See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233927648

Simulation of IGFC power generation system by Aspen Plus

Conference Paper · December 2010

CITATIONS READS
0 2,993

4 authors:

Souman Rudra Lasse Rosendahl

Universitetet i Agder Aalborg University
23 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS    202 PUBLICATIONS   4,486 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abu Sayem S.M. Ashekuzzaman

Central Queensland University TEAGASC - The Agriculture and Food Development Authority
18 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   371 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HTL4FUEL View project

Modelling of clogging in wastewater pumps using CFD-DEM approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S.M. Ashekuzzaman on 29 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 13th Asian Congress of Fluid Mechanics
17-21 December 2010, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Simulation of IGFC power generation system by Aspen Plus

Souman Rudra1*, L. Rosendahl1, Abu Sadahat Sayem2, S.M. Ashekuzzaman3
1
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, DK-9220, Denmark
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, CUET, Chittagong-4340, Bangladesh
3
Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Aalborg University, DK-9000, Aalborg, Denmark

*E-mail: sru@iet.aau.dk

Abstract demonstrations of commercial prototype power systems

The solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) is a promising technology for
electricity generation. Sulfur free syngas from the gas cleaning
unit serves as a fuel for SOFC in IGFC (Integrated gasification
Fuel cell) power plant. It converts the chemical energy of the fuel
gas directly to electric energy and therefore, very high
efficiencies can be achieved. The outputs from SOFC can be
utilized by HRSG which drives steam turbine for electricity
production. The SOFC stack model developed using the process
flow sheet simulator Aspen Plus which is of equilibrium type.
The results indicate there must be tread off efficiency and power
with respect to a variety of SOFC inputs. HRSG which is located
after the SOFC is also included in current simulation study with
various operating parameters. This paper also describes for the
IGFC Power Plants, the optimization of the Heat Recovery Steam
Generator (HRSG) is of particular interest in order to improve the
efficiency of the heat recovery from SOFC exhaust gas and to
maximize the power production in the steam cycle in IGFC
system.
Keywords: SOFC, HRSG, IGFC, Syngas.
1. Introduction
Behavior of coal contaminants toward potentially very
clean, highly efficient integrated power generating system
is becoming increasingly important from both a system’s
performance and endurance, as well as an environmental
point of view. IGFC is a combined power generation
system combining IGCC and high- temperature fuel cells.
The fuel cell system is more expensive than a combustion
turbine but that expense is counterbalanced by the decrease
in the unit cost of upstream equipment due to the higher
IGFC system efficiency [1]. A hybrid system of the solid
oxide fuel cell (SOFC) with gas turbine has been studied
for long times of period in the field of Energy
conservation. A literature survey indicates that past
research and development of SOFCs for large power
systems has made significant advances since the early
1990s, research by Harvey and Richter [2]. Fuel cell
system control and design has received increasing attention
throughout the years considering as well energetic and
economic aspects and using sensitivity analyses [3].
Afterwards, George [4] described a field unit
demonstration program; including the Southern California
Edison 220 kW pressurized SOFC/gas turbine
(PSOFC/GT) power system, along with planned
from Siemens Westinghouse Power. As regards the heat
exchangers and the heat recovery steam generator, all
characterized by a tube-in-tube counter flow arrangement,
the simulation is carried out using the thermal efficiency-
NTU approach [5]. He also analyzed the Energy and
exergy balances are performed not only for the whole plant
but also for each component in order to evaluate the
distribution of irreversibility and thermodynamic
inefficiencies. The inlet temperature and mass flow rate
of HRSG gas often vary in a large range. HP steam is
delivered to the steam turbine in a sliding pressure mode.
Heat and mass transfer of water and steam are
accompanied with multi-system, multi-direction and multi-
form [6]. The performance of HRSG strongly affects the
overall performance of the power plant. The optimization
of the HRSG represents only a first step in the optimum
design of the whole plant.
In this paper, a simulation model of an integrated SOFC
and HRSG for IGFC system has been estimated.
Considering the contribution of different components in
the cycle, an algorithm has been then developed using
ASPEN plus to simulate the performance of SOFC for
IGFC cycle. This simulation will investigate the effects of
various performance parameters, like SOFC fuel and air
inlet temperature and flow rate. And then the output gas
from SOFC has been utilized for the HRSG simulation and
temperature profile for HRSG has been represented
graphically.
2. Model Description
In this research work the gasifier modeled in this
application is based on the concept of coal gasification to
produce high methane content syngas at a relatively low
operating temperature, which benefits both the gasifier
efficiency and the SOFC performance. The integrated
SOFC-HRSG layout is schematically illustrated in Fig.1.
The whole power plant system is described in the
following:
1. Coal is gasified in the gasifier.
2. Oxygen is from a cryogenic air separation unit into
gasifier. And also to SOFC after heating through a
heat exchanger.

