Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159

Optimization of combined cycle power plants

using evolutionary algorithms
Christoph Koch, Frank Cziesla ∗ , George Tsatsaronis
Technische Universität Berlin, Institute for Energy Engineering, Marchstr. 18, 10587 Berlin, Germany
Accepted 22 June 2006
Available online 3 March 2007

Abstract
This paper deals with the application of an evolutionary algorithm to the minimization of the product cost of complex combined cycle power
plants. Both the design configuration (process structure) and the process variables are optimized simultaneously. The optimization algorithm can
choose among several design options included in a superstructure of the power plant such as different gas turbine systems available at the market,
up to three pressure levels for steam generation in the heat-recovery steam generator, supplementary firing, steam reheat, parallel arrangement of
heat exchangers in the gas path, and steam injection into the gas turbine.
For the assumptions and simplifications made in this study, a 240 MW combined cycle power plant with a large gas turbine (150 MW), a
two-pressure heat recovery steam generator with a reheater but without supplementary firing is favored from an economic viewpoint. A detailed
exergy analysis of selected intermediate solutions and the final optimal design identifies the magnitude, location and causes of the thermodynamic
inefficiencies.
© 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords: Optimization; Evolutionary algorithm; Cost minimization; Exergy analysis; Thermodynamic inefficiencies; Combined cycle power plants

1. Introduction designer in the development of a cost-effective power plant

Heuristic rules are often applied in the design and improve-
ment of energy conversion systems to master the complexity
of such systems and the uncertainties involved in some design
decisions. Particularly, interactions among the plant compo-
nents, the very large number of possible design alternatives,
and the lack of accurate cost data for all plant components at
an early stage of the design process make the optimization of
complex energy conversion systems a difficult task. Principles
taken from the fields of artificial intelligence (e.g., expert sys-
tems [1]) and computational intelligence (e.g., fuzzy systems
[2] and evolutionary algorithms [3–6]) can assist the process
Abbreviations: COE, cost of electricity; HP, high-pressure; HRSG, heat-
recovery steam generator; IP, intermediate-pressure; LHV, lower heating value;
LP, low-pressure; STIG, steam-injected gas turbine
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 30 314 21737, fax: +49 30 314 21683.
E-mail addresses: Koch.ChristophEnno@bewag.com (C. Koch),
F.Cziesla@iet.tu-berlin.de (F. Cziesla), Tsatsaronis@iet.tu-berlin.de
(G. Tsatsaronis).
URL: www.iet.tu-berlin.de/efeu (G. Tsatsaronis).
concept.
Rarely, a completely new power plant concept is developed
in industry. More often an existing design is adjusted to fit spe-
cific site and project requirements. Thus, some approaches in
process design and optimization are based on a superstructure,
which includes only a limited number of possible design alter-
natives. However, the search space for finding the optimal set
of the most suitable process structure and the best values of the
process variables is still large. In general, the cost of electricity
is more sensitive to changes in the configuration of the plant
components (process structure) than to modified values of the
process variables.
The objectives of this study are to combine an evolutionary
algorithm with a commercial power plant simulation program
(GateCycle [7]) and to optimize combined cycle power plants
from both an economic and a thermodynamic viewpoint. A
complex process flowsheet including several optional design
configurations (superstructure) enables the evaluation of many
designs but also limits the search to some promising solutions.
However, the optimization algorithm cannot invent new design
configurations that are not included in the superstructure and the

