Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270285107
READS
152
4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Abdul Ghafoor Memon
Rizwan Memon
8 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Khanji Harijan
Mehran University of Engineering and Tech
40 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan
Department of Electrical Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 September 2014
Accepted 13 December 2014
Keywords:
Combined cycle power plant
Thermo-environmental analysis
Exergoeconomic analysis
Multiple polynomial regression
Optimization
a b s t r a c t
A combined cycle power plant is analyzed through thermo-environmental, exergoeconomic and statistical methods. The plant is rst modeled and parametrically studied to deliberate the effects of various
operating parameters on the thermo-environmental quantities, like net power output, energy efciency,
exergy efciency and CO2 emissions. These quantities are then correlated with operating parameters
through multiple polynomial regression analysis. Moreover, exergoeconomic analysis is performed to
look into the impact of operating parameters on fuel cost, capital cost and exergy destruction cost. The
optimal operating parameters are then determined using the Nelder-Mead simplex method by dening
two objective functions, namely exergy efciency (maximized) and total cost (minimized). According to
the parametric analysis, the operating parameters impart signicant effects on the performance and cost
rates. The regression models are appearing to be a good estimator of the response variables since
appended with satisfactory R2 values. The optimization results exhibit that the exergy efciency is
increased and cost rates are decreased by selecting the best trade-off values at different power output
conditions.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The fossil fuels for electricity production contribute a major
share globally, and Pakistan is no exception with nearly 65% electricity generation from mostly oil and natural gas [1]. Currently,
Pakistan is crippling from an incredible decit in the electricity
supply mainly due to spiraling fuel prices, transmission losses
and lower conversion efciencies. A set of rational solutions has
to be presented by policy makers and researchers to attain energy
sustainability in the country. Gas turbine based combined cycle
power plants (CCPPs) have recently extended a signicant attention in the electricity generation from oil and gas due to their operational exibility, high efciencies and low environmental impact.
In recent years, many researchers have been involved in conducting exergy and exergoeconomic analyses of thermal systems in
general, and CCPPs in particular to get more insight of their thermodynamic and economic facets. Exergy analysis, which is based
on the second law of thermodynamics, is a very useful method
Corresponding author. Tel.: +92 22 2771275; fax: +92 22 2772196.
E-mail address: ghafoor.memon@faculty.muet.edu.pk (A.G. Memon).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.033
0196-8904/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
20
Nomenclature
C_
EnE
ex
_
Ex
ExE
h
h
i
j
k
M
_
m
N_
P
Q_
R2
s
T
_
W
Abbreviations
AC
air compressor
CC
combustion chamber
CIT
compressor inlet temperature (K)
CND
condenser
CP
condenser pump
CRF
capital recovery factor
DE
deaeretor
E
emissions
EV
evaporator
FAR
fuel-to-air ratio (kg fuel/kg air)
FWP
feedwater pump
G
generator
GT
gas turbine
HL
heat loss
HPD
high-pressure drum
HPE
HRSG
LHV
LHV
LPE
PEC
PKR
PP
PR
SH
ST
GTIT
USD
high-pressure economizer
heat recovery steam generator
lower heating value (kJ/kg)
molar lower heating value (kJ/kmol)
low-pressure economizer
purchased equipment cost
Pakistan Rupee
pinch point
pressure ratio
superheater
steam turbine
gas turbine inlet temperature (K)
United States Dollar
Greek letters
a
mole fractions of chemical species
b
mass fractions of chemical species
c
specic heat ratio
k
molar fuel-to-air ratio (kmol fuel/kmol air)
u
maintenance factor
g
isentropic efciency
Subscripts
a
air
D
destruction
f
fuel
fm
formation
g
combustion gas
ms
main steam
p
products
r
reactants
o
dead (environment or reference) state
Superscript
o
standard reference state of 25 C and 1 atm.
21
_ CCPP , energy
quantities are chosen, namely net power output W
efciency (EnECCPP), exergy efciency (ExECCPP) and CO2 emissions
ECO2 ;CCPP , while compressor inlet temperature (CIT), compressor
pressure ratio (PR), gas turbine inlet temperature (GTIT), the pinch
point temperature difference (PP) and main steam pressure (PMS)
are nominated as the operating parameters for parametric study
and regression analysis. Three additional operating parameters,
namely compressor isentropic efciency (gAC), gas turbine isentropic efciency (gGT) and condenser pressure (PCND) are included in
the exergoeconomic analysis and optimization process. The
method of least-squares is adopted for developing MPR models,
appended with the coefcient of determination (R2-value), calculated to check the accuracy of estimation by the models.
