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

net/publication/338756790

Exergy Analysis of Heat Recovery Steam Generator: Effects of Supplementary

Firing and Desuperheater

Article  in  Journal of Energy Resources Technology · January 2020

DOI: 10.1115/1.4046084

CITATION READS

1 404

2 authors:

Hani Khalili Param Ofelia A. Jianu

University of Windsor University of Windsor
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION    25 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Thermochemical copper-chlorine cycle for hydrogen production View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hani Khalili Param on 09 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Hanieh Khalili Param
Department of Mechanical, Automotive, and
Material Engineering,
University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
e-mail: khalilih@uwindsor.ca
Ofelia A. Jianu
Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical, Automotive, and
Material Engineering,
University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
e-mail: Ofelia.Jianu@uwindsor.ca
Exergy Analysis of Heat Recovery
Steam Generator: Effects of
Supplementary Firing and
Desuperheater
Comprehensive exergy analysis of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) with two levels
of delivered pressure is presented. The effects of supplementary firing as well as desuper-
heater set-point are considered to evaluate the exergy destruction of HRSG components.
Burner firing rate is limited to a value that corresponds to the maximum allowable temper-
ature of tube metal of high-pressure (HP) superheater. According to the exergy analysis
performed in the current study, the exergy efficiency of HRSG is about 80% which means
20% of flue gas exergy (entering HRSG) is dissipated by HRSG destruction (∼14%) and
stack exergy loss (∼6%). The stack exergy loss drops continuously as supplementary
firing raises. It has also been determined that increasing the rate of supplementary firing
boosts the exergy efficiency in the absence of water spray and reduces it when desuperhea-
ter is working. In addition, the exergy delivered to steam turbine shows a linear growth with
burner heat while it is hardly affected by the set-point of desuperheater. Also, it is found that
exergy loss through the stack is not sensitive to desuperheater set-point while it is on the
decrease as burner duty raises. HP steam flow will raise with increasing the firing and/
or decreasing the desuperheater set-point. HP evaporator has the most contribution in
exergy destruction among HRSG components (∼40%), whereas HP superheater and desu-
perheater are components with a maximum sensitivity of exergy destruction to the amount of
water spray. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4046084]

Keywords: exergy efficiency, combined cycle power plants, heat recovery steam generator,
exergy destruction, supplementary firing (duct burner), desuperheater, energy systems
analysis, heat energy generation/storage/transfer, power (co-)generation

1 Introduction spray water before the final superheater that reduces the chance of
remaining water droplets in steam delivered to the turbine (compar-
Heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) are commonly used in
ing to final-stage one that sprays water to the steam just before
various industries due to their ability to recover the remaining
entering the turbine) [7–9]. There is a reduction in thermal effi-
energy from the exhaust gas of the turbine. The produced steam
ciency corresponding to desuperheater because of the mixing of
can either drive a steam turbine to generate more electrical power
flow with different temperatures. Therefore, a comprehensive anal-
in a combined cycle power plant (CCPP) or may be used in com-
ysis is helpful to find out the effects of supplementary firing com-
bined heat and power plants where the process heat is needed [1].
bined with desuperheater set-point on the thermal efficiency of
The gas turbine performance (i.e., of a Bryton cycle) is highly
HRSG in different conditions. The first law of thermodynamics is
affected by the ambient conditions, especially the temperature [2],
applied to determine the quantity of the energy in every system,
and thus, the HRSG steam production will be sensitive to the
while the second law of thermodynamics is employed to identify
ambient temperature. The supplementary firing, which is utilized
the quality of the energy as it is a powerful tool in the optimization
by engaging a duct burner, is an appropriate solution to compensate
of complex thermal systems. Based on the second law of thermody-
for the loss in the input energy of HRSG in summer when the output
namics, the exergy analysis is applied to determine the sources and
energy of gas turbine drops [3–5]. In countries with low fuel prices,
the magnitude of irreversibility in energy systems [10,11]. Main
the use of the supplementary firing can be beneficial even in winter
sources of exergy reduction in HRSGs are heat exchangers (econo-
since it will result in more steam production with minor or no
mizer, superheater, and evaporator), pump, and valves.
change in HRSG size and price. However, excessive supplementary
There are extensive previous studies in the exergy analysis of
firing can decrease the overall efficiency since the fuel lower
CCPP as well as HRSG in literature. Sreedharan et al. [12] investi-
heating value (LHV) will be burnt in the Rankine cycle that has a
gated the variation in exergy efficiency of gas turbines by different
lower efficiency comparing with a combined cycle [6]. In every
gas turbine parameters including mass flow rate, inlet air tempera-
HRSG, the desuperheater (also called atemperator) has an important
ture to compressor, air fuel ratio, and cycle pressure ratio. Their
role in controlling the outlet steam temperature that may cause
results demonstrated that increasing the air fuel ratio and cycle pres-
damage to the blades of the steam turbine due to metallurgical
sure ratio will decrease the exergetic efficiency, while they cause a
issues. This component is responsible to spray pressurized water
promotion in thermal efficiency. Also, they found that increasing
into superheated steam to prevent it from excessive temperature
the inlet air temperature to compressor does not make a significant
rise. Inter-stage desuperheaters are preferred for CCPPs as they
raise in exergetic efficiency; however, the efficiency of the cycle
drops remarkably. Finally, exergetic and cycle efficiencies
improved significantly by increasing the mass flow rate to the com-
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in pressor. Khanmohammadi and coauthors [13] studied the effect of
the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received September 23,
2019; final manuscript received December 27, 2019; published online January 22, supplementary firing on the exergy efficiency and thermal effi-
2020. Assoc. Editor: Guangdong Zhu. ciency of HRSGs. Their results show that by implementing