0255-2701/$ – see front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.cep.2006.06.025
1152 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159
process designer might overlook some promising design config-
urations when the superstructure is developed. It is the task of
the evolutionary algorithm to select the most suitable process
structure and to determine the optimal values of the process
parameters to best fulfill the design objective: minimal cost of
electricity or maximal thermodynamic efficiency.
Evolutionary algorithms use a stochastic search strategy to
find and compare feasible solutions until no better solution can
be found or a termination criterion is fulfilled. Neither the math-
ematical properties of the thermodynamic and the cost model
nor the derivatives of the model equations are exploited in the
search process. Process modifications only rely on the value of
the objective function. In addition to the optimal solution, an
evolutionary algorithm provides several near optimal process
designs. Sometimes, one of these solutions could be preferred
when safety, availability, and operability issues are also consid-
ered by the decision maker.
Uhlenbruck and Lucas [3] combine an exergoeconomic
approach [8] with an evolution strategy to speed up the search
for a cost-optimal design of simple power plant concepts.
Only process variables are modified by the evolution strat-
egy. Dobrowolski et al. [4] apply an evolutionary algorithm
to optimize the feedwater preheating section in a steam power
plant from a thermodynamic viewpoint. The decision variables
include four different design configurations and 7 process vari-
ables (extraction pressures). Emmerich et al. [5,6] combine an
evolutionary algorithm with a knowledge-based system which
generates feasible design configurations of chemical plants. A
superstructure is not required.
The approach applied in this study includes the development
of a superstructure for combined cycle power plants, the mini-
mization of the cost of electricity (COE) using an evolutionary
algorithm, the comparison of the results for different fuel costs
and objectives (cost minimization ⇔ efficiency maximization)
as well as an exergetic evaluation of the optimization results.
Instead of accelerating the search process by an exergetic eval-
uation of intermediate results, the exergy concept is used here
to shed some light on how the evolutionary algorithms achieves
better solutions and to better understand the design of combined
cycle power plants. The approach is demonstrated in an example
using the design of a 240 MW combined cycle power plant.
2. Combined cycle power plants
2.1. Superstructure
The basic idea in the development of a superstructure is to
include as many (promising) design configurations as possible.
Here, the main focus is on a selected set of different design
options such as parallel flow of the exhaust gas through some
heat exchangers in the heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG),
steam generation at up to three pressure levels, and steam injec-
tion into the gas turbine. However, not all possible designs are
considered. Nevertheless, the superstructure is complex enough
to be a challenge for any optimization algorithm. In general, the
superstructure can easily be extended. A discussion of combined
cycle power plants is, for example, provided in [9].
Fig. 1 shows the superstructure of a combined cycle power
plant used in this study. The gas turbine library of the simula-
tion tool consists of more than 150 gas turbine systems available
on the market. For simplicity, the evolutionary algorithm should
only choose among three gas turbine systems with a different
power output. The thermal energy of the gas turbine exhaust is
utilized in a heat recovery steam generator to generate steam at
up to three pressure levels. It is possible to increase the temper-
ature of high-pressure (HP) steam in two separate superheaters
(HPSHT1, HPSHT) located in different positions in the gas path
or in only a single superheater (HPSHT). Steam reheating can
be accomplished in two reheaters (RHTR, RHTR2) or in one
single heat exchanger (RHTR). The location of the intermediate-
pressure (IP) superheater in the HRSG offers some flexibility for
the evolutionary algorithm: parallel flow of the exhaust gases
through the IP and HP superheaters is a feasible choice. Steam
generation at an intermediate pressure level can be completely
omitted. Steam taken at the outlet of the high-pressure steam
turbine can be injected into the gas turbine to increase its power
output (STIG-option). Furthermore, up to three duct burners
(DB) located at different positions in the HRSG can provide
additional thermal energy for the water/steam cycle.
2.2. Decision variables
The evolutionary algorithm can modify both the structure of
the plant and the values of the process variables whenever a
new individual in the population considered by the algorithm is
created. Structural variables take binary values (0 or 1) while
process variables are real numbers restricted by the precision
of the bit-string (Section 3.1) and their range only. Different
values of the structural variables (the splitter settings SP) rep-
resent different interconnections among the plant components
(Fig. 1). For example, the evolutionary algorithm can select
the gas turbine system, the flow of the hot gases (parallel or
sequential) through the high-pressure and intermediate-pressure
superheaters (splitters SP5 and SP8), and a two-pressure or
triple-pressure heat-recovery steam generator (splitter SP9).
Steam injection into the gas turbine (STIG-process, splitter
SP12) might be useful in cogeneration applications. In this
study, only electric power plants are considered where a STIG
design is usually not favored neither from a thermodynamic nor
from an economic viewpoint. This is due to the fact that the
steam injected into a gas turbine can only expand up to ambient
pressure (p0 ≈ 1.013 bar) whereas the same steam could gen-
erate more power in a steam turbine if it is expanded up to the
condenser pressure (pc ≈ 0.05 bar). Furthermore, in the STIG
concept the steam in the gas turbine exhaust is rejected to the
surroundings and increases the exergy loss of the power plant.
Despite all these disadvantages, the STIG-process is included
in the superstructure to enable design optimizations of cogen-
eration plants in the future. A well functioning evolutionary
algorithm should be able to identify the drawbacks of a STIG
design when only electricity is generated by the overall plant.
The term process variable denotes independent design
specifications such as the high-pressure steam and reheat tem-
peratures, the pressure values at the outlets of the pumps, the
 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159 1153

Fig. 1. Superstructure of the combined cycle power plant used in this study.

exit subcooling in the economizers (IPECON, HPECO2), and
the temperature increase in the duct burners (DB1, . . ., DB3).
A total of 27 decision variables (11 structural variables and
16 process variables) can be simultaneously modified by the
evolutionary algorithm. However, some constraints must not be
ignored (e.g., pHP > pIP > pLP ). If/then rules in the main con-
trol program add a penalty term to the fitness value whenever
such a constraint is violated.
2.3. Simulation
logical evolution are imitated in a very simplified manner.
Characteristic feature of an evolutionary algorithm is a popu-
lation of individuals. An individual consists of the values of the
decision variables (here: structural and process variables) and is
a potential solution to the optimization problem. A “black box”
model of the power plant and an objective function are used to
evaluate the fitness of each individual. Pairs of individuals are
selected to create new individuals based on their performance to
optimize the objective function. In general, a constant number

A commercial software package is used to simulate the

thermodynamic behavior of all the different process designs
(GateCycle [7]). For simplicity, both the minimum temperature
differences in the evaporators (Tmin = 20 K) and the isen-
tropic efficiencies of the steam turbines (ηs,ST1 = ηs,ST2 = 90%,
ηs,ST3 = 85%) and pumps (ηs,PUMP = 85%) were kept constant
in all optimization runs. Natural gas is fired in the gas turbines
and in the duct burners. The condenser pressure is 0.05 bar.

