indicates that this method’s
rankings given by MADM methods is presented in Table 22. raking has a substantial dissimilarity with the other meth-
ods’ ranking. Hence, in calculating the average rank for
Table 20 The Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the Rao-1 algorithm in solar-dish Stirling heat engine case study
Solution εR εH εL CH CL Th Tc P (kW) ηm (%) σ (W/K)
1 0.9 0.79934 0.4 300 300 1000 400 9.1892623 33.62359 22.677674
2 0.9 0.7999 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.19404 36.5149 106.3603
3 0.9 0.79915 0.8 1800 1800 1000 510 70.327826 31.57798 139.27561
4 0.9 0.79048 0.8 1800 1800 1000 510 70.185148 31.56294 139.17467
5 0.9 0.7991 0.4 300 300 1000 449.8490597 11.111284 32.2664 28.579589
6 0.89999 0.79772 0.8 1800 723.3646743 1000 445.4687105 42.325318 34.29927 78.439836
7 0.9 0.79993 0.8 1427.562 976.4481054 1000 431.5739345 47.443031 34.9905 86.078544
8 0.9 0.8 0.69 497.7139 390.7030387 1000 454.3600797 21.900013 33.29933 45.308339
9 0.9 0.79549 0.8 1800 1800 1000 479.9931003 69.213483 32.97834 131.33435
10 0.9 0.79809 0.8 1738.576 1800 1000 427.7115655 64.794601 35.32751 115.5526
11 0.9 0.7998 0.74 300 300 1000 400 14.628503 34.86633 29.51432
12 0.9 0.79997 0.58 497.7139 390.7030387 1000 419.7168556 17.695751 34.42095 37.506443
13 0.9 0.8 0.76 764.9123 649.6838002 1000 400 29.855082 35.95379 54.936926
14 0.9 0.79992 0.55 1593.397 628.197597 1000 400 25.147235 35.73666 50.432435
15 0.9 0.79995 0.8 1014.372 963.437313 1000 400 40.827194 36.24726 72.471713
16 0.9 0.79436 0.8 1800 1800 1000 492.8259158 69.739418 32.37984 134.73478
17 0.9 0.8 0.76 1740.703 740.7823232 1000 400 35.848758 36.13454 65.049149
18 0.89999 0.8 0.75 1516.965 1239.443746 1000 417.1920475 50.507171 35.6554 91.943516
19 0.9 0.79993 0.8 1167.75 1800 1000 400 56.957405 36.47474 99.310735
20 0.9 0.79998 0.76 1593.397 628.197597 1000 400 31.768148 36.01872 58.159014
21 0.9 0.79986 0.8 1511.642 1491.529239 1000 431.5739345 58.921892 35.11312 105.87929
22 0.9 0.79882 0.8 1689.386 1367.083892 1000 409.6703598 54.661767 36.03053 96.407454
23 0.9 0.79762 0.51 1060.644 440.2291952 1000 430.3843121 19.799176 34.14613 43.331816
24 0.89999 0.79997 0.75 1717.198 1800 1000 417.1920475 61.681244 35.7683 111.10972
25 0.9 0.79996 0.8 784.036 920.361548 1000 400 37.966636 36.18713 67.749625
13
Table 21 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

Rao-1 algorithm solutions in 2 2 1 3 3 1 5 1 2.29 1.8333
solar-dish Stirling heat engine
19 7 2 1 1 2 10 2 3.57 2.5
case study
15 15 4 2 2 3 18 3 6.71 4.8333
22 11 3 4 4 6 14 5 6.71 5.5
25 16 5 5 5 4 21 6 8.86 6.8333
17 17 6 6 6 5 24 7 10.14 7.8333
24 3 7 13 13 9 8 4 8.14 8.1667
10 1 8 11 11 12 4 8 7.86 8.5
18 12 10 8 8 11 15 13 11.00 10.333
20 20 9 9 9 7 20 9 11.86 10.5
21 10 11 10 10 13 13 15 11.71 11.5
7 14 13 7 7 14 23 19 13.86 12.333
13 21 12 12 12 8 17 10 13.14 12.5
11 13 17 16 16 15 2 11 12.86 14.667
14 23 15 15 15 10 19 12 15.57 15
9 4 16 19 19 21 7 16 14.57 15.833
1 5 24 20 20 19 1 14 14.71 17
6 19 14 14 14 17 25 24 18.14 17
12 22 19 17 17 16 6 17 16.29 18
16 6 18 22 22 22 9 18 16.71 18
3 8 21 24 24 24 11 20 18.86 20.167
8 25 20 18 18 20 22 25 21.14 21
4 9 22 25 25 25 12 21 19.86 21.167
23 24 23 21 21 18 16 22 20.71 21.5
5 18 25 23 23 23 3 23 19.71 22.5
‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE; ‘M7’—