876 | P a g e

3. Particulate is removed from the raw syngas exiting
the gasifier using a cyclone collector and a candle
filter system.
4. Sulfur free syngas from the gas cleaning unit serves
as a fuel for SOFC. The non-reacted fuel is involved
in the internal reforming reaction within the anode
compartment of the SOFC stack.
5. The electrochemical reactions, occurring in the fuel
cell, produce DC electrical current and release
thermal energy. The first of these is converted into
Fig.1: Simplified Flow Diagram of the SOFC-HRSG in IGFC Plant.
3. SOFC simulation model
The stream ‘SYNGAS’ is fed to the ‘COMPR1’ block,
simulating the fuel compressor. The discharge pressure
was calculated by assuming a pressure ratio: Pfuel/PSOFC = 3
[7]. The pressurized fuel is brought up to the block
‘FUELHEAT’ (Fig.2) and its exit stream enters the
‘EJECTOR’ block, where it is mixed with the recycled
depleted fuel (stream 27). The pressure of the mixed
stream (stream 4) is decreased back to slightly above
atmospheric pressure (PSOFC) and is directed to the
‘COOLER’ block. The two blocks ‘COOLER’ and
‘PREFORM’ simulate the operation of the pre-reformers.
As a result, the gas is cooled simulating the endothermicity
of the steam reforming process. The following chemical
reactions were specified in the ‘PREFORM’ block:
Steam reforming: CH 4 + H 2O = 3H 2 + CO …………….... (1)
Water-gas shift: CO + H 2 O = CO2 + H 2 …………….…. (2)
It was assumed that the reactions reach thermodynamic
equilibrium at the pre-reforming temperature. The pre-
reformed fuel (stream 6) is fed to the ‘B5’ block, where the
remaining CH4 is reformed, CO is shifted and H2 is
oxidized. In a SOFC the following reactions occur:
Cathode half reaction: 0.5O2 + 2e− → O2− ……………..... (3)
Anode half reaction: H2 + O2 → H2O + 2e− ….……...…. (4)
AC current by the inverter; the latter is used by the
internal reforming reaction and to heat up the fuel
cell stack.
6. The SOFC exhaust stream flows to the heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG). The gas mixture side of the
HRSG passes through the heat exchanger sections-
high pressure (HP) superheater (SU), reheater (RH),
HP evaporator (EV), HP economizer (EC),
intermediate-pressure (IP) SU, IP EV, IP EC, low-
pressure (LP) SU, LP EV, and LP EC-and is
exhausted at stack.
Overall reaction: H 2 + 0.5O2 → H 2 O ……...................... (5)
The oxygen ion O2− is the charge carrier in a SOFC. It is
transported through the electrolyte to the anode side where
it reacts with H2 to produce electrons e-. Reactions (11),
(12) and (15) were specified in the ‘B5’ block (Anode) and
it was assumed that they reach thermodynamic equilibrium
at the block temperature the oxidant (stream ‘AIR’) is fed
to the ‘COMPR2’ block. The air stream composition and
thermodynamic condition were inputted. The molar flow
rate is determined using a design spec that varies the air
flow until the air utilization factor Ua = 18% [8]. The heat
needed to do this is supplied by the electrochemical
reaction and this process was simulated by taking a heat
stream (22) from ‘HEATER2’ to ‘B5’ (Anode). The
temperature of the ‘HEATER2’ block was specified. The
depleted fuel (stream 7) enters the block ‘SPLIT’, whose
function is to split the stream into a recycle (stream 8) and
a stream directed to the combustion plenum. The depleted
fuel and oxidant are fed to ‘POSTCOM’ where complete
combustion of the remaining fuel occurs. The following
combustion reactions, assumed to reach completion, were
specified:
H2 combustion: H 2 + 0.5O2 → H 2O ….………………..… (6)
CO combustion: CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 …………..……..… (7)
CH4 combustion: CH 4 + O2 = 2 H 2 O + CO2 …………….… (8)
877 | P a g e
 W Q
18 27