kLHV HLCC
f
N_
N_
X
X
o h
h
o
o h
h
o
h
h
fm
fm
r
p
r
In the combustion analysis, natural gas is taken as a fuel (modeled as pure methane, CH4) carrying a LHV of 50,050 kJ/kg. Then
the complete combustion equation is expressed as
0:7748
0:2059 2k
0:0003 k
; aO2
; aCO2
;
1k
1 k
1k
0:019 2k
1 k
aN2
aH2 O
bi
ai Mi
Mg
ai Mi
i ai M i
Then the mass ow rate of fuel and combustion gas are calculated, respectively, from
kM f
_a
m
Ma
_ f m
_a
_g m
m
_f
m
7
8
_ D;CC Ex
_ 2 Ex
_ F Ex
_3
Ex
_ AC m
_ a h2 h1
W
T2 T1
T 1 1 PR
ca 1
ca
i
2
gAC
_ D;AC W
_ AC Ex
_ 1 Ex
_2
Ex
_ GT m
_ g h3 h4
W
10
With inlet combustion gas temperature T3 or GTIT and outlet pressure 1 atm, the outlet temperature is determined from
3
cgc1
g
P
4
5g
T 4 T 3 T 3 41
GT
P3
The exergy destruction rate of gas turbine is given as
11
22
Fuel
Stack
8
LPE
HRSG
Air
DE
CC
HPE
AC
14
15
12
13
HPD
EV
GT
FWP
CP
16
11
18
SH
Cooling
water
CND
17
10
19
ST
_ D;GT Ex
_ 3 Ex
_ 4W
_ GT
Ex
12
2.4. HRSG
By applying energy balance to the HRSG, the combustion gas
and water/steam properties are calculated by solving the following
equations simultaneously
_s
m
_ g h4 h5 1 HLHRSG
Superheater :
h17 h16 m
4
_s
m
_ g h5 h6 1 HLHRSG
Evaporator :
h16 h15 m
4
_s
m
_ g h6 h7 1 HLHRSG
High pressure economizer :
h15 h14 m
4
_s
m
_ g h7 h8 1 HLHRSG
Low pressure economizer :
h13 h12 m
4
13
14
15
16
_ D;HRSG
Ex
"
#
_ 12 Ex
_ 13 Ex
_ 14
Ex
_
_
_
4
Ex17 Ex4 Ex8
4
17
_ CP m
_ FWP m
_ s h12 h11 ; W
_ s h14 h13
W
_
_
_
_
_
_ FWP Ex
_ 14 Ex
_ 13
ExD;CP W CP Ex12 Ex11 ; ExD;FWP W
22
23
24
25
26
The rate of fuel energy and exergy supplied are calculated from:
_ f LHVf
Q_ in;CCPP 4 m
_
_ f exf
Exin;CCPP 4 m
18
21
2.6.1. Pumps
The power required to pump water and exergy destruction in
pumps are determined by using the following equations
_ CCPP 4 W
_ GT W
_ AC W
_ ST W
_ CP W
_ FWP
W
_ L;stack 4 Ex
_8
Ex
_ s h10 h11
Q_ CND m
_ s h10 h11
m
_ cw
m
h19 h18
_ 10 Ex
_ 11 Ex
_ 19 Ex
_ 18
_ D;CND Ex
Ex
27
28
0:0169 k 0:0698
LHVf ; j 1; k 4
1:033
j
j
exf
_ ST m
_ s h9 h10
W
EnECCPP
_ CCPP
W
_
Q in;CCPP
30
ExECCPP
_ CCPP
W
_ in;CCPP
Ex
31
19
_ D;ST Ex
_ 9 Ex
_ 10 W
_ ST
Ex
20
29
ECO2 ;CCPP
_ CO2
m
1000
_ net
W
32
23
Component
name
Auxiliary equations
AC
C_ 1 C_ W AC z_ AC C_ 2
C_ 2 C_ FX z_ CC C_ 3
C_ 3 z_ GT C_ 4 C_ W AC C_ W GTnet
C_ 1 0
CC
GT
HRSG
X
X
_j
C_ e;j C_ w;j
C_ i;j C_ q;j z_ j ; C_ j cj Ex
33
Table 1
Denitions of fuel and product for different plant components.