3. Basic concepts

3.1. Evolutionary algorithms

Evolutionary algorithms apply an iterative, stochastic search

strategy to find an optimal solution (Fig. 2). Principles of bio- Fig. 2. Basic concept of an evolutionary algorithm.
1154 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159
of individuals constitute the population in which determinis-
tic and stochastic operators select and manipulate parts of the
individuals.
Individuals of the initial population are often generated ran-
domly, but the results of previous optimization runs or expected
optimal solutions might also be included. Each individual is
evaluated to calculate its fitness. Here, the evaluation involves
the simulation of the thermodynamic behavior of the power
plant, estimates for the purchased-equipment costs, and an eco-
nomic analysis. Additional penalty terms are added to the fitness
value if an individual violates any constraint (e.g., when the
exhaust gas temperature at the HRSG outlet is below a mini-
mal acceptable value). After a fitness value has been assigned
to each individual in the initial population, some of the indi-
viduals are selected for the mating pool. Better individuals are
given more opportunities to contribute to the next generation of
new individuals (“survival of the fittest”). Next, recombination
and mutation operators are applied to the individuals in the mat-
ing pool, producing the offsprings. These operators randomly
combine and slightly modify the decision variables of differ-
ent individuals in the mating pool so that an offspring might
achieve a better fitness than its parents. Since the evolutionary
algorithm maintains a fixed-size population, individuals with a
higher fitness value are selected with a higher probability for
the next generation (replacement, Fig. 2). The iteration loop is
repeated several times until the maximum number of genera-
tions is reached. Evolutionary optimization techniques include
genetic algorithms and evolution strategies among others. A
detailed introduction to evolutionary computation is presented in
[10,11].
Choosing appropriate parameter settings for the evolutionary
algorithm is a time-consuming task and many times the result of
trial-and-error. Preliminary examinations have shown [12] that,
in this application, the diversity in a single population quickly
decreases and the algorithm converges to a suboptimal solution.
An individual with a new process structure, even the optimal
one, might need a few generations to improve the values of its
process variables and to be competitive with the best individuals
in the population. However, the best existing individual gener-
ates several offsprings of good performance. The individual with
the new process structure is often inferior to these solutions and
is quickly removed from the population. Niching methods are
capable of locating and maintaining multiple solutions within a
population [10]. Here, a multi-population genetic algorithm was
used with the following parameter settings: three subpopulations
with 40 individuals each, 8 individuals of each subpopulation
migrate every 20 generations (isolation time) to another ran-
domly selected subpopulation where they replace the worst
individuals, real-value representation, roulette wheel selection,
rank-based fitness assignment (selection pressure = 1.6), inter-
mediate recombination, and a mutation rate equal to 0.0286.
For a detailed explanation of these parameters, see [10,11,13].
In each generation, 95% of the individuals are replaced by off-
springs. Since the initial population is generated randomly, all
optimization runs were repeated several times with a different
initial population. The optimal solutions for all cases differed
only slightly.
In the search for an optimal solution, an evolutionary algo-
rithm only makes use of the value of the objective function. No
gradient information is required. This represents simultaneously
a strength and a weakness of the method. A strength because
the mathematical effort for solving the optimization problem
is reduced and advanced proprietary simulations tools can be
used. The degree of randomness in the selection and modifica-
tion of individuals ensures that widely areas of the search space
are sampled, and a set of near optimal solutions is attained.
However, an evolutionary algorithm provides no information
about how and why an improvement was achieved. Very often,
from one generation to another, significant improvements in the
fitness of the best individual can be observed. In this study, a
detailed exergy analysis is performed for selected individuals to
enhance the process designers’ understanding of the power plant
from an thermodynamic viewpoint. Heuristic rules for improv-
ing the cost-effectiveness of combined cycle power plants might
be derived from exergetic and exergoeconomic evaluations of
several evolutionary optimization runs in the future.
3.2. Exergy analysis
An exergy analysis identifies the location, the magnitude and
the sources of thermodynamic inefficiencies in a thermal sys-
tem. This information, which cannot be provided by other means
(e.g., an energy analysis), is very useful for improving the overall
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a system or for comparing
the performance of various systems [8]. A comprehensive intro-
duction to the exergy concept and its applications is provided in
[8,14,15].
Important variables for an exergetic evaluation of single
plant components and the overall system are: (1) the exergetic
efficiency and (2) the exergy destruction rate. The exergetic effi-
ciency of a component is defined as the ratio between product
and fuel. The product and fuel are defined by considering the
desired result produced by the component and the resources
expended to generate the result.
ĖP,k ĖD,k + ĖL,k
εk ≡ =1− (1)
ĖF,k ĖF,k
The term fuel is used here in a general sense and is not necessarily
restricted to being an actual fuel such as coal, natural gas, or oil.
Examples for the definition of the exergetic efficiency of several
different types of plant components can be found in [8,14].
The exergetic product ĖP,tot of the combined cycle power
plant in Fig. 1 is the net electric power Ẇnet . The exergetic fuel