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright © 2020 by ASME MAY 2020, Vol. 142 / 052101-1
supplementary firing the total exergy loss of HRSG as well as
thermal efficiency (∼1%) will be decreased [13] despite increasing
the gross output power of CCPP (for instance, rising from
∼396 MWe to ∼425 MWe). Ghaebi et al. [14] studied the exergy
and thermo-economic analysis of a combined cooling, heating,
and power systems. They analyzed the influence of various param-
eters including air compressor pressure ratio, turbine inlet tempera-
ture, pinch temperatures in dual-pressure HRSG, and etc. They
found that as the pinch temperature in low-pressure (LP) level evap-
orator of HRSG increases, first and second law efficiencies as well
as the total cost of the system rise. Moreover, increment in pinch
temperature of high-pressure (HP) level evaporator resulted in
rising the first law efficiency and on the contrary deduction in exer-
getic efficiency. Finally, growth in LP evaporator pressure in HRSG
caused a decline in first and second law efficiencies, and it was
proved that the total cost of the system would rise up again after
reaching its minimum value [14]. Almutairi et al. [15] employed
IPSEPRO software to perform energetic and exergetic analysis of
Sabiya CCPP with an advanced triple pressure reheat HRSG. The
effect of various parameters, including climatic conditions, pinch
point temperatures, and high-pressure steam, on the performance
of the power plant was examined. They confirmed that the combus-
tion chamber is the major contributor (∼61%) in the total exergy
destruction [15]. In addition, results reveal that the high-pressure
stage in HRSG contains about 50% of total exergy destruction in
HRSG compared to other stages and the reheat system. This is
because of the significant temperature difference between GT
exhaust gas and steam in boiler banks which causes high energy
loss. Similarly, Ali et al. [16] studied CCPP energetic and exergetic
analysis with triple pressure HRSG and reached analogous results,
emphasizing that the maximum and minimum portions of exergy
destruction devoted to the combustion chamber (∼70%) and con-
denser, respectively. Also, exergy destruction calculation for
every component of HRSG ascertained that high-pressure compo-
nents have higher exergy destruction compared to low-pressure
ones. Moosavi et al. [17] proposed a new method to improve the
performance of HRSG during the summer in which the ambient
temperature increases. In this new approach, a partial part of hot
flue gas should be conducted to HP evaporator and bypasses HP
superheater. It was found that although by increasing the split
ratio from 2.5% to 15% the steam turbine power and consequently
net produced power rises from 0.15 to 0.9 MWe, the exergy destruc-
tion of HRSG due to the higher temperature difference between hot
and cold streams enhances [17]. Sahin et al. [18] utilized thermody-
namics equations to perform energy and exergy analysis of a CCPP
in Turkey. They pointed out that most of the exergy losses occurs in
the HRSG. Thus, improvements should be directed to HRSG per-
formance. They also analyzed the effect of reference ambient tem-
perature on the efficiencies which demonstrates that 1 °C increase of
reference point would lead to 0.14% and 0.12% decrease in energy
and exergy efficiencies of the power plant, respectively. Vandani
et al. [19] evaluated the influence of HRSG on the system
Fig. 1 Block diagram of HRSG configuration
052101-2 / Vol. 142, MAY 2020
performance in a steam power plant. They used two optimization
algorithms to rise plant efficiency. The results indicate that imple-
menting the blow-down recovery technique increases the net
power production by nearly 0.72%. Moreover, the exergy and
energy efficiencies of the system was enhanced by 0.22 and 0.23,
respectively. Kaviri et al. [20] selected a CCPP with dual-pressure
and supplementary firing HRSG to accomplish an optimization
design by considering exergy destruction per unit of inlet gas to
the HRSG as an objective function. They considered various
design variables like drum pressure, pinch temperature difference,
HRSG inlet gas temperature as well as steam mass flow of HP
and LP evaporators. The results prove that increasing HRSG inlet
temperature to 650 °C would lead to rising up the thermal and
exergy efficiencies of the cycle and above this value showed the
contrasting effects. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that HP evap-
orator and second HP superheater are the major contributors in
exergy destruction [20].
In this paper, the authors aim to provide a comprehensive study
of the effects of supplementary firing and desuperheater on the
energy and exergy analysis of HRSG with two levels of delivered
pressure to the steam turbine. Moreover, the detailed exergy analy-
sis of HRSG components is performed. A comprehensive program
for designing and evaluating horizontal and vertical HRSGs was
developed to calculate the heat and exergy balance of HRSG with
different design parameters and customized configuration. The
program results are verified with available experimental and simu-
lated data in literature [17].
2 Problem Description
Figure 1 depicts the schematic view of the HRSG components
arrangement with two delivered pressure levels as well as the
path of vapor/water stream and gas turbine (GT) exhaust gas
stream. The description of abbreviations for each component is
listed in Table 1. The selected configuration is common for dual-
pressure HRSGs [17,21,22], and the duct burner is mounted at
the entry of the HRSG. This type of HRSG is the most common
type used downstream the E-type gas turbines since it provides
maximum thermo-economic performance. Regarding the tempera-
ture and flow rate of turbine-exhaust gas (TEG) of E-type turbines,
a combined cycle with one level of pressure of steam turbine will
lead to significant amounts of energy loss. Also, HRSG with
three levels of steam pressure results in an excessive amount of
equipment that increases the cost of boiler HRSG that does not
provide enough economic justification when the additional gain
of energy is considered. The HP section consists of two economiz-
ers, an evaporator as well as two superheaters, whereas the LP
section contains an evaporator and one superheater.
The reason for splitting HP-ECO into two sections is to provide
an appropriate flue gas temperature at LP-SH inlet. In the current
configuration, the flue gas enters the LP-SH with a temperature of
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Description of abbreviations

