1 Combined Cycle Power Plant Performance Analyses

2 Based on the Single-Pressure and Multipressure

3 Heat Recovery Steam Generator
4 Murad A. Rahim1

5 Abstract: In this study sensitivity analysis is performed for single, double-pressure, and triple-pressure heat recovery steam generators in a
6 1 combined cycle power plant. Steam pressure, evaporator pinch point, and economizer approach temperature differences are taken as design
7 parameters. Temperature-heat (T-Q) graphics of heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) designs and the effects of design parameters to
8 the plant efficiency, net power production, and heat transfer areas are obtained. The calculated results are useful to compare single and
9 multipressure HRSGs in a combined cycle power plant scheme. In single-pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSG, net power
10 increment is approximately 0.05, 0.28, and 0.29% at every 10-bar inlet pressure increment. The net power output of the cycle decreases
11 with increasing evaporator pinch point temperature difference. For single-pressure HRSG, this decrement is approximately 0.54%, whereas
12 for double-pressure and triple-pressure HRSG it is approximately 0.21% and 0.17%, respectively. For every 1ºC increment in econo-
13 mizer approach, temperature makes a decrement of approximately 0.09% and for double-pressure and triple-pressure 0.037% and
14 0.018%, respectively. However, net heat transfer area is also decreased and it is directly related to the first investment cost of the HRSG.
15 Therefore, approach temperature and pinch point temperature should be taken into account for the optimum design of heat recovery steam
16 generators. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000063. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
17 CE Database subject keywords: Power plants; Sensitivity analysis; Steam power; Design; Heat loss.
18 Author keywords: Combined cycle power plants; Heat recovery steam generator; Single-pressure HRSG; Multipressure HRSG;
19 Sensitivity analysis.

20 Introduction and many research studies have been carried out to utilize the waste 42
heat potential of Brayton cycle. Heat recovery steam generators 43
21 Combined cycle power plants are comprised from a gas turbine have been used to produce steam for Rankine cycle or steam con- 44
22 (GT), a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), steam turbines suming industrial processes or district heating and cooling systems. 45
23 (ST), a condenser, a cooling tower, and pumps. Brayton and Therefore, heat recovery steam generators are the main focus 46
24 Rankine cycles work together in a combined cycle power plant point of combined cycles. For a typical gas turbine the exhaust heat 47
25 to satisfy the energy demand economically and effectively. A loss might be greater than 60% of the fuel lower heating value 48
26 typical power plant, working on a simple Rankine cycle, could (LHV). If some of this heat loss can be recovered and converted 49
27 be expected to have a thermal efficiency approximately 39% be- to useful energy, the process efficiency can be increased with both 50
28 cause of temperature limits of turbine inlet. Any plans to increase economic and environmental benefits. Recovery of waste heat has a 51
29 the efficiency of power plants beyond 50% would result in binary direct effect on the efficiency of the combined cycle. Electricity 52
30 and combined cycles (CC) in which gas turbine inlet temperature generation cost per kilowatt hour can be decreased, and also 53
31 can be 1,400°C (Kehlhofer 1997). A combined cycle can achieve primary energy saving is achieved by this technology. The perfor- 54
32 higher efficiencies by coupling a Brayton cycle with a bottoming mance of the gas/steam combined cycle power plant depends on 55
33 Rankine cycle. This takes advantage of the fact that a Brayton cycle the performance of the gas and steam cycle (Alessandro and 56
34 works at a high temperature regime, whereas the Rankine cycle Alessandro 2002). 57
35 works at a low temperature one. The necessity to reduce pollution To provide better heat recovery in the HRSG more than one 58
36 caused by greenhouse gases makes combined cycle power plants pressure level is used. With a single-pressure HRSG approximately 59
37 one of the best choices to produce energy because of their higher 30% of the total plant output is generated in the steam turbine. 60
38 efficiencies compared with other combustion-based alternatives. A dual-pressure arrangement can increase the power output of 61
39 Gas turbines, like many industrial processes and power generation the steam cycle by up to 10%, and an additional 3% can result with 62
40 systems, produce high temperature exhaust gases, typically varying a triple-pressure cycle (Deschamps 1998). Heat recovery from the 63
41 between 400 and 550ºC. The potential of heat recovery is obvious HRSG has to be maximized for higher combined cycle efficiency. 64
Power plant designs need to be adjusted to the specific project 65
1
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Gazi Univ., Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: parameters to achieve optimum results. The optimization of the 66
muradrahim@gmail.com HRSG is particularly interesting for the combined power plants de- 67
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 4, 2011; approved on sign to maximize the work obtained in the steam cycle. A detailed 68
December 5, 2011; published online on December 7, 2011. Discussion optimization of the HRSG is a difficult problem, depending on 69
period open until February 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted
several variables. These include the number of pressure levels, the 70
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Energy Engi-
neering, Vol. 138, No. 3, September 1, 2012. © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/ temperature difference, the pressures, the mass flow ratio, and the 71
2012/3-0-0/$25.00. inlet temperatures to the HRSG sections (Srinivas 2010). 72

JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1

73 Thermodynamic optimization is the main interest to improve available in scientific literature; to the best of the author’s knowl- 137
74 performance of heat recovery steam generators to increase the edge, there have not been any studies on the topic of performance 138
75 power output and the efficiency of the power plant. In open liter- analyses of single-pressure, double-pressure and triple-pressure 139
76 ature, thermodynamic analyses of single pressure HRSGs have HRSGs in a combined cycle power plant and comparing between 140
77 been studied in a number of works. Franco and Russo (2002) used performance of each cycle for comparative parametric study. This 141
78 pinch point method to optimize the HRSG by increasing heat sur- is the main driving force behind the present study. In this study, 142
79 face and decreasing pinch point temperature. Noelle and Heyen single-pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs in 143
80 (2004) designed the once-through HRSG, which is ideally matched a combined power plant are analyzed based on the first law of 144
81 to very high temperature and pressure, well into the supercritical thermodynamics. For this, first, the detailed formulation for energy 145
82 range. Pelster et al. (2001) compared the results of a reference com- analyses including mass, energy balances, efficiency definitions, 146
83 bined cycle with the dual-pressure and triple-pressure HRSGs and and sensitivity analyses are developed. Second, the developed 147
84 also with and without steam reheating models. Franco and Giannini formulation and procedure is applied to single-pressure, double- 148
85 (2006) showed optimum design of a HRSG in two levels: minimi- pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs in a combined cycle power 149
86 zation of the pressure drop for a given heat flow and reduction plant. 150
87 of the overall dimensions, maintaining the imposed performance
88 of the HRSG in terms of heat flow and pressure drop. Bassily
89 (2007) modeled a dual-pressure and triple-pressure reheat com- Energy and Sensitivity Analysis 151
90 bined cycle with a preset in constraints on minimum temperature
91 difference for pinch points, temperature difference for superheat In a combined cycle, power plant gas turbines (topping cycle) 152
92 approach, steam turbine inlet temperature and pressure, stack generate approximately 66% of total electricity generation. 153
93 temperature, and dryness fraction at steam turbine outlet without Remaining output is supplied by steam turbines. Steam is generated 154
94 a deaerator in steam bottoming cycle. Srinivas (2009) suggested in HRSG with different pressure levels depending on the design. 155
95 an improved location for a deaerator in a triple-pressure HRSG. A waste heat recovery boiler consists of evaporator, super heater, 156
96 Kumar et al. (2006) presented a simulation of single-pressure and economizer and all of these constitutive parts are placed at the 157
97 HRSG in a combined cycle power plant and discussed the effects exhaust side of the gas turbine. Feedwater is heated to a temper- 158
98 of various parameters such as pinch point, approach point, steam ature, close to its saturation temperature in the economizer. Evapo- 159
99 pressure, steam temperature, and gas flow rate on the performance ration takes place in the evaporator at a constant temperature and 160
100 of the HRSG. Zwebek and Pilidis (2003), carried out a more de- pressure and becomes saturated steam. Water and saturated steam 161
101 tailed analysis by demonstrating the degradation effects that com- are separated in a drum and dry steam is fed to the super heater 162
102 bined cycle power plant components have on the overall plant package where steam becomes superheated. Superheated steam 163
103 performance. This gives insight as to which combined cycle com- is fed to the steam turbine to generate electricity. The following 164
104 ponent results in the most set back as the operating combined assumptions are considered during this study: 165
105 power plant ages. Casarosa and Franco (2001) represented optimi- • All systems operate in a steady-state condition; 166
106 zation of a HRSG by changing the operation parameters, such as; • The ideal gas principles are applied to air and exhaust gases; 167
107 number of pressure levels, pressures of different components, mass • The combustion reaction in combustion chamber is complete; 168
108 flow rate, and inlet temperatures of combustion gases to the HRSG • The kinetic and potential energy changes are negligible; 169
109 sections. Ong’iro et al. (1997), used numerical methods to simulate • The temperature and pressure of dead (environmental) state are 170
110 the pressure, temperature, steam quality, and heat-flux distributions taken as the actual ambient conditions. 171
111 for predicting the performance of HRSG. Bassily (2004) modeled With the above assumptions, mass and energy balances for any 172
112 and optimized dual and triple-pressure no reheat combined cycles. steady-state system can be written as 173
113 He showed that optimizing the dual-pressure non-reheat combined X : X :
114 cycle could boost the efficiency by up to 2%. The layout for the mi ¼ me (1)
115 triple-pressure cycle was mainly chosen to reduce the NOx emis-
116 sions using steam injection. Valdes and Rapun (2001) presented a
117 method for the optimization of a single-pressure HRSG, and the : : X : X :
QþW ¼ me he − m i hi (2)
118 effect of heat transfer area was optimized. According to their result,
119 without changing the overall heat transfer area the efficiency of the : : :
120 cycle improved 0.3% by changing only heat transfer area distribu- where Q and W = the net heat and work inputs; m = the mass flow 174
121 tion. Bejan (1987, 1988) discussed in detail how the thermody- rate of the fluid stream; h = the enthalpy; the subscripts i and e = 175
122 namic optimum condition for the design and operation of a inlet and exit. 176
123 variety of devices under different conditions can be evaluated. In the energy and sensitivity analysis of HRSG some parameters 177
124 The overall performance of a combined cycle power plant is are taken as constant. A supplementary firing unit, at the inlet of 178
125 strongly affected by the performance of a HRSG. To improve HRSG, is used to satisfy the constant combustion gas temperature 179
126 the efficiency of heat recovery from gas turbine exhaust and to at 648°C. Condenser, evaporator, and reheat pressures are taken 180
127 enhance the power output in the steam cycle, thermodynamic im- 0.068, 127.1, and 36.2 bar, respectively. Steam turbine inlet and 181
128 provement of HRSG is necessary. Nowadays advanced combined reheat temperatures are taken 537°C, and the isentropic efficiency 182
129 cycle plants, employing double-pressure or triple-pressure levels of the steam turbine is accepted 85%. Steam turbine exit enthalpy 183
130 reheat vapor cycle and having exhaust gas temperature ranging can be calculated by 184
131 from 550 to 700°C, reach a thermal efficiency up to 58% (Bejan
et al. 1996). This paper deals with the performance analyses of hin − hout
132 ηST ¼ (3)
133 single-pressure and multipressure (double and triple) HRSGs in hin − hout;s
134 a combined cycle power plant. Although performance analyses
135 of double-pressure or triple-pressure HRSGs in combined power where h = the enthalpy; the subscripts in and out = inlet and outlet; 185
136 plant schemes have been tackled in a good amount of the works s = isentropic. 186

