Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Thermodynamic analysis of combined cycle under design/off-design

conditions for its efficient design and operation
Guoqiang Zhang, Jiongzhi Zheng, Angjun Xie, Yongping Yang ⇑, Wenyi Liu
National Thermal Power Engineering and Technology Research Center, Beijing Key Laboratory of Emission Surveillance and Control for Thermal Power Generation, North China
Electric Power University, Changping District, Beijing 102206, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To achieve a highly efficient design and operation of combined cycles, this study analyzed in detail the
Received 31 May 2016 off-design characteristics of the main components of three combined cycles with different compressor
Received in revised form 25 July 2016 pressure ratios (PRs) based on real units. The off-design model of combined cycle was built consisting
Accepted 26 July 2016
of a compressor, a combustor, a gas turbine, and a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). The
Available online 3 August 2016
PG9351FA unit is selected as the benchmark unit, on the basis of which the compressor is redesigned
with two different PRs. Then, the design/off-design characteristics of the three units with different design
Keywords:
PRs and the interactive relations between topping and bottoming cycles are analyzed with the same tur-
Design/off-design performance
Combined cycle
bine inlet temperature (TIT). The results show that the off-design characteristics of the topping cycle
Compressor redesigning affect dramatically the combined cycle performance. The variation range of the exergy efficiency of the
Off-design characteristic of the topping and topping cycle for the three units is between 11.9% and 12.4% under the design/off-design conditions.
bottoming cycles This range is larger than that of the bottoming cycle (between 9.2% and 9.5%). The HRSG can effectively
recycle the heat/heat exergy of the gas turbine exhaust. Comparison among the three units shows that for
a traditional gas-steam combined cycle, a high design efficiency results in a high off-design efficiency in
the usual PR range. The combined cycle design efficiency of higher pressure ratio is almost equal to that of
the PG9351FA, but its off-design efficiency is higher (maximum 0.42%) and the specific power decreases.
As for the combined cycle with a design PR of 12.73, the decrement of the efficiency under the design/off-
design conditions is in the range of 0.20–0.39%, however, its specific power increases. Thus, for the effi-
cient design of a combined cycle, its optimal efficiency and maximum specific power, instead of that of
the topping cycle, should be considered. For the operation strategy, the performance of the topping cycle
should be kept at a high level first (the turbine inlet temperature should be as high as possible), followed
by the high setting of the turbine exhaust temperature.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Thermodynamic analysis and optimization for Brayton cycles

Gas turbines own many advantages, including rapid startup,
high thermodynamic efficiency, and excellent load regulating
capacity. Heavy-duty gas turbines, in particular, are developing
rapidly, as evidenced by the continuous increase in their design
pressure ratio (PR) and turbine inlet temperature (TIT) and the
improvement in their efficiency and power output [1]. With the
increase in the gas turbine exhaust parameters, the pattern of heat
recovery steam generators (HRSGs) has developed from a single-
pressure reheat to a dual-/triple-pressure reheat, so that the gas
turbine exhaust heat can be recycled effectively [2].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yypncepu@163.com (Y. Yang).
[3–5] and combine cycles [6] have been widely investigated in pre-
vious literatures under design condition. However, the combined
cycle gas turbine (CCGT) often runs at partial load conditions
because it is frequently constrained to peak regulation in a power
grid. Thus, investigating CCGT off-design thermodynamic perfor-
mance is necessary. The off-design performance prediction of
gas-steam combined cycle depends on the off-design modelling
of each component of overall thermodynamic system. Therefore,
the off-design simulation methodologies of main components of
gas-steam combined cycle should be discussed and analyzed.
The compressor is the ‘‘heart” of a gas turbine, and its off-design
performance prediction is vital. The traditional stage stacking
method is often applied to predict the performance of
multi-stage axial flow compressors with geometry angle variations
[7–10]. Kim et al. [11] proposed an improved method that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.066
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88 77

