International Journal of Ambient Energy

ISSN: 0143-0750 (Print) 2162-8246 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taen20

Solar assisted heat engine systems: multi-

objective optimisation and decision making

R. Venkata Rao & Hameer Singh Keesari

To cite this article: R. Venkata Rao & Hameer Singh Keesari (2019): Solar assisted heat engine
systems: multi-objective optimisation and decision making, International Journal of Ambient Energy,
DOI: 10.1080/01430750.2019.1636870

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2019.1636870

Accepted author version posted online: 26

Jun 2019.
Published online: 03 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taen20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2019.1636870

Solar assisted heat engine systems: multi-objective optimisation and decision making
R. Venkata Rao and Hameer Singh Keesari

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Identifying, analysing and optimising the effect of various parameters of a solar assisted heat engine sys- Received 11 March 2019
tem contribute significantly in assessing the system’s performance. Optimum parameters can be identified Accepted 24 June 2019
by performing multi-objective optimisation (MOO) considering multiple performance factors. Usually, non- KEYWORDS
dominated solutions set can be found for these MOO problems and selecting a most suitable solution from Solar-driven heat engine;
non-dominated solutions set is difficult. Hence, in this study, the applicability of multi attribute decision- solar assisted Brayton heat
making methods in MOO problems has been discussed and a decision making procedure is suggested on engine; multi-objective
the basis of average rank to identify the best solution in a Pareto front. Two MOO case-studies of solar- optimisation; multi-attribute
assisted engine systems are optimised by using the multi-objective-Jaya-algorithm and its variants known decision making; Jaya
as multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya algorithm and adaptive multi-team prturbation guiding Jaya algorithm
algorithm. In both the case studies, the proposed algorithms have improved the performance of the
considered systems. Furthermore, the performances of the proposed algorithms are compared using the
coverage, spacing, and hypervolume indicators.

1. Introduction Similarly, the applications of various heat engines in extract-

The limited availability and ecological impacts of energy
resources such as fossil fuels and increased energy demand
during recent years have resulted in the development of new
techniques and tools that could harvest the energy from the
renewable energy sources. Solar power is a low-grade renewable
energy resource which is vastly available. One of the best ways
of extracting solar energy is solar assisted heat engine. A typical
solar aided heat engine includes a solar concentrator to focus
the sunlight at the focus point of the concentrator. The receiver
located at the focus point of the concentrator absorbs the heat
energy and transfers that to heat engine which in turn produces
the useful work.
Many researchers and scientists have focused upon devel-
oping and optimising the solar aided heat engines in order to
extract and utilise solar energy more efficiently. Furthermore,
researchers have studied various characteristics of these sys-
tems considering system efficiency, output power, economic,
and ecological aspects as performance measures and presented
the optimal design and process parameters. Ahmadi et al. “Opti-
mal Design of a Solar Driven,” (2013) presented an optimisa-
tion model of an irreversible solar-driven heat engine on the
basis of thermodynamic and thermo-economic criteria. Further-
more, optimum designs were obtained through multi-objective
optimisation (MOO) using the non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm (NSGA-II) to achieve maximum power and thermal
efficiency of the system. Finally, three best designs were selected
using the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal
solution (TOPSIS), linear programming technique for multidi-
mensional analysis of preference (LINMAP), and fuzzy decision-
making methods.
ing solar energy have been widely studied. Ahmadi et al. “Multi-
Objective Thermodynamic-Based Optimization,” (2013) investi-
gated the application of the Stirling engine powered by solar
energy and proposed a mathematical model that can be utilised
for finding the optimal design of the proposed system. The
proposed system considers regenerative losses, thermal bridg-
ing losses, and finite rate heat transfer. Furthermore, process
parameters were obtained to attain optimum power, thermal
efficiency, and entropy generation by employing simultaneous
optimisation through the NSGA-II algorithm. The final reported
process parameters were selected by using the TOPSIS, LIN-
MAP, and fuzzy decision-making methods. Also, Ahmadi et al.
“Thermo-Economic Multi-Objective Optimization,” (2013) stud-
ied the effect of the various parameters such as regenerator
effectiveness, volumetric ratio, absorber temperature, and tem-
perature ratio on the performance of the solar-powered Stirling
system. Pareto optimal design points are obtained through the
MOO using NSGA-II algorithm to achieve maximum power and
thermal efficiency of the system. Three final optimum design
points were reported using decision making methods such
as the fuzzy bellman-Zadeh, TOPSIS, and LINMAP. Similarly,
Ahmadi et al. “Designing a Solar Powered Stirling Heat Engine,”
(2013) presented the optimum design of a solar-powered Stir-
ling system through the MOO of the thermo-economic function,
thermal efficiency, and dimensionless power output.
Duan et al. (2014) presented the thermodynamic analysis
of a Stirling heat engine system with internal irreversibilities
and regenerative losses. Then, the proposed model was opti-
mised using the multi-objective particle swarm optimisation
(MOPSO) algorithm by taking power output, thermal efficiency,

CONTACT Hameer Singh Keesari hameerkeesari@yahoo.co.in

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI
and irreversibility parameter as the simultaneous optimisa-
tion goals. In addition, the best solution was identified from
the Pareto front obtained by the MOPSO algorithm using the
LINMAP method of decision making. Toghyani, Kasaeian, and
Ahmadi (2014) studied the power loss and efficiency of a Stir-
ling engine through non-ideal adiabatic analysis and optimised
the thermal efficiency and the power loss simultaneously using
the NSGA-II algorithm. Furthermore, the Pareto optimal solu-
tions obtained by the NSGA-II are compared using the TOPSIS,
LINMAP, and fuzzy methods.
Sayyaadi, Ahmadi, and Dehghani (2015) presented the ther-
mal and ecological models of a solar driven Carnot-like heat
engine with a finite-temperature difference. Also, optimisation
was performed on single and MOO scenarios to identify the opti-
mal design parameters which maximise the thermal efficiency,
power output, and ecological function. Furthermore, three opti-
mal design points were selected in the MOO scenario by employ-
ing the LINMAP, Bellman Zadeh, and TOPSIS decision making
methods. Li, Liao, and Liu (2015) presented the thermodynamic
model of an integrated solar-assisted irreversible open Bray-
ton engine system with thermal bridging losses and an imper-
fect solar collector to obtain power output, thermo-economic
performance, and thermal efficiency. The proposed model was
optimised using NSGA-II algorithm, and optimum solutions
were reported using LINMAP, Shannon entropy, and TOPSIS
decision making methods. Furthermore, the NSGA-II algorithm
was employed by Sadatsakkak, Ahmadi, and Ahmadi (2015) for
thermo-economic optimisation of an irreversible closed regen-
erative Brayton cycle by taking the power output, ecological
and thermo-economic functions as MOO goals. In addition,
the decision-making methods such as the TOPSIS and LIN-
MAP were employed to compare the Pareto optimal solutions
obtained. Ahmadi, Ahmadi, and Sadatsakkak (2015) presented
thermodynamic analysis and multi-objective optimisation of an
irreversible Carnot refrigerator system by considering internal
and external irreversibilities of the system. The NSGA-II method
was employed for multi-objective optimisation considering the
ecological coefficient of performance, exergy input, cooling load
and exergetic performance as the objectives of optimisation.
Furthermore, by applying the LINMAP, TOPSIS, and fuzzy meth-
ods, optimal solutions were identified from the Paretofront.
Similarly, the optimum system parameters were determined for
irreversible refrigeration systems by Ahmadi and Ahmadi (2015,
2016a).
Ahmadi et al. “Designing a Powered Combined Otto,” (2016)
presented a thermodynamic analysis of combined Stirling and
Otto cycle for power production, and multi-objective optimi-
sation was performed for optimal power output and thermal
efficiency of the Stirling engine using the NSGA-II algorithm.
Also, three optimal solutions were reported by employing TOP-
SIS, LINMAP, and fuzzy methods. Ahmadi et al. “Optimization
of Powered Stirling Heat Engine,” (2016) presented a finite
speed thermodynamic analysis of Stirling heat engine consid-
ering internal irreversibilities such as fluid friction and imper-
fect regeneration. Furthermore, optimal power output and rota-
tional speed were determined for the proposed model. The
effects of the system parameters such as heat source temper-
ature and volumetric efficiency on system performance were
presented.
Ahmadi, Ahmadi, and Feidt (2016) presented a thermody-
namic model of solar driven regenerative irreversible Bray-
ton cycle system and identified optimal process parameters
of the system to achieve maximum power and thermal effi-
ciency through MOO using the NSGA-II algorithm. Further-
more, the best Pareto optimal solutions using the TOPSIS, fuzzy,
and LINMAP decision-making methods were reported. Ahmadi
et al. “Thermodynamic Analysis and Multi Objective Optimiza-
tion,” (2016) presented the thermodynamic analysis of a solar
dish Stirling system with high-temperature differential, and
simultaneous optimisation was carried out using the NSGA-II
algorithm to obtain maximum thermal efficiency and power
output. Finally, three solutions were reported from the Pareto
solutions obtained by NSGA-II using the TOPSIS, fuzzy, and LIN-
MAP methods on the basis of nearness to the preferred solution.
Similarly, Ahmadi and Ahmadi (2016b) employed the NSGA-II
algorithm for simultaneous optimisation of an irreversible radia-
tive type heat engine, and decision making was performed using
the TOPSIS and LINMAP methods.
Arora, Kaushik, and Kumar (2016; Arora et al. “Multi-Objective
Thermo-Economic Optimization,” 2016) performed multi-
objective optimisation of a solar-driven Stirling system with
regenerative losses by employing the NSGA-II algorithm. The
best Pareto solutions were reported using the fuzzy, TOPSIS,
Shannon’s entropy, and LINMAP decision making methods. In
their another work, Arora, Kaushik, and Arora (2016) performed
the MOO of the two-stage thermo-electric generator using the
NSGA-II algorithm and identified the best Pareto optimal solu-
tions using the fuzzy, Shannon’s entropy, TOPSIS, and LINMAP
decision making methods. Luo et al. (2016) proposed a com-
bined framework of differential evolution, genetic algorithms
and adaptive simulated annealing algorithms for the MOO of the
performance of the GPU-3 Stirling engine system. A final opti-
mal solution was identified from the Pareto front of the proposed
approach using the TOPSIS and simple additive weighting (SAW)
decision-making methods. Bellos, Tzivanidis, and Antonopoulos
(2017) investigated the solar energy supported gas turbine sys-
tem and optimised the same to attain optimum collector area,
electricity production, and fuel consumption. Jokar et al. (2017)
presented a comprehensive modelling, parametric evaluation,
and multi-objective optimisation of a hybrid system consisting
of a Brayton cycle and a molten carbonate fuel cell. Tiwari, Sher-
wani, and Arora (2017) investigated the performance of solar-
driven organic Rankine cycle for different zeotropic mixtures and
presented the optimum mass fraction by employing the multi-
objective genetic algorithm. Hooshang et al. (2017) employed
the NSGA-II algorithm for multi-objective optimisation of power
output and regenerator pressure of a Stirling engine system and
used TOPSIS, LINMAP, and fuzzy methods for decision making.
Carrillo Caballero et al. (2017) presented a mathematical
model to determine the efficiency and energy production of a
solar assisted Stirling engine system consisting of the directly
illumined receiver. In addition, multi-objective optimisation
was performed using NSGA-II algorithm and optimum system
parameters were identified to achieve maximum efficiency and
power generation. Also, they had identified the best Pareto opti-
mal solution by employing the SAW decision-making method.
Shirazi et al. (2017) presented a MOO model of solar-driven
heating and cooling chillers system on the basis of energetic,