2 / JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

187 General pinch point temperature difference equation is given by The overall thermal efficiency of the combined cycle power 227
plant system is defined as the ratio of the net power generated 228
ΔT ¼ T gas;out − T fluid;in (4) by the gas or steam turbine to the rate of heat input supplied to 229
the corresponding equipments, and is expressed as 230
188 where T = the temperature.
: :
189 The higher temperature difference means the lower heat transfer W net W net
190 area. Steam turbine net power is related to the enthalpy difference ηth;overall ¼ : ¼ : (13)
Qin mfuel qLHV
191 of inlet and outlet steam and the mass flow rate of the steam,
192 given by :
where mfuel = the rate of fuel input to the HRSG system; and qLHV 231
: : = lower heating value of the fuel. 232
W ST ¼ msteam ðΔhÞ (5)
The heat exchanger design equation can be used to calculate the 233
:
193 where W = the power, m = the mass flow rate. required heat transfer surface area for a variety of specified fluids, 234
194 Energy-consuming devices, such as pumps, should be selected inlet and outlet temperatures, and types and configurations of heat 235
195 carefully for decreasing the auxiliary consumption of the power exchangers, including counter flow or parallel flow. Having the 236
196 plant. It is also related to mass flow rate of fluid to be pressurized temperature distribution in the HRSG it is possible to compute 237
197 and the enthalpy difference of inlet and outlet streams, given by the mean logarithmic temperatures differences for each heat 238
:
exchange area. The thermal energy flow transferred through each 239
:
W P ¼ mwater ðΔhÞ (6) area will be determined using the general relation (Eq. 14). This is 240
an approximation assuming near counter flow conditions (Cenusă 241
198 In the design of HRSG the heat load of waste heat is the main and Badea 2004): 242
199 design characteristic. The total heat transfer area of the HRSG :
200 packages, tube and fin materials, the layout of tubes, and other Qi ¼ U i Ai ðLMTDÞi (14)
201 factors are related to the heat recovery potential of waste heat. :
202 In general terms, heat recovery potential is proportional to the where i = the heat exchange area; Q = the thermal energy flow 243
203 enthalpy of the combustion gases and mass flow rate, given by transmitted from the gas to the water/steam; U = the global heat 244
:
transfer coefficient; A = the heat exchange area; LMTD = the 245
:
Qh.rec ¼ mgas ðΔhÞ (7) mean logarithmic temperatures difference that corresponds to every 246
: surface i. 247
204 where Q = the net heat; the subscript h.rec = heat recovery. The general computation relation for each heat exchange area 248
205 The net power obtained from steam (bottoming) cycle is the and the computation relation of the total heat exchange surface 249
206 difference of steam turbine power and pump power. Net power of HRSG is obtained by (Cenusă and Badea 2004) 250
207 of the steam cycle is the ratio of net power to the recovered heat :
208 as indicated by X X Qi
AHRSG ¼ Ai ¼ (15)
: : : i i
U i :ðLMTDÞi
W net;ST ¼ W ST − W P (8)
As the temperature difference for pinch point decreases the area 251
209 In a double-pressure HRSG, steam is produced at two pressure of heat transfer has to increase to keep the rate of heat transfer at the 252
210 levels: HP with 120 bar and LP with 6 bar for this simulation study. same value. Decreasing the temperature difference for pinch point 253
211 Economizer is divided into LP part, for the low-pressure feedwater below the minimum feasible value could significantly increase 254
212 and HP part, for the first step in feedwater heating. Steam turbine the area of heat transfer for the HRSG so that the HRSG could 255
213 power output for a double-pressure HRSG can be calculated as be impractical (infeasible) to design (Chiesa and Macchi 2004). 256
214 below. Mass flow rates and enthalpies of HP and LP steam are Sensitivity analysis is performed based on first law analysis of a 257
215 different and total power output from steam turbines is the sum single-pressure, double-pressure and triple-pressure combined 258
216 of them as indicated by cycle. In single-pressure HRSG, irreversible heat exchange results 259
: : : from large temperature difference between the temperature of the 260
W ST ¼ mHP ðΔhÞ þ mLP ðΔhÞ (9)
exhaust gases in the HRSG (550–750°C) and steam temperature 261
217 In a triple-pressure HRSG, steam is produced at three different (450–650°C). Another difficulty is the constant evaporation tem- 262
218 pressure levels: HP with 120 bar, IP with 15 bar, and LP with perature, which increases the main temperature difference in 263
219 6 bars. Total power output of the steam turbine for triple-pressure the HRSG. The mean temperature difference in the HRSG can 264
220 HRSG is given by be minimizing by using multipressure HSRG (Kehlhofer 1997). 265
Single-pressure HRSG, double-pressure HRSG, and reheated 266
: : : :
W ST ¼ mHP ðΔhÞ þ mIP ðΔhÞ þ mLP ðΔhÞ (10) triple-pressure HRSG are the chosen cycles performed in the sen- 267
sitivity analyses. The parametric conditions for sensitivity analysis 268
221 where subscripts HP, IP, and LP = high pressure, intermediate based on the first law of thermodynamics for single-pressure, 269
222 pressure, and low pressure, respectively. double-pressure and triple-pressure HRSG steam cycles are given 270
223 The total work output can be calculated by in Table 1. Five cases are considered for each design and variables 271
: : : are shown in Table 1 (S = single-pressure HRSG, D = double- 272
W net ¼ W GT þ W ST (11) pressure HRSG; T = triple-pressure HRSG). 273
:
224 where W net = the total power output of the combined cycle
225 power plant. Basic Design Characteristics and System Definition 274
226 The energy efficiency is generally defined as