Nomenclature

A area [m2] c compressor,

h enthalpy [kJ/kg] cc combustion chamber
L theoretical air quantity [kg/kg] ca cooling air,
n rotational speed [r/min] d design condition
m mass flow [kg/s] f fuel
Ma Mach number [–] g gas
PR pressure ratio [–] in inlet
p pressure [MPa] opt maximum efficiency points
Q ar;net;p lower heating value of the fuel [kJ/kg] t gas turbine
R gas constant  stagnation parameter
T temperature [K]
Y constant Acronyms
Dp pressure loss [kPa] C compressor
CC combustion chamber
Greek letters CCGT combine cycle gas turbine
a absolute flow angle CP condensate pump
b excess air coefficient EV evaporator
d expansion ratio FP feed water pump
/ flow coefficient GT gas turbine
HP high pressure
u ¼ ðc  1Þ=c HRSG heat recover steam generator
c specific heat ratio IGV inlet guide vane
g efficiency IP intermediate pressure
j comprehensive parameter LP low pressure
r constant ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
1 mixing loss coefficient PR pressure ratio
w pressure coefficient RH reheater
RP recycle pump
Subscripts and superscripts SH surperheater
TIT turbine initial temperature
0 environment condition
2 compressor outlet TET turbine exhaust temperature
3 combustion chamber outlet TEF turbine exhaust flow
a air

