| Literature DB >> 36010738 |
Pengchao Zang1,2,3, Lingen Chen1,2,3, Yanlin Ge1,2,3, Shuangshuang Shi1,2,3, Huijun Feng1,2,3.
Abstract
Considering that the specific heat of the working fluid varies linearly with its temperature, this paper applies finite time thermodynamic theory and NSGA-II to conduct thermodynamic analysis and multi-objective optimization for irreversible porous medium cycle. The effects of working fluid's variable-specific heat characteristics, heat transfer, friction and internal irreversibility losses on cycle power density and ecological function characteristics are analyzed. The relationship between power density and ecological function versus compression ratio or thermal efficiency are obtained. When operating in the circumstances of maximum power density, the thermal efficiency of the porous medium cycle engine is higher and its size is less than when operating in the circumstances of maximum power output, and it is also more efficient when operating in the circumstances of maximum ecological function. The four objectives of dimensionless power density, dimensionless power output, thermal efficiency and dimensionless ecological function are optimized simultaneously, and the Pareto front with a set of solutions is obtained. The best results are obtained in two-objective optimization, targeting power output and thermal efficiency, which indicates that the optimal results of the multi-objective are better than that of one-objective.Entities:
Keywords: ecological function; finite time thermodynamics; irreversible porous medium cycle; linear variable specific; multi-objective optimization; power density
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010738 PMCID: PMC9407255 DOI: 10.3390/e24081074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.738
Figure 1Model of PM cycle. (a) Working process of the PM engine. (b) graphic. (c) graphic.
Figure 2The effects of and on and . (a) Effect of on . (b) Effect of on . (c) Effect of on . (d) Effect of on .
Figure 3The effects of and on and . (a) Effect of on . (b) Effect of on . (c) Effect of on . (d) Effect of on . (e) . (f) .
Figure 4Various variations in , and with . (a) with . (b) with . (c) with .
Figure 5The effects of and on and . (a) Effect of on . (b) Effect of on . (c) Effect of on . (d) Effect of on .
Figure 6Effects of , , , , on and . (a) Effect of on . (b) Effect of on . (c) Effect of on . (d) Effect of on . (e) . (f) .
Figure 7and in the circumstances of different objective functions. (a) . (b) .
Figure 8Flow diagram of NSGA-II.
Figure 9Multi-objective optimization results. (a) Two-objective optimization on . (b) Two-objective optimization on . (c) Two-objective optimization on . (d) Two-objective optimization on . (e) Two-objective optimization on . (f) Two-objective optimization on . (g) Three-objective optimization on . (h) Three-objective optimization on . (i) Three-objective optimization on . (j) Three-objective optimization on . (k) Four-objective optimization on .
Results of one-, two-, three- and four-objective optimizations.
| Optimization Schemes | Solutions | Optimization Variable | Optimization Objectives | Deviation Index | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Four-objective optimization | LINMAP | 25.9430 | 0.9664 | 0.5188 | 0.9844 | 0.9855 | 0.1367 |
| TOPSIS | 26.2119 | 0.9650 | 0.5194 | 0.9861 | 0.9845 | 0.1380 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 19.2876 | 0.9944 | 0.4896 | 0.8914 | 1.0000 | 0.3216 | |
| Three-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 26.9262 | 0.9612 | 0.5209 | 0.9902 | 0.9816 | 0.1443 |
| TOPSIS | 26.9262 | 0.9612 | 0.5209 | 0.9902 | 0.9816 | 0.1443 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 31.1234 | 0.9374 | 0.5281 | 1.0000 | 0.9623 | 0.2137 | |
| Three-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 24.9370 | 0.9715 | 0.5165 | 0.9769 | 0.9891 | 0.1365 |
| TOPSIS | 24.0989 | 0.9756 | 0.5144 | 0.9691 | 0.9918 | 0.1448 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 19.2843 | 0.9944 | 0.4986 | 0.8913 | 1.0000 | 0.3212 | |
| Three-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 25.1910 | 0.9703 | 0.5171 | 0.9789 | 0.9882 | 0.1355 |
| TOPSIS | 25.4641 | 0.9689 | 0.5177 | 0.9810 | 0.9872 | 0.1353 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 19.2680 | 0.9945 | 0.4985 | 0.8909 | 1.0000 | 0.3220 | |
| Three-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 28.1169 | 0.9547 | 0.5232 | 0.9952 | 0.9766 | 0.1602 |
| TOPSIS | 28.1169 | 0.9547 | 0.5232 | 0.9952 | 0.9766 | 0.1602 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 19.2876 | 1.0000 | 0.4986 | 0.8914 | 1.0000 | 0.3173 | |
| Two-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 25.3246 | 0.9696 | 0.5174 | 0.9800 | 0.9877 | 0.1353 |
| TOPSIS | 27.7548 | 0.9724 | 0.5160 | 0.9939 | 0.9781 | 0.1281 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 25.5246 | 0.8285 | 0.5383 | 0.9815 | 0.9870 | 0.4126 | |
| Two-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 25.5543 | 0.9684 | 0.5179 | 0.9817 | 0.9869 | 0.1379 |
| TOPSIS | 25.8498 | 0.9669 | 0.5186 | 0.9838 | 0.9858 | 0.1361 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 31.0929 | 0.9376 | 0.5280 | 1.0000 | 0.9625 | 0.2131 | |
| Two-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 17.5388 | 0.9984 | 0.4908 | 0.8437 | 0.9985 | 0.4170 |
| TOPSIS | 17.5606 | 0.9984 | 0.4909 | 0.8444 | 0.9986 | 0.4157 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 19.2810 | 0.9944 | 0.4986 | 0.8912 | 1.0000 | 0.2934 | |
| Two-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 34.8168 | 0.9151 | 0.5324 | 0.9941 | 0.9427 | 0.2896 |
| TOPSIS | 34.5448 | 0.9168 | 0.5321 | 0.9949 | 0.9949 | 0.2336 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 31.1076 | 0.9375 | 0.5281 | 1.0000 | 0.9624 | 0.2134 | |
| Two-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 27.7515 | 0.9567 | 0.5225 | 0.9938 | 0.9782 | 0.1549 |
| TOPSIS | 27.1475 | 0.9600 | 0.5214 | 0.9912 | 0.9807 | 0.1469 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 19.2652 | 0.9945 | 0.4985 | 0.8909 | 1.0000 | 0.3220 | |
| Two-objective optimization ( | LINMAP | 26.6256 | 0.9628 | 0.5203 | 0.9886 | 0.9828 | 0.1413 |
| TOPSIS | 26.8632 | 0.9616 | 0.5208 | 0.9898 | 0.9819 | 0.1435 | |
| Shannon Entropy | 19.2744 | 0.9945 | 0.4985 | 0.8911 | 1.0000 | 0.3216 | |
|
| —— | 15.7438 | 1.0000 | 0.4813 | 0.7788 | 0.9932 | 0.5135 |
|
| —— | 48.1678 | 0.8310 | 0.5383 | 0.9106 | 0.8631 | 0.6195 |
|
| —— | 31.1146 | 0.9375 | 0.5280 | 1.0000 | 0.9624 | 0.2134 |
|
| —— | 19.3173 | 0.9943 | 0.4987 | 0.8921 | 1.0000 | 0.3194 |
| Positive ideal point | —— | 1.0000 | 0.5383 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | —— | |
| Negative ideal point | —— | 0.8287 | 0.4812 | 0.8000 | 0.8608 | —— | |
Figure 10Average distance generation and average spread generation. (a) Average spread and generation number of . (b) Average spread and generation number of . (c) Average spread and generation number of .