 The schematic diagram of the power plant used in the analysis is 275
energy in products
η¼ (12) presented in Fig. 1. The gas turbine model is GE 7251 FB, which 276
total energy input has an output power of 284 MW, and it is operated at 3,600 rpm. 277

JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 3

 Table 1. Cases for Different Inlet Steam Pressures, Pinch Points, and Subcooling Temperatures
T1:1 Cases Unit C1 S C2 S C3 S C4 S C5 S C1 D C2 D C3 D C4 D C5 D C1 T C2 T C3 T C4 T C5 T
T1:2 HP turbine—steam pressure bar 90 100 110 120 130 90 100 110 120 130 90 100 110 120 130
T1:3 IP turbine—steam pressure bar — — — — — — — — — — 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
T1:4 LP turbine—steam pressure bar — — — — — 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
T1:5 HP—pinch point °C 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
T1:6 IP—pinch point temperature °C — — — — — — — — — — 20 25 30 35 40
T1:7 LP—pinch point temperature °C — — — — — 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
T1:8 HP—subcooling temperature °C 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
T1:9 IP—subcooling temperature °C — — — — — — — — — — 1 2 3 4 5
T1:10 LP—subcooling temperature °C — — — — — 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

278 Steam turbine is a double-flow exhaust type. Turbine inlet steam proceeds to the deaerator, which is an open feedwater heater, to 299
279 conditions are 120 bars, 537°C. The fuel is natural gas. Water is remove dissolved gases, especially O2 and CO2 from the boiler 300
280 used as a coolant in condenser. The starting point for determining feedwater, thereby reducing corrosion levels throughout the sys- 301
281 the gas and steam temperature profiles and steam generation is the tem. The reason to use deaerator before the HRSG is that the water 302
282 assumption of pinch and approach points. The values known are inlet to the system by classical water treatment unit does not change 303
283 gas flow rate, gas temperature at the inlet of HRSG, feedwater the concentration of O2 contained in water. The feedwater then 304
284 temperature, temperature of the steam leaving the super heater, proceeds to the feed pump, which will increase its pressure. The 305
285 and steam pressure. A brief description of the plant operation is feedwater exiting the feed pump will proceed to the economizer, 306
286 as follows: fuel is burned in the combustion chamber in which where it is brought to near saturation. 307
287 much of the heat generated is transferred to the turbine of the For a given gas turbine cycle, three different HRSG cycle con- 308
288 gas turbine cycle. The hot flue gas (exhaust) leaving the turbine figurations including single-pressure, double-pressure and triple- 309
289 enters a supplementary firing unit to increase its temperature pressure alternatives are chosen, and a parametric analysis for each 310
290 and also the rate of oxygen in the flue gas and then enters to HRSG. is carried out based on the energy analyses to see the effects of main 311
291 The super-heated steam proceeds to the turbine, in which its ther- cycle parameters on the cycle efficiency. In single-pressure cycle, 312
292 mal energy is converted to mechanical energy. The steam leaving HRSG generates steam at one pressure level, whereas it generates 313
293 the high-pressure (120 bars) stage of the turbine is reheated in the steam at two different pressure levels (HP and LP) for double- 314
294 reheat (537°C) section prior to being sent to the intermediate pres- pressure type and at three different pressure levels (HP, IP, and 315
295 sure sections and then to the low-pressure (6 bar) sections of the LP) for triple-pressure type. These cycles are explained in detail 316
296 turbine. The steam exiting from the low-pressure turbine proceeds below. Note that for all cycles, there is no pressure drop in the 317
297 to the condenser at 0.068 bars, which will produce a vacuum or exhaust section of the HRSG, and temperature drop between the 318
298 desired back pressure at the turbine exhaust. The feedwater then HRSG exit and the turbine inlet does not exceed 5°C. Also, there 319

F1:1 Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the combined cycle power plant (CCPP)