COPRAS; ‘M8’—GRA
Table 22 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8

different pairs of MADM M1 1 0.2685 0.0815 0.0815 0.0231 1 0.3808
M2 0.2685 1 0.9338 0.9338 0.9162 − 0.2415 0.8608
algorithm solutions
M3 0.0815 0.9338 1 1 0.9346 − 0.3315 0.7792
M4 0.0815 0.9338 1 1 0.9346 − 0.3315 0.7792
M6 0.0231 0.9162 0.9346 0.9346 1 − 0.2615 0.8846
M7 1 − 0.2415 − 0.3315 − 0.3315 − 0.2615 1 0.1092
M8 0.3808 0.8608 0.7792 0.7792 0.8846 0.1092 1

each solution, ranks given by the COPRAS method were is shown in Table 24. The Spearman’s correlation for differ-
not considered, and accordingly corrected average ranks are ent pairs of rankings given by decision-making methods for
presented in Table 21. Solution 2 has the least average rank, Rao-2 algorithm solutions is presented in Table 25.
which is 1.8333. Hence, the solution 2 is regarded as the For the Rao-2 algorithm solutions also, the SAW and
best solution. COPRAS methods have negative Spearman’s correla-
The Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the Rao-2 tion coefficients against other decision-making methods.
algorithm in multi-objective optimization of the solar-dish Hence, the average rank for each solution is calculated,
Stirling heat engine case study are presented in Table 23. excluding the ranks suggested by the SAW and COPRAS
The ranking of each solution by decision-making methods techniques, and corrected ranks are presented in Table 24.
13
1 0.9 0.8 0.4 300 300 1000 400 9.1902028 33.62539 22.677313
2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 510 70.341722 31.57946 139.28521
3 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.19517 36.5151 106.3605
4 0.89849 0.8 0.8 1800 300 1000 476.2642299 24.399874 32.39193 48.889069
5 0.9 0.8 0.55 300 839.7363101 996.9 400 23.109051 35.58903 46.978805
6 0.89997 0.8 0.78 833.3762 1032.080696 999.5 426.6983738 43.358168 35.13498 79.327872
7 0.89749 0.8 0.77 434.7192 300 1000 424.3146706 17.696055 34.08776 35.392594
8 0.89995 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 475.2275192 69.034471 33.20314 130.10673
9 0.9 0.8 0.78 1587.174 519.5660168 999.6 400 28.219703 35.88918 51.826471
10 0.9 0.8 0.8 374.233 1800 994.8 400 40.303925 36.17481 71.959941
11 0.9 0.8 0.69 724.2325 763.0054486 999.8 402.179972 31.167392 35.90044 58.623755
12 0.8996 0.8 0.8 1800 675.1080829 1000 400 34.862709 36.0806 62.697799
13 0.9 0.8 0.56 300 300 1000 400 11.905834 34.37376 26.44054
14 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 447.6684379 67.15692 34.45439 122.31302
15 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 733.798301 999.7 400 36.932738 36.16023 66.00823
16 0.89986 0.8 0.8 1690.329 1800 1000 439.9185385 65.766674 34.78405 118.88113
17 0.9 0.8 0.8 614.81 1800 1000 400 47.59937 36.3597 84.7584
18 0.9 0.8 0.45 702.9963 437.8902582 999.8 400 15.028059 34.88248 33.278068
19 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 462.3562748 68.269425 33.7938 126.53467
20 0.89934 0.8 0.61 300 322.5017599 1000 417.9854409 14.474857 34.08273 31.239574
21 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 999.9 505.1086527 70.2179 31.80918 138.03543
22 0.89913 0.8 0.8 1800 1645.319272 1000 422.9898618 62.04884 35.4543 110.81625
23 0.89998 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 999.9 428.4971804 65.252741 35.29627 116.43618
24 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1676.836284 999.6 427.3179115 63.112295 35.33084 112.76166
25 0.89903 0.8 0.77 1089.259 1563.805357 999.9 400 51.850171 36.33965 92.278439
Both solution 3 and solution 17 have the least average with those reported by the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and
rank value, which is 1.8. However, solution 3 ranked 1 by AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. Figure 12 presents the Pareto
the three methods, whereas solution 17 ranked 1 by only fronts achieved by the Rao algorithms, including the optimal
2 methods. Hence, solution 3 can be regarded as the best solutions reported for the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and
solution. AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. The best Pareto optimal solutions
The Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the Rao-3 algo- of the Rao algorithms compared with those reported by the
rithm in multi-objective optimization of solar-dish Stirling NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms
heat engine case study are presented in Table 26. for this case study are compared in Table 29. The decision-
The ranking of each solution of the Rao-3 algorithm in making methods’ ranking of the Pareto optimal solutions
this case study by decision-making methods is shown in obtained by different algorithms is shown in Table 30. The
Table 27. The Spearman’s correlation for different pairs Spearman’s coefficients for different pairs of rankings given
of rankings given by decision-making methods for Rao-3 by decision-making methods for different algorithm’s solu-
algorithm solutions is presented in Table 28. For Rao-3 algo- tions are shown in Table 31. The correlation coefficients of
rithm solutions also, the SAW and COPRAS methods have the COPRAS method ranking versus the other methods are
negative Spearman’s correlation coefficients against other negative values. Hence, the average ranks are calculated,
decision-making methods. Hence, the average rank for each excluding the COPRAS methods ranks, and corrected ranks
solution is calculated, excluding the ranks suggested by the are shown in Table 30.
SAW and COPRAS, and corrected ranks are presented in The Rao-2 and Rao-3 algorithm solutions are identical
Table 27. Solution 1 has the least average rank, which is 1.4. and have achieved the best rank value, which is 1.786. The
Hence, solution 1 is regarded as the best solution. Rao-2 and Rao-3 algorithm solutions are regarded as the
Now the solutions with the best average rank from the best solutions. The Rao-1 algorithm solution has the next
Pareto optimal solutions of the Rao algorithms are compared best average rank, which is 3.286. The Rao-2 and Rao-3
13