C_ 3
_3
Ex
C4
Ex
_ ;
C_ 4
_4
Ex
C_ 9
_9
Ex
C8
Ex
_
C_ W AC
_ AC
W
C_ 9 z_ ST C_ 10 C_ W STnet
CND
C_ 10 C_ 18 z_ CND C_ 19 C_ 11
C_ 10
C_ 11
C_ 18 0; Ex
Ex
_
_
CP
C_ 11 C_ W CP z_ CP C_ 12
C_ W CP
_ cp
W
DE
4C_ 7 C_ 12 z_ DE C_ 13 4C_ 8
C_ 7
_7
Ex
_C W
C 10
Ex
_
10
10
FWP
C_ 13 C_ W FWP z_ FWP C_ 14
u
N 3600
net
C8
Ex
_
FWP
_ FWP
W
C_ W STnet
_ STnet
W
CRF
CRF
i1 i
n
1 i 1
C_ T C_ f
_ 3 Ex
_ 4
4Ex
_ 8
_ 4 Ex
4Ex
_ GT
4W
_ 13 Ex
_ 12 4Ex
_ 15 Ex
_ 14
Ex
_ 16 Ex
_ 15 4Ex
_ 17 Ex
_ 16
4Ex
_ 9 Ex
_ 10
Ex
_ 10 Ex
_ 11
Ex
_ CP
W
_ ST
W
_ 19 Ex
_ 18
Ex
_ 12 Ex
_ 11
Ex
_ 13 Ex
_ 12
Ex
DE
FWP
_ 8
_ 7 Ex
4Ex
_ FWP
W
_ 14 Ex
_ 13
Ex
36
where cF,j is the levelized fuel cost and E_ D;j is the exergy destruction
rate of jth component.
The total cost rate of the CCPP is now dened as
CP
35
_ 2 Ex
_ 1
4Ex
_3
4Ex
ST
34
CND
11
C_ W STnet
_ ST
W
_ AC
4W
_ 2 Ex
_ F
4Ex
HRSG
net
AC
GT
C_ W GTnet
_ GT
W
Component name
CC
ST
z_ j PEC j
Table 2
Exergy cost rate balances and corresponding auxiliary relations for the plant
components.
X
z_ j C_ D;j
37
_ f LHVf
C_ f cf m
38
where cf is the specic fuel cost of natural gas, taken as US$ 0.0047
per MJ which is equivalent to the local gas price PKR 0.46275 per MJ
[20].
24
(a)
1.52
(b)
800
1.5
Temperature (K)
kg fuel/kg air
700
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
600
500
400
300
200
100
1.4
FAR
23940 kW
Actual
FAR
24300 kW
0
GT exhst SHT HPEV HPE stack
Actual
Simulated
ms
Simulated
Fig. 3. Model verication (a) fuel-to-air ratio (FAR) at design conditions and (b) variation of combustion gas temperature in HRSG and temperature of main steam.
25
Fig. 4. Effects of CIT and PR on (a) net power output, (b) energy efciency, (c) exergy efciency and (d) CO2 emissions.
that the CO2 emissions decrease drastically during the initial rise in
GTIT from 1000 to 1300 K, due to effective utilization of the fuel.
Similarly, for a given GTIT, CO2 emissions decrease with a decrease
in the CIT, which is signicant at lower values of GTIT.
In Fig. 6(ad) effects of GTIT and PR on thermo-environmental
quantities are shown. It was observed that for certain GTIT-PR
values, the condition that T4 < T16, which actually renders the HRSG
ineffective. Such values are shown shaded in the gure. According
to Fig. 6(a), the slope of every contour is nearly 0.12, which means
that for a given net power output, a change in PR of 0.12 requires a
direct change of GTIT by 1. Fig. 6(b and c) shows that for a given
value of PR, the efciencies tend to increase with an increase in
the GTIT; however, the trend of variation is different for different
values of GTIT with respect to PR. For instance, efciencies,
decrease with increase in PR for 900 6 GTIT 6 1000; when PR
increases from 4 to 8 for 1000 < GTIT 6 1200 efciencies, increase;
efciencies also increase when PR increases from 4 to 12 for
1200 < GTIT 6 1400; similarly efciencies increase when PR
increases from 4 to 20 for 1400 < GTIT 6 1600. For other GTIT-PR
values, the efciencies, decrease with PR. It is clear that for efciency improvement, an increase in PR beyond a certain value
requires a proportional rise in GTIT. As shown in Fig. 6(d), the
CO2 emissions vary oppositely to the variation of efciencies with
26
Fig. 5. Effects of CIT and GTIT on (a) net power output, (b) energy efciency, (c) exergy efciency and (d) CO2 emissions.