incorporates governing equations and stage characteristics, can
calculate all inter-stage variables simultaneously, and evaluates
the off-design performance of various multi-stage compressors.
In recent years, to improvement the off-design performance pre-
diction accuracy of gas turbines, various mathematical methods
adopted to generate the compressor map have attracted remark-
able attention [12,13]. Tsoutsanis et al. [14] proposed a novel com-
pressor map tuning method to improve the accuracy and fidelity of
gas turbine models for performance prediction and diagnostics in
steady-state and transient conditions. The off-design model of tur-
bines is often based on the Stodola equation or Flugel formula [15],
which can be found in many studies on the off-design performance
prediction of gas turbines or combined cycles.
HRSG off-design modelling mainly focuses on the overall heat
transfer coefficient calculation methods. The relatively simplified
methodology, which only relates to gas turbine exhaust mass flow
and temperature, is applied in Refs. [16,17]. For another similar
overall heat transfer coefficient formula, it is affected by gas tur-
bine exhaust temperature, mass flow rate, and pressure [18]. The
relationship between the overall heat transfer coefficient and the
thermodynamic parameters of gas/(water, steam) sides was also
described for each heating surface [19,20]. Ganapathy [21] pro-
posed an HRSG off-design performance prediction method, in
which relatively detailed thermodynamic design parameters of
HRSG and off-design gas turbine exhaust parameters (e.g., temper-
ature, flow, gas composition, and several physical properties) are
considered in estimating the overall heat transfer coefficients of
different heating surfaces. In addition, Zhang et al. [22] proposed
concise semi-theoretical, semi-empirical formulas to predict the
off-design performance of the bottoming cycle of the gas-steam
turbine combined cycle. The off-design characteristics of steam
turbines, including off-design performance prediction [23,24] and
cylinder efficiency calculation [25], were also studied.
To achieve relatively high design/off-design efficiencies of
power plants, the thermodynamic performance of gas turbine/
combined cycle with different equipment/system configurations
and various operation strategies are analyzed comprehensively
and corresponding thermodynamic systems were optimally inte-
grated. Goodarzi [26] investigated a new regenerative Brayton
cycle and the results shown that the new regenerative Brayton
cycle has higher thermal efficiency than the original one at the
same pressure ratio, and also lower heat absorption and exhausted
heat per unite output power. The influence of shaft configurations
on the design/off-design point performances of simple, regenera-
tive, and intercooled-regenerative gas turbines was also studied
[27]. For a recuperated gas turbine cycle, a single-shaft configura-
tion with variable speed operation is the best combination, fol-
lowed by the double-shaft configuration with a variable area
nozzle (VAN) [28]. For alternative recuperated gas turbine cycles
with divided turbine expansion, a single-shaft configuration is less
sensitive to compressor PR in comparison with a double-shaft con-
figuration, and variable speed control is recommended [29]. The
variable inlet guide vane modulation positively affects the single-
shaft combined cycle performance, especially at high load ranges,
78 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88
but is not effective to improve the double-shaft engine perfor-
mance [30]. A comparison of single/combined cycle plants with
different design parameters (TIT) at part load revealed that gas tur-
bines with high parameters exhibit superior performance at part
load [31]. Haglind [20] studied the effects of variable geometry
controls on the part load efficiencies of combined cycles and found
that VAN control is effective in combined cycles at part loads and
that the variable guide vane control of compressors is an equally
good choice for the combined cycles used in tankers and carriers.
In addition, some novel techniques also were adopted to
enhance the performance of power plants at partial loads. Coolant
modulation minimizes coolant consumption at part loads and can
thus improve the part load thermal efficiencies of gas turbines [32]
and combined cycles [19]. Barelli and Ottaviano [33] proposed an
innovative combined cycle with a small compressor installed in
the gas turbine inlet, which improves the operational flexibility
of the combined cycle and its overall efficiency under off-design
conditions. Rovira et al. [34] presented a methodology to achieve
thermoeconomic optimizations of CCGT power plants taking into
account the frequent off-design operation of the plant. Dynamic
simulation of power plants is important for stable operation [35],
residual life estimation and fault diagnosis [36].
In recent years, the regeneration technology are increasingly
considered to improve the thermo-economic performance and
operation flexibility of combined cycle under design/off-design
conditions. Carapellucci and Giordano [37] illustrated that thermo-
dynamic regeneration has the potential to markedly enhance
energy and economic performances of combined cycle based on
advanced gas-turbine technology. Moreover, the off-design opera-
tion flexibility of CCGTs can be improved, provided that the regen-
erator and bottoming steam cycle are properly designed. Gogoi
[38] simulated the performances of a CCGT combining air and fuel
preheating and compared to the case of simple CCGT, varying the
gas turbine pressure ratio. Cao et al. [39] designed a gas turbine
and Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) combined cycle with recuperator
and conducted thermodynamic performance analysis, the results
shown that compared with the GT-Rankine combined cycle, the
GT-ORC combined cycle had better thermodynamic performance.
With regard to present gas-steam combined cycle power plants,
the matching steam turbine units are subcritical units with a main
steam temperature in the range of 480–565 °C and pressure
between 4 and 9.98 MPa [15]. However, steam turbine technolo-
gies have reached a relatively advanced level. Supercritical and
ultra-supercritical technologies are widely applied in coal-fired
power plants, with the steam parameters reaching
27.56 MPa/605 °C [40]. At present, B&W PGG and Toshiba Corpora-
tion have designed an advanced ultra-supercritical unit with an
initial temperature range of 700–760 °C to fire Indian coal [41].
Therefore, for the design of an advanced combined cycle, technol-
ogy advancements in gas turbine cycles and bottoming cycles
should be considered. Gas turbines often run under part load
conditions because of peak load regulations. Therefore, modern
gas-steam combined cycle power plants with high design and
off-design efficiency should be developed. Although many studies
have investigated the design/off-design performance of gas-
steam combined cycle power plants and proposed some methods
to enhance the design/off-design performance of combined cycle,
currently there is no simulation studies that explores the influence
of diverse topping/bottoming cycle temperature utilization inter-
vals (e.g., for same gas turbine inlet temperature and HRSG out
temperature, the whole temperature interval of combined cycle
is divided into different two half segments for topping and bottom-
ing cycles) on combined cycle design/off-design performance and
the interactions among the topping, bottoming, and combined
cycles based on practical operation unit under design/off-design
conditions. Such analysis can provide comprehensive suggestions
for the highly efficient design and operation of combined cycles.
In the current study, we aim to address the aforementioned
issue by performing a detailed analysis of the off-design character-
istics of the main parts of a combined cycle with different PRs. A
PG9351FA unit is selected as the benchmark unit, on the basis of
which the compressor is redesigned with two redesigned PRs
(one larger PR and one smaller PR). Then, the design/off-design
characteristics of three units with different design PRs are analyzed
under the same TIT. The characteristics of the topping and bottom-
ing cycles are evaluated, and the interaction relationship among
the topping, bottoming (including HRSG, steam turbine, and bot-
toming cycles), and combined cycles is studied. Finally, the key fac-
tors that affect the off-design characteristics of combined cycles
are summarized, and suggestions for the efficient design and oper-
ation of combined cycles are proposed.
2. Gas-steam combined cycle modelling
2.1. Compressor modelling
The stage-stacking method is adopted to calculate the off-
design characteristics of compressor [7–10]. The stage-stacking
method is based on the mean-line one-dimensional flow continu-
ity equation and the generalized stage characteristic curves
[42,43]. This method is convenient to simulate the off-design per-
formance and obtain the key parameters (the stage inlet/outlet
parameters (pressure, temperature, and velocity) and overall
parameters of compressor) of compressor under different opera-
tion conditions, such as the inter-stage bleeding performance and
the characteristics of the startup/shutdown process. The geometry
variation, including the changing inlet guide vane (IGV) and the
nozzle vanes of several front stages, can also be calculated by this
method.
In this work, the solution for the performance prediction of a
compressor with IGV regulation is described as follows. The rela-
tionship between flow coefficient and vane exit absolute flow
angles if the rotor inlet incidences are equivalent under different
operating conditions is shown below [7].