Abbreviations Description

HP High pressure
LP Low pressure
SH Superheater
Eva Evaporator
Eco Economizer
DEA Dearator
CPH Condensate preheater
Spray Water spray in desuperhear
CEP Condensate extraction pump
GT Gas turbine

about 254 °C that provides a temperature difference of ∼20 °C

between flue gas flow and LP steam (TLP Steam = 234 °C). Also,
the current heat absorption rates of HP-ECO1 and HP-ECO2 are
9.6 MWth and 33 MWth, respectively. By eliminating HP-ECO1,
the heat absorption of HP-ECO2 should be increased to
42.6 MWth that results in a flue gas temperature of ∼234 °C at the
LP-SH inlet, which is not sufficient for LP-SH.
The subcooled water is conducted to HRSG from CEP (conden-
sate extraction pump) and meets the flue gas at the CPH (condensate
preheater). The exit of CPH flows toward the integral deaerator
which removes oxygen and other dissolved gases from water.
Then, the cleansed water from the deaerator is directed to LP and
HP pump. The HP steam temperature is controlled by spraying
water in desuperheater while the LP superheater has no temperature
limitation. The geometry and configuration of HRSG does not
change during the current study. Also, the flue gas properties (tem-
perature and flow rate) remain constant as well as the temperature of
the entering water to the HRSG (water from CEP). Burner heat
release and desuperheater set-point are parameters of interest with
the latter indicating the maximum allowable temperature of super-
heated steam delivered to the steam turbine. This limitation is nec-
essary to prevent HP turbine blades from serious damage by
exceeded steam temperature. In the current study, six main simula-
tions (see Table 2) are investigated to perform a comprehensive
exergy analysis. Additionally, numerous extra simulations (nearly
27 cases) with different burner firing rates are carried out and the
influence of burner heat release on different parameters is presented
within plots in the Result section. The input data of HRSG are com-
parable with literature for GT exhaust gas data [13,17,23]; however,
they are made for scientific research purposes based on the authors’
knowledge from the power plant industry to analyze the effects of
parameters of interest. In Case0 (i.e., No Firing), the superheated
HP steam temperature reaches to nearly 503 °C without spraying
water; thus, the desuperheater set-point is not applicable for this
case and the exit temperature is lower than all various set-point tem-
peratures considered in this study. In Case1, there is a partial firing
which is given as an input in duct burner with desuperheater set-
point of 523 °C. Case2 to Case4 belong to the maximum allowable
burner firing for different desuperheater set-points, while Case5
indicates an imaginary situation of maximum firing with unlimited
superheated steam temperature that can be obtained by disabling the
desuperheater. In this case, the delivered HP steam temperature will
Table 2 Properties of main simulated cases
Simulated Burner heat Desuperheater
case release (MWth) set-point (°C) Description
Case0 0.00 N/A No firing
Case1 20.05 523.00 Partial firing
Case2 58.72 523.00 Max. allowable firing
Case3 66.14 513.00 Max. allowable firing
Case4 46.07 533.00 Max. allowable firing
Case5 36.72 No limit Max. allowable firing
Fig. 2 Variation in maximum metal temperature of HP
superheater
reach to 542 °C. First, we need to determine the maximum allow-
able heat release of burner. In real situations, the maximum capacity
of supplementary firing is limited by the maximum allowable tem-
perature of HP superheater tubes, thus, for the current study, the
HP-superheater is manufactured by A213-T22 steel with the allow-
able temperature of 590 °C. By applying a margin of 15 °C for the
nonuniformity temperature distribution in flue gas entering the
HRSG cross section, it is concluded that the temperature of the
metal tube must not exceed 575 °C. In Fig. 2, the variation in
maximum metal temperature of HP superheater is shown against
burner heat release for different set-points of desuperheater. It can
be seen that this temperature is a function of both outer (flue gas)
and inner (steam) flow temperatures; hence, the maximum allow-
able rate of burner firing itself is dependent on the set-point of the
desuperheater. This explains why the values of burner heat
release for the various cases (shown in Table 2) are not the same
for different set-points, such that when the steam temperature is
increased (i.e., raising desuperheater set-point), the maximum
allowable burner heat released is decreased. Indeed, increasing
desuperheater set-point allows HP steam to get higher temperature
which results in higher surface temperature of superheater tubes
even for the same gas temperature. Thus, to keep the surface tem-
perature of tubes below the maximum allowable limit, the entering
gas to the superheater should have lower temperature which can be
obtained by lowering the burner firing rate. It should be mentioned
that the engaged software has the flexibility to set all needed param-
eters such as fixed HP steam temperature (i.e., desuperheater set-
point) or tube metal temperature. Indeed, the problem can be
solved through a try-and-error numerical procedure until the
defined constrained will be satisfied.
The combined cycle contains two Siemens V94.2 gas turbines,
each one produces 162.1 MWe nominal power, with two HRSGs
and one steam turbine with a nominal capacity of 160 MWe.
Table 3 demonstrates the assumed data of gas turbine, steam
turbine, and pumps which are considered as fixed values of the
entire study. The composition of flue gas is also shown in Table 3.
3 Methodology
3.1 Energy Analysis. To find out the heat balance of the
system shown in Fig. 1, the mass and energy conservation of
both water and gas sides can be calculated via the following equa-
tions [24]:



ṁi = ṁo (1)



ṁi hi + Q̇i + Ẇ pump = ṁo ho (2)

Journal of Energy Resources Technology MAY 2020, Vol. 142 / 052101-3

 Table 3 Assumed data for simulations Where ex is the specific exergy (in kJ/kg) while h (kJ/kg),
s (kJ/kg K), and T (K) are enthalpy, entropy, and temperature,
Parameter Unit Value respectively. The term x0 indicates the property x at the reference
state which is at the ambient temperature and pressure. The
GT flue gas flow kg/sec 463.00
GT flue gas temperature °C 558.00
exergy rate (Ėx) can be calculated by multiplying the mass flow
Steam turbine pressure (HP) bara 90.00 rate into the specific exergy. As described earlier, the exergy
Steam turbine pressure (LP) bara 10.50 destruction mainly occurs in heat exchangers, pumps, valves, and
CEP discharge pressure bara 15.52 desuperheater that can be calculated by Eq. (4)
CEP discharge temperature °C 62.00