ĖF,tot of the overall system consists of the exergy supplied to
the power plant with natural gas and air.
The exergy destruction rate ĖD,k due to irreversibilities
within the k th system component is obtained from an exergy
balance
ĖD,k = ĖF,k − ĖP,k − ĖL,k (2)
where ĖF,k , ĖP,k , and ĖL,k denote the fuel, the product and the
exergy loss of the k th component. In this study, the thermo-
dynamic inefficiencies of a component consist exclusively of
 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159
exergy destruction (ĖL,k = 0 [14]). Exergy destruction is caused
by effects such as chemical reaction, heat transfer through a finite
temperature difference, mixing of matter at different composi-
tions or states, unrestrained expansion, and friction.
Heat transfer is the most significant cause of exergy destruc-
tion in a heat exchanger. The exergy destruction ĖD,q due to heat
transfer from a hot stream (index h) to a cold stream (index c)
in an adiabatic heat exchanger is given by [8]:
Tha − Tca
ĖD,q = T0 Q̇ (3)
Tha Tca
where T0 and Q̇ denote the temperature of the environment and
the time rate of heat transfer. For applications where the heat
transfer occurs at practically constant pressure (as it is assumed
in Eq. (3)), the thermodynamic average temperatures Tha and
Tca of the hot and cold streams, respectively are defined by
he − hi
Ta = (4)
se − s i
Eq. (3) shows that the difference in the average thermodynamic
temperatures (Tha − Tca ) is a measure of the exergy destruc-
tion. Mismatched heat capacity rates of the two streams, i.e.
(ṁcp )h /(ṁcp )c = 1, and a finite minimum temperature differ-
ence Tmin are the causes of the thermodynamic inefficiencies
associated with heat transfer. Furthermore, the lower the tem-
perature levels Tha and Tca , the greater the exergy destruction at
a given temperature difference (Tha − Tca ).
Exergy destruction associated with heat transfer decreases as
the temperature difference between the streams is reduced. This
can be achieved by a larger heat transfer area which in turn results
in a larger pressure drop and exergy destruction associated with
friction. Finally, an increase in the flow velocity leads to an
improvement in the heat transfer (reduction of the heat transfer
area) but also to an increase in the exergy destruction due to
friction.
The exergy destruction ratio yD,k compares the exergy
destruction in the k th component with the fuel exergy supplied
to the overall system ĖF,tot :
ĖD,k
yD,k ≡ (5)
ĖF,tot
This ratio expresses the percentage of the decrease in the overall
system exergetic efficiency due to the exergy destruction in the
k th system component [14].
3.3. Economic analysis
The total revenue requirement method (TRR-method [8,16])
is used to calculate the cost of electricity. This procedure
calculates all the costs associated with a project including a min-
imum required return on investment. Based on the estimated
total capital investment and assumptions for economic, finan-
cial, operating, and market input parameters, the total revenue
requirement is calculated on a year-by-year basis. Finally, the
nonuniform annual monetary values associated with the invest-
ment, operating (excluding fuel), maintenance, and fuel costs of
1155
the power plant are levelized, that is they are converted to an
equivalent series of constant payments (annuities).
Major parameters and assumptions for the economic analysis
include the fuel cost (reference value: D 4.64/ GJLHV , average
annual real escalation rate: 1%), the average annual discount rate
(cost of money, ieff = 12.5%), the total annual equivalent time
of system operation at full load (7500 h/a), the plant economic
life (20 years), and the levelization period (10 years). Taxes were
neglected in this study. The operating and maintenance costs are
assumed to be constant and independent of the selected design.
Cost functions were developed based on literature data
[17–19] and information from equipment manufacturers [20]
to estimate the purchased-equipment cost for each plant compo-
nent as a function of characteristic process variables (e.g., heat
transfer surface area, temperature level, isentropic efficiency).
A factored-cost approach is applied to account for additional
direct costs (e.g., piping, installation, instrumentation, control,
civil work), indirect costs (construction, engineering, contingen-
cies) and other expenses (start-up costs, working capital). An
economic analysis generally involves more uncertainties than a
thermodynamic analysis.
3.4. Computer tools
All optimization runs are controlled by a Matlab program
which calls each program for (a) simulating a selected design,
(b) estimating costs and (c) conducting an economic analysis [1].
The Matlab program also coordinates the data exchange (val-
ues of the decision variable and the objective function) between
these programs and the evolutionary algorithm. The Genetic
and Evolutionary Algorithm Toolbox for Use with MATLAB
(GEATbx) [11] used in this study provides many useful functions
and routines for applying an evolutionary algorithm to complex
optimization problems. A Visual Basic macro was developed
at TU Berlin in a previous project to dynamically exchange
data between Matlab and the Excel interface of the simulation
program.
The GateCycle energy balance software [7] is used for devel-
oping a thermal model of the superstructure shown in Fig. 1.
The GateCycle code provides the mass flow rate, temperature,
pressure, and chemical composition of all streams but does not
calculate exergy values. For this purpose the THESIS software
package [21] is used (T0 = 288.15 K, p0 = 1.013 bar). Both
programs use JANAF data for the properties of ideal gases and
IAPWS-IF97 for the properties of water and steam. If required,
all exergetic variables of an intermediate or final design con-
figuration are calculated in a Matlab program at the end of an
optimization run to analyze intermediate results and the optimal
solution (Section 4).
4. Results
4.1. Cost minimization
Fig. 3 shows the levelized cost of electricity of the best indi-
vidual in each generation. The evolutionary algorithm iteratively
reduces the product cost to 4.25 cent/kWh in the final genera-
1156 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159