environmental and economic analysis aspects. By using the
multi-objective genetic algorithm, optimisation was performed
to find optimal total annual cost and energy use of the plant.
From the Pareto fronts obtained, the best solution was reported
using the LINMAP method. Ahmadi et al. (2017) optimised the
thermodynamic model of a solar driven small scale transcrit-
ical CO2 power cycle system with the liquid natural gas heat
sink. The NSGA-II algorithm was employed for MOO considering
thermal efficiency, solar fraction and the total investment of the
plant as the objectives. In addition, the TOPSIS, fuzzy, and LIN-
MAP decision-making methods were employed to identify the
best solution from the Pareto solutions obtained by the NSGA-II
algorithm.
Arora, Kaushik, and Kumar (2017) presented a finite time
thermodynamic based mathematical model and performed
multi-objective optimisation for solar energy driven Stirling
heat engine system with regenerative heat losses, finite rate
heat transfer, thermal bridging losses, and regeneration pro-
cess time. Also, by employing the NSGA-II algorithm optimum
design parameters of the system were identified for maximum
power generation, ecological function and thermal efficiency.
Furthermore, the LINMAP, Shannon entropy, TOPSIS, and fuzzy
decision-making methods were employed to determine the best
Pareto optimal solutions on the basis of closeness to the ideal
solution. Ashouri et al. (2018) presented the exergo-economic
analysis of solar assisted organic Rankine cycle system and with
the aid of the proposed model showed the effect of parame-
ters on the system performance. Also, bi-objective optimisation
is performed through a multi-objective genetic algorithm con-
sidering exergy efficiency and product cost rate as objectives.
In addition, the best Pareto optimal point was identified using
the TOPSIS decision-making method. Dai et al. (2018) presented
the finite time thermodynamic model of Stirling heat engine by
considering finite rate heat transfer, conductive thermal bridg-
ing losses, and regenerative heat losses. The proposed model
was then optimised using MOPSO algorithm to find the opti-
mal parameters of the system. In addition, the TOPSIS method
was employed to identify the best solution from the Pareto front
which has a better tradeoff between the power, thermal effi-
ciency and economic coefficient of performance of the system.
Nazemzadegan et al. (2018) performed a many-objective
optimisation of solar dish Stirling engine system. The dimen-
sionless objectives of their study include the power gener-
ated, efficiency, entropy generation and economic factors of
the system. The optimisation is carried out by the branch and
bound method with priory articulation of preferences and by
the MOPSO algorithm with the posteriori approach. Also, by
implementing the fuzzy, LINMAP, and TOPSIS decision-making
methods identified three best Pareto optimal solutions from the
Pareto front. From the optimisation results, it was observed that
the optimal dimensionless power and thermal efficiency are in
the range of 0.33–0.34 and 0.35–0.37 respectively.
Furthermore, solar assisted systems applications related to
several integrated energy systems have been researched. Fer-
reira et al. (2017) presented a methodology to design and opti-
mise a combined heat and power (micro-CHP) system with solar
assisted Stirling heat engine on the basis of climatic data, refer-
ence building characteristics and energy consumption. The pro-
posed model was optimised using NSGA-II algorithm to achieve
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 3
minimum investment cost and maximum thermal efficiency
and the best solution was identified from the Pareto front
on the basis of non-dimensional Euclidian distances from the
ideal solution. Similarly, Khoshbazan et al. (2018) presented the
thermo-economic analysis of a micro-CHP system with solar-
powered Stirling engine for three cities located in Iran and per-
formed multi-objective optimisation using evolutionary algo-
rithms to optimise system efficiency, carbon dioxide emission
reduction and economic aspects. From the optimisation results,
it was observed that the cities climates have a considerable
effect on the performance of the system. Ahmadi et al. “Multi-
Objective Performance Optimization,” (2018) presented a ther-
modynamic model of integrated molten carbonate fuel cell
Braysson heat engine system and performed multi-objective
optimisation using the NSGA-II algorithm. The four objectives
considered for the optimisation were energy efficiency, exergy
destruction rate density, power density, and ecological function
density. In addition, three final solutions were selected from the
Pareto front obtained by the NSGA-II using LINMAP, TOPSIS, and
fuzzy decision-making methods. Jing et al. (2018) presented a
combined framework of MOO and multi-criteria decision mak-
ing for an optimal designing and planning of solar assisted solid
oxide fuel cell distributed power system. This framework con-
sisted of two stages: the optimisation stage and the evaluation
stage. In the optimisation stage MOO was carried out by the
mixed integer linear programming method and by employing
the TOPSIS, LINMAP and Shannon entropy methods three best
Pareto optimal solutions were identified. In the evaluation stage,
six case studies of integrated systems were evaluated and ranked
using an integrated evaluation model that combined the ana-
lytic hierarchy process (AHP), and the grey relational analysis
(GRA) approaches.
Ahmadi, Nazari, and Feidt (2018) presented a finite-time
thermodynamic model to obtain thermal efficiency, the output
power and the entropy generation rate of an endoreversible
Lenoir heat engine cycle. Furthermore, multi-objective optimi-
sation was carried out using NSGA-II approach to find optimal
values of the ecological coefficient of performance and dimen-
sionless thermo-economic function of the proposed model. Ge
et al. (2018) presented the analytical expressions for-profit rate
and efficiency based on finite time thermodynamic analysis of an
irreversible intercooled regenerated gas turbine cycle. Ahmadi
et al. “Multi-Objective Performance Optimization,” (2018) pre-
sented the parametric evaluation and Multi-objective perfor-
mance optimisation of an integrated system that contained a
molten carbonate fuel cell, Stirling engine, and a reverse osmo-
sis desalination unit. The objectives of optimisation were the
energy efficiency, the exergy destruction rate density, the fresh
water production rate, and the ecological function density.
Rashidi and Khorshidi (2018) presented a mathematical
model for a solar based multi-generation system consisting of
desalination unit, water heater, organic Rankine cycle evapora-
tor, PV solar collectors, and a single effect absorption chiller unit
by performing energy and exergy analysis of the system. In addi-
tion, by taking total cost rate and energy efficiency as the objec-
tives MOO was performed out using multi-objective differential
evolution (MODE) algorithm. From the Pareto front obtained
by the MODE algorithm, the best solution was identified using
fuzzy decision-making method. Harkouss, Fardoun, and Biwole
4 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI
(2018) presented the design parameters analysis of a net zero
energy building (NZEB) design problem consisting of a solar hot
water system unit and PV array. They had presented a simulation
model which was then optimised using NSGA-II algorithm. Multi-
ple objectives namely, life-cycle cost, auxiliary electric heater and
pump consumptions, thermal demands for cooling and heating,
and exports were considered for design optimisation of an NZEB
system. In addition, a multi-criteria decision-making framework
using ELECTRE III method was implemented to identify the best
solution from the Pareto optimal solutions. Habibollahzade et al.
(2018) presented an integrated power generation system which
consisted of a biomass-based solid oxide fuel cell (BSOFC), a Stir-
ling engine, and an electrolyser. In this system, the waste heat of
BSOFC unit was utilised to run the Stirling engine, and the excess
power generated by the Stirling engine was then used for hydro-
gen production by proton exchange membrane electrolyser. In
addition, by considering the system exergy efficiency, hydrogen
production and total product cost as the optimisation objectives
MOO was performed to obtain system design parameters using
the genetic algorithm.
Entezari, Manizadeh, and Ahmadi (2018) studied the inte-
grated gas turbine and Stirling engine power plant system
and obtained thermodynamic and economic optimal operat-
ing parameters of the system which optimised cost energy and
exegetic efficiency. By employing the multi-objective genetic
algorithm, the optimisation was performed. Also, using the TOP-
SIS method the best Pareto solution was identified that has
16% more exegetic efficiency and 10% less Levelized cost of
energy compared to stand alone gas turbine power plant. Mah-
moudimehr and Sebghati (2019) proposed a multi-objective
dynamic programming based optimisation method to optimise
the performance of a solar thermal power plant. The daily power
generation and daily revenue generated were considered as the
performance criteria. From the obtained Pareto front, a solu-
tion having better trade-off among the objectives was identified
on the basis of proximity to the ideal solution and compared
with that of the NSGA-II algorithm. Behzadi et al. (2019) pro-
posed a solar based integrated energy system and presented
optimal design parameters to maximise exergy efficiency and
hydrogen production rate, and minimise total cost rate, through
multi-objective optimisation of the system using the genetic
algorithm.
From the above literature, it can be observed that the effect
of various parameters of a solar driven energy system had been
researched in assessing the performance of the system. The per-
formances of these systems had been studied and optimised
simultaneously on thermodynamic, thermo-economic, ecologi-
cal and economic aspects. The multi-objective optimisation con-
sidering these aspects was performed by metaheuristics such as
NSGA-II, MOPSO, and MODE. For a MOO problem, these algo-
rithms suggest a set of non-dominated Pareto optimal solutions.
As these solutions are non-dominated in nature, identifying the
best solution from these will be difficult due to the conflicting
nature of the objectives.
The solution with the most suitable compromise among the
selected objectives may be considered as the best solution
in a Pareto front. Various researchers had employed decision-
making methods such as the TOPSIS, ELECTRE-III, Shannon
entropy, AHP, LINMAP, SAW, fuzzy, and GRA to identify the best
solutions from the Pareto optimal solutions. The Pareto optimal
solutions were ranked by these methods. However, different
decision-making methods follow different principles to rank the
Pareto solutions. Hence, the ranking of the Pareto optimal solu-
tions by these methods will be different. Also, ranks given by
these methods vary depending upon the problem data. Thus,
implementing these decision-making methods may not be suffi-
cient to address the problem of selecting the best solutions from
the Pareto front. Hence in this work, a selection method based on
the average rank is presented by implementing it to two MOO
case studies of solar assisted heat engine systems.
In this work, optimisation is carried out using the multi-
objective Jaya algorithm and its variants known as multi-team
perturbation guiding Jaya (MTPG-Jaya) algorithm, and adaptive
multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya (AMTPG-Jaya) algorithm.
The posteriori method is followed during the optimisation of
these case studies. Due to the conflicting nature of the objec-
tives considered in this work, selecting the best solution out of
these Pareto optimal solutions can be mimicked as a multiple
attribute decision making (MADM) problem. To identify the best
solution from a Pareto front, eight MADM methods namely sim-
ple additive weighting (SAW), weighted product method (WPM),
preference ranking organisation method for enrichment evalua-
tions (PROMETHEE), technique for order preference by similarity
to ideal solution (TOPSIS), modified TOPSIS technique (MTOP-
SIS), compromise ranking method (VIKOR), complex propor-
tional assessment (COPRAS), and gray relational analysis (GRA)
are employed. The average rank is calculated on the basis of
the rank given by the MADM methods. The contributions of this
work are:
• Multi-objective optimisation of two case studies of solar
assisted heat engines has been carried out to see if there
can be any improvement possible in the performances of the
considered case studies.
• In both case studies, the proposed algorithms have attained
Pareto optimal solutions that have improved the perfor-
mance of the solar assisted systems.
• Decision making based on the average rank by the multi-
attribute decision-making methods has been suggested for
selection of the best solutions from the Pareto front.
The subsequent section presents the working principle of
the multi-objective optimisation algorithms considered in this
work.
2. Multi-objective optimisation with Jaya algorithm
and its variants
Identifying a global best solution that gives optimum values for
all the objectives of the multi-objective optimisation problem is
difficult when the objectives are conflicting in nature. The values
of decision variables which produce the most optimum value
for one objective may produce non-optimal values for the other
objectives. In such situations, the decision maker can convert
the MOO problem into a single objective optimisation problem
using the priority information among the objectives and can
find the global best solution respective to the priorities. If the
priorities of the objectives are not known, then Pareto optimal

solutions can be found using the posteriori approach (Deb et al.
2002) for MOO problems. The Pareto optimal solutions are the
solutions in which at least one objective function value of each
solution is better than the other solutions in the Pareto-front.
In this work, the multi-objective Jaya algorithm and its
variants known as multi-objective MTPG-Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya
algorithms are employed for optimisation. In multi-objective
optimisation using these algorithms, posteriori articulation of
preferences is followed to handle multiple objectives simulta-
neously. By using dominance principles and crowding distance
measurements (Deb et al. 2002; Rao, Rai, and Balic 2016) solu-
tions are ranked during the iterative process of the algorithms.
Furthermore, MADM methods are employed to identify the best
Pareto optimal solution from the Pareto fronts of these algo-
rithms. In addition, the performances of these algorithms are
evaluated using MOO performance indicators such as the cov-
erage, hypervolume, and spacing.
2.1. Jaya algorithm
Jaya algorithm developed by Rao (2016, 2019) is simple and has
no algorithm-specific parameters. The effectiveness of the Jaya
algorithm had been confirmed using various single and multi-
objective optimizations applications (Du et al. 2018; Michailidis
2017; Rao and Saroj 2017, 2018; Rao et al. “Dimensional Opti-
mization of a Micro-Channel,” 2016; Rao et al. “A New Multi-
Objective Jaya Algorithm,” 2016; Rao et al. 2017, 2018; Wang and
Huang 2018; Wang et al. 2017, 2018; Warid et al. 2016, 2018;
Zhang et al. 2016). Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the Jaya
Figure 1. Jaya algorithm flowchart for multi-objective optimisation problems.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5
algorithm. The Jaya algorithm is a population-based algorithm
which moves the solutions towards the best solutions while
avoiding the movement towards the worst solution of the pop-
ulation. For an optimisation problem consisting of D number of
independent variables, the movement of the population during
the ith iteration is governed by the following equation:
sv,p,i = sv,p,i + r1,v,i (sv,best,i − |sv,p,i |) − r2,v,i (sv,worst,i − |sv,p,i |)
(1)
Where, sv,p,i and sv,p,i are the updated and old vth variable
values for the pth candidate solution respectively. The terms
sv,best,i and sv,worst,i are the vth variable values of best and worst
solutions respectively. The terms r1,v,i and r2,v,i are two ran-
domly generated numbers between 0 and 1. For more details
about working of the Jaya algorithm, the readers may refer to:
https://sites.google.com/site/Jayaalgorithm/.
2.2. Multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya algorithm
The Multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya algorithm is a multi-
population variant of the Jaya algorithm introduced by Rao and
Keesari (2018). Unlike the basic Jaya algorithm, the MTPG-Jaya
algorithm uses multiple perturbation equations simultaneously
Figure 2. MTPG-Jaya algorithm flowchart for multi-objective optimisation prob-
lems.
6 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

during the iterative search process. The MTPG-Jaya algorithm
makes use of six movement equations to direct the population
during the search process. Let the algorithm is initialised with
NT (1 < NT < 7) number of teams, during the iterative search the
population is guided by NT perturbation equations in each iter-
ation. This means that during any iteration the set of the popu-
lation will move in different directions of the search space based
on the perturbation equation guiding it. Furthermore, the MTPG-
Jaya algorithm modifies the perturbation equations of a worst
performing team with a better performing team’s perturbation
equation on the basis of the quality of the solutions produced
by it. In addition, when salutions are stagnated non-improved
solutions are introduced in the population during the iterative
process. Figure 2 shows the flowchart of the multi-objective
MTPG-Jaya algorithm which uses non-dominance principles and
crowding distance measurement to handle the multiple objec-
tives at the same time. For more details about the working of
the MTPG-Jaya algorithm readers may refer to Rao and Keesari
(2018).
2.3. Adaptive multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya
algorithm
The AMTPG-Jaya algorithm proposed by Rao et al. (2019a) is a
modified version of the MTPG-Jaya algorithm. Depending on the
optimisation case the number of teams and size of the popu-
lation need to be tuned in the MTPG-Jaya algorithm. This may
become a tedious work when solving complex problems. The
AMTPG-Jaya algorithm adapts the number of teams in exploring
the search domain. In this variant, the number of teams is mod-
ified online on the basis of the improvement of the best so far
solution. However, in this work, the quantity of teams is mod-
ified on the basis of the function evaluations consumed. Also,
to further reduce the complexity of the algorithm the stagna-
tion treatment is removed in the present work. Figure 3 shows
the flowchart of the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm which uses non-
dominance principles and crowding distance measurement for
multi-objective optimisation case studies. More details about
the working of the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm are available in Rao
et al. (2019a, 2019b).
2.4. Performance indicators
By employing the posteriori approach to solve MOO problems
diverse set of non-dominated solutions can be obtained. Hence,
to assess the performances of the algorithms in solving MOO
problems three performance indicators are adopted in this work,
and they are as follows:
2.4.1. Coverage
Zitzler, Deb, and Thiele (2000) proposed this performance indi-
cator to compare and calculate the percentage of solutions in a
Pareto front (B) is dominated by the solutions in another Pareto
front (A). That is the coverage of the Pareto front A over the
Pareto front B is given by the following equation:

|{b ∈ B| ∃ a ∈ A : a ≺= b}|
Cov(A, B) = (2)
|B|

Where a ≺= b means a dominates b or is equal to b.

If all the solutions of Pareto front B are either dominated or
equal to all the solutions of the Pareto front A then the value
of Cov(A, B) is equal to 1. Similarly, if none of the solutions in
Pareto front B are covered by the Pareto front A then the value
of Cov(A, B) is equal to zero.

2.4.2. Spacing
This performance indicator proposed by Schott (1995) quantifies
the distribution of solutions along the Pareto front. The spac-
ing of a Pareto front consisting of n non-dominated solutions is
given by the following equation:


 1  n
S=
2
(d̄ − di ) (3)
|n − 1|
i=1


k
j
i
di = i,imin
=j |fm − fm |, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n (4)
m=1


n
d̄ = (di /n) (5)
i=1

Where k is the number of objectives and fm is the objective

function value of the mth objective. The spacing indicator deter-
mines the uniformity of the distribution of the solutions along
Figure 3. AMTPG-Jaya algorithm flowchart for multi-objective optimisation prob- the Pareto front. For a Pareto front, zero spacing value indicates
lems. that the solutions in the Pareto front are equidistantly spread.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 7

The spacing indicator is an appropriate method when the Pareto of an alternative i, is given by the following equation:
fronts achieved by different algorithms are regular and contain

M
a set of remote solutions. Pi = (nmij )wj (8)
j=1
2.4.3. Hypervolume
The Hypervolume indicator (Rao 2019) for a Pareto front pro- Where, nmij is the normalised measure of performance, and the
vides the search space volume which is dominated by it with best alternative is the one with the highest Pi value.
respect to a specified reference point. Therefore in multi-
objective optimisation, when two are more algorithms perfor- 3.3. Preference ranking organisation method for
mances are compared higher values of Hypervolume indicate enrichment evaluations
better performance. For a Pareto front consisting of N solutions
Brans, Vincke, and Mareschal (1986) developed the PROMETHEE
the hypervolume indicator is given by the following equation:
method which belongs to the class of outranking methods. In
Hypervolume = volume(∪Ni=1 νi ) (6) this method, for each objective function, the Pareto optimal
solutions are compared pair-wise to determine the strength of
Where, vi is the hypervolume constructed with reference point
a solution ai over the solution ak . For the given weights of the
Ref and the solution i as the diagonal corners of the hyper-
objectives, in pair-wise comparison of the solutions usual pref-
cube. The following section presents the multi-attribute decision
erence function (Pj,aiak ) is considered in this work. The usual
making methods employed for decision making in this work.
preference function is the difference between the values of solu-
tions ai and ak for an objective bj . Now the objective preference
3. Multi-attribute decision-making methods (aiak ) index is given by:
Decision making in the presence of multiple conflicting criteria 
M
can be considered as multiple criteria decision making (MCDM). ajak = wj Pj,aiak (9)
Identifying the best Pareto optimal solution from a Pareto front j=1
is treated as a multiple attribute decision-making problem in this The value of ajak varies between zero and 1, and it denotes the
work. MADM methods are a class of MCDM methods which are intensity of the inclination towards the solution ai over ak , when
employed when a limited number of alternatives are available. concurrently all the objectives are compared. Now, for a solution
These methods suggest the best alternative using the attributes ai , the out ranking relations are calculated using the following
information of various alternatives. The set of Pareto optimal equations:
solutions are regarded as alternatives (Ai ∀ alternatives i = 1, 
2 . . . N), and the objective functions are regarded as attributes Leaving flow (Ø+ i )= ax ai (10)
(Bj ∀ attributes j = 1, 2 . . . M). The objective value of a non- x∈A

dominated solution i corresponding to an objective or attribute j Entering flow (Ø−
i ) = ai ax (11)
can be considered as the performance measure (mij ). The relative x∈A
importance or weights (wj ) of the objectives can be appraised
Net flow (Ø(ai )) = (Ø+ −
i ) − (Øi ) (12)
by the decision maker. The summation of weights of all the
attributes together is equal to 1. The objective functions con- The leaving flow denotes the supremacy of solution ai over all
sidered in this work have different units. Thus all the objective other solutions. The entering flow denotes the degree to which
values must be normalised (nmij ) to the same units before apply- all other solutions are dominating the solution ai . The net flow
ing the MADM methods. Based on the potential to find a best denotes outranking relationship of the solutions, and higher val-
alternative the following methods have been considered in this ues of the net flow mean the best Pareto optimal solution. For
work (Rao 2007, 2013): SAW, WPM, TOPSIS, MTOPSIS, VIKOR, more details about the PROMETHEE method, the readers may
PROMETHEE, COPRAS, and GRA. refer to Rao (2013).