The MPR models are exhibited in Table 3, which are also plotted
as the sample regression curves in Figs. 47. Each regression curve
ts the simulated results extremely well as the coefcient of determination (R2-values) appended with most of the models lie above
0.98. Subsequently, such models are also developed for the estimation of response variables with given predictor variables for different GT net power outputs. In this regard, GT net power output is
included as a predictor variable in the model equations for estimation of each response variable, as shown in Table 3. The resulted
model equations are valid for GT net power outputs in the range
from 50 MW to 100 MW, which are also appended with reasonable
R2-values.
4.3. Exergoeconomic analysis
In exergoeconomic analysis, with usual assumptions and constraints, the net power output of each GT-unit is xed at 15 MW
(a total of 60 MW from all GT-units). Using Eq. (37), the total cost
of power production is determined by varying each operating
parameter. In this regard, rst the system of linear equations in
Table 2 is simultaneously solved to determine the cost of each uid
stream in Fig. 2. Afterwards, these values are used to determine the
cost rate of exergy destruction in each plant component by using
Eq. (36).
27
Fig. 6. Effects of GTIT and PR on (a) net power output, (b) energy efciency, (c) exergy efciency and (d) CO2 emissions (values not valid inside the shaded region).
directly with the mass ow rate of the uid streams through the
components and exponentially with GTIT.
The mass ow rate of each uid stream rst decreases with an
increase in GTIT up to 1500 K, afterwards the effect of GTIT diminishes but exponent terms in the PEC equations abruptly increases,
which increases the overall capital cost of these components.
Importantly, the exergy destruction in HRSG and ST increases with
GTIT, rather signicantly during the initial rise of GTIT, i.e., from
1000 to 1500 K. This higher exergy destruction might have been
caused by the large temperature differences across these components. Therefore, the exergy destruction cost rate of these components also increases with similar trends. The trend of variation in
exergy destruction cost with respect to GTIT is similar to that mentioned in [7].
Fig. 11 exhibits the variation in costs with respect to PR. According to this gure, the total cost decreases as the PR increases from 8
to 16, but on the subsequent rise in the PR, it starts to increase. This
is because of simultaneous rise in the capital and exergy destruction costs. Actually, both these costs decrease for some components and increase for others, as the PR increases. For instance,
both these costs increase for AC and GT with an increase in the
PR. The capital cost of ST, on the other hand, decreases as the PR
increases, since the GT exhaust gas temperature decreases, which
reduces the ST cycle capacity and therefore its capital cost. The
28
Fig. 7. Effects of Pms and PP on (a) net power output, (b) energy efciency, (c) exergy efciency and (d) CO2 emissions.
exergy destruction cost for CC decreases with PR and reaches minimum at PR = 16 whilst increases afterwards. This trend is in accordance with the variation in the exergy destruction of these
components reported previously by the authors [2,5]. The exergy
destruction cost of almost all components in the bottoming cycle,
including HRSG decreases with PR due to decrease in their respective exergy destruction.
Figs. 1215 exhibit the effects of PP, Pms, gST and PCND on the cost
rates. It can be observed that the variation in these parameters
does not have any impact on the costs of components related to
the topping cycle. According to Fig. 12, an increase in PP causes a
slight decrease in the total cost, mainly due to a slight decrease
in the capital cost of almost all components in the bottoming cycle,
with diminution for HRSG is more prominent. Actually, as the PP
increases heat transfer surface area of evaporator in the HRSG
decreases, this decreases its capital cost. Concurrent with this diminution, the exergy destruction cost of HRSG increases due to an
increase in the exergy destruction in the evaporator, which is
because of an increase in the temperature difference for heat
transfer.