Table 1 summarizes the exergetic efficiencies εk of selected plant

components as well as performance data of the overall system
for the best individual after 7, 8, 16, 17 and 40 generations.
More than 42% of the exergy supplied to the overall system
with the natural gas is already destroyed in the gas turbine sys-
tem (yD,GT1 ). About 65% of the net electric power is generated
in the gas turbine system. Thus, the potential for improving a
combined cycle power plant is restricted to only 35% of the net
electric power after the gas turbine system has been selected.
The efficiency of the gas turbine system is defined as (see
Fig. 1):

Fig. 3. Levelized cost of electricity for the best individual after each generation. Ẇnet
εGT1 = (6)
Ė1 + Ė2 + Ė54 − Ė3

tion. In this example, significant cost reductions are achieved
in less than 20 generations. An increase in the number of gen-
erations only slightly improves the economic performance of
the combined cycle power plant. Since several uncertainties are
involved in the estimated investment costs and in the assump-
tions of the economic analysis, it might be inappropriate and
misleading to strive for a high precision in the minimal cost of
electricity. A sensitivity analysis should always be conducted to
study the effect of some economic parameters and assumptions
on the optimization results. About 70% of the cost of electric-
ity in a combined cycle power plant are related to fuel cost. In
Section 4.2, we discuss the changes in the cost-optimal process
design when the fuel cost is increased by 25%.
A sharp decrease in the cost of electricity can be observed
after 7 and 16 generations (Fig. 3). However, the evolutionary
algorithm provides no information about the causes of these
cost reductions. In this study, an exergy analysis is performed
for the best individual in selected generations to understand
the achieved improvements from a thermodynamic viewpoint.
In the best process design after 7 generations, a part of the IP
steam (stream 39) is supplied to the gas turbine system (STIG
design). This option is not selected in any of the best indi-
viduals in subsequent generations. Steam injection increases
the efficiency of the gas turbine defined in Eq. (6) since the
steam generation requires less exergy than the compression
of the air in the gas turbine compressor. Certainly, the effi-
ciency of the gas turbine system in the best individual after
8 generations decreases, but the efficiency of the overall sys-
tem increases. This is due to the fact that the steam injected
into a gas turbine is expanded to the pressure of the envi-
ronment only (p0 = 1.013 bar). In a steam turbine, the steam
generates more power when it is expanded to the condenser
pressure pcond = 0.05 bar. Furthermore, the steam in the exhaust
gases rejected to the surroundings leads to a higher exergy loss
of the overall system ((Ė63 /EF,tot )G7,stig = 3.4% compared to
(Ė63 /EF,tot )G8 = 2.5%).
Figs. 4 and 5 show the temperature profiles of the hot and the
cold streams in the heat-recovery steam generator for the best

Table 1
Exergetic efficiency εk of selected plant components as well as net electric power Ẇnet , exergy destruction rate ĖD,tot , exergy loss rate ĖL,tot , exergetic efficiency
εtot , and cost of electricity cP,tot of the overall system for the best individual after 7, 8, 16, 17 and 40 generations

Exergetic efficiency, εk (%) yD,k (%)