FWP efficiency % 80.00 ΔĖx = Ėxin − Ėxout + Ẇ pump (4)
Flue gas composition N2 %Vol. 74.87
O2 %Vol. 13.68 It is notable that the term Ẇ pump is only considered for pump.
CO2 %Vol. 3.35 Also, the pump may have more than one exiting branch (HP and
H2O %Vol. 7.20 LP streams). Due to the second law of thermodynamics, the
Ar %Vol. 0.9 exergy destruction cannot be negative. The exergy efficiency is con-
sidered only for heat exchangers as following:

(Ėxout − Ėxin )steam

where ṁ is the mass flow rate in kg/s, h is the specific enthalpy
kJ/kg. Q̇ is the heat transfer rate in kJ/s, and subscripts i and o
denote the stages in the system. The term Ẇ pump is the pump
power and only considered for the pump. It is assumed that the
casing of the HRSG is well-insulated; hence, there is no heat dissi-
pation to the atmosphere from casing.
The HP and LP pressure values of steam turbine are set to 90 and
10.5 bar, respectively, as boundary conditions of pressure in water
side. Also, the water temperature coming from CEP has a fixed tem-
perature of 62 °C. The pressure levels of LP and HP drums are cal-
culated from their downstream conditions, and their temperature
will be computed based on the saturation condition. The deaerator
used in HRSG is a Spray-Tray type, which reaches its maximum
efficiency when the water is in a saturated condition. Indeed, the sat-
urated water has the minimum capacity of solubility for dissolved
gases that forces them to escape the fluid. Hence, the water at the
deaerator outlet can always be considered as saturated water. The
saturated temperature of the deaerator outlet flow can be obtained
from Eq. (2).
The isentropic efficiency of feed water pump (FWP) is set to
80%. The set-point of desuperheater will be applied on the steam
temperature that enters to HP steam turbine. There is no need to
control LP superheated steam temperature since it is far below the
maximum allowable temperature of steam turbine. The capacity
of the duct burner is about 66 MWth that is obtained by burning
natural gas with LHV of ∼48,700 kJ/kg. The well-known correla-
tions, ESCOA [25,26], are engaged for the calculation of the flue
gas side heat transfer coefficient of the finned tube heat exchangers.
The gas properties and combustion modeling are calculated
based on ASME PTC 4.4 considering the temperature-dependent
relations for species. To calculate the water/steam properties, the
formulations of IAPWS (The International Association for the
Properties of Water and Steam) are implemented [25]. No heat dis-
sipation through radiation is assumed. The solution of the set of
nonlinear equations is obtained by a customized numerical proce-
dure implemented in a comprehensive program used to design
and evaluate horizontal and vertical HRSGs. The program is
engaged to calculate the heat balance of an existing HRSG with/
without supplementary firing. The software accuracy was evaluated
using available performance data of an existing HRSG showing a
good level of agreement [17].
4 Exergy Analysis
Exergy can be considered as a thermodynamic term that shows
the quality of the energy. Based on a common definition [24],
exergy is the maximum obtainable work that can be produced by
the system in a process from its current state to the reference (or
dead) state. By ignoring kinematic and potential terms of energy,
the specific exergy for both gas and water is defined as follows:
ex = (h − h0 ) − T0 (s − s0 ) (3)
φ= (5)
(Ėxout − Ėxin )gas
For HRSG, the total exergy destruction and total exergy effi-
ciency of HRSG are given by Ref. [17]


ΔĖxHRSG = ΔĖx (6)
All
(Ėxout − Ėxin )steam
η= (7)
(Ėxin )gas + Ẇ pump
The overall exergy balance of HRSG is shown in Fig. 3. Consid-
ering HRSG as a control volume (dashed green line indicates the
boundary of control volume), there are three sources for exergy
inlet: flue gas, water inlet, and the power of the feed pump. The
output exergy is the sum of HP and LP steam exergies of the
flows that can be considered as the available work produced by
HRSG. The exergy loss indicates the remaining exergy in flue
gas exiting the HRSG from the stack. The summation of exergy
that is dissipated through internal components of HRSG (heat
exchangers, desuperheater, etc.) is called total exergy destruction
(see Fig. 3). As different fuels may be used to generate necessary
thermal energy, the burner is outside of the boundary; hence, the
exergy destruction of the fuel combustion phenomenon is not con-
sidered in the current analysis and only the thermal effect of the
burner in boosting inlet TEG exergy is considered. Also, the
power consumption of CEP is not included in the exergy analysis
since the boundary of the control volume is the pressurized water
after CEP. Therefore, the CEP power is hidden in the water inlet
exergy. Moreover, the exergy loss through the stack affects the
HRSG exergy efficiency, though it is not seen directly in Eq. (7).
Indeed, for a fixed value of exergy of entering flue gas, the lower
exergy loss through the stack (i.e., lower exiting gas temperature)
results in a higher exergy of exiting steam that will increase the
HRSG efficiency.
5 Discussion of Results
5.1 Overall Exergy Analysis. Figure 4 depicts the T-S
diagram of a combined cycle for Case2. The information of gas
turbine, condenser, and steam turbine has been considered based
on the best knowledge of authors. The value of turbine inlet temper-
ature is assumed as 1075 °C. The ambient temperature and pressure
are considered as 25 °C and 1.01 bar, respectively. The pressure
ratio of compressor is set to 11.7 with an outlet temperature of
365 °C. Thus, the isentropic efficiency of the compressor can be cal-
culated as ∼86%. The value of turbine-exhaust temperature is set to
558 °C from the general assumption while HRSG exhaust tempera-
ture is calculated as ∼120 °C. The pressure of condenser is assumed
as 0.11 bara based on the actual data of power plant. All other data
on the diagram have been solved by mass/energy balance of HRSG.