3.1. Simple additive weighting 3.4. Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal
Fishburn (1967) developed the SAW method. For the given
solution
weights of the attributes, the cumulative performance (Pi ) of an The TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981)
alternative i, is given by the following equation: provides the relative similarity index (SI) near to an ideal and

M non-ideal solution. The ideal and non-ideal solutions represent
Pi = Wj (nmij ) (7) the hypothetical best and worst scenarios of all the objectives
j=1 respectively. The normalised values (nmij ) of the objective func-
tion values are calculated by using the following equation:
Where, nmij is the normalised measure of performance, and the ⎛
best alternative is the one with the highest Pi value.  ⎞
  M

nmij = mij /⎝ m2ij ⎠ (13)
3.2. Weighted product method j=1

Miller and Starr (1969) developed the WPM method. For the Let, Rij be the matrix of normalised values and wj be the weights
given weights of the attributes, the cumulative performance (Pi ) of the objective functions, then the weighted normalised matrix
8 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

can be calculated by using the following equation: 3.6. Compromise ranking method
Vij = wj Rij (14) The idea of compromise ranking was introduced by Yu (1973)
and Zeleny (1982) and later advanced by Opricovic and Tzeng
Now, identify the ideal (Oideal
j ) and non-ideal (Ononj
- ideal ) solu-
(2002, 2003). The procedure for VIKOR is described below:
tions with respect to all objective functions using the following Step 1: Identify the ideal (mideal ) and non-ideal (mnonideal )
ij ij
criteria respectively. For a maximisation-objective function (j), solutions for all the attributes based on the objective function
the solution with maximum Vij value will be considered as an values of the solutions for respective attributes using the follow-
ideal solution and the solution with minimum Vij value will be ing criteria. For a maximisation objective function (j), the solution
considered as the non-ideal solution. Similarly, for minimisation with maximum mij value will be considered as the ideal solution
objective function (j), the solution with minimum Vij value will be and the solution with minimum mij value will be considered as
considered as an ideal solution and the solution with maximum the non-ideal solution. Similarly, for minimisation objective func-
Vij value will be considered as the non-ideal solution. Then calcu- tion (j), the solution with minimum mij value will be considered
late the Pareto optimal solutions distances (di ) from the ideal and as the ideal solution and the solution with maximum mij value
non-ideal solution using the following equations respectively: will be considered as the non-ideal solution.

 M Step 2: Calculate Ei and Fi values for all Pareto optimal solu-

=
ideal 2 tions in the Paretofront.
di (Vij − Oideal
j ) (15)
j=1
 
M
 M
 Ei = wj [mideal − mij /mideal − mnonideal ] (20)
=
2 ij ij ij
dnonideal
i (Vij − Ononideal )
j (16) j=1
j=1

Where, i = 1, 2 . . . N (i.e. number of Pareto optimal candidate For a Pareto optimal solution i,
solutions or alternatives in a Pareto frontier), j = 1, 2 . . . M (i.e.
the number of objectives or attributes of the Pareto frontier). Fi = maximum of {wj [mideal − mij /mideal
ij ij
Now, the similarity index can be calculated using the following
equation: − mnonideal
ij ]| j = 1, 2 . . . M} (21)
dnonideal
i
SI = (17) Step 3: Calculate the performance index (Pi ) using the follow-
dideal
i + dnonideal
i
ing equation:
If the similarity index of a Pareto optimal solution is higher than
that of all other solutions in the Pareto-frontier, then it is the
nearest solution to the ideal solution. Similarly, if the similarity Pi = V[(Ei − Ei− )/(Ei+ − Ei− )] + (1 − V)[(Fi − Fi− )/(Fi+ − Fi− )]
index of a Pareto optimal solution is lower than that of other (22)
solutions in the Pareto-frontier, then it is the nearest solution to
a non-ideal solution. For more details about the TOPSIS method, Where Ei+ and Ei− are the maximum and minimum values of Ei
the readers may refer to Rao (2007). respectively. Similarly, Fi+ and Fi− are the maximum and mini-
mum values of Fi respectively. V is taken as 0.5.
3.5. Modified-TOPSIS Step 4: The solution with the least Pi will be considered
as the best alternative if it satisfies the following conditions
Deng, Yeh, and Willis (2000) proposed a modification to the TOP- (Tzeng, Lin, and Opricovic 2005). Condition-1 is Pimin − Pinext min ≥
SIS method by suggesting weighted Euclidean distances. In this (1/(N − 1)). Condition-2 is that the solution with least Pi must
modified version the ideal and non-ideal solutions are selected also be the best solution according to the Ei and/or Fi values.
from the normalised matrix (Rij ) and the weighted Euclidean dis- The solution with least Ei vales is considered best according to
tances are calculated from the ideal and non-ideal solutions. Ei values and the solution with least Fi value is considered as
According to the MTOPSIS method, the Pareto optimal solu- best according to Fi values. If these conditions failed, then a
tions distances (di ) from the ideal and non-ideal solution are compromise solutions set is proposed based on the following
calculated by the following equations: criteria. The solutions Pimin , Pinext min . . . Pik are compromise solu-
 tions if condition-1 failed, where Pik − Pinext min ≈ (1/(N − 1)).
 M

dideal =  wj (nmij − nmideal )
2
(18) The solutions Pimin and Pinextmin are compromise solutions if only
i j
j=1 condition-2 fails.

 M

=
2
dnonideal
i wj (nmij − nmnonideal ) j (19) 3.7. Complex proportional assessment
j=1
The complex proportional assessment method was introduced
Now the similarity index is calculated using the Equation (17). by Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas in 1994 (Razavi Hajiagha,
The solution with the most similarity index will be considered as Hashemi, and Zavadskas 2013). This method is simple to use and
the best solution, and the solution with the least similarity index stepwise procedure for ranking and evaluating the alternatives.
will be considered as the relatively worst solution. The stepwise procedure of COPRAS method is as follows:
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 9

The normalised values (nmij ) of the objective function values Where,

are calculated by using the following equation:
ij = |nm0j − nmij |
⎛ ⎞
N
nm0j ∈ reference sequence {nm01 , nm02 , . . . , nm0M }
nmij = mij / ⎝ mij ⎠ (23)
j=1 min = min{ij , i = 1, 2, . . . , N; j = 1, 2, . . . , M}
max = max{ij , i = 1, 2, . . . , N; j = 1, 2, . . . , M}
Let, Rij be the matrix of normalised values and wj be the weights
of the objective functions, then the weighted normalised matrix Distinguishin coefficient (ξ ) = 0.5
can be calculated by using the following equation:
Now the gray relational grade can be calculated by the fol-
lowing equation:
Vij = wj Rij (24)

M
Now, calculate the summation Pi , only for the maximisation (nm0 , nmi ) = wj GR(nm0j , nmij ) for i = 1, 2, . . . , N
objectives using the following equation: j=1
(32)

k
Pi = Vij (25) If a solution has the highest gray relational grade with the ref-
j=1 erence sequence, it means that the comparability sequence is
most similar to the reference sequence and that solution would
Where k is the number of maximisation objectives. Now, calcu- be the best choice. The next section presents a brief description
late summation Ri , only for minimisation objectives using the of the MOO case studies of solar assisted heat engine systems.
following equation:


M
4. Description of solar systems considered
Ri = Vij (26)
j=k+1 Solar dish heat engine system extracts the energy from sunrays
and converts that into useful energy. A solar dish heat engine
Now, calculate the relative weight of each solution (Qi ) using the system typically consists of a heat engine and solar concentrator.
following equation: Solar concentrator reflects the sunlight at the focal point of the
   concentrator where the receiver is placed. The hot end region of

M 
M
the heat engine is placed at the receiver. The receiver then trans-
Q i = Pi + Ri / Ri (1/Ri ) (27)
mits the collected heat energy to the working fluid of the heat
i i
engine. The work output from the heat engine is then utilised to
Now, calculate the degree of utility (Ui ) for each solution using drive a generator that produces electric power. The heat engine
the following equation: of a solar dish system plays a vital role in the conversion of solar
energy into useful energy. Hence, in this work, two configura-
Ui = (Qi /Qimax ) × 100% (28) tions of solar systems which work on different thermodynamic
cycles are studied. First solar system configuration heat engine
works on a Carnot-like cycle and the latter works on the Bray-
The solution with a high degree of utility will be considered as
ton cycle. The following subsections present the thermodynamic
the best solution.
analysis of these solar system configurations.

3.8. Gray relational analysis

4.1. Solar-driven heat engine system
Gray relational analysis is one of the derived evaluation meth-
The solar-driven heat engine considered in this case study is
ods based on the concept of gray relational space (GRS). The
Carnot-like heat engine with a finite temperature difference
normalised values (nmij ) of the objective function values are
working in maximum ecological function conditions. This heat
calculated by using the following equations:
engine consists of one isothermal heat rejection process, one
mij − min{mij } isentropic heating process, one isothermal heat addition pro-
nmij = For maximization (29) cess, and one isentropic heat rejection process. The convec-
max{mij } − min{mij }
tion and radiation heat transfer between the heat source and
max{mij } − mij working fluid is considered during the isothermal heat addi-
nmij = For minimization (30)
max{mij } − min{mij } tion process. The convection heat transfer between the working
fluid and heat sink is considered during the isothermal heat
Now, calculate the gray relational coefficient (GR) using the fol- rejection process. The detailed description and thermodynamic
lowing equation: analysis of the considered solar-driven heat engine system was
presented by Sayyaadi, Ahmadi, and Dehghani (2015). Let, Th
min − ξ max
GR(nm0j , nmij ) = (31) be the working fluid temperature at the hot region of the heat
ij − ξ max engine, TH be the heat source temperature, TL be the heat sink
10 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of a solar dish Brayton heat engine system.

temperature, α H,r be the radiation heat transfer coefficient at the

heat source, α H,c be convection heat transfer coefficient at the
heat source, α L,c be the convection heat transfer coefficient at
the heat sink, then the temperature ratio of working fluid and
heat source during the isothermal heat addition process (γ ),
the convective coefficient ratio (φ), the heat engine operating
temperature ratio (τ ), and heat source to heat sink allocation
parameter (β) are given by the Equations (33–36) respectively.

γ = Th /TH (33)
φ = αH,c /αL,c (34)
τ = TL /TH (35)
β = (αH,r /αL,c )TH3 (36)

Now, the thermal efficiency (η), non-dimensional power out-

put (W), and non-dimensional ecological function (E) are given
by Equations (37–39) respectively.

η = 1 − [τ/(γ − β(1 − γ 4 ) − φ(1 − γ ))] (37)

4 Figure 5. T-S diagram of a solar dish Brayton heat engine system.
W = η[β(1 − γ ) − φ(1 − γ )]
E = [β(1 − γ 4 ) + φ(1 − γ )]
 
β(1 − γ 4 ) + φ(1 − γ ) − γ + 1
× η−τ
γ − β(1 − γ 4 ) − φ(1 − γ )
4.2. Solar dish Brayton heat engine
Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of solar assisted regener-
ative Brayton heat engine system considered in this work. This
system is driven by the combination of solar energy and fossil
fuel. The heat absorbed at the receiver is used to heat the work-
ing fluid before entering the combustion chamber. Hence, less
fuel is burned to heat the working fluid. The solar energy from
the receiver is used as the supplement to the fuel of a solar dish
H be
Brayton heat engine. Furthermore, the waste heat of working
L be the cold side
fluid exhausted from the gas turbine is used to preheat the work-
R be the regenerator effectiveness
ing fluid coming out of the compressor. The working fluid from
the combustion chamber expands rapidly and drives the turbine
which in turn drives the alternator. The detailed description and
thermodynamic analysis of the solar dish Brayton heat engine
system considered in this work was presented by Li, Liao, and
Liu (2015).
The T-S diagram of the solar assisted regenerative Brayton
(38)
engine is shown in Figure 5. The Brayton cycle (with ideal regen-
(39) erator) consists of four processes. Process 1–2: an isobaric heat
addition. During this process, the working fluid is heated by the
regenerator (state 1–5) and then the heat source at TH temper-
ature (state 5–2). Process 2–3: an isentropic expansion process,
in which the hot working fluid drives a turbine. Process 3–4: an
isobaric heat rejection process, in which heat released to the
regenerator (state 3–6) and then to heat sink at TL temperature
(state 6–4). Process 4–1: an isentropic compression process, dur-
ing this process the working fluid at state 4 is compressed to
state 1 by the compressor. Let, T 1 be the temperature of the
working fluid at state 1, T 0 be the ambient temperature,
the hot side heat exchange effectiveness,
heat exchange effectiveness,
and Cwf be the working fluid heat capacity rate, then the power
output is given by Equation (48).
a1 = (1 − εH )(1 − εL )(1 − εR )εR (40)
a2 = a4 T1 + a5 (41)
a3 = a1 T12 + a6 T1 + a7 (42)

a4 = (1 − εH )(1 − εL )εR2 + (1 − εH )(1 − εL )(1 − εR )2 − 1 (43)
a5 = εH (1 − εR )(1 − εL )TH + (1 − εH )εL εR TL (44)
a6 = εH (1 − εL )εR TH + (1 − εH )εL (1 − εR )TL (45)
a7 = εH εL TH TL (46)
   Initial teams
a8 = −a2 − (a22 − 4a1 a3 ) /2a1 (47)
P = Cwf εH [TH − (1 − εR )T1 − εR a8 ]
− Cwf εL [(1 − εR )a8 + εR T1 − TL ] (48)
Now, the Brayton engine thermal efficiency (ηb ) and solar
concentrator efficiency (ηs ) are given by:
εH [TH − (1 − εR )T1 − εR a8 ] − εL [(1 − εR )a8 + εR T1 − TL ]
ηb =
εH [TH − (1 − εR )T1 − εR a8 ] + ξ(TH − TL )
(49)
1 both case studies, equal weights are taken for all the objec-
ηs = η0 − [hc (THavg − T0 ) + eC δ(TH4avg − T04 )] (50)
IRC
Where, THavg is average absorber temperature, RC is the collector
concentrating ratio, eC is the emissivity factor of the collector, hc
is the convection heat transfer coefficient, I is the solar irradiance,
δ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, and η0 is the collector opti-
cal efficiency. Now, the thermal efficiency of the system is given
by:
η m = η s ηb (51)
The non-dimensional thermo-economic performance function
is given by:
εH [TH − (1 − εR )T1 − εR a8 ] − εL [(1 − εR )a8 + εR T1 − TL ]
F=  
H) L)
εH [TH − (1 − εR )T1 − εR a8 ] − k ln(1−ε
hH + ln(1−ε
hL
(52)
The following section presents the computational results of
the MOO case studies obtained by the proposed algorithm.
5. Computational results of multi-objective
optimisation of selected case studies
5.1. Decision making in multi-objective optimisation case
studies
In this work, a MOO case study of a solar-driven heat engine and
a MOO case study of solar dish Brayton heat engine are con-
sidered. These case studies are presented by Sayyaadi, Ahmadi,
and Dehghani (2015) and Li, Liao, and Liu (2015) respectively.
Multi-objective optimisation of these case studies is performed
using Jaya algorithm, MTPG-Jaya algorithm, and AMTPG-Jaya
algorithm. In the implementation of these algorithms for MOO
problem, the posteriori approach based on non dominated rank-
ing method and crowding distance method (Deb et al. 2002;
Rao, Rai, and Balic 2016) is employed. However, selecting the
best solution from a Pareto-front is a difficult task as each solu-
tion has the best value for at least one objective function. Thus
in this work, a selection methodology based on multi-attribute
decision-making methods is suggested to identify the best
Pareto optimal solution in the Pareto front. After performing the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 11
Table 1. The algorithm parameters used in computational experiments of all case
studies.
Algorithm values
Parameter Jaya MTPG-Jaya AMTPG-Jaya
Population size 25 25 25
– 4 4
Maximum movement iterations – 20 20
Maximum function evaluations 40000 40000 40000
multi-objective optimisation using these algorithms, the MADM
methods are employed to determine the best Pareto optimal
solution from the Pareto fronts obtained by the proposed algo-
rithms. Theses MADM methods include SAW, WPM, TOPSIS,
MTOPSIS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE, COPRAS, and GRA methods.
In the implementation of these MADM methods, the objec-
tive functions of the respective case studies are considered
as attributes and Pareto optimal solutions as alternatives. In
tives. As described in the section-3, these MADM methods rank
the solutions differently. Therefore, to identify the final best
solution, average ranks have been calculated. Furthermore, to
assess the correlation and strength of the ranking given by the
MADM methods Spearman’s correlation coefficient is calculated
between different pairs of the methods. The Spearman correla-
tion coefficient is 1 when the ranking of two MADM methods
is identical and −1 when the ranking of two MADM meth-
ods is entirely opposite. If the Spearman correlation coefficient
between two MADM methods is near to 1 means the ranking of
those two methods is similar to each other. Thus in this work,
the ranking given by different MADM methods are considered
for calculating average ranks when they have positive Spearman
correlation coefficient with all other methods. The best Pareto
optimal solution based on the average rank is then compared
with the solutions achieved by other algorithms in a similar man-
ner. The results of the Jaya algorithm, MTPG-Jaya algorithm,
and AMTPG-Jaya algorithm are compared with those of the well
established non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II).
Furthermore, the performances of the proposed algorithms are
compared using three performance indicators such as Coverage,
Spacing, and Hypervolume.
The proposed algorithms and MADM methods have been
coded in MATLABR20016b. Computations are performed by
using a PC with 3.40-GHz Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7500 processor
and 8GB of RAM. The algorithm parameters in the computational
experiments are kept constant for both the case studies and
are presented in Table 1. The following subsections present the
computational results analysis related to the MOO case studies
considered.
5.2. Multi-objective optimisation of the solar-driven heat
engine
This MOO case study is formulated by Sayyaadi, Ahmadi, and
Dehghani (2015). The three objective functions considered in
this work are thermal efficiency (η), non-dimensional power out-
put (W), and non-dimensional ecological function (E) of the
solar-driven heat engine system given by the Equations (37–39)
respectively. All three objectives are maximisation functions.
12 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