G7a G8a G16a G17a G40a G40a

GT1 43.1 42.2 42.2 42.2 42.2 42.0

ST3 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 1.3
HPEVAP 87.5 88.7 88.5 86.2 87.1 1.3
LPEVAP 76.6 74.1 74.7 76.4 74.6 0.8
HPECON 80.5 81.0 80.9 81.2 81.8 0.7
WHTR 56.4 58.9 58.2 58.5 59.7 0.6
HPSHT1 85.1 – 86.1 84.8 85.0 0.5
ST2 93.7 92.8 92.9 93.0 93.2 0.4
ST1 94.5 94.9 94.8 95.1 94.9 0.2
RHTR 88.9 91.2 90.2 92.1 91.2 0.1
HPSHT 93.2 89.3 94.2 94.1 93.6 0.1
LPSHT 75.6 73.6 73.9 77.0 75.0 <0.1
Ẇnet (MW) 248.66 237.62 237.00 237.50 237.39 –
ĖD,tot (MW) 259.23 240.74 241.08 241.91 241.17 –
ĖL,tot (MW) 26.16 22.04 22.31 22.33 21.84 –
εtot (%) 46.56 47.49 47.36 47.34 47.44 –
COE (D /MWh) 43.04 42.73 42.69 42.58 42.54 –

The plant components are ranked in descending order of the exergy destruction ratio yD,k of the best individual after 40 generations.
a Genetration.
 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159
Fig. 4. Temperature profiles in the heat-recovery steam generator of the best
individual after 7 generations.
individual after 7 and 8 generations. For almost the same gas tur-
bine outlet temperature, steam injection results in a flatter slope
of the hot temperature profile and a higher gas temperature at
the outlet of the HRSG (Fig. 4). The most cost-effective design
after 7 generations has a lower high-pressure steam temperature
(T38,G7 = 753 K) than the best individual in the next generation
(T38,G8 = 785 K). Consequently, the average temperature dif-
ference between the hot and the cold fluid in the high-pressure
superheaters (HPSHT, HPSHT1) cause larger exergy destruction
rates associated with heat transfer (Eq. (3)), but lower invest-
ment costs due to smaller heat transfer areas. It is true that
Table 1 shows a lower exergetic efficiency for the high-pressure
superheater HPSHT in the best individual of the 8th genera-
tion, but in this design HP steam is superheated in a single heat
exchanger only. Actually, the exergetic efficiency for the total
high-pressure superheater section of the best individual in the
7th generation is lower than in the 8th generation. From a ther-
modynamic viewpoint, it is less efficient to expand the steam
in the high-pressure steam turbine to a lower pressure level
(p39,G7 < p39,G8 , Figs. 4 and 5). The resulting lower temper-
ature at the inlet of the reheater (T39,G7 < T39,G8 ) increases the
average temperature difference in this heat exchanger. There-
fore, more exergy destruction is associated with the transfer of
thermal energy from the hot gas to the steam (Eq. (3)).
A second noticeable reduction in the levelized cost of elec-
tricity occurs after 16 generations (Fig. 3). Important differences
Fig. 5. Temperature profiles in the heat-recovery steam generator of the best
individual after 8 generations.
1157
between the best individuals G16 and G17 include a decrease in
the HP steam pressure p38 from 96 to 71 bar and an improved
heat utilization in the high-pressure section of the HRSG. About
four percentage points more steam is generated in the HP sec-
tion in the most cost-effective design after 17 generations. Both
the lower temperature level at which HP steam is generated
and the higher HP steam mass flow rate increase the thermo-
dynamic inefficiencies in the HP evaporator (Eq. (3), HPEVAP:
εG16 > εG17 , Table 1) and contribute to a low exergetic effi-
ciency of the overall system εtot . The larger steam mass flow
rate results in a larger temperature difference (T16 − T34 ) in the
HP evaporator so that less heat transfer area is required in the
total HRSG. In summary, the lower cost of electricity in the
17th generation is achieved by decreasing the investment costs
at the expense of higher thermodynamic inefficiencies (=higher
expenditures for fuel).
The cost-optimal design identified by the evolutionary algo-
rithm for the parameters and assumptions in this study (e.g.,
fuel cost = D 4.64/GJLHV ) has a 150 MW gas turbine as well
as two-pressure levels, two high-pressure superheaters, and a
reheater in the HRSG. The values of characteristic process vari-
ables are summarized in Table 2.
In a typical optimization run, the evolutionary algorithm
needs about 10 h (Pentium III, 733 MHz) to minimize the cost of
electricity using the superstructure shown in Fig. 1. No efforts
were taken in this study to reduce the computation time. In gen-
eral, it is possible to evaluate the individuals of a generation
or subpopulation in parallel on different computers and speed
up the calculations. Furthermore, the number of individuals in
each subpopulation might be reduced as well. However, no gen-
eral guidelines for parameter settings of evolutionary algorithms
exist. Most of the settings are problem specific. For this size of
an optimization problem (27 decision variables), heuristic rules
in [11] suggest to use five subpopulations with 20 individuals
each.
4.2. Case studies
Two case studies were performed to illustrate the robustness
and adaptability of the evolutionary algorithm to changes in a
significant assumption and the objective function: (1) increase
of the fuel cost by 25% and (2) maximization of the exergetic
efficiency εtot . Table 3 compares the values of important per-
formance criteria and process variables of both cases with the
reference case from Section 4.1.
The table clearly shows that a maximization of the ther-
modynamic efficiency leads to a higher cost of electricity. To
Table 2
Values of characteristic process variables after 40 generations
Stream ID Parameters Values
Gas turbine exhaust S10 ṁ; T 510 kg/s; 821 K
High-pressure steam S38 ṁ; T ; p 57 kg/s; 758 K; 77 bar
Reheat steam S70 T;p 719 K; 25 bar
Low-pressure steam S58 ṁ; T ; p 19 kg/s; 453 K; 3 bar
HRSG exhaust S63 T 380 K
1158 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159