052101-4 / Vol. 142, MAY 2020 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 3 Total exergy balance of the HRSG
There is a pressure drop of 0.5 bar for LP steam line that increases
the LP-Eva pressure to 11.0 bara. Figure 5 demonstrates the T-Q
diagram of HRSG for Case2. The values of pinch and approach
temperatures are shown for HP and LP evaporators, and also for
deaerator. In addition, the distribution of temperature of both gas
and fluid sides are given for all HRSG components.
The HRSG performance data of Case0 to Case2 are given in
Table 4. Comparing Cases1 and 2 can describe the performance
of an HRSG with a fixed desuperheater set-point (523 °C) with
respect to the burner capacity. Increasing the burner capacity will
result in the growth of the HP steam flow rate, while the temperature
and flow rate of the LP steam will decrease. Also, HRSG exit gas
temperature (i.e., stack temperature) drops as burner firing rate
raises which is a consequence of growth in heat absorption capacity
resulted from higher water/steam flow rate in the HRSG.
Figures 6 and 7 depict the spray water flow rate and exergy effi-
ciency of HRSG versus the burner heat release for different temper-
ature set-points of desuperheater, respectively. Several cases with
different combinations of burner firing rate and desuperheater set-
Fig. 4 T-S diagram of combined cycle for Case2
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
point have been simulated. In addition, the end point of each
curve for each separate temperature set-points demonstrate the
Cases2–5 corresponding the maximum allowable burner firing. In
Fig. 6, one can see the start point of water spraying starts at
higher burner heat releases as desuperheater set-point increases.
Also, for a certain amount of burner duty, the higher steam temper-
ature limit implies the lower spray. It should be noted that for an
actual HRSG similar to the case of the current study, the permanent
spray flow rate rarely exceeds 1 kg/sec. Thus, some of the simulated
cases in this study should be considered as imaginary ones, only for
research purposes.
In Fig. 7, the overall exergy efficiency of HRSG for all simulated
cases is in the range of 79–81%. It means that about 20% of the total
exergy cannot be transferred to the steam turbine and this amount
either will be dissipated in HRSG components (which is called
exergy destruction) or will flow out from the stack (exergy loss).
All curves show a maximum of efficiency except that of no
spray. Generally, it is clear that the HRSG exergy efficiency
raises as the desuperheater set-point increases (due to a higher
steam temperature delivered to the steam turbine). For each curve
in this plot, the maximum exergy efficiency coincides with the start-
ing point of water spraying. It means that for a specific temperature
set-point, by increasing the burner firing rate, the HRSG exergy effi-
ciency tends to raise which consequently results in a temperature
rise in superheated HP flow up to the point that it reaches the desu-
perheater set-point. After this point, by burning more fuel in the
duct burner, the outlet steam temperature remains constant and its
flow rate (and also spray flow) tends to increase. Due to the
exergy destruction of desuperheater (as a consequence of mixing
flows with different temperatures), more spray water results in
more exergy destruction that finally yields to lower exergy effi-
ciency of HRSG. For the cases without spray, although the curve
is monotonically increasing, it seems that it will have a maximum
in higher values of burner firing that can be investigated in future
works.
The differences between HP and LP steam parameters (i.e., tem-
perature and flow) make it hard to have an appropriate comparison
between different cases. Hence, a useful parameter to study is the
exergy delivered to steam turbine by HRSG. The net power gener-
ated by the steam turbine can be calculated by multiplying the
exergy delivered to steam turbine by its exergy efficiency.
MAY 2020, Vol. 142 / 052101-5
 Fig. 5 T-Q diagram of HRSG for Case2

Table 4 HRSG performance data for three simulated cases Also, this parameter (total exergy delivered to steam turbine) is
appropriate to perform the exergy analysis of HRSGs which are
Value engaged to produce steam for combined heat and power plants
(i.e., CHPs). Figure 8 depicts the exergy delivered to steam
Parameter Unit Case0 Case1 Case2
turbine by HRSG against the burner firing rate for different set-
HP turbine flow kg/sec 61.57 68.49 82.73
points of desuperheater. A linear rise in steam turbine exergy is
HP turbine temperature °C 502.92 523.00 523.00 observed for all curves as the burner firing increases. An interesting
LP turbine flow kg/sec 10.04 9.14 7.87 observation in this figure is that all four curves are close to each
LP turbine temperature °C 236.79 234.42 230.73 other, which indicates that the desuperheater set-point hardly
Stack temperature °C 133.12 127.95 119.67 affects the exergy delivered to the steam turbine.
Supplementary firing MWth 0.00 20.05 58.72 For economic purposes, analyzing the contribution of augmented
HRSG draft loss mbar 29.25 29.25 29.25 steam turbine inlet exergy with respect to the amount of fuel burnt in
Spray water flow kg/sec 0.00 0.27 5.83 the duct burner is of interest. For this purpose, the so-called Burner
Exergy Efficiency, (or “Burner Efficiency”) parameter needs to be
defined as the ratio of the augmented exergy rate delivered to the
steam turbine due to supplementary firing, to the amount of
burner heat release. The burner efficiency, which is formulated as

Fig. 6 Water spray mass flow rate of desuperheater Fig. 7 Distribution of the HRSG exergy efficiency