4 / JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

 Table 2. General System Data of Combined Cycle Power Plant for Single-Pressure, Double-Pressure and Triple-Pressure HRSG Cycles
T2:1 System Unit Single pressure Double pressure Triple pressure
T2:2 Ambient air dry bulb temperature °C 15 15 15
T2:3 Ambient air wet bulb temperature °C 10.87 10.87 10.87
T2:4 Gas turbine model — GE 7251FB GE 7251FB GE 7251FB
T2:5 Capacity factor % 85 85 85
T2:6 Fuel type — Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas
T2:7 Fuel flow rate kg∕s 10.72 10.72 10.72
T2:8 Turbine inlet temperature °C 1371 1371 1371
T2:9 Turbine exhaust temperature °C 635 635 635
T2:10 Pressure ratio — 18.5 18.5 18.5
T2:11 Condenser pressure Bar 0.068 0.068 0.068
T2:12 HP, HRSG exit pressure Bar 120 120 120
T2:13 IP, HRSG exit pressure Bar — — 15
T2:14 LP, HRSG exit pressure Bar — 6 6
T2:15 HP, HRSG exit temperature °C 537 537 537
T2:16 IP, HRSG exit temperature °C — —
T2:17 LP, HRSG exit temperature °C — 257 257
T2:18 Flue gas inlet pressure Bar 1.043 1.043 1.034
T2:19 Flue gas inlet temperature °C 648 648 648
T2:20 HP, IP, LP pinch point temperature difference °C 40 40 40
T2:21 Steam turbine net power output MW 81.835 90.400 91.027
T2:22 Gas turbine net power output MW 195.429 195.069 194.919
T2:23 Overall plant net power output MW 268.084 278.005 278.400
T2:24 Total plant auxiliaries MW 9.181 7.465 7.548

320 is no heat loss to the environment. System data for single-pressure, (LP) steam turbine. In Fig. 2, at the hot side, the flue gas enters to 328
321 double-pressure and triple-pressure HRSG cycles are given in HRSG at state (a) and leaves at state (b); at the cold side, the feed- 329
322 Table 2. water enters to HRSG at state (c), and the steam leaves at state (d). 330
The steam enters to reheat section at state (e) and leaves at state (f). 331
323 Single-Pressure HRSG Cycle
Double-Pressure HRSG Cycle 332
324 In this cycle (see Fig. 2), a reheat unit is mounted at the hotter part
325 of the HRSG. The steam is superheated and then it is expanded In this cycle (see Fig. 3), the gas enters to HRSG at state (a) and 333
326 through the high-pressure (HP) steam turbine, after that it goes back leaves at state (b); the HP feedwater enters to HRSG at state (c), and 334
327 to the HRSG where it is heated and then goes to the low-pressure steam leaves at state (d); the LP feedwater enters to HRSG at 335

F2:1 Fig. 2. Schematic of a single-pressure HRSG with reheat in steam cycle

JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5

F3:1 Fig. 3. Schematic of a double-pressure HRSG with reheat in steam cycle

336 state (j), and steam leaves at state (h). Then, steam enters to reheat
337 section at state (e) and leaves at state (f).

338 Triple-Pressure HRSG Cycle

339 As shown in Fig. 4, in triple-pressure HRSG cycle, the gas enters to
340 HRSG state (a) and leaves at state (b); the HP feedwater enters
341 HRSG at state (c), and steam leaves at state (d); the IP (intermediate
342 pressure) feedwater enters HRSG at state (i) and steam leaves at
343 state (g); the LP feedwater enters HRSG at state (j), and steam
344 leaves at state (h). The steam enters reheat section at state (e)
345 and leaves at state (f).

346 Results and Discussion

347 Pinch point temperature difference is the difference between the

348 evaporator inlet temperature on the water/steam side and on the
349 exhaust gas side. Pinch point temperature difference has a great
350 effect on heat transfer surface area and the performance of the
351 HRSG. Subcooling temperature is the difference between the sat- Fig. 5. Temperature-transferred heat (T-Q) diagram for the single- F5:1
352 uration temperature in the drum and the water temperature at the pressure HRSG reheat combined cycle F5:2
353 economizer outlet. Subcooling temperature difference helps to
354 avoid evaporation in the economizer. In this study five different
355 pinch point temperature and subcooling temperature differences enters to HRSG for reheating. In this cycle, total heat transfer area 362
356 are selected to indicate the effect of HRSG performance. Temper- is found 42; 625 m2 . Net power output of the steam cycle and net 363
357 ature-heat diagram for the single-pressure HRSG is shown in Fig. 5. electric efficiency are calculated 268 MW and 50.8%, respectively. 364
358 Combustion gases, from gas turbine, enter the duct burner first to The thermal efficiency increase by changing to dual pressure is 365
359 provide same temperature for the super heater in all cases. In the in the order of 0.8%. Fig. 6 shows double-pressure HRSG, 366
360 super heater, steam temperature reaches to 537°C, before it expands T-Q diagram, and steam is produced at two different pressure 367
361 through the steam turbine at 120 bar. The expanded steam then levels (HP and LP). Combustion gases enter to HRSG and steam 368

F4:1 Fig. 4. Schematic of a triple-pressure HRSG with reheat in the steam cycle

6 / JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

 282
Single Pressure
280 Dual Pressure
Triple Pressure

Net Output Power [MW]

278

276

274

272

270

268
90 100 110 120 130
HP Steam Turbine Inlet Pressure [bar]

Fig. 8. Net power output change of the combined cycle power plant F8:1
according to the change in HP steam turbine inlet pressure for single- F8:2
F6:1 Fig. 6. Temperature-transferred heat (T-Q) diagram for the double-
pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs F8:3
F6:2 pressure HRSG reheat combined

53,5
Single Pressure
Dual Pressure
53,0 Triple Pressure
Overall Plant Effeciency [%]

52,5

52,0

51,5

51,0

50,5
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
HP Steam Turbine Inlet Pressure [bar]