17 14 2 1 1 2 17 3 5.71 1.8
case study
10 15 4 2 2 4 20 5 7.43 3.4
25 12 3 5 5 3 16 2 6.57 3.6
15 18 5 4 4 5 21 4 8.71 4.4
12 20 6 6 6 6 22 7 10.43 6.2
22 8 7 8 8 10 13 9 9.00 8.4
9 22 10 9 9 8 18 8 12.00 8.8
23 1 8 11 11 12 6 6 7.86 9.6
24 6 9 10 10 11 12 10 9.71 10
11 23 13 12 12 7 23 11 14.43 11
6 17 12 7 7 13 24 22 14.57 12.2
16 4 11 13 13 15 9 12 11.00 12.8
5 24 17 16 16 9 19 13 16.29 14.2
14 2 14 14 14 16 7 14 11.57 14.4
7 21 18 15 15 18 5 21 16.14 17.4
19 5 15 18 18 20 10 18 14.86 17.8
18 19 23 21 21 14 4 16 16.86 19
13 13 24 20 20 17 2 15 15.86 19.2
20 16 22 19 19 19 3 20 16.86 19.8
4 25 20 17 17 23 25 25 21.71 20.4
8 7 16 23 23 22 11 19 17.29 20.6
1 9 25 22 22 21 1 17 16.71 21.4
21 10 19 24 24 24 14 23 19.71 22.8
2 11 21 25 25 25 15 24 20.86 24


different pairs of MADM M1 1 0.1885 − 0.0469 − 0.0469 − 0.1246 1 0.1654
M2 0.1885 1 0.9185 0.9185 0.8385 − 0.4277 0.8408
algorithm solutions
M3 − 0.0469 0.9185 1 1 0.9046 − 0.4508 0.8138
M4 − 0.0469 0.9185 1 1 0.9046 − 0.4508 0.8138
M6 − 0.1246 0.8385 0.9046 0.9046 1 − 0.3562 0.9146
M7 1 − 0.4277 − 0.4508 − 0.4508 − 0.3562 1 − 0.1331
M8 0.1654 0.8408 0.8138 0.8138 0.9146 − 0.1331 1