1
d ¼ dðtan aÞ ð1Þ
/
where a is the vane exit absolute flow angle. / is flow coefficient.
Assuming that the relative rotor exit flow angle and stage effi-
ciency are mere functions of rotor incidence, the relationship
between the flow and pressure coefficients can be expressed as fol-
lows [11]:
w
¼ constant ð2Þ
/
where / is flow coefficient, w is pressure coefficient.
The off-design calculation model of rotatable nozzle vanes and
compressor inter-stage bleeding are provided in Refs. [11,44].
2.2. Combustion chamber modelling
The thermodynamic calculation of combustion chamber is
aimed to determine the excess air coefficient and combustion tem-
perature using the following thermal balance equation [15]:
h   i
3 0 2 0 2 0
ð1 þ bLÞðhg  hg Þ ¼ hf  hf þ bL ha  ha þ gcc  Q ar;net;p ð3Þ
where b is the excess air coefficient, L is the theoretical air quantity,
h is the enthalpy, g is the efficiency, and Qar,net,p is the low heating
value of the fuel. Subscripts/Superscripts: 0 is the environment con-
 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88 79

dition, g is the gas, f is the fuel, a is the air, cc is the combustion

chamber, 2 is the compressor outlet, and 3 is the combustion cham-
ber outlet.
The thermo-physical properties of gas turbine flue gas mainly
rely on its composition and temperature. The method proposed
by Zhang [45] is used to calculate the thermo-physical properties
of flue gas in different states in combustion chamber and turbine.

2.3. Gas turbine modelling

A simplified off-design gas turbine model with separate turbine

stage cooling is considered (Fig. 1). The gas turbine is composed of
three stages, each of which contains a pair of nozzle vanes and
rotor blade rows. The following blade cooling model and expansion
processes are assumed to simplify the thermodynamic calculation
(Fig. 2). The cooling air of the nozzle vanes is mixed with the main
flue gas at the inlet. The mixed flue gas expands in both the nozzle
vanes and the rotor blade rows. Finally, the cooling air of the cor-
responding rotor blade rows is mixed with the expanded flue gas at Fig. 2. Turbine thermodynamic calculating using diagram.
the outlet of this stage. The expansion ratios of the first and second
turbine stages are almost the same; however, the expansion ratios
where Dp is the pressure loss, p is the pressure, m is the mass flow, c
of the third stage vary with the change in the turbine inlet pressure
is the specific heat capacity, Ma is the Mach number, 1 is the mixing
under off-design conditions [15].
loss coefficient, and j is the comprehensive parameter that ranges
The cooling air quantity at each turbine stage at design condi-
from 0.15 to 0.5 and is set to 0.404 in this work [46]. Subscripts: t
tion is estimated by Zhang [46]. We assume that the ratio of the
is the turbine, g is the gas, ca is the cooling air, and in is the inlet.
cooling air quantity to the total air quantity of compressor inlet
Superscripts: ⁄ is the stagnation parameter.
is equal to that of the benchmark unit at design condition because
The turbine efficiency of each stage under off-design conditions
the TIT of the redesigned units are equal to that of the benchmark
is corrected with the following semi-empirical formula [49]:
unit. The cooling air quantity of each turbine stage at off-design
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  ffi
conditions can be adjusted according to the temperature and pres-
gt =gt;max ¼ ðn=nd Þ T 3d =T 3 1  du opt =ð1  d Þ
u
sure of the bleeding stage [47].
  ffi