Table 3
Cost of electricity cP,tot , exergetic efficiency of the overall system εtot as well as selected process variables of the best individual

Variables Reference case Minimal COE, but increased

fuel cost (5.80, D /GJLHV )
Minimal cost of electricity Maximal exergetic efficiency

Cost of electricity (cP,tot ) (D /MWh) 42.5 44.2 52.0

Exergetic efficiency (εtot ) (%) 47.5 48.8 48.3
Energetic efficiency (ηLHV,tot ) (%) 48.8 50.1 49.6
HP steam (ṁ38 , T38 , p38 ) (kg/s, K, bar) 57/758/77 45/810/130 50/795/90
Reheat steam (T49 , p49 ) (K, bar) 608/27 593/30 552/16
IP steam (ṁ45 , T45 , p45 ) (kg/s, K, bar) –/–/– 17/585/30 17/539/16
LP steam (ṁ58 , T58 , p58 ) (kg/s, K, bar) 19/453/3 12/453/2 5/446/3

Cost of natural gas in the reference case: D 4.64 /GJLHV .

improve the exergetic efficiency up to a maximal value of εtot = 5. Conclusions

48.8%, more capital is required to cover the cost for additional
heat transfer areas in the HRSG. Thus, the product cost rises
to D 44.2/MWh. Compared to large advanced combined cycle
power plants (Ẇnet ≈ 400 MW) that achieve energetic efficien-
cies close to ηGuD ≈ 58–60% (εcc ≈ 56.5–58.4%), the maximal
efficiency of the 240 MW combined cycle power plant in this
study seems to be low. The relatively low energetic efficiency of
the gas turbine systems (power range: Ẇnet,gt < 160 MW; ηgt =
31– 35% [19]) used here as design options are the main cause of
this difference. Large gas turbine systems achieve energetic effi-
ciencies up to 39% [19]. Since the gas turbine system generates
about 65% of the total net power, this efficiency is of paramount
importance for the thermodynamic efficiency of the combined
cycle power plant. Furthermore, the assumed minimum tempera-
ture differences in the evaporators and the isentropic efficiencies
of the steam turbines offer some potential for improving the
thermodynamic performance of the system. A better match of
the temperature profiles in the HRSG by a parallel arrangement
of several heat exchangers in the gas path (e.g., HP super-
heater and reheater) and a fuel preheater could also increase
the efficiency. In general, a higher fuel cost requires a more effi-
cient use of the fuel energy in the power plant. This increases
the investment cost and leads to a higher cost of electricity
(Table 3).
In all optimization runs, the evolutionary algorithm selects
the largest available gas turbine (150 MW) in the end. Supple-
mentary firing in the HRSG is less efficient and unnecessary, if
the mass flow rate of the gas turbine exhaust supplies enough
energy to the HRSG.1 A heat-recovery steam generator with
steam generation at two pressure levels is sufficient to achieve
the lowest cost of electricity when the fuel cost is low. Both the
optimal solution for a maximum efficiency and for high fuel cost
use a triple-pressure HRSG. The largest temperature and pres-
sure at the inlet of the high-pressure steam turbine occur in the
design for maximum efficiency.
1 As a matter of interest, the exergetic efficiency was minimized in an addi-
tional optimization run. In this case, all duct burners and the steam-injected gas
turbine were part of this “optimal” solution (εtot = 37.5%).
Evolutionary algorithms are powerful tools to optimize the
process structure and process variables of combined cycle power
plants. About 50% of the time needed for applying this approach
is spent to developing a robust simulation of the thermodynamic
behavior of all possible process designs and to link this program
to Matlab where the evolutionary algorithm controls the opti-
mization run. Many degrees of freedom, complex interactions
among the plant components and the associated difficulties in
achieving convergence by selecting appropriate values of the
process variables makes this a challenging task. The larger the
complexity of the superstructure and the larger the number of
decision variables, the more difficulties arise and the more time-
consuming the development of the superstructure.
The application of the exergy concept to the analysis and eval-
uation of intermediate results and of the final solution increases
the understanding of the process. Exergy is closely related to the
economic value of an energy carrier. An appropriate combina-
tion of an exergy analysis and an economic analysis provide (a)
additional information for identifying the real cost sources in the
design, and (b) options to reduce the total cost. A comprehensive
discussion of such an exergoeconomic analysis, evaluation, and
optimization techniques is provided in [1,8,14].
Acknowledgment
The financial support from the German Research Foundation
(Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) for the interdis-
ciplinary research project “Optimization of complex energy
conversion systems”, contract number TS79-1/2, is greatly
acknowledged.
Appendix A. Nomenclature
c levelized cost of electricity
Ė exergy of a material or energy stream
ieff effective annual discount rate (cost of money)
ṁ mass flow rate
p pressure
Q̇ time rate of heat transfer
 C. Koch et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 46 (2007) 1151–1159 1159