solutions have achieved the best ranks by all the methods In addition, the Rao-2 and Rao-3 algorithm solutions have
except the VIKOR and PROMETHEE methods. Further- a lesser rate of entropy generation compared to that of Jaya,
more, the output power of the system for the Rao-2 and MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions.
Rao-3 algorithm solutions is 23.28%, 57.48%, and 63.75% Now the performances of the Rao algorithms in a
higher compared to that of the NSGA-II (TOPSIS, LIN- multi-objective optimization scenario are evaluated on the
MAP, and fuzzy) solutions, respectively. Also, the thermal basis of hypervolume, coverage, and spacing indicators.
efficiency of the Rao-2 and Rao-3 algorithm solutions is Table 32 presents the coverage, hypervolume, and spacing
higher than that of NSGA-II (LINMAP and fuzzy), Jaya, values of the Pareto fronts acquired by Jaya, MTPG-Jaya,
MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, and Rao-1 algorithm solutions.
13
1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.19517 36.5151 106.3605
2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 510 70.341722 31.57946 139.28521
3 0.9 0.75999 0.4 300 300 1000 400 9.1307033 33.51507 22.693315
4 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 480.7014605 69.315844 32.95382 131.56475
5 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 999.9 492.547208 69.816776 32.4009 134.73708
6 0.9 0.8 0.8 1029.872 1800 1000 400 55.494026 36.45963 96.874574
7 0.9 0.60288 0.74 679.3916 830.7618957 999.9 420.6715865 33.176484 34.78733 64.067081
8 0.9 0.8 0.76 904.36 1800 1000 400 52.885225 36.42889 93.675348
9 0.9 0.78514 0.8 1800 788.0152138 1000 400.8878627 38.802301 36.1386 69.304223
10 0.9 0.73701 0.8 1800 940.6118248 1000 430.7336364 47.291884 34.90502 86.522973
11 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 999.8 506.6204038 70.257113 31.73612 138.44348
12 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 418.4326121 64.014685 35.73486 113.07409
13 0.9 0.79611 0.8 1800 1800 1000 449.0884784 67.223392 34.38357 122.70636
14 0.9 0.8 0.54 1800 1455.144947 999.7 400 44.593445 36.29964 86.029783
15 0.9 0.8 0.73 1800 360.5262884 1000 400 20.204249 35.4445 39.107799
16 0.9 0.74057 0.57 1423.274 300 1000 400 13.818774 34.59429 30.04964
17 0.9 0.8 0.8 1771.044 1800 999.8 433.0936115 65.597484 35.09477 117.61511
18 0.9 0.71598 0.8 1800 809.9594495 999.7 421.3975049 42.09128 35.18509 77.015041
19 0.9 0.8 0.67 300 640.3506596 1000 400 22.223653 35.58014 43.408828
20 0.9 0.58726 0.8 1800 498.229913 1000 400 27.323356 35.41047 51.620476
21 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 460.7346488 68.159458 33.86727 126.07848
22 0.9 0.77113 0.8 932.3202 1085.606137 999.9 407.9979061 43.687933 35.90021 78.118146
23 0.9 0.78242 0.45 1157.008 1042.87594 1000 400 30.443338 35.91778 62.318922
24 0.9 0.72785 0.7 1800 484.1863547 1000 400 24.543736 35.56809 47.50529
25 0.9 0.78755 0.4 300 1763.795488 1000 400 28.194232 35.83884 59.087119
AMTPG-Jaya, and Rao algorithms in multi-objective opti- AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions, 20% of Rao-1 algorithm
mization scenario. solutions, and 20% of Rao-3 solutions are dominated by the
Similar to the bi-objective optimization scenarios of this Rao-2 solutions. Also, 15% of Jaya algorithm solutions, 54%
case study, these performance indicators are calculated and of MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions, 55% of AMTPG-Jaya
reported by this article author. The Rao-3 algorithm has a bet- algorithm solutions, 21% of Rao-1 algorithm solutions, and
ter spacing value, which is 41.32%, 42.74%, 55.65%, 12.27%, 9% of Rao-2 solutions are dominated by the Rao-3 solutions.
and 30.98% lesser compared to that of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, The following section presents the discussion on the compu-
AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-1, and Rao-2 algorithms, respectively. The tational results.
Rao-3 algorithm Pareto front has better hypervolume, which
is 0.38%, 3.36%, 2.04%, 0.24%, and 0.105% higher compared
to that of Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-1, and Rao-2 4 Discussion on the computational results
algorithms, respectively.
From the coverage values, it can be observed that 7% of In single-objective optimization of the solar-assisted Bray-
Jaya algorithm solutions, 52% of MTPG-Jaya algorithm solu- ton engine system, the proposed algorithms have achieved
tions, 59% of AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions, 4% of Rao-2 better performances in terms of maximum output power,
algorithm solutions, and 10% of Rao-3 solutions are domi- thermal efficiency, and thermo-economic function.
nated by the Rao-1 solutions. Similarly, 12% of Jaya algorithm In multi-objective optimization of the solar-assisted
solutions, 48% of MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions, 63% of Brayton engine system case study, the Rao-2, Rao-3, and
13

6 11 2 1 1 2 13 2 4.57 1.6
case study
8 12 3 3 3 3 16 3 6.14 3
9 17 4 5 5 5 18 6 8.57 5
12 1 5 6 6 9 5 4 5.14 6
22 14 6 4 4 7 19 10 9.14 6.2
17 2 7 9 9 15 7 7 8.00 9.4
14 15 11 15 15 4 22 5 12.43 10
18 18 8 7 7 14 21 21 13.71 11.4
15 19 14 14 14 12 3 8 12.00 12.4
24 21 13 13 13 11 11 12 13.43 12.4
20 22 12 10 10 13 17 18 14.57 12.6
13 4 10 11 11 19 8 14 11.00 13
10 16 9 8 8 16 20 24 14.43 13
19 20 16 16 16 10 4 9 13.00 13.4
23 23 18 19 19 6 24 11 17.14 14.6
25 25 20 21 21 8 23 13 18.71 16.6
7 24 17 12 12 17 25 25 18.86 16.6
21 5 15 17 17 20 9 17 14.29 17.2
16 13 24 18 18 18 2 15 15.43 18.6
4 6 19 20 20 22 10 19 16.57 20
3 8 25 22 22 21 1 16 16.43 21.2
5 7 21 23 23 23 12 20 18.43 22
11 9 22 24 24 24 14 22 19.86 23.2
2 10 23 25 25 25 15 23 20.86 24.2


different pairs of MADM M1 1 0.1700 0.0669 0.0669 − 0.2662 0.5746 0.1823
M2 0.1700 1 0.9523 0.9523 0.7200 − 0.1092 0.6469
algorithm solutions
M3 0.0669 0.9523 1 1 0.6985 − 0.0862 0.5700
M4 0.0669 0.9523 1 1 0.6985 − 0.0862 0.5700
M6 − 0.2662 0.7200 0.6985 0.6985 1 − 0.2331 0.8215
M7 0.5746 − 0.1092 − 0.0862 − 0.0862 − 0.2331 1 0.2562
M8 0.1823 0.6469 0.5700 0.5700 0.8215 0.2562 1