Table 2. The Pareto optimal solutions for the solar-driven heat engine case study Table 3. Ranks given by the MADM methods for AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions
obtained by the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm. for the solar-driven heat engine case study.
POS φ β τ γ η W E POS A B C D E F G H Average rank
1 0.228800 0.600000 0.2 0.8 0.500000 0.200000 0.080000 21 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 1 1.875
2 0.273105 0.387845 0.2 0.8 0.612700 0.173765 0.120645 2 2 2 4 4 1 1 4 2 2.5
3 0.101693 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.722462 0.057348 0.051193 19 3 3 1 1 6 4 2 3 2.875
4 0.100000 0.242917 0.2 0.8 0.685822 0.112076 0.093417 20 4 4 3 3 7 5 3 4 4.125
5 0.284435 0.255345 0.2 0.8 0.662366 0.137536 0.108957 25 6 6 7 7 1 3 7 5 5.25
6 0.183648 0.555183 0.2 0.8 0.540748 0.197108 0.102608 9 5 5 5 5 10 7 5 6 6
7 0.230141 0.236822 0.2 0.8 0.674348 0.125326 0.101974 12 8 8 9 9 1 6 9 7 7.125
8 0.127370 0.169761 0.2 0.8 0.703396 0.088417 0.076274 14 7 7 6 6 12 8 6 8 7.5
9 0.107999 0.536161 0.2 0.8 0.566960 0.191717 0.112915 6 9 9 8 8 15 10 8 9 9.5
10 0.162404 0.184952 0.2 0.8 0.696198 0.098635 0.083928 5 11 11 12 12 4 9 12 11 10.25
11 0.100542 0.224090 0.2 0.8 0.691162 0.105341 0.088753 23 10 10 10 10 17 13 10 10 11.25
12 0.229402 0.327860 0.2 0.8 0.643208 0.154016 0.116472 18 13 13 14 14 8 11 14 13 12.5
13 0.212332 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.713669 0.072442 0.063679 15 12 12 11 11 19 15 11 12 12.875
14 0.245761 0.507441 0.2 0.8 0.556791 0.194178 0.109360 7 14 14 15 15 9 12 15 14 13.5
15 0.157821 0.600000 0.2 0.8 0.517137 0.199513 0.090384 4 16 16 16 16 11 14 16 16 15.125
16 0.237864 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.711561 0.075861 0.066433 1 15 15 13 13 24 19 13 15 15.875
17 0.100000 0.157808 0.2 0.8 0.708807 0.080215 0.069895 11 17 17 17 17 13 16 17 17 16.375
18 0.224482 0.239236 0.2 0.8 0.674192 0.125495 0.102077 24 18 18 18 18 14 17 18 18 17.375
19 0.207260 0.468425 0.2 0.8 0.585054 0.186053 0.117698 10 19 19 19 19 16 18 19 19 18.5
20 0.212070 0.472414 0.2 0.8 0.582178 0.187070 0.117077 8 20 20 20 20 18 20 20 20 19.75
21 0.101290 0.474100 0.2 0.8 0.599867 0.180060 0.119987 22 21 21 21 21 20 21 21 21 20.875
22 0.293125 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.706889 0.083176 0.072220 17 22 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 21.875
23 0.403203 0.497998 0.2 0.8 0.529790 0.198490 0.097254 16 23 23 23 23 22 23 23 24 23
24 0.318330 0.137412 0.2 0.8 0.694752 0.100596 0.085357 13 24 24 24 24 23 24 24 25 24
25 0.119626 0.390510 0.2 0.8 0.633376 0.161183 0.118780 3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 24.75
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number. Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number; ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’-
MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.

The decision variables of these objectives are the heat trans-
fer ratio of the allocation parameter (φ), the heat source to sink
and the allocation parameter (β), the heat engine temperature
ratio (τ ), and the heat source temperature ratio (γ ) expressed by
the Equations (53–56). The lower and upper boundaries of the
decision variables are as follows:
0.1 ≤ Ø ≤ 0.6
0.1 ≤ β ≤ 0.6
0.1 ≤ τ ≤ 0.6
0.1 ≤ γ ≤ 0.6
Sayyaadi, Ahmadi, and Dehghani (2015) employed NSGA-
II to this MOO problem for finding the optimal decision vari-
ables and documented three non-dominated solutions using
Bellman-Zadeh, TOPSIS, and LINMAP decision-making methods
based on the similarity to the ideal solutions. The number of
function evaluations taken by NSGA-II to achieve convergence
was not specified by Sayyaadi, Ahmadi, and Dehghani (2015);
thus in this work, the proposed algorithms are executed for
40,000 function evaluations. Furthermore, the best Pareto opti-
mal solution from each algorithm’s Pareto front is identified
using the average rank as explained earlier. Then, the selected
best solutions are compared with those reported for the NSGA-II
algorithm.
The Pareto optimal solutions achieved by the AMTPG-Jaya
algorithm for tri-objective optimisation of a solar-driven heat
engine are presented in Table 2. The thermal efficiency achieved
by AMTPG-Jaya algorithm is varied between 0.5 and 0.7225,
the non-dimensional power output is varied between 0.0573
and 0.2, and non-dimensional ecological function is varied from
0.0511 to 0.1206.
The MADM methods ranking of the Pareto optimal solutions
achieved by the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm is presented in Table 3.
Here an observation can be made that the ranking given by dif-
ferent MADM methods are different but consistent. The Spear-
man correlation coefficients between the MADM methods are
presented in Table 4. Here an observation can be made that
for different pairs of MADM methods the Spearman correlation
coefficients are higher. Therefore, for calculating the average
(53)
ranks of solutions, ranks given by all the methods can be con-
(54) sidered. Furthermore, it can be observed that the Spearman cor-
(55) relation coefficient between SAW and WPM methods is 1, which
implies the rankings of these methods are identical. It can also
(56) be observed from Table 3 that the rankings of SAW and WPM are
same. Similarly, the TOPSIS and MTOPSIS methods rankings are
identical with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 1. It can also
be observed that except the VIKOR method remaining all meth-
ods have strong similarities in the ranking of the Pareto optimal
solutions. The VIKOR method has suggested the solutions 2, 12,
and 25 as compromise solutions which are ranked as 1. The
Pareto optimal solution 21 is the best solution with an average
rank of 1.875. Four MADM methods (SAW, WPM, COPRAS, and
GRA) have suggested solution 21 as the best solution, and three
MADM methods (TOPSIS, MTOPSIS, and PROMETHEE) suggested
solution 21 as the second-best solution. All the MADM methods
except GRA method have suggested solution 3 as the last choice.
With an average rank of 24.75, solution 3 can be considered as
the least good solution.
The Pareto optimal solutions achieved by the MTPG-Jaya
algorithm for tri-objective optimisation of a solar-driven heat
engine are presented in Table 5. The thermal efficiency achieved
by MTPG-Jaya algorithm is varied between 0.4999 and 0.7223,
the non-dimensional power output is varied between 0.0576
and 0.2, and non-dimensional ecological function is varied from
0.0514 to 0.1206.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 13

Table 4. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different pairs of Table 6. Ranks given by the MADM methods for MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions
MADM methods for AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions ranking presented in Table 3. for the solar-driven heat engine case study.
Method A B C D E F G H POS A B C D E F G H Average rank
A 1 1 0.9915 0.9915 0.7983 0.9708 0.9931 0.9962 14 1 1 2 2 8 3 1 2 2.5
B 1 1 0.9915 0.9915 0.7983 0.9708 0.9931 0.9962 23 2 2 3 3 6 2 3 1 2.75
C 0.9915 0.9915 1 1 0.7375 0.9408 0.9992 0.9854 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 3 3.125
D 0.9915 0.9915 1 1 0.7375 0.9408 0.9992 0.9854 9 3 3 1 1 9 5 2 4 3.5
E 0.7983 0.7983 0.7375 0.7375 1 0.9138 0.7383 0.8083 10 6 6 7 7 1 4 7 5 5.375
F 0.9708 0.9708 0.9408 0.9408 0.9138 1 0.9423 0.9731 6 5 5 5 5 12 9 5 6 6.5
G 0.9931 0.9931 0.9992 0.9992 0.7383 0.9423 1 0.9869 15 7 7 8 8 1 6 8 7 6.5
H 0.9962 0.9962 0.9854 0.9854 0.8083 0.9731 0.9869 1 12 9 9 9 9 1 7 9 9 7.75
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- 4 8 8 6 6 15 11 6 8 8.5
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA. 16 10 10 10 10 1 8 10 10 8.625
7 11 11 13 13 7 10 11 11 10.875
8 12 12 14 14 10 12 14 12 12.5
17 14 14 15 15 11 13 15 14 13.875
Table 5. The Pareto optimal solutions for the solar-driven heat engine case study 5 13 13 11 11 22 17 12 13 14
obtained by the MTPG-Jaya algorithm. 21 16 16 16 16 13 14 16 16 15.375
2 15 15 12 12 24 20 13 15 15.75
POS φ β τ γ η W E 18 17 17 17 17 14 15 17 17 16.375
11 18 18 18 18 16 16 18 18 17.5
1 0.323446 0.370780 0.2 0.8 0.612705 0.173762 0.120645
13 19 19 19 19 17 18 19 19 18.625
2 0.244631 0.594646 0.2 0.8 0.499993 0.200000 0.079996
24 20 20 20 20 18 19 20 20 19.625
3 0.103845 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.722296 0.057646 0.051444
25 21 21 21 21 19 21 21 21 20.75
4 0.229759 0.522619 0.2 0.8 0.551060 0.195354 0.107104
20 22 22 22 22 20 22 22 22 21.75
5 0.428259 0.516880 0.2 0.8 0.511220 0.199794 0.086934
22 23 23 23 23 21 23 23 23 22.75
6 0.348213 0.456602 0.2 0.8 0.565953 0.191983 0.112589
19 24 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 23.875
7 0.251107 0.267332 0.2 0.8 0.662131 0.137759 0.109075
3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
8 0.238533 0.243317 0.2 0.8 0.671398 0.128479 0.103870
9 0.223359 0.458711 0.2 0.8 0.587208 0.185261 0.118126 Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number; ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’-
10 0.178665 0.369729 0.2 0.8 0.633686 0.160969 0.118722 MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.
11 0.275134 0.166603 0.2 0.8 0.690695 0.105945 0.089179
12 0.296682 0.288529 0.2 0.8 0.649317 0.149138 0.114528
13 0.422904 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.695298 0.099859 0.084822 Table 7. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different pairs of
14 0.358523 0.388633 0.2 0.8 0.599075 0.180414 0.119904 MADM methods for the MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions ranking presented in
15 0.209627 0.344229 0.2 0.8 0.639537 0.156788 0.117449 Table 6.
16 0.288577 0.280720 0.2 0.8 0.653108 0.145939 0.113115
Method A B C D E F G H
17 0.100000 0.272262 0.2 0.8 0.677032 0.122369 0.100143
18 0.100000 0.242851 0.2 0.8 0.685841 0.112052 0.093401 A 1 1 0.9869 0.9869 0.7900 0.9569 0.9931 0.9977
19 0.226820 0.112481 0.2 0.8 0.709398 0.079292 0.069165 B 1 1 0.9869 0.9869 0.7900 0.9569 0.9931 0.9977
20 0.311024 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.705343 0.085519 0.074042 C 0.9869 0.9869 1 1 0.7135 0.9154 0.9969 0.9823
21 0.364484 0.165171 0.2 0.8 0.682331 0.116279 0.096226 D 0.9869 0.9869 1 1 0.7135 0.9154 0.9969 0.9823
22 0.294771 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.706747 0.083392 0.072389 E 0.7900 0.7900 0.7135 0.7135 1 0.9182 0.7390 0.8031
23 0.431395 0.344294 0.2 0.8 0.608189 0.176101 0.120562 F 0.9569 0.9569 0.9154 0.9154 0.9182 1 0.9300 0.9646
24 0.230898 0.151826 0.2 0.8 0.698878 0.094920 0.081186 G 0.9931 0.9931 0.9969 0.9969 0.7390 0.9300 1 0.9885
25 0.344280 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.702427 0.089838 0.077358 H 0.9977 0.9977 0.9823 0.9823 0.8031 0.9646 0.9885 1
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number. Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’-
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.

Table 6 presents the ranking of MTPG-Jaya algorithm Pareto
optimal solutions using MADM methods. The Spearman corre-
lation coefficients between different pairs of MADM methods
ranking for MTPG-Jaya algorithm Pareto front is shown in Table
7. Here an observation can be made that for different pairs
of MADM methods the Spearman correlation coefficients are
higher. Hence, the average ranks of solutions can be calculated
by considering the ranks given by all the methods. Similar to
the ranking of AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions, the rankings
of MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions given by the SAW and WPM
methods, and the TOPSIS and MTOPSIS methods are identical.
Also, the VIKOR method has relatively lesser spearman coeffi-
cients with other methods. The VIKOR method has suggested
the solutions 1, 10, 12, 15, and 16 as compromise solutions
which are ranked as 1. The SAW, WPM, and COPRAS methods
have suggested the solution 14 as the best solution, the TOP-
SIS and MTOPSIS methods have suggested the solution 9 as the
best solution, and the PROMETHEE and GRA methods have sug-
gested the solutions 1 and 23 as the best solution respectively.
The solution 14 with an average rank of 2.5 can be considered
as the best solution. All the MADM methods have suggested
solution 25 as the least good solution.
Table 8 presents the Pareto optimal solutions achieved by
the Jaya algorithm for tri-objective optimisation of solar-driven
heat engine case study. The thermal efficiency achieved by Jaya
algorithm varies from 0.4999 to 0.7222, the non-dimensional
power output varies between 0.0577 and 0.2, and the non-
dimensional ecological function varies between 0.0515 and
0.1206. The ranking of the Jaya algorithm Pareto optimal solu-
tions by MADM methods is presented in Table 9. The Spearman
correlation coefficient between different pairs of MADM meth-
ods for the ranking of the Jaya algorithm solutions is presented
in Table 10. An observation can be made here that, the Spearman
correlation coefficients between different pairs of MADM meth-
ods are higher. Hence, the ranking of all the MADM methods can
be considered for calculating the average ranks of Jaya algorithm
Pareto optimal solutions. Furthermore, the rankings given by the
SAW and WPM methods are the same. These methods have sug-
gested solution 7 as the best solution. Similarly, the rankings
given by the TOPSIS and MTOPSIS methods are identical. These
14 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