Fig. 9. Thermal efficiency change of the combined cycle power plant F9:1
according to the change in HP steam turbine inlet pressure for single- F9:2
pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs F9:3
F7:1 Fig. 7. Temperature-transferred heat (T-Q) diagram for the triple-
F7:2 pressure HRSG reheat combined cycle

increment compared with single-pressure and double-pressure 384

HRSG is 3.8% and 0.14%, respectively (Fig. 7). 385
369 temperature reaches to 537°C. The superheated steam enters the HP Stack temperature is found 200°C in single pressure HRSG and 386
370 steam turbine at 120 bar and turns back again to HRSG for reheat- 118°C for multipressure HRSGs. Fig. 8 shows that net power 387
371 ing. Reheated steam then enters to the LP steam turbine at 6 bar output of the power plant with respect to HP steam turbine inlet 388
372 with 257°C. In this cycle, HP and LP total heat transfer areas pressure. As HP steam turbine inlet pressure increases, net power 389
373 are found 58; 571 m2 . With double-pressure HRSG, net power out- output also increases. In single-pressure, double-pressure, and 390
374 put increases to 278 MW and the net electric efficiency is calculated triple-pressure HRSG, net power increment is approximately 391
375 52.72%. As a result, net power output and thermal efficiency is 0.05, 0.28, and 0.29%, respectively, at every 10-bar inlet pressure 392
376 increased by 3.6%. increment. 393
377 The increase in thermal efficiency by going from two to three Fig. 9 shows overall plant efficiency and for single-pressure 394
378 stages is approximately 0.2%. In the triple-pressure HRSG, steam HRSG efficiency tends to decrease with increased steam turbine 395
379 is generated at three different pressure levels (HP, IP, LP). Super- inlet pressure. In double-pressure and triple-pressure HRSG, over- 396
380 heated steam enters steam turbines at 120, 15, and 6 bar, respec- all plant efficiency rises with increased steam pressure. This result 397
381 tively. The total heat transfer area of heat exchangers is found is related to the mean temperature of heat addition to the cycle. 398
382 63; 583 m2 . Net power output and net electric efficiency is calcu- Therefore, an optimum pressure should be found for single- 399
383 lated 278.4 MW and 52.82%, respectively. Net power output pressure HRSG in which overall plant efficiency has a maximum. 400

JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7

 94 53,5
Single Pressure
Steam Turbine Power Output [MW] Dual Pressure
92 53,0
Triple Pressure
Single Pressure

Overall Plant Effeciency [%]

Dual Pressure
90 Triple Pressure
52,5

88
52,0
86
51,5
84

51,0
82

80 50,5
90 100 110 120 130 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

HP Steam Turbine Inlet Pressure [bar] HP Evaporator Pinch point Temperature Difference [C]

F10:1 Fig. 10. Steam turbine power output change of the combined cycle Fig. 12. Overall plant efficiency change of the combined cycle power F12:1
F10:2 power plant according to the change in HP steam turbine inlet pressure plant according to the change in evaporator pinch point temperature F12:2
F10:3 for single-pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs difference for single-pressure, double-pressure and triple-pressure F12:3
HRSGs F12:4

282 19000

Evaporatot Heat Transfer Area [m2]

Single Pressure
280 18000 Dual Pressure
Triple Pressure
Single Pressure
Net Power Output [MW]

Dual Pressure
278 Triple Pressure 17000

276 16000

274 15000

272 14000

13000
270

12000
268
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
HP Evaporator Pinch Point Temperature Difference [C]
HP Evaporator Pinch Point Temperature Difference [C]
Fig. 13. Evaporator heat transfer area change of the combined cycle F13:1
F11:1 Fig. 11. Net power output change of the combined cycle power plant
power plant according to the change in evaporator pinch point tempera- F13:2
F11:2 according to the change in evaporator pinch point temperature differ-
ture difference for single-pressure, double-pressure and triple-pressure F13:3
F11:3 ence for single-pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs
HRSGs F13:4

401 In Fig. 10 the variation of steam turbine power output with In Fig. 12, overall plant efficiency decreases with increasing 418
402 respect to steam turbine inlet pressure is given. In all cases, it is evaporator pinch point temperature difference. For single pressure, 419
403 expected that an increment occurs with increasing steam turbine this decrement is approximately 0.54%. For double-pressure and 420
404 inlet pressure because of increased enthalpy of steam. When com- triple-pressure HRSG it is approximately 0.20% and 0.16%, re- 421
405 paring Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 another result can be obtained, the effect spectively. It is attributable to the decreasing steam production 422
406 of net fuel input and supplementary firing. Efficiency decreases capacity. In Fig. 13, heat transfer area of evaporator decreases 423
407 with increasing net fuel input, and therefore in single-pressure for increasing HP pinch point temperature difference. For single 424
408 HRSG efficiency decreases to satisfy the same amount and prop- pressure, this decrement is approximately 8.97%. For multipressure 425
409 erty of steam. it is 10%. 426
410 Fig. 11 shown that net power output of the cycle decreases In Fig. 14, net power output of the power plant decreases with 427
411 with increasing evaporator pinch point temperature difference. increasing HP economizer approach temperature. For single pres- 428
412 For single-pressure HRSG, this decrement is approximately sure, this decrement is approximately 0.09%, for double pressure 429
413 0.54%, whereas for double-pressure and triple-pressure HRSG it it is approximately 0.03%, and for triple pressure it is approxi- 430
414 is approximately 0.21% and 0.17%, respectively. This result di- mately 0.01%. According to the Fig. 14, the slope of single- 431
415 rectly affects the heat transfer area and steam production capacity. pressure HRSG is higher than double-pressure and triple-pressure 432
416 Increasing pinch point temperature difference means smaller heat HRSG and it means approach temperature has a great effect 433
417 transfer area and smaller capacity. on the overall plant efficiency for single-pressure HRSG. When 434