052101-6 / Vol. 142, MAY 2020 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 8 Distribution of exergy delivered to the steam turbine
Eq. (8), demonstrates the portion of fuel thermal energy of duct
burner that can be converted to available work in the steam turbine.
(ĖxSteam Turbine with Burner − ĖxSteam Turbine,No Burner )
ηĖx,burner =
QBurner
Figure 9 demonstrates the burner efficiency versus the burner
heat release for various desuperheater set-points. All cases show
the burner efficiency between 51.5% and 55.5% for different desu-
perheater set-points. The highest burner efficiency belongs to cases
with no limitation on the superheated steam temperature. This curve
(no water spray curve) shows an almost constant efficiency though
it decreases marginally for higher burner rates. For other cases, as
long as the burner heat release is not enough to start spray water,
the burner efficiency is the same as that of no spray. As desuperhea-
ter starts spraying water, the burner efficiency drops with a consid-
erable rate for all desuperheater set-points. Finally, reducing
desuperheater set-point for the same burner heat release results in
lower steam temperature that has less energy quality. This means
for a constant value of fuel-burning decreasing the desuperheater
set-point yields to drop in burner efficiency.
Figure 10 depicts the total exergy destruction of HRSG versus
burner heat release in different set-point values of the desuperheater.
All curves show an almost linear increase as the burner heat release
raises. For the same burner firing rate, cases with no water spray
owe the minimum exergy destruction compared to cases with set-
points. The results of cases with different temperature set-points
have a common part with a curve of no spray that corresponds to
small firing rate before starting water spray. As the desuperheater
starts spraying, the curves deviate from that of no-spray curve
with a higher slope. By lowering the set-point of desuperheater,
the slope of exergy destruction tends to increase as the burner
Fig. 9 Distribution of burner efficiency
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Fig. 10 Distribution of exergy destruction rate
rate raises. The main cause of such behavior is the increase in
exergy destruction produced by mixing phenomenon in desuper-
heater. A detailed discussion about exergy destruction of individual
components is provided in the next section.
The variation in exergy loss (through HRSG stack) against burner
firing rate is shown in Fig. 11. Raising burner heat release, which
increases the temperature of flue gas entering the HRSG, results
(8) in lower temperature in exiting gas flow that will reduce the
exergy loss through stack. The more temperature of flue gas enter-
ing the HRSG, the more heat absorption occurs in boiler tube bank
that results in the lower temperature of flue gas at the stack exit. In
this figure, the desuperheater set-point seems to have a minor effect
on the exergy loss through stack. This effect will be explained more
in Sec. 5.2. By comparing values of exergy destruction (Fig. 10) and
exergy loss (Fig. 11), it is apparent that about 14% of exergy is
destructed in HRSG components while the portion of stack loss is
about 6% of total exergy entered into HRSG.
Figure 12 depicts the HP steam flow for different simulated cases.
The HP steam flow shows a linear variation in respect to burner heat
release for all set-points of desuperheater. It can be seen that for a
specific burner firing rate, the HP steam flow drops by increasing
set-point of water spray. This is because for the same inlet energy
(burner firing and exhaust flue gas from GT), but lower set-point
temperatures, the HP steam mass flow rate should be increased to
compensate the low temperature of the delivered HP steam. By low-
ering the desuperheater set-point, as shown in Fig. 6, the spray flow
raises that consequently increases the total amount of HP steam
production.
Fig. 11 Distribution of exergy loss through the stack
MAY 2020, Vol. 142 / 052101-7

Fig. 12 Distribution of HP steam flow
5.2 Exergy Analysis for HRSG Components. In Sec. 5.1, the
overall exergy analysis of HRSG was performed. In order to
achieve a deeper understanding of the contribution of each compo-
nent in overall exergy destruction, the exergy analysis on HRSG
components is presented here for Case1 and Case2 (see Fig. 13).
In both cases, the HP evaporator is the contributor to the highest
exergy destruction among all components as its portion is about
40% of the total destruction. This is due to the extensive heat trans-
fer that occurs in this element, which is about 97 MWth and
111.2 MWth for Case1 and Case2, respectively. The second
exergy destructor for both studied cases is the first HP superheater
(HP-SH1) with nearly 17% of the total destruction.
Since the amount of water spray of Case2 is much more than that
of Case1 (say 20 times more), a sharp difference can be seen in the
portion of desuperheater exergy destruction for these cases
(compare 0.34% for Case1 with 5.26% for Case2). Another consid-
erable difference between Case1 and Case2 is in the exergy destruc-
tion of HP-SH2, which shows a growth of nearly 100% in Case2.
Indeed, the higher amount of water spray in Case2 results in
lower steam temperature at the inlet of HP-SH2, which conse-
quently increases the heat transfer rate in this component comparing
to that in Case1. The higher heat transfer yields to higher exergy
destruction of HP-SH2 in Case2 as well. Considering the inlet
steam temperature of the HP-SH2 component (420 °C for Case1
and 372 °C for Case2), a high difference is expected to be observed
in heat transfer rate of cases, which is 16 MWth and 34 MWth,
respectively. The lower the steam inlet temperature in HP-SH2,
the higher the logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD)
that will cause higher heat transfer.
Fig. 13 Contribution of each HRSG component in exergy destruction
052101-8 / Vol. 142, MAY 2020
Figure 14 gives the information about the exergy destruction
value of each HRSG component for three cases that have the
same set-point values for the desuperheater (Case0, Case1, and
Case2). It is noted that for HP-Eva with the most destruction rate,
a sharp growth is seen as the burner heat release increases. To
analyze this considerable difference, the exergy efficiency of heat
exchangers is shown in Table 5. Also, the thermal characteristics
of the components with the most exergy destruction rate are
shown in Table 6 for Cases0 and 2 due to the minimum and
maximum LMTD and heat transfer rates. For HP superheaters
and HP evaporator, a monotonic behavior is detected by increasing
the burner firing rate, LMTD, and consequently heat transfer rate in
that specific component raise, while the component exergy effi-
ciency will drop. The direct effect of LMTD on heat transfer rate
is obvious; however, its effect on the exergy efficiency has not
been fully investigated yet. Generally, we expect to see higher
exergy efficiency for lower LMTD values as seen in HP superheat-
ers and HP evaporator. Because of that, for higher burner firing
although the LMTD and heat transfer rate increase in HP superheat-
ers and HP evaporator, as a result of lower exergy efficiency, the
exergy destruction will rise up in these components. However,
there is an exception for CPH in which the lower LMTD yields
to a decrease in exergy efficiency. This phenomenon can be
explained by considering this fact that even though the LMTD
seems to be the dominant parameter affecting the exergy efficiency
of HRSG components, there are definitely other factors that play an
important role in changing the exergy efficiency. For a significant
variation in LMTD (as well as heat transfer rate) of a specific com-
ponent, the rise of LMTD results in monotonic drop in exergy effi-
ciency as seen for HP-SH2, HP-SH1, and HP-Eva in Table 6,
whereas for CPH with a small difference in LMTD (say less than
2 °C), the effect of other parameters becomes more important. It
is also interesting to mention that the CPH contains the poorest
exergy efficiency among all components.
In order to study the effect of desuperheater set-point on the
exergy destruction of HRSG components, Fig. 15 is presented.
Recall that the selected cases are those with maximum burner
firing regarding the maximum allowable temperature of the super-
heater tube metal (see Table 1); hence, the exergy input by the
flue gas is not the same for them due to the different values of
burner heat release. Exergy destruction of HP-SH2 seems to be
more sensitive to the desuperheater set-point comparing with
other heat exchangers. This is because applying smaller value for
set-point results in a higher amount of water spray (see Fig. 6).
That consequently reduces the inlet steam temperature of HP-SH2
and yields to higher heat transfer rate. Again, as described for
Fig. 14, the higher heat transfer is due to the higher LMTD and cor-
responds to lower exergy efficiency. Therefore, exergy destruction
in HP components for the cases with lower set-point temperature is
higher, especially for HP-SH2.
Another remarkable difference in Fig. 15 is observed in desuper-
heater itself that is a direct effect of change in spray amount.
Transactions of the ASME
 Other components show a slight reduction in exergy destruction as
desuperheater set-point raises, except CPH and LP-Eva, where the
former remains constant and the latter increases marginally.