T temperature Efficiency, Costs, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of

Ẇ power Energy Systems, Berlin, Germany, 2002, pp. 766–772.
y exergy destruction ratio [5] M. Emmerich, M. Grötzner, B. Gross, M. Schütz, Mixed-integer evolution
strategy for chemical plant optimization with simulators, in: I. Parmee (Ed.),
Evolutionary Design and Manufacture, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2000, pp.
Greek symbols 55–67.
 difference [6] M. Emmerich, M. Grötzner, M. Schütz, Design of graph-based evolutionary
ε exergetic efficiency algorithms: A case study for chemical process networks, Evol. Comput. 9
η energetic efficiency (3) (2001) 329–354.
[7] GE Enter Software LLC, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA, GateCycle (Version
ηs isentropic efficiency 5.3.4), 2000.
[8] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, M. Moran, Thermal Design and Optimization,
Subscripts John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996.
a average [9] R. Kehlhofer, Combined-Cycle Gas & Steam Turbine Power Plants,
c cold Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1991.
[10] T. Bäck, D. Fogel, Z. Michalewicz, Evolutionary Computation 1 – Basic
cc combined cycle Algorithms and Operators, Evolutionary Computation 2 – Advanced Algo-
D exergy destruction rithms and Operators, Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, United
F fuel (exergy) Kingdom, 2000.
gt gas turbine [11] H. Pohlheim, Evolutionäre Algorithmen, Springer-Verlag, 1999.
h hot [12] C. Koch, Struktur- und Parameteroptimierung von Gas- und Dampf-
turbinenkraftwerken mit evolutionären Algorithmen, Master’s Thesis,
hx heat exchanger Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Energietechnik, Germany,
k k th plant component 2003.
L exergy loss [13] H. Pohlheim, Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithm Toolbox for use with
min minimal value matlab (GEATbx), version 1.95, http://www.geatbx.com, August 1999.
net net electric power [14] G. Tsatsaronis, F. Cziesla, Thermoeconomics, in: Encyclopedia of Physical
Science and Technology, vol. 16, third ed., Academic Press, 2002, pp.
P product (exergy) 659–680.
q heat transfer [15] G. Tsatsaronis, F. Cziesla, Basic exergy concepts, Exergy balance and
t turbine exergetic efficiency, Exergy analysis of simple processes, Energetic and
tot overall system exergetic analysis of complex systems, Strength and limitations of exergy
0 ambient conditions analysis, in: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Topic
Energy, Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers,
Oxford, UK, http://www.eolss.net, 2004.
References [16] Technical assessment guide (TAG TM ), Tech. rep., Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA, vol. 1, TR-102276-V1R7, 1993.
[1] F. Cziesla, Produktkostenminimierung beim Entwurf komplexer [17] R. Turton, R. Bailie, W. Whiting, J. Shaeiwitz, Analysis, Synthesis, and
Energieumwandlungsanlagen mit Hilfe von wissensbasierten Methoden, Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1998.
no. 438 in Fortschr. -Ber. VDI, Reihe 6, VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf, 2000. [18] W. Seider, J. Seader, D. Lewin, Process Design Principles, John Wiley &
[2] F. Cziesla, G. Tsatsaronis, Iterative exergoeconomic evaluation and Sons, New York, 1999.
improvement of thermal power plants using fuzzy inference systems, [19] Gas Turbine World 2000/2001 Handbook, Pequot Publishing, Southport,
Energy Conv. Manage. 43 (2002) 1537–1548. USA, 2000.
[3] S. Uhlenbruck, K. Lucas, Exergoeconomically-aided evolution strategy [20] D. Dressler, Kostenabschätzung von ausgewählten Kraftwerkskom-
applied to a combined cycle power plant, Int. J. Thermal Sci. 43 (2004) ponenten, Studienarbeit, Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für
289–296. Energietechnik, Germany, 1998.
[4] R. Dobrowolski, A. Witkowski, R. Leithner, Simulation and optimization [21] W. Eisermann, W. Hasberg, G. Tsatsaronis, THESIS - Ein Rechenpro-
of power plant cycles, in: G. Tsatsaronis, M. Moran, F. Cziesla, T. Bruckner gramm zur Simulation und Entwicklung von Energieumwandlungsanla-
(Eds.), ECOS 2002, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on gen, Brennst.-Wärme-Kraft 36 (45) (1984) 45–51.