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
! !0:5 Y  ðY  1Þðn=nd Þ T 3d =T 3 1  du u
opt =ð1  d Þ
pc;out T c;out;d
mca ¼ mca;d ð4Þ
pc;out;d T c;out where g is the efficiency, n is the rotational speed, T is the temper-
ature, d is the expansion ratio, Y is the constant (set to 2.083 in this
where m is mass flow, p is pressure, and T is temperature. Sub-
work) [49], and u = (c  1)/c, where c is the specific heat ratio. Sub-
scripts: c is the compressor, d is design condition, ca is the cooling
scripts/Superscripts: d is the design condition, t is the turbine, max
air, and out is the outlet. Superscripts: ⁄ is the stagnation parameter.
and opt are the maximum efficiency points, 3 is the combustion
The cooling air is accelerated during the mixing with the main-
chamber outlet, and ⁄ is the stagnation parameter.
stream flue gas such that its velocity and direction are consistent
Under off-design conditions, the turbine and compressor should
with those of the mainstream flue gas. The pressure drop during
satisfy certain relationships. In the absence of a turbine character-
this process is evaluated with the following formula [48]:
istic curve, the simplified Flugel formula can be used to describe
Dp mca m the relationship between the turbine inlet pressure, temperature,
¼ c Ma2 1 ¼  ca j; DP < 0 ð5Þ and mass flow rate [47,50].
pt;in mg g g mg

Fig. 1. Diagram of gas turbine air cooling system.