Table 8. The Pareto optimal solutions for the solar-driven heat engine case study Table 10. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different pairs of
obtained by the Jaya algorithm. MADM methods for the Jaya algorithm solutions ranking presented in Table 9.
POS φ β τ γ η W E Method A B C D E F G H
1 0.334445 0.367070 0.2 0.8 0.612698 0.173765 0.120645 A 1 1 0.9846 0.9846 0.8324 0.9746 0.9938 0.9862
2 0.379999 0.548782 0.2 0.8 0.499999 0.200000 0.079999 B 1 1 0.9846 0.9846 0.8324 0.9746 0.9938 0.9862
3 0.100000 0.101569 0.2 0.8 0.722235 0.057754 0.051536 C 0.9846 0.9846 1 1 0.7583 0.9308 0.9969 0.9654
4 0.316571 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.704861 0.086243 0.074602 D 0.9846 0.9846 1 1 0.7583 0.9308 0.9969 0.9654
5 0.147506 0.105103 0.2 0.8 0.717692 0.065708 0.058172 E 0.8324 0.8324 0.7583 0.7583 1 0.9182 0.7853 0.8301
6 0.100000 0.314388 0.2 0.8 0.663518 0.136429 0.108366 F 0.9746 0.9746 0.9308 0.9308 0.9182 1 0.9500 0.9692
7 0.248270 0.425024 0.2 0.8 0.599529 0.180211 0.119952 G 0.9938 0.9938 0.9969 0.9969 0.7853 0.9500 1 0.9769
8 0.479569 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.689945 0.106910 0.089856 H 0.9862 0.9862 0.9654 0.9654 0.8301 0.9692 0.9769 1
9 0.430832 0.141684 0.2 0.8 0.682632 0.115922 0.095991 Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’-
10 0.118183 0.428923 0.2 0.8 0.617684 0.171020 0.120541 COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.
11 0.100000 0.354326 0.2 0.8 0.649618 0.148889 0.114422
12 0.120594 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.720998 0.059957 0.053388
13 0.320713 0.316124 0.2 0.8 0.635846 0.159459 0.118292
14 0.271803 0.495472 0.2 0.8 0.558609 0.193774 0.110039 Now the Pareto optimal solutions selected from the Pareto-
15 0.178149 0.373390 0.2 0.8 0.632299 0.161919 0.118974 fronts of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms based
16 0.210281 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.713838 0.072166 0.063456
17 0.195508 0.479234 0.2 0.8 0.581554 0.187284 0.116936 on the average ranks of MADM methods are compared with
18 0.100000 0.154298 0.2 0.8 0.709683 0.078844 0.068810 those reported for NSGA-II algorithm (Sayyaadi, Ahmadi, and
19 0.271416 0.291440 0.2 0.8 0.651356 0.147434 0.113788 Dehghani 2015). The comparison of the Pareto optimal solutions
20 0.416989 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.695846 0.099115 0.084279
21 0.356283 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.701360 0.091385 0.078532 obtained by the different algorithms for the multi-objective opti-
22 0.376223 0.440349 0.2 0.8 0.569683 0.190973 0.113764 misation of solar-driven heat engine case study is presented in
23 0.270463 0.226217 0.2 0.8 0.673389 0.126362 0.102603 Table 11. Here an observation can be made that, the ecologi-
24 0.218147 0.100000 0.2 0.8 0.713192 0.073223 0.064310
25 0.220959 0.256002 0.2 0.8 0.669238 0.130726 0.105183 cal function is maximum for the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solution,
the non-dimensional power output is maximum for the NSGA-
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number.
II (TOPSIS) solution, and thermal efficiency is maximum for the
NSGA-II (Bellman and Zadeh) solution. Figure 6 shows the Pareto
Table 9. Ranks given by the MADM methods for Jaya algorithm solutions for the fronts achieved by the Jaya algorithm, MTPG-Jaya algorithm,
solar-driven heat engine case study.
and AMTPG-Jaya algorithm along with the Pareto optimal solu-
POS A B C D E F G H Average rank tions of NSGA-II algorithm. The NSGA-II algorithm Pareto optimal
7 1 1 2 2 8 3 1 1 2.375 solutions are reported using the Bellman-Zadeh, TOPSIS, and
1 2 2 4 4 6 1 3 2 3 LINMAP decision making methods.
10 4 4 6 6 1 2 5 3 3.875
17 3 3 1 1 11 6 2 4 3.875
The ranking of the Pareto optimal solutions of these algo-
15 6 6 7 7 1 4 7 5 5.375 rithms by the MADM methods is presented in Table 12. Here an
22 5 5 3 3 12 9 4 6 5.875 observation can be made that the rankings given by the SAW,
13 7 7 8 8 1 5 8 7 6.375
WPM, and COPRAS methods are identical. Similarly, the rankings
11 9 9 9 9 1 7 9 9 7.75
14 8 8 5 5 14 10 6 8 8 given by the VIKOR, PROMETHEE, and GRA methods are identi-
19 10 10 10 10 1 8 10 10 8.625 cal, and the rankings given by the TOPSIS and MTOPSIS methods
6 11 11 12 12 7 11 11 11 10.75 are identical. The Spearman correlation coefficients of different
25 12 12 13 13 9 12 13 12 12
23 13 13 14 14 10 13 14 13 13 pairs of the MADM methods are presented in Table 13. All the
2 14 14 11 11 22 17 12 14 14.375 MADM methods have positive Spearman correlation coefficient
9 15 15 15 15 13 14 15 15 14.625 with the other methods. Therefore, the average ranks can be
8 16 16 16 16 15 15 16 16 15.75
20 17 17 17 17 16 16 17 17 16.75 calculated by considering the ranking of all the MADM meth-
21 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 18 17.875 ods. The Pareto optimal solution of the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm
4 19 19 19 19 18 19 19 19 18.875 can be considered as the best solution with an average rank
18 20 20 20 20 19 20 20 20 19.875
24 21 21 21 21 20 21 21 23 21.125 of 1.875. The AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solution has better com-
16 22 22 22 22 21 22 22 24 22.125 promise among the three objectives of this case study which
5 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 25 23.25 lead to an increase of the thermal efficiency by 2.63% and
12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 23.75
3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 21 24.5 2.73% when compared to that of the NSGA-II (LINMAP and TOP-
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number; ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’-
SIS) solutions respectively. Similarly, the ecological function is
MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA. increased by 3.79%, 0.66%, and 1% when compared to that of
the NSGA-II (Bellman and Zadeh, LINMAP, and TOPSIS) solu-
tions respectively. Also, the non-dimensional output power is
methods have suggested solution 17 as the best solution. The increased by 17.61% when compared to that of the NSGA-II (Bell-
COPRAS and GRA methods have suggested solution 7 as the best man and Zadeh) solution. The Jaya algorithm Pareto optimal
solution. The PROMETHEE method has suggested solution 1 as solution is the next best solution with an average rank of 2.375.
the best solution. The VIKOR method suggested the solutions 10, The MTPG-Jaya algorithm and NSGA-II (LINMAP) algorithm solu-
11, 13, 15, and 19 as the compromise solutions which are ranked tions have the same average rank value (2.875). However, it can
as 1. Solution 7 with an average rank of 2.375 can be considered be observed that five out of eight methods have suggested
as the best solution, and the solution 3 with an average rank of the MTPG-Jaya algorithm solution is better than the NSGA-II
24.5 can be considered as the least good solution. (LINMAP) solution. Also, the MTPG-Jaya algorithm solution has
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 15

Table 11. Comparison of the Pareto optimal solutions of the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya algorithms obtained for the solar-driven heat engine case study.
Algorithm φ β τ γ η W E
NSGA-II (Bellman and Zadeh) 0.4401 0.2533 0.2 0.8 0.6444 0.1531 0.1156
NSGA-II (LINMAP) 0.3684 0.4149 0.2 0.8 0.5845 0.1862 0.1192
NSGA-II (TOPSIS) 0.4447 0.3903 0.2 0.8 0.5839 0.1865 0.1188
Jaya 0.24827 0.42502 0.2 0.8 0.599529 0.180211 0.119952
MTPG-Jaya 0.35852 0.38863 0.2 0.8 0.599075 0.180414 0.119904
AMTPG-Jaya 0.10129 0.4741 0.2 0.8 0.599867 0.180060 0.119987
Note: Results in the bold figure indicates better value; NSGA-II results are available in Sayyaadi, Ahmadi, and Dehghani (2015).

Figure 6. The Pareto optimal solutions of the NSGA-II (Bellman and Zadeh, TOPSIS, and LINMAP), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms obtained for multi-
objective optimisation of the solar-driven heat engine case study.

Table 12. Comparison of the ranking of the Pareto optimal solutions given by Table 13. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different MADM
NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya algorithms obtained by the MADM methods methods for the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya algorithm’s solutions rank-
for the solar-driven heat engine case study. ing presented in Table 12.
Algorithm A B C D E F G H Average rank Method A B C D E F G H
NSGA-II (Bellman and Zadeh) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A 1 1 0.4286 0.4286 0.6571 0.6571 1 0.6571
NSGA-II (LINMAP) 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 2.875 B 1 1 0.4286 0.4286 0.6571 0.6571 1 0.6571
NSGA-II (TOPSIS) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 C 0.4286 0.4286 1 1 0.7714 0.7714 0.4286 0.7714
Jaya 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2.375 D 0.4286 0.4286 1 1 0.7714 0.7714 0.4286 0.7714
MTPG-Jaya 4 4 1 1 3 3 4 3 2.875 E 0.6571 0.6571 0.7714 0.7714 1 1 0.6571 1
AMTPG-Jaya 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1.875 F 0.6571 0.6571 0.7714 0.7714 1 1 0.6571 1
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- G 1 1 0.4286 0.4286 0.6571 0.6571 1 0.6571
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA. H 0.6571 0.6571 0.7714 0.7714 1 1 0.6571 1
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’-
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.

better thermal efficiency and non-dimensional ecological func-

tion than the NSGA-II (LINMAP) solution. Thus, the MTPG-Jaya
algorithm solution can be considered as a better solution than
the NSGA-II (LINMAP) solution. The NSGA-II (Bellman and Zadeh
and TOPSIS) solutions are ranked 6 and 5 respectively by all the
MADM methods.
Now the performances of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-
Jaya algorithms are compared on the basis of coverage, spacing
and Hypervolume indicators. These performance indicators are
calculated for the Pareto fronts achieved by the AMTPG-Jaya
algorithm, MTPG-Jaya algorithm and Jaya algorithm presented
in Tables 2, 5, and 8 respectively. The coverage, spacing and
Hypervolume values of the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and Jaya
algorithms are presented in Table 14. Here an observation can
be made that the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm has better spacing and
Hypervolume metrics. The AMTPG-Jaya algorithm has 85.9% and
12.03% lesser spacing value than that of the Jaya and MTPG-Jaya
algorithms respectively. Furthermore, Hypervolume achieved by
the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm is 3.5% and 1.5% higher than that of
the Jaya and MTPG-Jaya algorithms respectively. Even though
the Pareto fronts obtained by the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya and
Jaya algorithms appear overlapping each other, the Hypervol-
ume of AMTPG-Jaya algorithm is more. This is due to the uniform
distribution of the Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the
AMTPG-Jaya algorithm along the Pareto front. The coverage of
the Jaya algorithm over the MTPG-Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algo-
rithms are 0.04 and zero respectively. This means that 4% of the
16 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI
Table 14. The performance indicator values of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya
algorithm’s in the solar-driven heat engine case study.
Coverage
Algorithm Spacing Hypervolume Jaya MTPG-Jaya
Jaya 0.139464013 0.004390526 – 0.04
MTPG-Jaya 0.084011836 0.004485021 0 – 0
AMTPG-Jaya 0.074990256 0.004550973 0.04 0.04
Note: Results in the bold figure indicates better value.
MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions are dominated by Jaya algorithm
solutions. The MTPG-Jaya algorithm coverage values over the
Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are zero. Similarly, the AMTPG-
Jaya algorithm coverage values over the Jaya and MTPG-Jaya
algorithms are 0.04 and 0.04 respectively. This means that 4%
of the solutions obtained by the Jaya algorithm and 4% of the
solutions obtained by the MTPG-Jaya algorithm are dominated
by the AMTPG-Jaya algorithms solutions.
In addition to tri-objective optimisation of the solar-driven
heat engine case study, dual-objective optimisation is also car-
ried out using the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms.
Figure 7 presents the conflicting nature between thermal effi-
ciency and non-dimensional power output. The thermal effi-
ciency is varied between 0.49993 and 0.722592 for all the pro-
posed algorithms. Similarly, the non-dimensional power out-
put varied between 0.057114 and 0.199999 for all the pro-
posed algorithms. Here an observation can be made that the
Pareto fronts of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algo-
rithms are overlapping. The spacing values for the Pareto
fronts of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are
0.034521, 0.030105, and 0.026662 respectively. The AMTPG-Jaya
algorithm has 29.4% and 12.9% better Spacing metric compared
to Jaya and MTPG-Jaya algorithms respectively. Furthermore,
Figure 7. The Pareto frontiers obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms for dual objective (η−W) optimisation of the solar-driven heat engine case
study.
the Hypervolume of the Pareto fronts of the Jaya (0.026656),
MTPG-Jaya (0.026774), and AMTPG-Jaya (0.026726) algorithms
are competitive.
AMTPG-Jaya Similarly, Figure 8 presents the Pareto fronts obtained by the
AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and Jaya algorithms for simultaneous
0
optimisation of the thermal efficiency and non-dimensional eco-
– logical function. The variation in thermal efficiency is ranged
between 0.612689 and 0.722592 and variation in ecological
function is ranged between 0.050995 and 0.120645. Here an
observation can be made that these two objectives are also con-
flicting in nature. The spacing values for the Pareto fronts of
the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are 0.037815,
0.024866, and 0.023171 respectively. The spacing metric value of
the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm Pareto front is 63.2% and 7.3% bet-
ter than that of the Jaya and MTPG-Jaya algorithms respectively.
The Hypervolume of the Pareto fronts obtained by the Jaya
(0.014621), MTPG-Jaya (0.01463), and AMTPG-Jaya (0.014637)
algorithms are competitive in this case also.
Similarly, Figure 9 presents the Pareto fronts obtained by
the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and Jaya algorithms for simul-
taneous optimisation of the non-dimensional power output
and non-dimensional ecological function. The non-dimensional
power output is varied from 0.173759 to 0.199999, and the
non-dimensional ecological function varied from 0.079998 to
0.120645 for all the proposed algorithms. The Hypervolume
of the Pareto fronts of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya
algorithms are 0.0103976, 0.0103986, and 0.0104023 respec-
tively. The spacing values for the Pareto fronts of the Jaya, MTPG-
Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are 0.036454, 0.037813, and
0.03013 respectively. The AMTPG-Jaya algorithm has 20.9% and
25.4% lesser spacing values compared to the Jaya and MTPG-
Jaya algorithms respectively. The following subsection presents
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 17

Figure 8. The Pareto frontiers obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms for dual objective (η−E) optimisation of the solar-driven heat engine case
study.

Figure 9. The Pareto frontiers obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms for dual objective (W−E) optimisation of the solar-driven heat engine case
study.

the multi-objective optimisation results analysis related to the
solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.
5.3. Multi-objective optimisation of the solar dish Brayton
heat engine
This MOO case study is presented by Li, Liao, and Liu (2015).
H ), cold
The three objective functions considered in this case study are
L ), and regenerator effec-
thermal efficiency (ηm ), power output (P), and non-dimensional
R ). The lower and upper boundaries of the decision
thermo-economic performance function (F) of the solar dish
Brayton heat engine system, given by Equations (48–52) respec-
tively. These three objective functions are maximisation func-
tions. The decision variables of these objective functions are the
temperature of hot reservoir (TH ), the temperature of cold reser-
voir (TL ), the temperature of the working fluid at state 1 of Bray-
ton cycle (T 1 ), hot side heat exchange effectiveness (
side heat exchange effectiveness (
tiveness (
18 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

Table 15. The Pareto optimal solutions for the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study obtained by the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm.
POS H L R T H (K) T L (K) T 1 (K) P (kW) ηm F
1 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 563.262087 67.322294 0.237706 0.314500
2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.311098 67.866710 0.237761 0.314428
3 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 612.243687 71.603713 0.227684 0.299487
4 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 606.776885 71.555795 0.229768 0.302385
5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 581.877339 70.030357 0.236444 0.312026
6 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 575.446142 69.257679 0.237294 0.313407
7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 608.814537 71.585024 0.229014 0.301334
8 0.7 0.70000000 0.8 1000 400 610.682705 71.599910 0.228299 0.300340
9 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 600.180493 71.366028 0.232008 0.305535
10 0.7 0.70000000 0.8 1000 400 604.344969 71.502920 0.230629 0.303591
11 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 597.887942 71.265198 0.232712 0.306536
12 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 583.955528 70.245045 0.236085 0.311473
13 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 573.809546 69.034290 0.237444 0.313675
14 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 578.761814 69.676734 0.236906 0.312760
15 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 586.777835 70.509951 0.235535 0.310641
16 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 594.830108 71.101949 0.233588 0.307792
17 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 596.870004 71.214529 0.233012 0.306964
18 0.7 0.69999997 0.8 1000 400 565.279784 67.687161 0.237755 0.314468
19 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 593.261898 71.005274 0.234009 0.308400
20 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 571.915333 68.761858 0.237582 0.313939
21 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 578.820212 69.683717 0.236899 0.312747
22 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 595.617357 71.147151 0.233370 0.307477
23 0.7 0.70000000 0.8 1000 400 588.575682 70.662939 0.235148 0.310065
24 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 589.840758 70.763336 0.234859 0.309638
25 0.7 0.69999999 0.8 1000 400 603.015736 71.465637 0.231083 0.304229
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number.

variables are as follows: Table 16. Ranks given by the MADM methods for AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions
for the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.
700 K ≤ TH ≤ 1000 K (57) POS A B C D E F G H Average rank