COMPR1
EJECTOR
PREFORM
SYNGAS 25 COOLER
Q
FUELHEAT
2 3 4 5
1

6 B5
19

Q
21
17

28
7
W 22 SPILT

COMPR2

CATHOD
AIR 26 AIRHEAT
B10
HEATER2
10 11 12
15 16 8

24

POSTCOM
Q
HEATER1
13
14

23

Fig. 2: Aspen Pus simulation model for SOFC

Table 1: Steam properties for SOFC simulation Model
4. Results Mass Flow
Steam Temperature (oC) Pressure (bar) (kg/hr)
The SOFC inlet temperature for this analysis was assumed
to be 750ºC and for this the output temperature was 815ºC. SYNGAS 700 1.34 80000
The electrolyte of a SOFC opertes between 600 – 1000ºC AIR 550 1.31 68038
where ionic conduction by oxygen ions takes place. In this 2 1081.669 4.033433 79605.46
simulation fuel flow is 80000 (kg/hr) and air flow rate is 3 704.4444 1.103161 79605.46
68038 (kg/hr). 4 552.0485 0.827371 265351.53
Fig.3 shows that the variation of mole percentage for 5 454.4444 0.827371 265351.53
syngas input, air inlet and Anode, cathode outlet in this 6 486.9348 0.827371 265351.53
simulation. The results of this simulation have been 8 486.9347 1.034214 121961.14
selected for the further simulation as it is more familiar 10 826.2416 3.930012 68038.85
with the literature value. Temperature output from cathode 11 537.7778 1.378951 68038.85
is almost 815 oC and the pressure around 1.276 bar. Vapor 12 1377.344 1.378951 68038.85
friction is almost same for the all stream.
13 1655.109 0.137895 147644.32
The stream properties for this simulation are
14 826.6667 0.827371 147644.32
documented in Table 1. As temperature, pressure and mass
flow plays a vital rule in thermodynamic simulation. So 16 921.1111 1.342104 25683.18
only these parameters have been shown in this Table. 17 1382.899 0.137895 147644.32
27 486.9347 1.034214 185746.1
28 980.6423 1.153141 42355.68
ANDOUT 486.9348 1.03 307707.21
CATOUT 815.5556 1.28 25683.18

Steams inputs and outputs data for different blocks of

HRSG simulation by Aspen Plus are different. The
temperatures are calculated by Aspen Plus from the
pressures and flow rates supplied to the model. The
numbers show that the results generated using the Aspen
simulations are in good agreement with the operating data.
Fig.4 represents the temperature difference on various
parts of HRSG for gas and steam.
Fig.3: Percentage of different components for simulation

878 | P a g e
 4.1 Model validation
The developed model was validated against published data
for the NETL 300 MW IGFC combine cycle SOFC stack
operating on coal [9].
Overall performance for the plant is compared with the
literature value which is shown in Table 3. The power
generation from SOFC model for this simulation is lower
than the literature value because of lower percentage of
methane gas from the syngas.