6 Conclusion
This research presents the exergy analysis of a HRSG with two
levels of pressure to determine energy availability and improve
the performance of the system. The investigation performed deter-
mined the effects of supplementary firing on the total exergy
destruction of the HRSG and its components. Through the detailed
analysis performed in this study, it has been found that:
(1) Increasing the desuperheater set-point yields to a reduction in
the maximum allowable burner firing. The flow rate of water
Fig. 14 Exergy destruction of each component for different spray raises by increasing burner heat release or decreasing
burner heat releases desuperheater set-point. Generally, 14% of HRSG input
exergy is destructed in HRSG components and about 6% is
lost by exiting the HRSG stack.
(2) Increasing burner heat input results in an increase in the
Table 5 Exergy efficiency of heat exchangers (%) exergy efficiency of HRSG to the point that water spray
starts. After this point, increasing burner heat results in more
Item Case0 Case1 Case2 spray flow and less HRSG exergy efficiency. Higher set-point
temperatures of desuperheater will increase the exergy effi-
HP-SH2 90.74 89.90 85.40 ciency. The exergy delivered to the steam turbine shows a
HP-SH1 84.76 83.45 81.90 linear variation with burner heat release while it is hardly
HP-Eva 87.42 86.34 85.00 affected by desuperheater set-point. Also, the burner effi-
HP-Eco2 92.18 91.53 90.38
ciency, which is defined as the ratio of the augmented
LP-SH 75.68 75.75 75.38
LP-Eva 83.89 84.61 85.57 exergy of the steam turbine due to the burner firing to the
HP-Eco1 91.72 90.52 87.80 burner heat input, remains constant (∼55.5%) before desuper-
DEA 86.29 84.75 81.32 heater starts. It starts dropping with the burner firing rate when
CPH 68.45 67.74 66.38 the water spraying is on. By increasing burner heat or reducing
desuperheater set-point, the exergy destruction of HRSG
components raises. The exergy loss through stack will drop
as the burner firing rate raises while it is not considerably
affected by set-point of desuperheater.
(3) HP evaporator has the maximum contribution (∼40%) in the
Table 6 Thermal characteristics of components with the most
exergy destruction of HRSG. Increasing water spray that can
exergy destruction rate
be obtained by either boosting burner heat or lowering desu-
Heat transfer rate perheater set-point results in a high increase in exergy
(MWth) LMTD (°C) destruction of the second superheater as well as the desuper-
heater. The exergy efficiency of the heat exchangers is
Component Case0 Case2 Case0 Case2 increased by reducing LMTD as observed in some compo-
nents though a reverse behavior was seen in CPH.
HP-SH2 14.4 33.98 82.05 177.68
HP-SH1 25.79 36.35 145.19 193.63
HP-Eva 85.93 111.22 68.95 96.05 References
CPH 28.38 27.28 50.99 49.08 [1] Woudstra, N., Woudstra, T., Pirone, A., and Van Der Stelt, T., 2010,
“Thermodynamic Evaluation of Combined Cycle Plants,” Energy Convers.
Manage., 51(5), pp. 1099–1110.
[2] Pathirathna, K. A. B., 2013, “Gas Turbine Thermodynamic and Performance
Analysis Methods Using Available Catalog Data,” Master thesis, University of
Gavle, Gavle, Sweden.
[3] Díaz, A. G., Fernández, E. S., Gibbins, J., and Lucquiaud, M., 2016, “Sequential
Supplementary Firing in Natural Gas Combined Cycle With Carbon Capture: A
Technology Option for Mexico for Low-Carbon Electricity Generation and
CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 51, pp. 330–345.
[4] Copen, J. H., and Sullivan, T. B., November 2006, Introduction to the
Complementary Fired Combined Cycle Power Plant, POWER-GEN
International, Orlando, FL, 28–30.
[5] Finckh, H. H., and Pfost, H., 1992, “Development Potential of Combined-Cycle
(GUD) Power Plants With and Without Supplementary Firing,” ASME J. Eng.
Gas Turbines Power, 114(4), pp. 653–659.
[6] Hoang, T., and Pawluskiewicz, D. K., 2016, “The Efficiency Analysis of
Different Combined Cycle Power Plants Based on the Impact of Selected
Parameters,” Int. J. Smart Grid Clean Energy, 5(2), pp. 77–85.
[7] Alobaid, F., Ströhle, J., Epple, B., and Kim, H. G., 2009, “Dynamic Simulation of
a Supercritical Once-Through Heat Recovery Steam Generator During Load
Changes and Start-up Procedures,” Appl. Energy, 86(7–8), pp. 1274–1282.
[8] Aurora, C., 2004, “Power Plants: Modeling, Simulation and Control,” Doctoral
dissertation, PhD thesis, University of Pavia.
[9] Tica, A., 2012, “Design, Optimization and Validation of Start-up Sequences of
Energy Production Systems,” Doctoral dissertation, Supélec.
Fig. 15 Exergy destruction of each component for different [10] Dincer, I., and Cengel, Y. A., 2001, “Energy, Entropy and Exergy Concepts and
desuperheater set-points Their Roles in Thermal Engineering,” Entropy, 3(3), pp. 116–149.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology MAY 2020, Vol. 142 / 052101-9