Rao-1 algorithms have attained the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ranks, algorithm solution is best, which is 1.17%, 1.51%, 1.47%,
respectively. Furthermore, the power output of the sys- 0.07%, 0.11%, 0.07%, 0.31%, and 0.15% higher when com-
tem for the Rao-1 algorithm solution is highest, which pared to that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LINMAP,
is 3.13%, 2.48%, 2.5%, 0.46%, 0.39%, 0.46, 0.30%, and and TOPSIS), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-1,
0.63% higher than that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, and Rao-2 algorithm solutions, respectively. The thermo-
LINMAP, and TOPSIS), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, economic function of the system for the Rao-3 algorithm
Rao-2, and Rao-3 algorithm solutions, respectively. Simi- solution is best, which is 1.1%, 1.49%, 1.46%, 0.08%,
larly, the thermal efficiency of the system for the Rao-3 0.13%, 0.09%, 0.37%, and 0.17% higher when compared
13
In addition, in all the bi-objective optimization scenar-

ios of the solar-assisted Brayton engine system case study,
the Rao-1 and Rao-3 algorithms have achieved better
spacing values in 2 scenarios and 1 scenario, respectively.
Similarly, the Rao-2 and Rao-3 algorithms have achieved
better hypervolume values in one scenario each. Also, in a
multi-objective optimization scenario, the Rao-1 algorithm
achieved a better spacing value, and the Rao-2 algorithm
achieved a better hypervolume value.
In multi-objective optimization, the solar-dish Stirling
heat engine case study, the Rao-2, Rao-3, and Rao-1 algo-
rithms have attained the 1st, 1st, and 2nd ranks, respectively.
Furthermore, the power input of the system for the Rao-2
and Rao-3 algorithm solutions is 23.28%, 57.48%, and
63.75% higher compared to that of the NSGA-II (TOPSIS,
Fig. 12 The plot of Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms and solutions LINMAP, and fuzzy) solutions, respectively. Also, the ther-
of the compared algorithms in Stirling heat engine case study mal efficiency of the Rao-2 and Rao-3 algorithm solutions
is higher than that of NSGA-II (LINMAP and fuzzy), Jaya,
MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, and Rao-1 algorithm solutions.
to that of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, LINMAP, and In addition, in all the bi-objective optimization sce-
TOPSIS), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya, Rao-1, and narios of the solar-dish Stirling heat engine case study, the
Rao-2 algorithms. Rao-1, Rao-2, and Rao-3 algorithms have achieved better
spacing values in one scenario each. Similarly, the Rao-2
Table 29 Multi-objective optimization Pareto optimal solutions obtained by different algorithms for solar-dish Stirling heat engine case study
Algorithm εR εH εL CH CL Th Tc P (kW) ηm (%) σ (W/K)
TOPSIS [1] 0.9 0.8 0.8 1424 1252 996.9 400.5 49.64 36.56 87.47
LINMAP [1] 0.9 0.8 0.8 1413 823 996.7 400.5 38.86 36.36 69.5
Fuzzy [1] 0.9 0.8 0.8 1410 774 996.7 400.5 37.37 36.33 70
Jaya [27] 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 410.23 62.85535 36.08493 110.19472
MTPG-Jaya [27] 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 999.79 400.85 61.34239 36.47688 106.71199
AMTPG-Jaya [27] 0.9 0.799985 0.8 1799.36 1799.91 999.69 400 61.18815 36.51126 106.38148
Rao-1 0.9 0.799893 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.19404 36.51488 106.36028
Rao-2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.19517 36.51510 106.36051
Rao-3 0.9 0.8 0.8 1800 1800 1000 400 61.19517 36.51510 106.36051
Table 30 The ranks suggested Algorithm M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

by the MADM methods for
different algorithm solutions in TOPSIS 8 6 7 7 1 1 9 5 5.5 5
LINMAP 7 8 8 8 7 5 1 7 6.375 7.143
case study
Fuzzy 9 9 9 9 8 8.5 2 8 7.813 8.643
Jaya 6 7 6 6 9 8.5 8 9 7.4375 7.357
MTPG-Jaya 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 6 5.625 5.429
AMTPG-Jaya 4 4 4 4 5 7 6 4 4.750 4.571
Rao-1 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 3.5 3.286
Rao-2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 2 1.786
Rao-3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 2 1.786

13

different pairs of MADM M1 1 0.9496 0.9832 0.9832 0.4622 0.3882 0.0756 0.8319
method’s for the compared
M2 0.9496 1 0.9832 0.9832 0.6975 0.5823 − 0.0756 0.9328
algorithm solutions’ ranking
M3 0.9832 0.9832 1 1 0.5630 0.4557 − 0.0588 0.8655
M4 0.9832 0.9832 1 1 0.5630 0.4557 − 0.0588 0.8655
M5 0.4622 0.6975 0.5630 0.5630 1 0.9283 − 0.1933 0.8319
M6 0.3882 0.5823 0.4557 0.4557 0.92828 1 − 0.0760 0.7257
M7 0.0756 − 0.0756 − 0.0588 − 0.0588 − 0.1933 − 0.0760 1 0.1092
M8 0.8319 0.9328 0.8655 0.8655 0.8319 0.7257 0.1092 1

Table 32 The coverage, hypervolume, and spacing values of the Pareto fronts obtained by the proposed algorithms in multi-objective optimiza-
tion for solar-dish Stirling heat engine case study
Algorithm Spacing Hypervolume Coverage
Jaya MTPG-Jaya AMTPG-Jaya Rao-1 Rao-2 Rao-3
Jaya [27] 0.034591819 76067.1504 – 0.47 0.64 0.23 0.08 0.19