8 / JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

 282 22000

Economizer Heat Transfer Area [m2]

Single Pressure
280 Dual Pressure
20000 Triple Pressure
Net Power Output [MW]

278
Single Pressure
Dual Pressure
Triple Pressure 18000
276

274
16000

272
14000
270

268 12000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5
HP Economizer Subcooling Temperature [C] Economizer Subcooling Temperature [C]

F14:1 Fig. 14. Net power output change of the combined cycle power plant Fig. 16. Economizer heat transfer area change of the combined cycle F16:1
F14:2 according to the change in economizer subcooling temperature for sin- power plant according to the change in economizer subcooling F16:2
F14:3 gle-pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs temperature for single-pressure, double-pressure and triple-pressure F16:3
HRSGs F16:4

52,55
Conclusions 452
Single Pressure
Dual Pressure
52,50 Triple Pressure
This study deals with the effects of steam pressure, evaporator 453
Overall Plant Effeciency [%]

pinch point temperature difference, and economizer approach tem- 454

perature difference on the net output of the power plant, the overall 455
52,45
efficiency, and the total heat transfer areas. Results show that 456
increased inlet steam pressure increases efficiency and net power 457
52,40 output attributable to increased enthalpy of steam, except in sin- 458
gle-pressure HRSG design. Therefore, an optimum steam pressure 459
52,35 has to be calculated with respect to the heat addition mean temper- 460
ature. Increased pinch point temperature difference decreases first 461
52,30
investment cost of the HRSG unit; however, net power output and 462
efficiency is also decreased. Because of heat transfer at greater tem- 463
perature difference increases irreversibility, approach temperature 464
52,25 difference directly affects economizer heat transfer area. Increased 465
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
approach temperature difference decreases plant efficiency and 466
HP Economizer Subcooling Temperature [C]
heat transfer area of the economizer. In all analyses the difference 467
F15:1 Fig. 15. Overall plant efficiency change of the combined cycle power between double-pressure and triple-pressure HRSG design shows 468
F15:2 plant according to the change in economizer subcooling temperature the same characteristics and the difference is lower compared 469
F15:3 for single-pressure, double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs with single-pressure and double-pressure HRSG. It was noted that, 470
when going from double-pressure arrangement to triple pressure, 471
there is a potential to increase efficiency. In conclusion, a detailed 472
economic analysis and exergy analysis should be carried out, and 473
435 T-Q diagrams are compared economizer heat transfer is more optimum values should be designated in designing of multipres- 474
436 than others. In single-pressure HRSG there is only one economizer sure HRSG. 475
437 and the effect of temperature difference should be more than
438 when it compared with double-pressure and triple-pressure
439 HRSG. Notation 476
440 Fig. 15 indicates that overall plant efficiency of single-pressure,
441 double-pressure, and triple-pressure HRSGs gets lower value, and The following symbols are used in this paper: 477
442 it yields a decreasing trend as top economizer approach tempera- A = heat transfer area (m2 ); 478
443 ture. For single pressure, for every 1°C increment in economizer BPS = combined cycle power plant; 479
444 approach temperature makes a decrement of approximately CC = combustion chamber; 480
445 0.09% and for double and triple pressure 0.037% and 0.018%, CCPP = combined cycle power plant; 481
446 respectively. Comp = compressor; 482
447 In Fig. 16, economizer heat transfer area decreases with increas- COND = condenser; 483
448 ing economizer approach temperature difference and the slope of CT = cooling tower; 484
449 lines is nearly equal. For single pressure, this decrement is approx- ECO = economizer; 485
450 imately 3.64%%. For double and triple pressure the decrements EVA = evaporator; 486
451 3.49% and 4.44%, respectively. FWP = feedwater pump; 487

JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 9

488 GT = gas turbine; Cenusă, V. E., and Badea, A. (2004). “Exergetic optimization of the heat 523
489 HP = high pressure (bar); recovery steam generators by imposing the total heat transfer area.” Int. 7 524
490 h = enthalpy (kJ∕kg); J. Thermodyn., 7, 149–156. 525
491 HRSG = heat recovery steam generator; Chiesa, P., and Macchi, E. (2004). “A thermodynamic analysis of different 526
492 IP = intermediate pressure (bar);
options to break 60% electric efficiency in combined cycle power 8 527
plants.” J. Eng Gas Turbine Power, 126(4), 770–85. 528
493 LP = low pressure (bar); Deschamps, P. J. (1998). “Advanced combined cycle alternatives with the 529
:
494 m: = mass flow rate (kg∕s); latest gas turbines.” J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 120(2), 350–7. 9 530
495 Q = net heat (MW); Franco, A., and Giannini, N. (2006). “A general method for the optimum 531
496 SF = supplementary firing; design of heat recovery steam generators.” Energy, 31(15), 3342–3361. 10 532
497 ST = steam turbine; Franco, A., and Russo, A. (2002). “Combined cycle plant efficiency in- 533
498 T = temperature (°C); crease based on the optimization of the heat recovery steam generator 11 534
499 Tur = temperature (°C); operating parameters.” Int. J. Thermal Sci., 41(9), 843–859. 535
500 U: = global heat transfer cofficient (kJ∕kg · °C); Kehlhofer, R. (1997). Combined-cycle gas and steam turbine power plants, 536
501 W = power (MW); and Pennwell, OK. 12 537
Kumar, R., Krishna, R., and Raju, S. R. (2006). “Performance simulation 538
502 η = energy efficiency (%).
of heat recovery steam generator in combined cycle power plant.” Proc. 13 539
of 18th National and 7th 1SHMT-ASME Heat and Mass Transfer Conf., 540
1781-1787 Jan. 4-6, IIT, Guwahati. 541
503 References Noelle, M., and Heyen, G. (2004). “Mathematical modeling and design 542
of an advanced once-through heat recovery steam generator.” Comput. 14 543
504 Alessandro, F., and Alessandro, R. (2002). “Combined cycle plant Chem. Eng., 28, 651–660. 544
505 2 efficiency increase based on the optimization of the heat recovery Ong’iro, A., Ugursal, V. L., Taweel, A. M., and Walker, J. D. (1997). 545
506 steam generator operation parameters.” Int. J. Therm. Sci., 41(9), “Modeling of heat recovery steam generator performance.” Appl. 546
507 843–859. Thermal Eng., 17(5), 427–446. 547
508 Bassily, A. M. (2004). “Modeling and numerical optimization of the Pelster, S., Favrat, D., and Spakovsky, M. R. (2001). “Thermoeconomic 548
509 3 dual and triple-pressure combined cycles.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng A: and environomic modeling and optimization of the synthesis, design, 15 549
510 J Power Energy, 218(2), 97–109. and operation of combined cycles with advanced options.” J. Gas 550
511 Bassily, A. M. (2007). “Modeling, numerical optimization, and irreversibil- Turbines Power, 123(4), 717–726. 551
512 4 ity reduction of a triple-pressure reheat combined cycle.” Energy, 32(5), Srinivas, T. (2009). “Study of a deaerator location in triple pressure-reheat 552
513 778–794. combined power cycle.” Energy, 34(9), 1364–1371. 553
514 Bejan, A. (1987). “Thermodynamic design of heat and mass transfer Srinivas, T. (2010). “Thermodynamic modelling and optimization of a dual 554
515 5 processes and devices.” Heat Fluid, 8(4), 258–267. pressure reheat combined power cycle.” Sadhana, Indian Acad. Sci., 35, 16 555
516 Bejan, A. (1988). Advanced engineering thermodynamics, 1st Ed., John 597–608. 556
517 Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Valdes, M., and Rapon, J. L. (2001). “Optimization of heat recovery steam 557
518 Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., and Moran, M. (1996). Thermal design and generators for combined cycle gas turbine power plants.” Appl. Thermal 17 558
519 optimization, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Eng., 21(11), 1149–1159. 559
520 Casarosa, C., and Franco, A. (2001). “Thermodynamic optimization of the Zwebek, A., and Pilidis, P. (2003). “Degradation effects on combined cycle 560
521 6 operative parameters for the heat recovery in combined power plants.” power plant performance-part 1: Gas turbine cycle component degra- 18 561
522 Int. J. Appl. Thermodyn., 4(1), 43–52. dation effects.” J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 125(3), 651–657. 562
563

10 / JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

564 Queries
565
566 1. Please note ASCE approved title change (modified phrase “Single and Multi Pressure” to “Single-Pressure and Multipressure”) to
567 conform to ASCE style preferences.
568
569 2. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference (Alessandro et al., 2002) could not be located
570 in the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask that you check it so we can provide as many links to
571 the referenced articles as possible.
572
573 3. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Bassily, 2004) The issue has been changed from 'A2' to '2'.
574 Please confirm this is correct.
575
576 4. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Bassily, 2007) The issue has been changed from 'none' to '5'.
577 Please confirm this is correct.
578
579 5. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Bejan, 1987) The issue has been changed from 'none' to '4'.
580 Please confirm this is correct.
581
582 6. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference (Casarosa et al., 2001) could not be located in
583 the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask that you check it so we can provide as many links to
584 the referenced articles as possible.
585
586 7. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference (Cenusă et al., 2004) could not be located in
587 the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask that you check it so we can provide as many links to
588 the referenced articles as possible.
589
590 8. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Chiesa et al., 2004) The issue has been changed from 'none'
591 to '4'. Please confirm this is correct.
592
593 9. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Deschamps, 1998) The issue has been changed from 'none'
594 to '2'. Please confirm this is correct.
595
596 10. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Franco et al., 2006) The issue has been changed from
597 'none' to '15'. Please confirm this is correct.
598
599 11. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Franco et al., 2002) The issue has been changed from
600 'none' to '9'. Please confirm this is correct.
601
602 12. Please provide publisher name for Kehlhofer (1997).
603
604 13. Please provide publisher name and location for Kumar et al. (2006), not conference location.
605
606 14. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference (Noelle et al., 2004) could not be located in
607 the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask that you check it so we can provide as many links to
608 the referenced articles as possible.
609
610 15. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Pelster et al., 2001) The issue has been changed from
611 'none' to '4'. Please confirm this is correct.
612
613 16. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference (Srinivas, 2010) could not be located in the
614 databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask that you check it so we can provide as many links to the
615 referenced articles as possible.
616
617 17. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Valdes et al., 2001) The issue has been changed from 'none'
618 to '11'. Please confirm this is correct.

JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11

619
620 18. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. (Zwebek et al., 2003) The issue has been changed from
621 'none' to '3'. Please confirm this is correct.

12 / JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011