Fig. 13 shows the variation of costs with respect to Pms, according to which, the total cost decreases only slightly, as the Pms
CIT 5 3:12E 03 TIT 6:52E 00 TIT 2 6:09E 03 TIT 3 2:68E 06 TIT 4 4:53E 10 TIT 5 2:14E
04 PR 1:81E 03 PR2 7:72E 01 PR3 1:58E 00 PR4 1:25E 02 PR5 4:05E 01 P ms 2:16E
02 P 2ms 5:45E 06 P 3ms 6:49E 10 P 4ms 2:93E 14 P 5ms 1:39E 03 PP 1:90E 02 PP 2 1:30E
01 PP3 4:13E 01 PP4 4:84E 03 PP 5 ; R2 0:9871
2
_ GTnet 1:67E 17 W
_ 2
EnECCPP 4:03E 03 2:33E 12 W
GTnet 1:40E 01 CIT 6:54E 04 CIT 6:11E
02 TIT 5:81E 05 TIT 2 8:77E 02 PR 1:31E 02 PR2 5:13E 01 P ms 4:90E 09 P 2ms 7:40E
_ GTnet CIT 2:40E 17 W
_ GTnet TIT 4:32E 16 W
_ GTnet PR
01 PP 9:53E 04 PP2 5:01E 17 W
_ GTnet PP 3:43E 04 CIT TIT 6:00E 03 CIT PR 1:77E 03
_ GTnet P ms 4:38E 15 W
2:52E 17 W
CIT P ms 2:56E 01 CIT PP 1:68E 03 TIT PR 1:97E 06 TIT P ms 9:83E 05 TIT PP 2:36E
05 PR P ms 1:05E 03 PR PP 3:17E 06 P ms PP; R2 0:9822
2
_ GTnet 1:62E 17 W
_ 2
ExECCPP 1:79E 03 2:22E 12 W
GTnet 6:27E 00 CIT 6:34E 04 CIT 5:93E
02 TIT 5:64E 05 TIT 2 8:50E 02 PR 1:27E 02 PR2 3:02E 01 P ms 4:76E 09 P 2ms 1:51E
_ GTnet CIT 1:95E 17 W
_ GTnet TIT 4:16E 16 W
_ GTnet PR
01 PP 9:24E 04 PP2 8:26E 17 W
_ GTnet PP 3:33E 04 CIT TIT 5:82E 03 CIT PR 1:04E 03
_ GTnet P ms 4:20E 15 W
2:44E 17 W
CIT P ms 5:18E 02 CIT PP 1:63E 03 TIT PR 1:91E 06 TIT P ms 9:54E 05 TIT PP 2:29E
05 PR P ms 1:019E 03 PR PP 3:07E 06 P ms PP; R2 0:9822
2
_ GTnet 1:29E 16 W
_ 2
ECO2 CCPP 7:25E 04 1:87E 11 W
GTnet 2:55E 02 CIT 1:68E 02 CIT
2:59E 01 TIT 1:24E 03 TIT 2 8:91E 00 PR 1:25E 01 PR2 1:15E 01 P ms 3:20E 07 P 2ms
_ GTnet CIT 6:71E 17 W
_ GTnet TIT 3:21E 15 W
_ GTnet
7:59E 02 PP 1:21E 02 PP 2 3:60E 15 W
_ GTnet PP 1:01E 02 CIT TIT 6:51E 02 CIT PR
_ GTnet P ms 3:43E 14 W
PR 2:01E 16 W
3:99E 02 CIT P ms 2:62E 00 CIT PP 2:34E 02 TIT PR 3:42E 05 TIT P ms 3:43E 03 TIT
PP 2:38E 04 PR P ms 1:48E 02 PR PP 4:29E 05 P ms PP; R2 0:9344
29
30
optimization with the bound constraints given in Table 4. The optimization process is carried out within the context of a parametric
study in which the optimal operating parameters are determined
as a function of GTIT.
The results of optimization for maximum exergy efciency and
minimum total cost are exhibited in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
According to Table 5, the optimum exergy efciency increases
with an increase in the GTIT for all GT power outputs. This is
because the exergy destruction of the plant reduces as the GTIT
increases, which also reduces its corresponding cost. So, Table 6
exhibits a decrease in the optimum total cost with the increase
in GTIT, due to the reasons discussed in context of Fig. 10. For a
given value of GTIT, the total cost increases with an increase in
the GT power output. As observed previously, to increase GTIT
after 1500 K, leads to an increase in the capital cost more than
the corresponding decrease in the exergy destruction cost; this
resulted in an increase in the optimum total cost. This suggests
that a system needs to be optimized for multiple objective functions to arrive at its best performance with cost-optimized design.