MTPG-Jaya [27] 0.035444041 73869.0038 0.03 – 0.37 0.03 0 0.02
AMTPG-Jaya [27] 0.045770925 74829.4334 0.05 0.22 – 0.1 0.04 0.04
Rao-1 0.023135471 76167.9418 0.07 0.52 0.59 – 0.04 0.1
Rao-2 0.02940801 76274.2903 0.12 0.48 0.63 0.2 – 0.2
Rao-3 0.02029525 76354.3571 0.15 0.54 0.55 0.21 0.09 –
and Jaya algorithms have achieved better hypervolume val- coverage and hypervolume values estimate the number of
ues in 2 scenarios and 1 scenario, respectively. Also, in a non-dominated solutions and volume of the dominated
multi-objective optimization scenario, the Rao-3 algorithm region, respectively. Hence, the Rao-2 algorithm perfor-
achieved better spacing and hypervolume values than Rao-1 mance can be considered as the best. The Rao-3 algorithm
and Rao-2 algorithms. has better hypervolume values than the Rao-1 algorithm
In both the bi-objective and multi-objective optimiza- in 4 out of 6 bi-objective optimization scenarios and in
tion of the considered case studies, the proposed algo- all the multi-objective optimization scenarios. Hence, the
rithms have achieved better spacing, hypervolume, and Rao-3 algorithm can be considered as the next best. The
coverage values than the other algorithms. However, the following section presents the conclusions of this work.
Rao-2 algorithm can be considered as the best among
the three Rao algorithms. In all case studies together, the
Rao-2 algorithm has achieved a higher hypervolume value 5 Conclusions
in 3 out of 6 bi-objective optimization scenarios and 1 out
of 2 multi-objective optimization scenarios. In addition, The multi-objective optimization variants of Rao algo-
the Rao-2 algorithm has better or competitive coverage rithms have been proposed in this work. The proposed
values compared to those of the Rao-1 and Rao-2 algo- algorithms have no algorithm-specific parameters and
rithms in the multi-objective optimization scenarios. Also, no metaphorical jargons. Based on the interaction of the
the solutions of the Rao-2 algorithm are ranked as the population with best, worst, and randomly selected solu-
best solutions in both multi-objective optimization sce- tions, the proposed algorithms explore the search space.
narios. The Rao-1 algorithm archived best spacing value The performances of the proposed algorithms have been
in 3 out of 6 bi-objective optimization scenarios, and the investigated on a solar-assisted Brayton engine system
Rao-2 and Rao-3 algorithms have achieved the best spac- case study and a solar-dish Stirling heat engine system
ing value in 1 and 2 bi-objective optimization scenarios, case study. Furthermore, the optimum system param-
respectively. However, the spacing metric estimates the eters have been identified and compared with those of the
uniformity of the solutions in a Pareto front, whereas the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. By
13
employing MADM methods, the Pareto optimal solutions 9. Sánchez-orgaz S, Pedemonte M, Ezzatti P, Curto-risso PL, Medina
are ranked, on the basis of average rank. A, Hernández AC (2015) Multi-objective optimization of a multi-
step solar-driven Brayton plant. Energy Convers Manag 99:346–
In both the considered case studies, the proposed Rao 358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.04.077
algorithms have achieved better or competitive results than 10. Arora R, Kaushik SC, Kumar R (2015) Multi-objective optimiza-
the other compared algorithms. In addition, the perfor- tion of an irreversible regenerative Brayton cycle using genetic
mances of the considered case studies have been improved algorithm. In: 2015 international conference on futuristic trends
on computational analysis and knowledge management, pp 340–
by the solutions of the Rao algorithms. The proposed Rao 346. https://doi.org/10.1109/ablaze.2015.7155017
algorithms have achieved better results in the lesser or 11. Arora R, Kaushik SC, Kumar R, Arora R (2016) Soft computing
same number of function evaluations taken by the other based multi-objective optimization of Brayton cycle power plant
compared algorithms. The proposed algorithms have with isothermal heat addition using evolutionary algorithm and
decision making. Appl Soft Comput J 46:267–283. https://doi.
no algorithm-specific control parameters, which in turn org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.05.001
reduces the efforts of the decision maker for appropriate 12. Kumar R, Kaushik SC, Kumar R, Hans R (2016) Multi-objec-
tuning of parameters. However, the population size needs tive thermodynamic optimization of an irreversible regenera-
to be adjusted. The procedure of the Rao algorithms is tive Brayton cycle using evolutionary algorithm and decision
making. Ain Shams Eng J 7:741–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
simple and straightforward. Hence, it can be easily imple- asej.2015.06.007
mented for various engineering applications, including 13. Zare V, Hasanzadeh M (2016) Energy and exergy analysis of
the thermodynamic systems, and can achieve optimum a closed Brayton cycle-based combined cycle for solar power
results in less computational efforts. The proposed Rao tower plants. Energy Convers Manag 128:227–237. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.080
algorithms are easy to implement and more effective in 14. Naserian MM, Farahat S, Sarhaddi F (2016) Exergoeconomic
performance. multi objective optimization and sensitivity analysis of a regen-
erative Brayton cycle. Energy Convers Manag 117:95–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.014
15. Luo Z, Sultan U, Ni M, Peng H, Shi B, Xiao G (2016) Multi-
objective optimization for GPU3 Stirling engine by combining
References multi-objective algorithms. Renew Energy 94:114–125. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.008
1. Ahmadi MH, Mohammadi AH, Dehghani S, Barranco-Jiménez 16. Nemati A, Nami H, Yari M, Ranjbar F, Rashid Kolvir H (2016)
MA (2013) Multi-objective thermodynamic-based optimization Development of an exergoeconomic model for analysis and
of output power of Solar Dish-Stirling engine by implementing multi-objective optimization of a thermoelectric heat pump.
an evolutionary algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 75:438–445. Energy Convers Manag 130:1–13. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.06.030 enconman.2016.10.045
2. Duan C, Wang X, Shu S, Jing C, Chang H (2014) Thermodynamic 17. Jokar MA, Ahmadi MH, Sharifpur M, Meyer JP, Pourfayaz F,
design of Stirling engine using multi-objective particle swarm Ming T (2017) Thermodynamic evaluation and multi-objective