400 K ≤ TL ≤ 500 K (58) 5 1 1 5 5 1 9 1 9 4

12 2 2 3 3 1 10 2 10 4.125
TL ≤ T1 ≤ TH (59) 15 5 5 1 1 1 11 5 11 5
21 3 3 7 7 6 8 3 8 5.625
0.5 ≤ εH ≤ 0.7 (60) 14 4 4 8 8 7 7 4 7 6.125
23 7 6 2 2 1 12 7 12 6.125
0.5 ≤ εL ≤ 0.7 (61) 24 8 8 4 4 5 13 8 13 7.875
6 6 7 12 12 9 6 6 6 8
0.5 ≤ εR ≤ 0.8 (62) 13 9 9 14 14 10 5 9 5 9.375
19 11 11 6 6 8 14 11 14 10.125
The characteristics of solar-driven engine system taken are 20 10 10 16 16 13 4 10 3 10.25
16 12 12 9 9 11 15 12 15 11.875
the same as given by Li, Liao, and Liu (2015). Those are as follows: 22 13 13 10 10 12 16 13 16 12.875
2 16 16 19 19 17 1 16 1 13.125
I = 1000Wm−2 , eC = 0.9, RC = 1300, η0 = 0.85, 17 14 14 11 11 14 17 14 17 14
18 17 17 21 21 18 2 17 2 14.375
δ = 5.67 × 10−8 WK −4 m−2 , 11 15 15 13 13 15 18 15 18 15.25
1 19 19 23 23 21 3 19 4 16.375
hC = 20Wm−2 K −1 , T0 = 300 K, k = 4, ξ = 0.02, 9 18 18 15 15 16 19 18 19 17.25
25 20 20 17 17 19 20 20 20 19.125
hH = hL = 2000 WK −1 m−2 , 10 21 21 18 18 20 21 21 21 20.125
4 22 22 20 20 22 22 22 22 21.5
and Cwf = 1050 WK −1 . 7 23 23 22 22 23 23 23 23 22.75
8 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Li, Liao, and Liu (2015) employed NSGA-II to this MOO prob-
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number; ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’-
lem for finding the optimal decision variables and documented MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.
three non-dominated solutions using Shannon Entropy, TOPSIS,
and LINMAP decision-making methods. The number of func- Brayton heat engine are presented in Table 15. The thermal effi-
tion evaluations taken by NSGA-II to achieve convergence was ciency achieved by AMTPG-Jaya algorithm is varied between
125000, but in this work, the proposed algorithms are tested 0.2276 and 0.2377, the power output is varied between 67.32
for less number (40000) of function evaluations. Furthermore, and 71.60 kW, and non-dimensional thermo-economic function
the best Pareto optimal solution from each algorithm’s Pareto is varied from 0.2994 to 0.3145.
front is identified using the average rank. Then, the selected The MADM methods ranking of the Pareto optimal solutions
best solutions are compared with those reported for the NSGA-II achieved by the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm for solar dish Brayton
algorithm. heat engine case study is presented in Table 16. The Spearman
The Pareto optimal solutions achieved by the AMTPG-Jaya correlation coefficients between the MADM methods are pre-
algorithm for tri-objective (ηm −P−F) optimisation of solar dish sented in Table 17. It can be observed here that two pairs of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 19

Table 17. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different pairs of Table 19. Ranks given by the MADM methods for MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions
MADM methods for the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions ranking presented in for the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.
Table 16.
POS A B C D E F G H Average rank
Method A B C D E F G H
8 1 1 3 3 1 8 1 8 3.25
A 1 0.9992 0.8723 0.8723 0.9622 0.5954 1 0.6023 15 3 3 2 2 1 9 3 9 4
B 0.9992 1 0.8800 0.8800 0.9672 0.5908 0.9992 0.5977 4 2 2 6 6 1 7 2 7 4.125
C 0.8723 0.8800 1 1 0.9607 0.2577 0.8723 0.2631 18 4 4 1 1 1 10 4 10 4.375
D 0.8723 0.8800 1 1 0.9607 0.2577 0.8723 0.2631 6 5 5 8 8 7 6 5 6 6.25
E 0.9622 0.9672 0.9607 0.9607 1 0.4694 0.9622 0.4755 25 7 6 4 4 5 11 7 11 6.875
F 0.5954 0.5908 0.2577 0.2577 0.4694 1 0.5954 0.9992 21 6 7 11 11 9 5 6 5 7.5
G 1 0.9992 0.8723 0.8723 0.9622 0.5954 1 0.6023 19 8 8 12 12 10 4 8 4 8.25
H 0.6023 0.5977 0.2631 0.2631 0.4755 0.9992 0.6023 1 22 9 9 5 5 6 12 9 12 8.375
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- 9 10 10 7 7 8 13 10 13 9.75
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA. 10 11 11 14 14 13 3 11 2 9.875
5 12 12 9 9 11 14 12 14 11.625
1 14 14 18 18 15 1 14 1 11.875
MADM methods (the SAW and COPRAS, and the TOPSIS and 17 13 13 10 10 12 15 13 15 12.625
2 16 16 21 21 17 2 16 3 14
MTOPSIS) have the Spearman correlation coefficients equal to 13 15 15 13 13 14 16 15 16 14.625
one. Furthermore, different pairs of MADM methods among the 7 17 17 15 15 16 17 17 17 16.375
SAW, WPM, TOPSIS, MTOPSIS, VIKOR, and COPRAS methods have 23 18 18 16 16 18 18 18 18 17.5
12 19 19 17 17 19 19 19 19 18.5
a strong correlation in the ranking of the solutions. In addition, 16 20 20 19 19 20 20 20 20 19.75
the PROMETHEE and GRA methods have a positive correlation 24 21 21 20 20 21 21 21 21 20.75
coefficient with the other methods. Hence, the average ranks 14 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
11 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
of solutions are calculated by taking the ranks given by all the 20 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
MADM methods and presented in Table 16. From Table 16 it can 3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
be observed that the SAW, WPM, and COPRAS methods have Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number; ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’-
suggested solution 5 as the best choice. The TOPSIS and MTOP- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.
SIS methods have suggested solution 15 as the best choice.
Similarly, the PROMETHEE and GRA methods have suggested
solution 2 as the best choice. The VIKOR method has suggested be made that the system thermal efficiency is varied between
the solutions 5, 12, 15, and 23 as compromise solutions which are 0.2276 and 0.2377, power output is varied between 67.32 and
ranked as 1. Finally, the Pareto optimal solution 5 can be consid- 71.60 kW, and non-dimensional thermo-economic function is
ered as the best solution with an average rank value of 4. The varied from 0.2995 to 0.3145. Table 19 presents the ranks
solutions 8 and 3 are ranked as 24 and 25 respectively by all the achieved by the MTPG-Jaya algorithm Pareto optimal solutions
MADM methods. using MADM methods. Table 20 presents the Spearman corre-
The Pareto optimal solutions achieved by the MTPG-Jaya lation coefficients between different pairs of MADM methods
algorithm for multi-objective optimisation of solar dish Brayton ranking for MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions. Here an observation
heat engine are presented in Table 18. Here an observation can can be made that for different pairs of MADM methods have

Table 18. The Pareto optimal solutions for the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study obtained by the MTPG-Jaya algorithm.
POS H L R TH (K) T L (K) T 1 (K) P (kW) ηm F
1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.305268 67.865708 0.237761 0.314429
2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 563.264362 67.322717 0.237707 0.314500
3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.218083 71.603715 0.227694 0.299502
4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 580.194858 69.844165 0.236705 0.312437
5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 596.190295 71.178661 0.233207 0.307244
6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 576.298864 69.369714 0.237205 0.313254
7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 603.436399 71.478083 0.230941 0.304029
8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 582.349260 70.080585 0.236366 0.311905
9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 593.102844 70.994974 0.234051 0.308460
10 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 570.061312 68.480602 0.237680 0.314151
11 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 610.425523 71.598531 0.228399 0.300479
12 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 605.748852 71.535849 0.230137 0.302901
13 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 601.213221 71.405500 0.231678 0.305068
14 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 609.303237 71.590012 0.228829 0.301077
15 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 584.294658 70.278490 0.236023 0.311378
16 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 607.632094 71.569725 0.229455 0.301948
17 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 598.034553 71.272195 0.232668 0.306473
18 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 586.086527 70.447876 0.235676 0.310853
19 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 572.738576 68.882102 0.237527 0.313830
20 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.141354 71.603704 0.227725 0.299544
21 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 573.555178 68.998576 0.237464 0.313713
22 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 592.057814 70.925008 0.234319 0.308850
23 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 605.030026 71.519812 0.230391 0.303257
24 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 608.024902 71.575315 0.229310 0.301745
25 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.630281 70.822985 0.234671 0.309363
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number.
20 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

Table 20. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different pairs of Table 22. Ranks given by the MADM methods for Jaya algorithm solutions for the
MADM methods for the MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions ranking presented in solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.
Table 19.
POS A B C D E F G H Average rank
Method A B C D E F G H
18 1 1 7 7 1 10 1 10 4.75
A 1 0.9992 0.9231 0.9231 0.9811 0.7554 1 0.7592 12 3 2 4 4 1 11 3 11 4.875
B 0.9992 1 0.9285 0.9285 0.9842 0.7508 0.9992 0.7546 17 4 4 3 3 1 12 4 12 5.375
C 0.9231 0.9285 1 1 0.9719 0.5238 0.9231 0.5292 16 5 5 1 1 1 13 5 13 5.5
D 0.9231 0.9285 1 1 0.9719 0.5238 0.9231 0.5292 6 2 3 9 9 7 9 2 9 6.25
E 0.9811 0.9842 0.9719 0.9719 1 0.6751 0.9811 0.6782 13 7 6 2 2 1 14 7 14 6.625
F 0.7554 0.7508 0.5238 0.5238 0.6751 1 0.7554 0.9992 24 6 7 10 10 10 8 6 8 8.125
G 1 0.9992 0.9231 0.9231 0.9811 0.7554 1 0.7592 7 9 8 5 5 6 15 9 15 9
H 0.7592 0.7546 0.5292 0.5292 0.6782 0.9992 0.7592 1 25 8 9 12 12 11 7 8 7 9.25
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- 19 10 10 6 6 8 16 10 16 10.25
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA. 21 12 12 15 15 12 6 12 5 11.125
5 11 11 8 8 9 17 11 17 11.5
15 13 13 16 16 14 5 13 3 11.625
22 14 14 18 18 16 3 14 2 12.375
strong correlation coefficients. The TOPSIS and MTOPSIS meth- 1 16 17 19 19 18 1 17 1 13.5
4 15 15 11 11 13 18 15 18 14.5
ods rankings are identical with a correlation coefficient equal to 10 19 19 21 21 20 2 19 4 15.625
one. Similarly, the rankings obtained by SAW and COPRAS meth- 11 17 16 13 13 15 19 16 19 16
odsare also identical. The PROMETHEE and GRA methods have 2 20 20 22 22 21 4 20 6 16.875
20 18 18 14 14 17 20 18 20 17.375
relatively less correlation coefficients but positive with other 14 21 21 17 17 19 21 21 21 19.75
methods. Hence, the average ranks of solutions can be calcu- 8 22 22 20 20 22 22 22 22 21.5
lated by considering the ranks given by all the methods. The 9 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
SAW, WPM, COPRAS methods have suggested solution 8 as the 3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
best solution. The VIKOR method has suggested the solutions
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number; ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’-
4, 8, 15, and 18 as compromise solutions which are ranked as MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.
1. The TOPSIS and MTOPSIS methods have suggested solution
18 as the best solution, and the PROMETHEE and GRA methods
have suggested solutions 1 as the best solution. Finally, the solu- 67.32 and 71.6 kW, and the non-dimensional thermo-economic
tion 8 with an average rank of 3.25 can be considered as the best function varies between 0.2994 and 0.3145. The ranking of the
solution. All the MADM methods have ranked the solutions 14, Jaya algorithm Pareto optimal solutions by MADM methods
11, 20, and 3 as 22, 23, 24, and 25 respectively. is presented in Table 22. The Spearman correlation coefficient
Table 21 presents the Pareto optimal solutions achieved by between different pairs of MADM methods for the ranking of
the Jaya algorithm for multi-objective optimisation of solar dish the Jaya algorithm solutions is presented in Table 23. Here an
Brayton heat engine case study. Here an observation can be observation can be made that the Spearman correlation coeffi-
made that, the thermal efficiency achieved by Jaya algorithm cients between different pairs of MADM methods are similar to
varies from 0.2276 to 0.2377, the power output varies between the correlation coefficients for the ranking of the AMTPG-Jaya

Table 21. The Pareto optimal solutions for the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study obtained by the Jaya algorithm.
POS H L R TH (K) TL (K) T 1 (K) P (kW) ηm F
1 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 566.304785 67.865625 0.237761 0.314429
2 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 563.266986 67.323203 0.237707 0.314500
3 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 612.224590 71.603715 0.227692 0.299498
4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 596.313882 71.185304 0.233172 0.307194
5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 591.743513 70.903187 0.234398 0.308965
6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 580.194346 69.844107 0.236706 0.312437
7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 588.913509 70.690333 0.235072 0.309953
8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 606.486041 71.550508 0.229873 0.302532
9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 610.045866 71.596106 0.228546 0.300682
10 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 564.352829 67.521785 0.237739 0.314491
11 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 598.489145 71.293413 0.232531 0.306278
12 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 583.930309 70.242541 0.236090 0.311480
13 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 587.565832 70.578504 0.235369 0.310393
14 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 602.978152 71.464497 0.231096 0.304247
15 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 569.780469 68.436725 0.237692 0.314178
16 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 586.321566 70.469185 0.235629 0.310782
17 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 585.157537 70.361593 0.235860 0.311130
18 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 581.821725 70.024380 0.236453 0.312041
19 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 590.691499 70.827514 0.234656 0.309342
20 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 599.284652 71.328806 0.232287 0.305932
21 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 571.966010 68.769343 0.237579 0.313933
22 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 568.977174 68.309364 0.237720 0.314252
23 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 611.535289 71.602956 0.227965 0.299877
24 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 576.677881 69.418559 0.237163 0.313183
25 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 575.304708 69.238810 0.237308 0.313432
Note: ‘POS’-Pareto optimal solution number.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 21

Table 23. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different pairs of the solution 18 with an average rank of 4.75 can be considered
MADM methods for the Jaya algorithm solutions ranking presented in Table 22.
as the best solution, and all the MADM methods have ranked the
Method A B C D E F G H solutions 9, 23, and 3 as 23, 24, and 25 respectively.
A 1 0.9969 0.8769 0.8769 0.9552 0.4262 0.9992 0.4462 Now the Pareto optimal solutions selected from the Pareto-
B 0.9969 1 0.8969 0.8969 0.9699 0.4000 0.9977 0.4200 fronts of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms based
C 0.8769 0.8969 1 1 0.9699 0.1100 0.8815 0.1262
on the average rank of the MADM methods are compared with
D 0.8769 0.8969 1 1 0.9699 0.1100 0.8815 0.1262
E 0.9552 0.9699 0.9699 0.9699 1 0.2703 0.9575 0.2903 those reported for NSGA-II algorithm. Figure 10 shows the Pareto
F 0.4262 0.4000 0.1100 0.1100 0.2703 1 0.4123 0.9946 fronts achieved by the Jaya algorithm, MTPG-Jaya algorithm
G 0.9992 0.9977 0.8815 0.8815 0.9575 0.4123 1 0.4323 and AMTPG-Jaya algorithm along with the Pareto optimal solu-
H 0.4462 0.4200 0.1262 0.1262 0.2903 0.9946 0.4323 1
tions of NSGA-II algorithm. The NSGA-II algorithm Pareto optimal
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’-
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA. solutions are reported using the Shannon Entropy, TOPSIS, and
LINMAP decision making methods. Here an observation can be
made that the NSGA-II algorithm Pareto optimal solutions are in
and MTPG-Jaya algorithm solutions. Different pairs of MADM second level Paretofront which is dominated by the Paretofronts
methods excluding the pairs with the PROMETHEE or the GRA of the proposed algorithms.
methods have strong correlation coefficients. Also, the pairs with The comparison of the Pareto optimal solutions obtained by
the PROMETHEE or the GRA methods have positive correlation the different algorithms for the multi-objective optimisation of
coefficients. Hence, the ranking of all MADM methods can be solar dish Brayton heat engine system is presented in Table 24.
considered for calculating the average ranks of Jaya algorithm Here an observation can be made that, the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-
Pareto optimal solutions. From Table 22 it can be observed that Jaya, and Jaya algorithms solutions have better objective func-
the SAW, COPRAS and WPM methods have suggested solution tion values compared to the solutions reported for the NASGA-
18 as the best solution. The TOPSIS and MTOPSIS methods have II algorithm in terms of the power output, thermal efficiency,
suggested solution 16 as the best solution. The PROMETHEE and and thermo-economic function. This implies that the NSGA-II
GRA methods have suggested solution 1 as the best solution. solutions are dominated by the solutions of the AMTPG-Jaya,
The VIKOR method suggested the solutions 12, 13, 16, 17, and MTPG-Jaya, and Jaya algorithms. The Jaya algorithm solution has
18 as the compromise solutions which are ranked as 1. Finally, higher thermal efficiency and thermo-economic function value,

Figure 10. The Pareto optimal solutions of the NSGA-II (Shannon entropy, TOPSIS, and LINMAP), Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms obtained for multi-
objective optimisation of the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.