Table 3: Comparison of whole power output with the

literature data.
Power Production Summary Simulation Literature
Fig.4: Temperature (oC) profile builds on simulation results results
results SOFC Power (MW) 238.546 264.575
Steam Cycle Power (MW) 108.204 34.859
The HRSG optimum design in the actual technology is Total 346.75 299.470
based on the concepts of pinch-point and approach point, Auxiliary Power Summary
which govern the gas and steam temperature profile. High Cathode Blower (MW) 8.550 13.760
pressure superheater exit temperature from the HRSG is 1.354
Syngas Recycle Compressor 1.160
almost 538 oC and for IP, LP superheater outlet
temperature is 309 oC, 131 oC respectively. Other related ASU Compressor 9.440 7.005
output result from HRSG and steam turbine are shown in Gasifier O2 Compressor 5.140 6.254
Table 2. Though the pinch point temperature is different in HRSG Feed water Pump 3.030 0.942
every case but the approach temperature difference is same Coal input loses (Handling,
for both HP and IP case. Milling and slurry pumps) 2.125 1.223
Slag Handling and Dewatering 0.617 0.534
Table 2: Triple pressure HRSG-ST output. Condensate Pump 0.153 0.0765
Circulating Water Pump 0.570 0.125
Parameters HP IP LP Cooling Tower Fan 0.980 0.393
Superheater Temperature, Tsh 538 400 180 Selexol Auxiliaries 1.595 1.431
(oC) Miscellaneous Balance of Plant 0.436 0.985
Evaporator Temperature, 309 217 150 Transformer Loss 2.080 0.976
Teva(oC) CO2 Compression 15.6 16.45
Economizer Temperature, Teco 131 130 130 Total 51.476 46.08
(oC) Net Total Power 295.27 253.39
Pinch temperature, Tpp (oC) 27 23 44 AC/DC Inverter Efficiency 97%
Approach Temperature, Tapp 10 10 - Net Efficiency 48.28% 49.4%
(oC)
Stack Temperature, Tstack (oC) 105 Table 3 shows the power generated from the steam
Pressure, P (bar) 95.7 19.52 3.92 turbine are abjectly 108.204 MW which is almost 3 times
Exit steam quality 1 1 0.9513 than the literature value. The loss from HRSG feed water
Turbine Work, Wturbine(MW) 35.5 45.61 27.041 pump is superior in the simulation because of higher water
Net work, Wnet (MW) 108.204 flow rate. Some losses like coal handling, slag handling
Net turbine efficiency, ηnet 35.02 loss have been taking from the referenced article from
where syngas properties took. In case of total loss,
Vapor faction for both HP and IP section are 1. Pressure simulated value is almost 5.4 MW higher then compared
for HP section is 95.7 bar while for IP and LP section only values. Excluding the losses, total production is 41.88 MW
19.52 and 3.92 bar respectively. The net efficiency for the more for the simulated design. But the net efficiency is
steam turbine is almost 35 percent. Each turbine (HP, IP slightly higher in literature values as it has more electricity
and LP) work can be measured by Aspen plus simulation production from SOFC. One of the reasons for this is that
which shows in Table 2. in that model they recycled the water exhaust from the
anode output.

879 | P a g e
 5. Conclusions
In the IGFC configuration, power is generated by both the
fuel cell and the steam cycle. The fuel cell is the most
efficient energy conversion device in the cycle. Therefore,
system efficiency (48.28) has improved rather than the
other convention power plant as energy conversion in the
SOFC is optimized, in terms of fuel utilization and
overpotential reduction.
A simulation model of the SOFC stack was developed
using Aspen Plus. Total electricity production from SOFC
is almost 238.546 MW for this IGFC system.
HRSG simulation has been completed in complex
configuration with triple pressure with reheat. The plotted
temperate profile for HRSG by using the simulation results
shows the actual temperature profile graph which made the
model better for validation. The power generated from the
steam turbines are 108.204 MW using the steam from
HRSG.
Finally, the results of the cases presented in the result
section illustrate how an IGFC system has more efficiency
benefits over other advanced power generation
technologies. If advanced fossil energy research goals in
the areas of coal gasification and solid oxide fuel cell
development are met, this study demonstrates an IGFC
combined cycle of 48.28 % efficiency.
References
[1] Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell Performance and
Cost Assessment, DOE/NETL-2009/1361, March 27,
2009.
880 | P a g e
View publication stats
[2] Harvey SP, Richter HJ. A detailed study of a gas
turbine cycle with an integrated internal reforming
solid oxide fuel cell. In Proceedings of 29th
Intersociety energy conversion engineering
conference, Monterey, CA, 1994, vol. 2, 961–973
[3] Costamagna P, Magistri L, Massardo AF. Design and
part-load performance of a hybrid system based on a
solid oxide fuel cell reactor and a micro gas turbine.
Journal of Power Sources. 2001, 96 (2), 352–368
[4] George RA. Status of tubular SOFC field unit
demonstrations. J Power Sources. 2008, 6(1–2) , 134–
9
[5] Calisea F, Dentice d’Accadiaa M, Palomboa A,
Vanoli L. Simulation and exergy analysis of a hybrid
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell(SOFC)–Gas Turbine System.
Energy, 2006, 31, 3278–3299
[6] Mahagaokar U, Egon LD. High heat recovery in coal
and coke gasification combined gasification system.
ASME paper 95-GT-259.
[7] Campanari, S. Thermodynamic model and parametric
analysis of a tubular SOFC module. Journal of Power
Sources. 2001, 92(1-2), 26-34
[8] Suwanwarangkul R, Croiset E, Pritzker M D, Fowler
M W, Douglas PL, Entchev E. Modeling of a
cathode-supported tubular solid oxide fuel cell
operation with biomass-derived synthesis gas,
Journal of Power Sources, 2007, 166 (2), 386-399.
[9] Pietro P D, Gerdes K. Integrated Gasification Fuel
Cell Performance. March 27, 2009,
DOE/NETL2009.