optimization algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 84:88–96. https optimization of molten carbonate fuel cell-supercritical CO2
://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.003 Brayton cycle hybrid system. Energy Convers Manag 153:538–
3. Toghyani S, Kasaeian A, Ahmadi MH (2014) Multi-objective 556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.027
optimization of Stirling engine using non-ideal adiabatic method. 18. Yang F, Cho H, Zhang H, Zhang J (2017) Thermoeconomic
Energy Convers Manag 80:54–62. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.encon multi-objective optimization of a dual loop organic Rankine
man.2014.01.022 cycle (ORC) for CNG engine waste heat recovery. Appl Energy
4. Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mohammadi AH, Mehrpooya M, Feidt 205:1100–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.127
M (2014) Thermodynamic optimization of Stirling heat pump 19. Mehrpooya M, Ashouri M, Mohammadi A (2017) Thermoeco-
based on multiple criteria. Energy Convers Manag 80:319–328. nomic analysis and optimization of a regenerative two-stage
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.01.031 organic Rankine cycle coupled with liquefied natural gas and
5. Soltani R, Mohammadzadeh Keleshtery P, Vahdati M, Khoshgof- solar energy. Energy 126:899–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tarmanesh MH, Rosen MA, Amidpour M (2014) Multi-objective energy.2017.03.064
optimization of a solar-hybrid cogeneration cycle: application to 20. Starke AR, Cardemil JM, Colle S (2018) Multi-objective opti-
CGAM problem. Energy Convers Manag 81:60–71. https://doi. mization of a solar-assisted heat pump for swimming pool heat-
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.013 ing using genetic algorithm. Appl Therm Eng 142:118–126.
6. Khoshgoftar Manesh MH, Ameryan M (2016) Optimal design of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.06.067
a solar-hybrid cogeneration cycle using Cuckoo Search algorithm. 21. Dai D, Yuan F, Long R, Liu Z, Liu W (2018) Performance
Appl Therm Eng 102:1300–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applt analysis and multi-objective optimization of a Stirling engine
hermaleng.2016.03.156 based on MOPSOCD. Int J Therm Sci 124:399–406. https://doi.
7. Li Y, Liao S, Liu G (2015) Thermo-economic multi-objective org/10.1016/j.ijther malsci.2017.10.030
optimization for a solar-dish Brayton system using NSGA-II and 22. Kim T, Choi BI, Han YS, Do KH (2018) A comparative inves-
decision making. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 64:167–175. tigation of solar-assisted heat pumps with solar thermal col-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.07.027 lectors for a hot water supply system. Energy Convers Manag
8. Li Y, Liu G, Liu X, Liao S (2016) Thermodynamic multi-objective 172:472–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.035
optimization of a solar-dish Brayton system based on maximum 23. Sanaye S, Taheri M (2018) Modeling and multi-objective
power output, thermal efficiency and ecological performance. optimization of a modified hybrid liquid desiccant heat pump
Renew Energy 95:465–473. https : //doi.org/10.1016/j.renen (LD-HP) system for hot and humid regions. Appl Therm
e.2016.04.052
13
Eng 129:212–229. https : //doi.org/10.1016/j.applt h erma Appl Therm Eng 198:111831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applt
leng.2017.09.116 hermaleng.2019.111831
24. Ye W, Yang P, Liu Y (2018) Multi-objective thermodynamic opti- 31. Kwan TH, Wu X, Yao Q (2019) Performance comparison of sev-
mization of a free piston Stirling engine using response surface eral heat pump technologies for fuel cell micro-CHP integration
methodology. Energy Convers Manag 176:147–163. https://doi. using a multi-objective optimisation approach. Appl Therm Eng
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.011 160:114002. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.applth ermal eng.2019.11400
25. Kleef LMTV, Oyewunmi OA, Markides CN (2019) Multi- 2
objective thermo-economic optimization of organic Rankine 32. Rao RV (2020) Rao algorithms: three metaphor-less simple algo-
cycle (ORC) power systems in waste-heat recovery applications rithms for solving optimization problems. Int J Ind Eng Comput
using computer-aided molecular design techniques. Appl Energy 11:107–130. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2019.6.002
251:112513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.071 33. Rao RV, Pawar RB (2020) Self-adaptive multi-population Rao
26. Rao RV, Keesari HS, Oclon KP, Taler J (2019) An adaptive multi- algorithms for engineering design optimization. Appl Artif Intell
team perturbation-guiding Jaya algorithm for optimization and its 00:1–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2020.1712789
applications. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019- 34. Rao RV, Pawar RB (2020) Constrained design optimization of
00706-3 selected mechanical system components using Rao algorithms.
27. Rao RV, Keesari HS, Oclon P, Taler J (2019) Improved multi- Appl Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106141
objective Jaya optimization algorithm for a solar dish Stir- 35. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elit-
ling engine. J Renew Sustain Energy 11:25903. https://doi. ist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol
org/10.1063/1.5083142 Comput 6:182–197. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017
28. Rao RV, Keesari HS (2019) Solar assisted heat engine systems: 36. Rao RV, Rai DP, Balic J (2017) A multi-objective algorithm for
multi-objective optimization and decision making. Int J Ambient optimization of modern machining processes. Eng Appl Artif
Energy. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2019.1636870 Intell 61:103–125. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.engapp ai.2017.03.001
29. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C (2019) Multi-objective optimiza-
tion of a solar assisted heat pump-driven by hybrid PV. Appl Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Therm Eng 149:528–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appltherma jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
leng.2018.12.059
30. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C (2019) Investigation and optimization of
a solar assisted heat pump driven by nanofluid-based hybrid PV.
13