Table 24. Comparison of the Pareto optimal solutions of the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya algorithms obtained for the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.
Algorithm H L R TH (K) TL (K) T 1 (K) P (kW) ηm F
NSGAII-Shannon 0.69 0.7 0.79 999.99 400.06 586.33 68.22 0.2339 0.3089
Entropy
NSGAII-LINMAP 0.69 0.69 0.79 999.99 400.01 586.87 68.65 0.2331 0.3077
NSGAII-TOPSIS 0.7 0.7 0.8 999.99 400.01 586.69 68.64 0.2332 0.3078
Jaya 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 581.821725 70.0243801 0.2364535 0.3120406
MTPG-Jaya 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 582.34926 70.0805847 0.2363664 0.3119052
AMTPG-Jaya 0.7 0.7 0.8 1000 400 581.877339 70.0303566 0.2364444 0.3120264
Note: Results in the bold figure indicates better value; NSGA-II results are available in Li, Liao, and Liu (2015).
22 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI

Table 25. Comparison of the ranking of the Pareto optimal solutions given Table 27. The performance indicator values of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya
by NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya algorithms obtained by the MADM meth- algorithms in the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.
ods for the solar dish Brayton heat engine case study.
Coverage
Algorithm A B C D E F G H Average rank
Algorithm Spacing Hypervolume Jaya MTPG-Jaya AMTPG-Jaya
NSGAII-Shannon Entropy 4 4 6 6 1 4 4 4 4.125
NSGAII-TOPSIS 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6 5.5 Jaya 0.0562112 0.026508392 – 0 0.08
NSGAII-LINMAP 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 MTPG-Jaya 0.0454323 0.026508835 0 – 0.08
Jaya 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 AMTPG-Jaya 0.0401055 0.026510432 0 0 –
MTPG-Jaya 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 Note: Results in the bold figure indicates better value.
AMTPG-Jaya 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1.625
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’-
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA.
solution can be considered as a better solution than the Jaya
algorithm solution. The NSGA-II (Shannon Entropy, LINMAP, and
Table 26. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different pairs of TOPSIS) solutions are ranked 4, 5, and 6 respectively based on
MADM methods for the NSGA-II, Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, AMTPG-Jaya algorithm’s solu- the average ranks of the MADM methods.
tions ranking presented in Table 25.
Now the performances of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-
Method A B C D E F G H Jaya algorithms are compared on the basis of coverage, spac-
A 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.8452 0.9429 0.8286 0.9429 ing and Hypervolume indicators. These performance indicators
B 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.8452 0.9429 0.8286 0.9429 are calculated for the Pareto fronts achieved by AMTPG-Jaya,
C 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.3719 0.5429 0.7714 0.5429
D 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.3719 0.5429 0.7714 0.5429 MTPG-Jaya, and Jaya algorithms presented in Tables 2, 5, and 8
E 0.8452 0.8452 0.3719 0.3719 1 0.8452 0.8452 0.8452 respectively. The coverage, spacing and Hypervolume values of
F 0.9429 0.9429 0.5429 0.5429 0.8452 1 0.7714 1 the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and Jaya algorithms are presented
G 0.8286 0.8286 0.7714 0.7714 0.8452 0.7714 1 0.7714
H 0.9429 0.9429 0.5429 0.5429 0.8452 1 0.7714 1 in Table 27. Here an observation can be made that the spacing of
Note: ‘A’- SAW; ‘B’- WPM; ‘C’- TOPSIS; ‘D’- MTOPSIS; ‘E’- VIKOR; ‘F’- PROMETHEE; ‘G’- the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm is 13.28% and 40.1% better than that
COPRAS; ‘H’- GRA. of the Jaya and MTPG-Jaya algorithms respectively. In addition,
the Hypervolume indicator values are competitive for the pro-
posed algorithms. From the coverage values presented in Table
and MTPG-Jaya algorithm has higher power output value. The 27, it can be observed that 8% of the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solu-
ranking of the Pareto optimal solutions of these algorithms by tions are dominated by both Jaya and MTPG-Jaya algorithms
the MADM methods is presented in Table 25. The Spearman cor- solutions respectively.
relation coefficients of different pairs of the MADM methods are In this case study also, along with the tri-objective opti-
presented in Table 26. Here an observation can be made that the misation of the solar dish Brayton heat engine system, dual-
pairs SAW-WPM, TOPSIS-MTOPSIS, and PROMETHEE-GRA have objective optimisation is carried out using the Jaya, MTPG-
correlation coefficient equal to one which indicates that the Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. Figure 11 presents the con-
ranking by the methods in the respective pairs is identical. Fur- flicting nature between power output and thermal efficiency.
thermore, different pairs of MADM methods excluding the pairs The power output is varied between 67.86 and 71.6 kW for
with the TOPSIS or the MTOPSIS methods have strong correla- all the proposed algorithms and the thermal efficiency var-
tion coefficients. Also, the pairs with the TOPSIS or the MTOPSIS ied between 0.227693 and 0.237761 for all the proposed algo-
methods have positive correlation coefficients. Therefore, the rithms. The spacing values for the Pareto fronts of the Jaya,
average ranks can be calculated by considering the ranking of MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are 0.041442, 0.032753,
all the MADM methods. and 0.023561 respectively. Here an observation can be made
The Pareto optimal solution of the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm that, even though the Paretofronts of the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and
can be considered as the best solution with an average rank AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are overlapping, the spacing metric of
of 1.625. The AMTPG-Jaya algorithm solution has better out- the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm has 75.8% and 39.01% lesser value
put power, thermal efficiency, and thermo-economic function compared to that of the Jaya and MTPG-Jaya algorithms respec-
values compared to those of the NSGA-II solutions. The output tively. Furthermore, the Hypervolume of the Pareto fronts of
power is increased by 2.65%, 2.01%, and 2.03% when compared the Jaya (56.792), MTPG-Jaya (56.793), and AMTPG-Jaya (56.794)
to that of NSGA-II (Shannon Entropy, LINMAP, and TOPSIS) solu- algorithms are competitive.
tions. Similarly, the thermal efficiency is increased by 1.09%, Similarly, Figure 12 presents the Pareto fronts obtained by
1.43%, and 1.39% when compared to that of The NSGA-II (Shan- the AMTPG-Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and Jaya algorithms for simulta-
non Entropy, LINMAP, and TOPSIS) solutions respectively. The neous optimisation of the power output and non-dimensional
thermo-economic function is increased by 1.01%, 1.41%, and thermo-economic function. The power output is varied from
1.37% when compared to that of NSGA-II (Shannon Entropy, 67.3 to 71.6 kW, and the non-dimensional thermo-economic
LINMAP, and TOPSIS) solutions respectively. The Jaya and MTPG- function varied from 0.299492 to 0.3145 for all the proposed
Jaya algorithm Pareto optimal solutions are the next best solu- algorithms. The spacing of the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm Pareto
tions with an average rank of 2. However, it can be observed front (0.024322) is 37.1% and 51.7% lower than that of the Jaya
that the MTPG-Jaya algorithm solution has ranked 1 by four (0.036906) and MTPG-Jaya (0.033355) algorithms respectively.
MADM (TOPSIS, MTOPSIS, VIKOR, and COPRAS) methods and The Hypervolume of the Pareto fronts obtained by the Jaya
the Jaya algorithm solution ranked 1 by three MADM (VIKOR, (4.592881), MTPG-Jaya (4.593116), and AMTPG-Jaya (4.59315)
PROMETHEE, and GRA) methods. Thus, the MTPG-Jaya algorithm algorithms are competitive.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 23

Figure 11. The Pareto frontiers obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms for dual objective (P−ηm ) optimisation of the solar dish Brayton heat
engine case study.

Figure 12. The Pareto frontiers obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms for dual objective (P−F) optimisation of the solar dish Brayton heat engine
case study.

Figure 13 presents the Pareto fronts obtained by the Jaya,
MTPG-Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms for simultaneous opti-
misation of the thermal efficiency and non-dimensional thermo-
economic function. The variation in thermal efficiency is ranged
between 0.237706 and 0.237761 and variation in thermo-
economic function is ranged between 0.314429 and 0.3145.
Here an observation can be made that the variations of both the
objectives are relatively very less. Also, it can be observed from
Figure 10, that as the thermal efficiency increases the thermo
economic function is also increased. Here it can be inferred
that the effect of design parameters on the thermal efficiency
and thermo-economic function is similar in nature. Furthermore,
the spacing values for the Pareto fronts of the Jaya, MTPG-
Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are 0.058665, 0.043054, and
0.039572 respectively. The spacing metric value of the AMTPG-
Jaya algorithm Pareto front is 48.2% and 8.7% better than that of
the Jaya and MTPG-Jaya algorithms respectively. The Hypervol-
ume of the Pareto fronts obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and
24 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI
Figure 13. The Pareto frontiers obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms for dual objective (ηm −F) optimisation of the solar dish Brayton heat
engine case study.
AMTPG-Jaya algorithms are the same, which is 0.002435598. The
following section presents the conclusions of this work.
6. Conclusions
In this work, the optimisation of a solar-driven heat engine sys-
tem and a solar assisted Brayton engine system is carried out by
using the multi-objective Jaya algorithm and its variants known
as MTPG-Jaya and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms. In both the case
studies, optimal Pareto fronts are obtained by the proposed
algorithms through the posteriori method of multi-objective
optimisation. As the Pareto optimal solutions in Pareto front are
non-dominant in nature, selecting the most suitable solution
is difficult. Hence, the applicability of decision-making meth-
ods such as SAW, WPM, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS, MTOPSIS, VIKOR,
COPRAS, and GRA in multi-objective optimisation problems has
been discussed. As these methods rank the alternatives employ-
ing different principles, the ranks given by each method would
vary. Therefore, a decision making procedure based on the aver-
age rank of the aforementioned methods is proposed to identify
the best Pareto optimal solution in a Pareto front.
Furthermore, by employing the proposed procedure, he pro-
cedure, the best solutions are identified from the Pareto fronts
obtained by Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algorithms and
compared with the renowned NSGA-II algorithm solutions. The
AMTPG-Jaya algorithm, in both the case studies, has attained
the best average rank and healthier compromise among the
objective functions. In the solar-driven heat engine case study,
the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm’s solution attained the best aver-
age rank of 1.875. The AMTPG-Jaya algorithm’s solution leads
to an increase in the thermal efficiency, the ecological function,
and non-dimensional power output by 2.63%, 1%, and 17.61%
respectively when compared to those of NSGA-II solutions . Sim-
ilarly, in solar dish Brayton heat engine case study, the Pareto
fronts obtained by the Jaya, MTPG-Jaya, and AMTPG-Jaya algo-
rithms are dominating the solutions of NSGA-II algorithm. The
AMTPG-Jaya algorithm’s solution has attained the best average
rank of 1.625 and has resulted in an increase of the output power,
thermal efficiency, and thermo-economic function by 2.65%,
1.43%, and 1.37% respectively when compared to those of the
NSGA-II solutions.
In addition, the performances of the proposed algorithms
are compared using the coverage, spacing, and Hypervolume
performance indicators in bi-objective and tri-objective opti-
misation scenarios. In both the case studies, hyper volumes
generated by the Pareto fronts of the proposed algorithms are
same, but the spacing metric values are varying. The AMTPG-
Jaya algorithm attained superior spacing values when compared
to those of MTPG-Jaya and Jaya algorithms.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Hameer Singh Keesari http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7633-1170
References
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., and Mohammad Ali Ahmadi. 2015. “Thermody-
namic Analysis and Optimization of an Irreversible Ericsson Cryogenic
Refrigerator Cycle.” Energy Conversion and Management 89: 147–155.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., and Mohammad Ali Ahmadi. 2016a. “Multi Objec-
tive Optimization of Performance of Three-Heat-Source Irreversible
Refrigerators Based Algorithm NSGAII.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 60: 784–794.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., and Mohammad Ali Ahmadi. 2016b. “Thermody-
namic Analysis and Optimisation of an Irreversible Radiative-Type Heat
Engine by Using Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm.” Interna-
tional Journal of Ambient Energy 37 (4): 403–408. doi:10.1080/01430750.
2014.977498.