The results thus imply a tradeoff between the optimal objective
functions, which is exhibited diagrammatically in Fig. 16. Each
point in this gure represents an optimal condition, i.e., the condition when the exergy efciency is maximized and the cost rate
is minimized. The trend of variation is shown for the optimal
operating condition with a variation in GTIT from 900 to 1600 K
and given GT power outputs of 50, 70 and 90 MW. This is very
helpful in arriving at the best trade-off values. It can be seen in
this gure that the total cost decreases and the overall exergy
efciency increases as the GTIT increases, till the optimal
4.4. Optimization
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DE
P
CND
ST
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Costs [$/h]
The main objective of optimization is to nd the values of operating parameters that result in a maximum or minimum of a function, called the objective function. Two objective functions for
optimization are considered here, namely exergy efciency (to be
maximized) and total cost rate (to be minimized). In this study, a
multi-objective optimization is employed mainly to deal with a
contemplating issue of thermodynamic benets against incremental costs. The Nelder-Mead simplex method is adopted for the
GT
CC
AC
C_T
0.94
C_f
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DE
P
CND
ST
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Costs [$/h]
0.92
GT
CC
AC
C_T
C_f
31
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DE
P
CND
ST
12
HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Capital cost
Costs [$/h]
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
GT
CC
AC
C_T
C_f
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DE
P
CND
ST
HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Capital cost
Costs [$/h]
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
27.5
30
GT
CC
AC
C_T
C_f
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DE
P
CND
ST
2000
3000
4000
5000
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Costs [$/h]
32
6000
GT
CC
AC
C_T
7000
C_f
3500
DE
Costs [$/h]
3000
2500
2000
CND
1500
ST
1000
HRSG
500
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
Capital cost
GT
CC
AC
C_T
0.92
C_f
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DE
P
CND
ST
HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Capital cost
Costs [$/h]
GT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
C_f
CC
AC
C_T
33
Bound constraints
CIT (K)
TIT (K)
PR ()
288328
9001600
48 (for TIT = 900 K), 412 (for TIT = 1000 K), 420 (for
TIT = 1100 K), 432 (for TIT = 1200 K), 440 (for
TIT > 1200 K)
0.850.94
0.850.92
7.530
0.780.92
20007000
7.517
gAC ()
gGT ()
PP (K)
gST ()
Pms (kPa)
PCND (kPa)
Table 5
Optimization results in maximum exergy efciency.
GTIT (K)
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
WGTnet (kW)
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
PR ()
gAC ()
gGT ()
PP (K)
gST ()
Pms (kPa)
PCND (kPa)
0.8500
0.9307
0.9226
0.9006
0.9093
0.9380
0.9332
0.9378
0.9388
0.9398
0.9361
0.9397
0.9319
0.9213
0.9398
0.9356
0.9399
0.9400
0.9325
0.9389
0.9397
0.8500
0.9390
0.9398
0.9195
0.9187
0.9174
0.9195
0.9197
0.9197
0.9198
0.9144
0.9195
0.9196
0.9197
0.9199
0.9171
0.9182
0.9193
0.9142
0.9199
0.9198
0.9114
0.9198
0.9199
0.8864
0.9199
0.9198
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
8.19
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.72
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
17.45
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.52
7.50
7.50
7.50
0.9153
0.9017
0.9169
0.9059
0.8976
0.9143
0.9190
0.9143
0.9164
0.9193
0.9180
0.9195
0.8384
0.9193
0.9189
0.9105
0.9162
0.9200
0.8930
0.9111
0.9156
0.9200
0.9195
0.9184
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2109.88
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2567.26
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2000.00
2549.38
2000.00
2097.21
2000.00
6299.07
6208.38
7.50
8.94
7.50
7.50
7.51
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.53
7.59
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
gAC ()
gGT ()
PP (K)
gST ()
Pms (kPa)
PCND (kPa)
0.9177
0.9182
0.9121
0.9179
0.9183
0.9180
0.9175
0.9192
0.9187
0.9173
0.9185
0.9171
0.9180
0.9107
0.9174
0.9116
0.9200
0.9153
0.8790
0.9142
0.8849
0.9200
0.9111
0.9066
27.56
7.50
7.50
30.00
29.92
29.97
29.41
29.99
29.94
26.18
29.84
29.92
16.24
25.15
29.77
11.11
7.50
9.69
24.11
7.50
13.43
17.07
19.76
12.49
0.7800
0.9061
0.8959
0.8361
0.9094
0.9084
0.8457
0.8522
0.8509
0.9190
0.9177
0.9195
0.8867
0.9063
0.9004
0.8890
0.9028
0.9176
0.8014
0.8577
0.8358
0.9081
0.9200
0.8745
6980.24
5106.31
6776.75
6972.95
6987.64
6994.93
6979.85
6984.00
6986.03
6917.31
6962.92
6992.30
4609.24
6499.59
6992.04
4130.57
6763.36
6984.15
5615.28
6918.94
6638.81
4867.84
4540.33
3710.77
7.50
13.86
7.50
16.91
13.53
13.49
16.30
15.41
15.35
7.50
7.50
7.50
12.64
7.50
10.50
10.60
8.37
7.51
10.07
7.50
7.50
11.47
10.81
11.18
ExECCPP (%)
CIT (K)
33.43
34.69
35.34
39.86
39.96
40.96
44.72
45.08
45.41
48.81
49.03
49.17
50.99
51.74
52.31
54.04
55.00
55.11
56.52
57.42
57.46
57.20
59.36
59.38
288.00
292.19
288.09
288.00
288.00
288.00
320.46
288.00
288.00
303.92
288.74
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
290.09
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
289.22
288.00
4.00
4.00
4.85
7.48
6.85
7.38
8.44
10.21
10.79
12.66
13.75
13.92
18.43
15.99
18.23
21.97
26.96
24.41
29.28
28.62
31.48
20.75
24.44
25.64
C_ T ($/h)
CIT (K)
PR ()
4128.15
6349.89
8038.26
3468.93
4838.10
6215.48
3024.34
4215.25
5409.46
2661.27
3690.40
4730.75
2462.12
3362.93
4262.16
2295.64
3078.46
3931.56
2160.41
2891.91
3701.28
2270.60
2994.61
3789.08
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
294.02
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
288.00
318.38
302.44
289.86
Table 6
Optimization results for minimum total cost rate.