EWCO 10.1007 - s00366-020-01008-9 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EWCO 10.1007 - s00366-020-01008-9 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rao algorithms for multi-objective

optimization of selected thermodynamic

R. Venkata Rao & Hameer Singh Keesari

Engineering with Computers

Engineering with Computers

Rao algorithms for multi‑objective optimization of selected

Received: 30 October 2019 / Accepted: 13 March 2020

1 Introduction and by optimizing the proposed model, optimum system

Fig. 1 Flowchart of Rao algorithms

old solution with the new solution or otherwise discard the

baric heat addition, in which the working fluid is heated

Bold value indicates better performance

Bold value indicates better performance

Fig. 6 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (ηm–F)

and Rao-3 algorithm, respectively. The Rao-3 algorithm

AMTPG-Jaya [28] 0.023560521 0.241983083a 0.024322493 0.413561416a 0.039572211 0.002435598

Bold value indicates better performance

Table 4 The Pareto optimal Solution εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Table 5 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. Rank

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Table 6 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Table 7 The Pareto optimal Solution εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Table 8 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Table 9 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Table 10 The Pareto optimal Solution εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Table 11 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Table 12 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Table 13 Multi-objective Algorithm εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Bold value indicates better performance

the considered solar-dish Stirling heat engine system are εR,

0.4 ≤ 𝜀H ≤ 0.8 (29)

0.4 ≤ 𝜀L ≤ 0.8 (30)

300 ≤ CH ≤ 1800 (31)

300 ≤ CL ≤ 1800 (32)

800 ≤ Th ≤ 1000 K (33)

Fig. 7 The plot of Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms and solutions

Table 14 The ranks suggested Algorithm M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Table 15 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M5’—VIKOR; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE;

Jaya [28] 0.0562112 0.026508392 – 0 0.08 0 0.08 0.08

Bold value indicates better performance

Table 17 The results of single- Objective Algorithm εR εH εL CH CL Th Tc P (kW) ηm (%) σ (W/K)

Bold value indicates better performance

Bold value indicates better performance

generation rate, the Rao-1 solution has a higher power out-

AMTPG-Jaya [27] 0.007155168 377.1809043 0.004979592 3205.452085 0.005293354 642.5653715

Bold value indicates better performance

Table 21 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE; ‘M7’—

Table 22 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE; ‘M7’—

Table 24 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE; ‘M7’—

Table 25 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE; ‘M7’—

Table 27 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

‘M1’—SAW; ‘M2’—WPM; ‘M3’—TOPSIS; ‘M4’—MTOPSIS; ‘M6’—PROMETHEE; ‘M7’—

Fig. 1 Flowchart of Rao algorithms

Fig. 6 The Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms in bi-objective (ηm–F)

Table 4 The Pareto optimal Solution εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Table 5 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. Rank

Table 6 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Table 7 The Pareto optimal Solution εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Table 8 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

Table 9 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Table 10 The Pareto optimal Solution εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Table 11 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

Table 12 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Table 13 Multi-objective Algorithm εH εL εR TH (K) TL (K) T1 (K) P (kW) ηm F

Fig. 7 The plot of Pareto fronts of the Rao algorithms and solutions

Table 14 The ranks suggested Algorithm M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank

Table 15 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Table 17 The results of single- Objective Algorithm εR εH εL CH CL Th Tc P (kW) ηm (%) σ (W/K)

Table 21 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

Table 22 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8

Table 24 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

Table 25 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8

Table 27 The ranks suggested Solution M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

Table 28 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M6 M7 M8

Table 30 The ranks suggested Algorithm M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 Avg. rank Corrected rank

Table 31 Spearman’s rank Method M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8