Ahmadi, Mohammad Hosein, Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, and Michel Feidt.
2016. “Performance Optimization of a Solar-Driven Multi-Step Irreversible
Brayton Cycle Based on a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm.” Oil &
Gas Science and Technology – Revue d’IFP Energies Nouvelles 71 (1): 16.
doi:10.2516/ogst/2014028.
Ahmadi, Mohammad Hossein, Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, Adel Mellit, Fathol-
lah Pourfayaz, and Michel Feidt. 2016. “Thermodynamic Analysis and
Multi Objective Optimization of Performance of Solar Dish Stirling
Engine by the Centrality of Entransy and Entropy Generation.” Inter-
national Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 78: 88–95.
doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.11.042.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, Fathollah Pourfayaz,
Mokhtar Bidi, Hadi Hosseinzade, and Michel Feidt. 2016. “Optimization
of Powered Stirling Heat Engine With Finite Speed Thermodynamics.”
Energy Conversion and Management 108: 96–105.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, Fathollah Pourfayaz,
Hadi Hosseinzade, Emin Acıkkalp, Iskander Tlili, and Michel Feidt. 2016.
“Designing a Powered Combined Otto and Stirling Cycle Power Plant
Through Multi-Objective Optimization Approach.” Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews 62: 585–595.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, and Seyed Abbas Sadat-
sakkak. 2015. “Thermodynamic Analysis and Performance Optimization
of Irreversible Carnot Refrigerator by Using Multi-Objective Evolution-
ary Algorithms (MOEAs).” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51:
1055–1070.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Saeed Dehghani, Amir H. Mohammadi, Michel Feidt,
and Marco A. Barranco-Jimenez. 2013. “Optimal Design of a Solar Driven
Heat Engine Based on Thermal and Thermo-Economic Criteria.” Energy
Conversion and Management 75: 635–642. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2013.
07.078.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Mohammad Ali Jokar, Tingzhen Ming, Michel
Feidt, Fathollah Pourfayaz, and Fatemeh Razi Astaraei. 2018. “Multi-
Objective Performance Optimization of Irreversible Molten Carbonate
Fuel Cell–Braysson Heat Engine and Thermodynamic Analysis with Eco-
logical Objective Approach.” Energy 144: 707–722. doi:10.1016/j.energy.
2017.12.028.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Mehdi Mehrpooya, Sara Abbasi, Fathollah Pour-
fayaz, and Joan Carles Bruno. 2017. “Thermo-Economic Analysis and
Multi-Objective Optimization of a Transcritical CO2 Power Cycle Driven
by Solar Energy and LNG Cold Recovery.” Thermal Science and Engineering
Progress 4: 185–196. doi:10.1016/j.tsep.2017.10.004.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Amir H. Mohammadi, Saeed Dehghani, and Marco
A. Barranco-Jiménez. 2013. “Multi-Objective Thermodynamic-Based Opti-
mization of Output Power of Solar Dish-Stirling Engine by Implement-
ing an Evolutionary Algorithm.” Energy Conversion and Management 75:
438–445. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2013.06.030.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Mohammad Alhuyi Nazari, and Michel Feidt. 2018.
“Thermodynamic Analysis and Multi-Objective Optimisation of Endore-
versible Lenoir Heat Engine Cycle Based on the Thermo-Economic Per-
formance Criterion.” International Journal of Ambient Energy 0 (0): 1–10.
doi:10.1080/01430750.2017.1423386.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Mohammad Sameti, Seyed M. Pourkiaei, Tingzhen
Ming, Fathollah Pourfayaz, Ali J. Chamkha, Hakan F. Oztop, and Moham-
mad Ali Jokar. 2018. “Multi-Objective Performance Optimization of
Irreversible Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell–Stirling Heat Engine–Reverse
Osmosis and Thermodynamic Assessment with Ecological Objective
Approach.” Energy Science and Engineering 6 (6): 783–796. doi:10.1002/
ese3.252.
Ahmadi, Mohammad Hossein, Hoseyn Sayyaadi, Saeed Dehghani, and Hadi
Hosseinzade. 2013. “Designing a Solar Powered Stirling Heat Engine
Based on Multiple Criteria: Maximized Thermal Efficiency and Power.”
Energy Conversion and Management 75: 282–291. doi:10.1016/j.encon
man.2013.06.025.
Ahmadi, Mohammad H., Hoseyn Sayyaadi, Amir H. Mohammadi, and
Marco A. Barranco-Jimenez. 2013. “Thermo-Economic Multi-Objective
Optimization of Solar Dish-Stirling Engine by Implementing Evolu-
tionary Algorithm.” Energy Conversion and Management 73: 370–380.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2013.05.031.
Arora, Ranjana, S. C. Kaushik, and Rajesh Arora. 2016. “Thermodynamic
Modeling and Multi-Objective Optimization of Two Stage Thermoelectric
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 25
Generator in Electrically Series and Parallel Configuration.” Applied Ther-
mal Engineering 103: 1312–1323. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.05.009.
Arora, Rajesh, S. C. Kaushik, and Raj Kumar. 2016. “Multi-Objective Thermo-
dynamic Optimization of Solar Parabolic Dish Stirling Heat Engine With
Regenerative Losses Using NSGA-II and Decision Making.” Applied Solar
Energy 52 (4): 295–304. doi:10.3103/S0003701X16040046.
Arora, Rajesh, S. C. Kaushik, and Raj Kumar. 2017. “Multi-Objective Thermo-
dynamic Optimisation of Solar Parabolic Dish Stirling Heat Engine Using
NSGA-II and Decision Making.” International Journal of Renewable Energy
Technology 8 (1): 64–92.
Arora, Rajesh, S. C. Kaushik, Raj Kumar, and Ranjana Arora. 2016. “Multi-
Objective Thermo-Economic Optimization of Solar Parabolic Dish Stirling
Heat Engine With Regenerative Losses Using NSGA-II and Decision Mak-
ing.” International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 74: 25–35.
doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.07.010.
Ashouri, Milad, Mohammad H. Ahmadi, S. Mohsen Pourkiaei, Fatemeh Razi
Astaraei, Roghaye Ghasempour, Tingzhen Ming, and Javid Haj Hemati.
2018. “Exergy and Exergo-Economic Analysis and Optimization of a Solar
Double Pressure Organic Rankine Cycle.” Thermal Science and Engineering
Progress 6: 72–86. doi:10.1016/j.tsep.2017.10.002.
Behzadi, Amirmohammad, Ali Habibollahzade, Pouria Ahmadi, Ehsan Gho-
lamian, and Ehsan Houshfar. 2019. “Multi-Objective Design Optimization
of a Solar Based System for Electricity, Cooling, and Hydrogen Produc-
tion.” Energy 169: 696–709. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.047.
Bellos, Evangelos, Christos Tzivanidis, and Kimon A. Antonopoulos. 2017.
“Parametric Analysis and Optimization of a Solar Assisted Gas Turbine.”
Energy Conversion and Management 139: 151–165. doi:10.1016/j.encon
man.2017.02.042.
Brans, J. P., Ph Vincke, and B. Mareschal. 1986. “How to Select and How to
Rank Projects: The Promethee Method.” European Journal of Operational
Research 24: 228–238. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5.
Carrillo Caballero, Gaylord Enrique, Luis Sebastian Mendoza, Arnaldo Mar-
tin Martinez, Electo Eduardo Silva, Vladimir Rafael Melian, Osvaldo José
Venturini, and Oscar Almazán del Olmo. 2017. “Optimization of a Dish
Stirling System Working with DIR-Type Receiver Using Multi-Objective
Techniques.” Applied Energy 204: 271–286. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.
07.053.
Dai, Dongdong, Fang Yuan, Rui Long, Zhichun Liu, and Wei Liu. 2018.
“Performance Analysis and Multi-Objective Optimization of a Stirling
Engine Based on MOPSOCD.” International Journal of Thermal Sciences
124: 399–406. doi:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2017.10.030.
Deb, Kalyanmoy, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. “A
Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II.” IEEE Trans-
actions on Evolutionary Computation 6 (2): 182–197. doi:10.1109/4235.
996017.
Deng, Hepu, Chung Hsing Yeh, and Robert J. Willis. 2000. “Inter-Company
Comparison Using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights.” Comput-
ers and Operations Research 27: 963–973. doi:10.1016/S0305-0548(99)
00069-6.
Du, Dinh-Cong, Ho-Huu Vinh, Vo-Duy Trung, Ngo-Thi Hong Quyen, and
Nguyen-Thoi Trung. 2018. “Efficiency of Jaya Algorithm for Solving the
Optimization-Based Structural Damage Identification Problem Based on
a Hybrid Objective Function.” Engineering Optimization 50 (8): 1233–1251.
doi:10.1080/0305215X.2017.1367392.
Duan, Chen, Xinggang Wang, Shuiming Shu, Changwei Jing, and Huawei
Chang. 2014. “Thermodynamic Design of Stirling Engine Using Multi-
Objective Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm.” Energy Conversion and
Management 84: 88–96. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.003.
Entezari, Ashkan, Ali Manizadeh, and Rouhollah Ahmadi. 2018. “Energetical,
Exergetical and Economical Optimization Analysis of Combined Power
Generation System of Gas Turbine and Stirling Engine.” Energy Conversion
and Management 159: 189–203. doi:10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.01.012.
Ferreira, Ana C., Manuel L. Nunes, José C. F. Teixeira, Luís A. S. B. Mar-
tins, Senhorinha F. C. F. Teixeira, and Silvia A. Nebra. 2017. “Design
of a Solar Dish Stirling Cogeneration System: Application of a Multi-
Objective Optimization Approach.” Applied Thermal Engineering 123:
646–657. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.127.
Fishburn, P. C. 1967. “Letter to the Editor—Additive Utilities with Incom-
plete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments.” Operations
Research 15 (3): 537–542.
26 R. V. RAO AND H. S. KEESARI
Ge, Yanlin, Wenhua Wang, Lingen Chen, and Fankai Meng. 2018. “Exer-
goeconomic Performance Analysis and Optimisation of an Irreversible-
Closed Intercooled Regenerated Gas Turbine Cycle.” International Journal
of Ambient Energy 0 (0): 1–9. doi:10.1080/01430750.2018.1531259.
Habibollahzade, Ali, Ehsan Gholamian, Ehsan Houshfar, and Amirmoham-
mad Behzadi. 2018. “Multi-Objective Optimization of Biomass-Based Solid
Oxide Fuel Cell Integrated with Stirling Engine and Electrolyzer.” Energy
Conversion and Management 171: 1116–1133. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.
2018.06.061.
Harkouss, Fatima, Farouk Fardoun, and Pascal Henry Biwole. 2018. “Multi-
Objective Optimization Methodology for Net Zero Energy Buildings.”
Journal of Building Engineering 16: 57–71. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2017.12.003.
Hooshang, Mazdak, Somayeh Toghyani, Alibakhsh Kasaeian, Reza Askari
Moghadam, and Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi. 2017. “Enhancing and
Multi-Objective Optimising of the Performance of Stirling Engine Using
Third-Order Thermodynamic Analysis.” International Journal of Ambient
Energy 39 (4): 382–391. doi:10.1080/01430750.2017.1303638.
Hwang, Ching-Lai, and Kwangsun Yoon. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision
Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey. New York:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
Jing, Rui, Xingyi Zhu, Zhiyi Zhu, Wei Wang, Chao Meng, Nilay Shah, Ning
Li, and Yingru Zhao. 2018. “A Multi-Objective Optimization and Multi-
Criteria Evaluation Integrated Framework for Distributed Energy System
Optimal Planning.” Energy Conversion and Management 166: 445–462.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.054.
Jokar, Mohammad Ali, Mohammad H. Ahmadi, Mohsen Sharifpur, Josua P.
Meyer, Fathollah Pourfayaz, and Tingzhen Ming. 2017. “Thermodynamic
Evaluation and Multi-Objective Optimization of Molten Carbonate Fuel
Cell-Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle Hybrid System.” Energy Conversion
and Management 153: 538–556.
Khoshbazan, Maryam, Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi, Tingzhen Ming, Jamal
Tabe Arjmand, and Mohammad Rahimzadeh. 2018. “Thermo-Economic
Analysis and Multiobjective Optimization of Micro-CHP Stirling System for
Different Climates of Iran.” International Journal of Low-Carbon Technolo-
gies 13 (4): 388–403. doi:10.1093/ijlct/cty050.
Li, Yuqiang, Shengming Liao, and Gang Liu. 2015. “Thermo-Economic Multi-
Objective Optimization for a Solar-Dish Brayton System Using NSGA-II
and Decision Making.” International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy
Systems 64: 167–175. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.07.027.
Luo, Zhongyang, Umair Sultan, Mingjiang Ni, Hao Peng, Bingwei Shi,
and Gang Xiao. 2016. “Multi-Objective Optimization for GPU3 Stirling
Engine by Combining Multi-Objective Algorithms.” Renewable Energy 94:
114–125. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.008.
Mahmoudimehr, Javad, and Parvin Sebghati. 2019. “A Novel Multi-Objective
Dynamic Programming Optimization Method: Performance Manage-
ment of a Solar Thermal Power Plant as a Case Study.” Energy 168:
796–814. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.079.
Michailidis, Panagiotis D. 2017. “An Efficient Multi-Core Implementation
of the Jaya Optimisation Algorithm.” International Journal of Parallel,
Emergent and Distributed Systems 0: 1–33. doi:10.1080/17445760.2017.
1416387.
Miller, D. W., and M. K. Starr. 1969. Executive Decisions with Operations
Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nazemzadegan, Mohammad Reza, Alibakhsh Kasaeian, Somayeh Toghyani,
Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi, R. Saidur, and Tingzhen Ming. 2018. “Multi-
Objective Optimization in a Finite Time Thermodynamic Method for Dish-
Stirling by Branch and Bound Method and MOPSO Algorithm.” Frontiers in
Energy, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11708-018-0548-0.
Opricovic, Serafim, and Gwo Hshiung Tzeng. 2002. “Multicriteria Planning of
Post-Earthquake Sustainable Reconstruction.” Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering 17: 211–220. doi:10.1111/1467-8667.00269.
Opricovic, Serafim, and Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng. 2003. “Fuzzy Multicriteria
Model for Postearthquake Land-Use Planning.” Natural Hazards Review 4:
59–64. doi:10.1061/(asce)1527-6988(2003)4:2(59).
Rao, R. Venkata. 2007. Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment.
Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing. Springer Series in Advanced
Manufacturing. London: Springer London. doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-
819-7.
Rao, R. Venkata. 2013. Decision Making in Manufacturing Environment Using
Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods.
Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing. London: Springer London.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4375-8.
Rao, R. Venkata. 2016. “Jaya: A Simple and New Optimization Algorithm
for Solving Constrained and Unconstrained Optimization Problems.”
International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 7 (1): 19–34.
doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2015.8.004.
Rao, Ravipudi Venkata. 2019. Jaya: An Advanced Optimization Algorithm
and Its Engineering Applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78922-4.
Rao, R. Venkata, and Hameer Singh Keesari. 2018. “Multi-Team Perturbation
Guiding Jaya Algorithm for Optimization of Wind Farm Layout.” Applied
Soft Computing 71: 800–815. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2018.07.036.
Rao, R. Venkata, Hameer Singh Keesari, P. Oclon, and Jan Taler. 2019a.
“An Adaptive Multi-Team Perturbation-Guiding Jaya Algorithm for
Optimization and Its Applications.” Engineering with Computers, 1–29.
doi:10.1007/s00366-019-00706-3.
Rao, R. Venkata, Hameer Singh Keesari, P. Oclon, and Jan Taler. 2019b.
“Improved Multi-Objective Jaya Optimization Algorithm for a Solar Dish
Stirling Engine.” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 11 (2):
025903. doi:10.1063/1.5083142.
Rao, R. V., K. C. More, L. S. Coelho, and V. C. Mariani. 2017. “Multi-
Objective Optimization of the Stirling Heat Engine Through Self-Adaptive
Jaya Algorithm.” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9 (3),
doi:10.1063/1.4987149.
Rao, R. V., K. C. More, J. Taler, and P. Ocłoń. 2016. “Dimensional Optimiza-
tion of a Micro-Channel Heat Sink Using Jaya Algorithm.” Applied Thermal
Engineering 103: 572–582. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.04.135.
Rao, R. Venkata, Dhiraj P. Rai, and J. Balic. 2016. “Multi-Objective Optimiza-
tion of Machining and Micro-Machining Processes Using Non-Dominated
Sorting Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization Algorithm.” Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 1–23. doi:10.1007/s10845-016-1210-5.
Rao, R. V., D. P. Rai, J. Ramkumar, and J. Balic. 2016. “A New Multi-Objective
Jaya Algorithm for Optimization of Modern Machining Processes.”
Advances in Production Engineering & Management 11 (4): 271–286.
doi:10.14743/apem2016.4.226.
Rao, R. Venkata, and Ankit Saroj. 2017. “Economic Optimization of Shell-and-
Tube Heat Exchanger Using Jaya Algorithm with Maintenance Consider-
ation.” Applied Thermal Engineering 116: 473–487. doi:10.1016/j.applther
maleng.2017.01.071.
Rao, R. Venkata, and Ankit Saroj. 2018. “Multi-Objective Design Optimiza-
tion of Heat Exchangers Using Elitist-Jaya Algorithm.” Energy Systems 9 (2):
305–341. doi:10.1007/s12667-016-0221-9.
Rao, Ravipudi Venkata, Ankit Saroj, Pawel Ocloń, Jan Taler, and Dawid
Taler. 2018. “Single- and Multi-Objective Design Optimization of Plate-
Fin Heat Exchangers Using Jaya Algorithm.” Heat Transfer Engineering 39:
1201–1216. doi:10.1080/01457632.2017.1363629.
Rashidi, Halimeh, and Jamshid Khorshidi. 2018. “Exergoeconomic Analysis
and Optimization of a Solar Based Multigeneration System Using Multi-
objective Differential Evolution Algorithm.” Journal of Cleaner Production
170: 978–990. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.201.
Razavi Hajiagha, Seyed Hossein, Shide Sadat Hashemi, and Edmundas Kaz-
imieras Zavadskas. 2013. “A Complex Proportional Assessment Method
for Group Decision Making in an Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Envi-
ronment.” Technological and Economic Development of Economy 19 (1):
22–37. doi:10.3846/20294913.2012.762953.
Sadatsakkak, Seyed Abbas, Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi, and Moham-
mad Ali Ahmadi. 2015. “Thermodynamic and Thermo-Economic Analysis
and Optimization of an Irreversible Regenerative Closed Brayton Cycle.”
Energy Conversion and Management 94: 124–129. doi:10.1016/j.encon
man.2015.01.040.
Sayyaadi, Hoseyn, Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi, and Saeed Dehghani. 2015.
“Optimal Design of a Solar-Driven Heat Engine Based on Thermal and
Ecological Criteria.” Journal of Energy Engineering 141 (3): 04014012.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000191.
Schott, Jason R. 1995. Fault Tolerant Design Using Single and Multicriteria
Genetic Algorithm Optimization. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Shirazi, Ali, Robert A. Taylor, Graham L. Morrison, and Stephen D. White.
2017. “A Comprehensive, Multi-Objective Optimization of Solar-Powered
Absorption Chiller Systems for Air-Conditioning Applications.” Energy

Conversion and Management 132: 281–306. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.
2016.11.039.
Tiwari, Deepak, Ahmad Faizan Sherwani, and Akhilesh Arora. 2017. “Ther-
modynamic and Multi-Objective Optimisation of Solar-Driven Organic
Rankine Cycle Using Zeotropic Mixtures.” International Journal of Ambient
Energy 40 (2): 135–151. doi:10.1080/01430750.2017.1378718.
Toghyani, Somayeh, Alibakhsh Kasaeian, and Mohammad H. Ahmadi.
2014. “Multi-Objective Optimization of Stirling Engine Using Non-Ideal
Adiabatic Method.” Energy Conversion and Management 80: 54–62.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.01.022.
Tzeng, Gwo Hshiung, Cheng Wei Lin, and Serafim Opricovic. 2005. “Multi-
Criteria Analysis of Alternative-Fuel Buses for Public Transportation.”
Energy Policy 33: 1373–1383. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014.
Wang, Long, and Chao Huang. 2018. “A Novel Elite Opposition-Based Jaya
Algorithm for Parameter Estimation of Photovoltaic Cell Models.” Optik
155: 351–356. doi:10.1016/j.ijleo.2017.10.081.
Wang, Shuihua, Ravipudi Venkata Rao, Peng Chen, Yu-Dong Zhang, Liuaijun
Aijun, and Ling Wei. 2017. “Abnormal Breast Detection in Mammogram
Images by Feed-Forward Neural Network Trained by Jaya Algorithm.”
Fundamenta Informaticae 151 (1–4): 191–211.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 27
Wang, Long, Zijun Zhang, Chao Huang, and Kwok Leung Tsui. 2018.
“A GPU-Accelerated Parallel Jaya Algorithm for Efficiently Estimating
Li-Ion Battery Model Parameters.” Applied Soft Computing 65: 12–20.
doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2017.12.041.
Warid, Warid, Hashim Hizam, Norman Mariun, and Noor Izzri Abdul-Wahab.
2016. “Optimal Power Flow Using the Jaya Algorithm.” Energies 9 (9): 678.
Warid, Warid, Hashim Hizam, Norman Mariun, and Noor Izzri Abdul-Wahab.
2018. “A Novel Quasi-Oppositional Modified Jaya Algorithm for Multi-
Objective Optimal Power Flow Solution.” Applied Soft Computing 65:
360–373. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2018.01.039.
Yu, P. L. 1973. “A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems.” Manage-
ment Science 19: 936–946. doi:10.1287/mnsc.19.8.936.
Zeleny, M. 1982. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. New York: McGraw Hill.
Zhang, Yudong, Xiaojun Yang, Carlo Cattani, Ravipudi Venkata Rao, Shui-
hua Wang, and Preetha Phillips. 2016. “Tea Category Identification Using
a Novel Fractional Fourier Entropy and Jaya Algorithm.” Entropy 18 (3): 77.
doi:10.3390/e18030077.
Zitzler, E., K. Deb, and L. Thiele. 2000. “Comparison of Multiobjective Evo-
lutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results.” Evolutionary Computation 8 (2):
173–195. doi:10.1162/106365600568202.