[11] Kaushik, S. C., Reddy, V. S., and Tyagi, S. K., 2011, “Energy and Exergy
Analyses of Thermal Power Plants: A Review,” Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev., 15(4), pp. 1857–1872.
[12] Sreedharan, H., Reshma, J. R., Jacob, J. K., and Sivakumar, V. V., 2016, “Energy
and Exergy Analysis on 350MW Combined Cycle Power Plant,” Eur. J. Technol.
Des., 12(2), pp. 72–78.
[13] Ghorbanzadeh, D., Ghashami, B., Masoudi, A., and Khanmohammadi, S. H.,
2007, “Exergy Analysis of NEKA-IRAN Heat Recovery Steam Generator at
Different Ambient Temperature,” Proc. of the 3rd IASME/WSEAS Int. Conf.
on Energy, Environment, Ecosystems and Sustainable Development, Agios
Nikolaos, Greece, July 24–26, pp. 493–498.
[14] Ghaebi, H., Amidpour, M., Karimkashi, S., and Rezayan, O., 2011, “Energy,
Exergy and Thermoeconomic Analysis of a Combined Cooling, Heating and
Power (CCHP) System With Gas Turbine Prime Mover,” Int. J. Energy Res.,
35(8), pp. 697–709.
[15] Almutairi, A., Pilidis, P., and Al-Mutawa, N., 2015, “Energetic and Exergetic
Analysis of Combined Cycle Power Plant: Part-1 Operation and Performance,”
Energies, 8(12), pp. 14118–14135.
[16] Ali, M. S., Shafique, Q. N., Kumar, D., Kumar, S., and Kumar, S., 2018, “Energy
and Exergy Analysis of a 747-MW Combined Cycle Power Plant Guddu,”
Int. J. Ambient Energy, pp. 1–10.
[17] Moosazadeh Moosavi, S. A., Mafi, M., Kaabi Nejadian, A., Salehi, G., and Torabi
Azad, M., 2018, “A New Method to Boost Performance of Heat Recovery Steam
Generators by Integrating Pinch and Exergy Analyses,” Adv. Mech. Eng., 10(5),
p. 1687814018777879.
052101-10 / Vol. 142, MAY 2020
View publication stats
[18] Sahin, H. E., and Aydin, M., 2012, “Energy and Exergy Analysis of a
Supercritical Power Plant With 600 MW Output in Turkey,” Global
Conference on Global Warming, Istanbul, Turkey, July 8–12.
[19] Vandani, A. M. K., Bidi, M., and Ahmadi, F., 2015, “Exergy Analysis and
Evolutionary Optimization of Boiler Blowdown Heat Recovery in Steam
Power Plants,” Energy Convers. Manage., 106, pp. 1–9.
[20] Kaviri, A. G., Jaafar, M. N. M., Lazim, T. M., and Barzegaravval, H., 2013,
“Exergoenvironmental Optimization of Heat Recovery Steam Generators in
Combined Cycle Power Plant Through Energy and Exergy Analysis,” Energy
Convers. Manage., 67, pp. 27–33.
[21] Srinivas, T., 2010, “Thermodynamic Modelling and Optimization of a Dual
Pressure Reheat Combined Power Cycle,” Sadhana, 35(5), pp. 597–608.
[22] Esmaieli, A., Keshavarz, M. P., Shakib, S. E., and Amidpour, M., 2013,
“Applying Different Optimization Approaches to Achieve Optimal
Configuration of a Dual Pressure Heat Recovery Steam Generator,”
Int. J. Energy Res., 37(12), pp. 1440–1452.
[23] Kowalczyk, B., Kowalczyk, C., Rolf, R. M., and Badyda, K., 2014, “Model of an
ANSALDO V94. 2 Gas Turbine From Lublin Wrotków Combined Heat and Power
Plant Using GateCycle™ Software,” J. Power Technol., 94(3), pp. 190–195.
[24] Dincer, I., and Rosen, M. A., 2012, Exergy: Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development, Newnes, Oxford, UK.
[25] Ganapathy, V., 2003, Industrial Boilers and Heat Recovery Steam Generators,
Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.
[26] ESCOA, E. T. X. H., and Soldfin, H. F., 1979, Rating Instructions, ESCOA,
Pryor, OK.
Transactions of the ASME