GTIT (K)
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
_ GTnet (kW)
W
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
6.52
6.17
5.76
9.04
9.12
9.11
11.03
11.27
11.19
12.77
12.48
12.33
15.69
14.01
15.12
18.85
17.61
16.84
15.74
20.46
14.12
15.69
25.94
20.22
0.9195
0.9103
0.9125
0.9133
0.9135
0.9131
0.9050
0.9056
0.9072
0.8994
0.9010
0.9011
0.8966
0.9007
0.8971
0.8582
0.8881
0.8902
0.8500
0.8922
0.8903
0.9118
0.9100
0.8902
34
Fig. 16. Optimal exergy efciency and total cost with respect to GTIT at various GT outputs.
5. Conclusion
A comprehensive study of a gas turbine based combined cycle
power plant (CCPP) has been conducted. Firstly, model is developed
and results were veried by comparing them with the measured
data, followed by parametric study to show the effects of various
operating parameters on the thermo-environmental quantities.
The results showed that the quantities like net power output, energy
efciency and exergy efciency, increase while CO2 emissions
decrease with a decrease in the CIT, an increase in the GTIT and an
increase in the PR in some initial values. There was an insignicant
effect of PP and Pms on these quantities. Furthermore, these quantities were regressed against operating parameters to develop MPR
models. Satisfactory R2 values were obtained for each model. These
models can be used to determine a response variable for giving predictor variables so that the thermo-environmental quantities of
actual plant can be estimated. Moreover, the exergoeconomic analysis was performed to determine total cost of plant generation,
which consists of fuel cost and capital and exergy destruction costs
of the individual plant components. The effects of various operating
parameters on the equipment costs and the total cost were assessed.
According to the results, improvement in the isentropic efciency of
the rotating components leads to a decrease in the total cost of the
plant. Also, on the basis of parametric study, the total cost decreases
with an increase in the GTIT and an increase in the PR in its some initial values. The effects of PP, Pms and PCND on the total cost were negligible. The combustion chamber incurs the greatest exergy
destruction cost of all components due to high exergy destruction.
According to the results this can be reduced by increasing the GTIT.
Lastly, a multi-objective optimization was performed to optimize
two objective functions, namely exergy efciency (maximized)
and total cost (minimized) that provided a set of best trade-off values, which gives maximum performance and cost-effective power
generation. Based on the results of optimization, it is concluded that
the plant operation could be more effective and economically justiable; if the optimal operating parameters are used corresponding
to a GTIT value around 1500 K for a given GT power output. This
may also decrease possible environmental problems due to the
lower fuel ow rate into the combustion chamber.
The results shows that exergy-based analyses as performed on
the CCPP in this study can be useful addition for efcient utilization
of energy resources and decrease in CO2 emissions and generation
cost in the power generation industry of Pakistan. As an extension
to current work, similar methods can be employed to study the
CCPP by (i) generating power with different types of fuels, like
oil or biofuels, (ii) considering some additional environmental indicators like NOx, SOx and CO emissions, (iii) utilizing supplementary
PEC AC
A:1
A:2
A:3
A:4
where
pi
0:9029
3000 kPa
T out;s;i 830 K
f T;s;i 1 exp
500 K
T out;g;i 990 K
f T;g;i 1 exp
500 K
f p;i 0:0971
_ 0:7
PEC ST 3880:5 W
ST
2
!3 3
0:05
4
5 1 5 exp T in 866 K
1
1 gs;ST
10:42 K
A:5
A:6
A:7
A:8
Q_ CND
_ cw 70:5 Q_ CND
746 m
k LMTDCND
0:2
_ 0:71
W
PUMP
1 gs;PUMP
A:9
A:10
A:11
References
[1] Pakistan Energy Yearbook. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources.
Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan; 2012. p. 81, 82.
[2] Memon AG, Memon RA, Harijan K, Uqaili MA. Thermo-environmental analysis
of an open cycle gas turbine power plant with regression modeling and
optimization. J Energy Inst 2014;87:818.
[3] Ahmadi P, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and exergoenvironmental analyses, and
multi-objective optimization of a gas turbine power plant. Appl Thermal Eng
2011;31:252940.
[4] Barzegar Avval H, Ahmadi P, Ghaffarizadeh AR, Saidi MH. Thermo-economicenvironmental multiobjective optimization of a gas turbine power plant with
preheater using evolutionary algorithm. Int J Energy Res 2011;35:389403.
[5] Memon AG, Khanji H, Uqaili MA, Memon RA. Thermo-environmental and
economic analysis of simple and regenerative gas turbine cycles with
regression modeling and optimization. Energy Convers Manage 2013;76:
85264.
[6] Ahmadi P, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic
optimization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with
supplementary ring unit. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:2296308.
[7] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy, exergoeconomic and environmental
analyses and evolutionary algorithm based multi-objective optimization of
combined cycle power plants. Energy 2011;36:588698.
[8] Sanjay. Investigation of effect of variation of cycle parameters on
thermodynamic performance of gas-steam combined cycle. Energy 2011;36:
15767.
[9] Kaviri AG, Jaafar MNM, Lazim TM. Modeling and multi-objective exergy based
optimization of a combined cycle power plant using a genetic algorithm.
Energy Convers Manage 2012;58:94103.
35
[10] Mansouri MT, Ahmadi P, Kaviri AG, Jaafar MNM. Exergetic and economic
evaluation of the effect of HRSG congurations on the performance of
combined cycle power plants. Energy Convers Manage 2012;58:4758.
[11] Kaviri AG, Jaafar MNM, Lazim TM, Barzegaravval H. Exergoenvironmental
optimization of heat recovery steam generators in combined cycle power plant
through energy and exergy analysis. Energy Convers Manage 2013;67:2733.
[12] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efciencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:
125789.
[13] F-Chart Software. Engineering Equation Solver (EES) (license # 3476),
Madison, WI, USA; 2014.
[14] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. Wiley;
1995.
[15] Roosen P, Uhlenbruck S, Lucas K. Pareto optimization of a combined cycle
power system as a decision support tool for trading off investment vs.
operating costs. Int J Thermal Sci 2003;42:55360.
[16] Ameri M, Ahmedi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy & exergoeconomic analyses of a
steam power plant: a case study. Int J Energy Res. 2009;33:499512.
[17] Mohan G, Dahal S, Kumar U, Martin A, Kaya H. Development of natural gas
red combined cycle plant for tri-generation of power, cooling and clean water
using waste heat recovery: techno-economic analysis. Energies 2014;7:
635881. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en7106358.
[18] Ahmedi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Multi objective optimization of a novel solarbased multigeneration energy system. Solar Energy 2014;108:57691.
[19] Yao H, Sheng D, Chen J, Li W, Wan A, Chen H. Exergoeconomic analysis of a
combined cycle system utilizing associated gases from steel production
process based on structural theory of thermoeconomics. Appl Thermal Eng
2013;51:47689.
[20] Sui Southern Gas Company Limited ofcial website. <http://www.ssgc.com.pk/
ssgc/customer/industrial/rates.php> January 9; 2014.
[21] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy. Elsevier; 2007.
[22] Baskut O, Ozgener L. Exergoeconomic assessment of a wind turbine power
plant (WTTP): Cesme, Izmir, example. Energy 2012;47:57781.
[23] Sogut MZ, Oktay Z, Hepbasli A. Energetic and exergetic assessment of a trass
mill process in a cement plant. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:231623.
[24] Mert MS, Dilmac OF, zkan S, Karaca F, Bolat E. Exergoeconomic analysis of a
cogeneration plant in an iron and steel factory. Energy 2012;46:7884.
[25] El-Emam RS, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of
seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant with energy recovery. Energy
2014;64:15463.
[26] Garousi Farshi L, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA, Yari M, Amidpour M.
Exergoeconomic analysis of double effect absorption refrigeration systems.
Energy Convers Manage 2013;65:1325.