80 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
ccþ1
mt;in T t;in uc
r¼t
2 1
r ¼ con;
AP t;in R cþ1
where r is a constant, m is the mass flow, A is the turbine inlet area,
and P is the pressure, c is the specific heat ratio and R is the gas con-
stant. Subscripts: t is the gas turbine, and in is the inlet. Super-
scripts: ⁄ is the stagnation parameter.
2.4. HRSG and steam turbine modelling
The triple-pressure reheat HRSG was modelled by adopting and
modifying the simplified method for single-pressure HRSG pro-
posed by Ganapathy [21]. Off-design calculation was performed
based on the thermodynamic design parameters and the gas
turbine exhaust temperature, mass flow, flue gas composition,
and feed water temperature at off-design conditions. The steam
parameters produced in the HRSG must satisfy the off-design char-
acteristic of the steam turbine, and these desired parameters must
be reached in the HRSG, hence the inseparable combination of the
HRSG and the steam turbine. The off-design characteristic of
the steam turbine can be described by the Flügel formula [51].
The detailed off-design calculation process of triple-pressure reheat
HRSG can refer to Ref. [22].
3. Design parameters of the benchmark and redesigned units
3.1. Description of the three units
The PG9351FA gas turbine unit selected as the benchmark,
which generates a power output of 255.6 MW, is composed of an
18-stage axial flow compressor and a three-stage turbine. The
redesigned units are based on the benchmark unit; hence, the basic
configuration is similar, whereas the key parameters may be differ-
ent. The general configuration and the redesigned units are
described below.
The compressor of the benchmark unit is equipped with four
inter-stage bleeding holes that are located behind the ninth- and
thirteenth-stage nozzle vanes of the compressor. The inter-stage
bleeding air of the ninth and thirteenth stages acts as the cooling
air resource of the second and third turbine nozzle vanes. The cool-
ing air of the first-stage turbine nozzle vanes is extracted from the
compressor outlet chamber and directed through to the root of the
nozzle vanes and then to the interior of the nozzle vanes. The cool-
ing air of the rotor blade rows is extracted from the inner cylinder
of the compressor (after the sixteenth stage) and is then passed
through the cooling air channel of the shaft to cool the relative
parts, the blade root, and the first/second rotor blade rows. Some
cooling air is split from the compressed air out of the compressor
to cool the transition section and is then made to flow to the com-
bustor; the remaining air cools the fire cylinder. The third stage of
the turbine rotor blade rows is not equipped with air cooling.
The HRSG is a triple-pressure, single-reheat, horizontal, non-
supplementary firing, natural circulation boiler. There are econo-
mizers before the different pressure (high-, intermediate-, and
low-pressure) boiler drums, below which are the corresponding
evaporators and after which are the corresponding superheaters.
In the high-pressure superheater and reheater, attemperators are
present to prevent the overtemperature of the steam. The exhaust
steam of the high-pressure cylinder mixes with the intermediate-
pressure superheated steam and then goes to the reheater and
finally to the intermediate-pressure cylinder. The exhaust steam
of the intermediate-pressure cylinder and the low-pressure super-
heated steam undergo the same process. The steam turbine
selected is a triple-pressure, single intermediate reheat, single-
axis, double-cylinder double-exhaust steam, condensation-type
steam turbine.
ð7Þ
A diagram of triple-pressure reheat combined cycle power plant
is shown in Fig. 3. The benchmark structure and thermodynamic
design parameters of the compressor, turbine, HRSG, and steam
turbine are derived from Ref. [52].
With the development of steam turbine technology, the initial
parameters of steam turbine (e.g. steam turbine inlet temperature,
pressure, and mass flow) augment accordingly. At present, the ini-
tial steam temperature of existing steam turbines reaches 603 °C.
Assuming that the TIT remains the same, we study three combined
cycle units that match the common bottoming cycle (the main
steam initial temperatures are 603 °C, 567.5 °C, and 538 °C). The
design parameters of the benchmark gas turbine need to be rede-
signed accordingly to match the bottoming cycle parameters of
603 °C and 538 °C, and a gas turbine design calculation program
is coded using Excel according to the calculation method proposed
by Zhong [53].
With regard to the gas turbine that matches the initial steam
temperature of 603 °C, assuming that the initial temperature
(1327 °C) and exhaust pressure of the gas turbine are unchanged,
the design PR of compressor should be reduced accordingly. If the
difference between the turbine exhaust and the HRSG main steam
temperatures is kept constant, the design PR of redesigned compres-
sor should be 12.73 which is determined through an iterative design
calculation. Accordingly, the PG9351FA unit removes the first stage
of the compressor and adjusts the PR of each stage. Thus, the overall
design PR becomes 12.73. After the redesign, only the first stage lies
in the transonic speed region. However, the inlet air mass flow rate
and air bleeding ratios of the redesigned unit should be equal to
those of the benchmark unit to enable the comparison between
the redesigned and benchmark units. Finally, the air extraction
points are set after the 8th, 12th, and 15th stages. The end-stage
expansion ratio of the turbine varies correspondingly to match the
PR of the redesigned compressor. The flow chart of the HRSG does
not change. The selected steam turbine is the unit with the initial
temperature of 603 °C, and its flow chart remains the same.
On the contrary, the gas turbine that matches the initial steam
temperature of 538 °C requires an increase in the design PR of
compressor. After repeated design calculations, the design PR is
set to 18. On the basis of PG9351FA unit, the compressor adjusts
the total PR to 18 and does not remove or add stages. The air
extraction points and ratios remain the same as those of the bench-
mark unit, and the inlet air flow rate and exhaust pressure of gas
turbine remain unchanged. The flow charts of the HRSG and steam
turbine remain the same as that of the benchmark unit, whereas
the steam turbine selects the unit with the initial steam tempera-
ture of 538 °C.
3.2. Operation strategy
With regard to gas turbine control strategy, the TIT remains con-
stant when the gas turbine load is 80–100%, however, the compres-
sor IGV angle does not change when the gas turbine load is lower
than 80%. The sliding pressure operation mode is set for the bot-
toming cycle when the steam turbine load is 45–100%. In the ther-
modynamic calculation process of HRSG, the main steam pressure
is specified according to the HRSG and steam turbine. The con-
trolled expansion operation mode (operation at constant pressure)
is implemented when the steam turbine load is less than 45%.
3.3. Design parameters of the three units
The main assumptions for the simulations are presented in
Table 1. The design and corresponding simulation performance
parameters of the three units are shown in Table 2.
 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88 81

Fig. 3. Schematic of the triple-pressure reheat combined cycle.

Table 1 Table 2
Main assumptions for the simulation. Design parameters of the gas turbine and HRSG.

Items/unit PG9351FA High Low Items/unit PG9351FA High Low

unit pressure unit pressure unit pressure unit pressure unit
unit
TIT/°C 1327
Fuel Lower heating value LHV = 48685 kJ/kg PR 15.4 18 12.73
Compressor stage numbers 18 18 17
Pressure loss
Inlet air flow/kg/s 645
Inlet pressure loss/% 0.61
TET/°C 617.5 587.94 652.3
Combustor pressure loss/% 3.5
Compressor outlet 390.67 421 352.17
Exhaust pressure loss/% 1.32
temperature/°C
Thermal losses
Cooling air parameters of Stator: 0.08, 0.0313, 0.0184
Mechanical loss/% 1
turbine Rotor: 0.0313, 0.0235, 0
Generator loss/% 1
(first to last stage)a
Combustor heat loss/% 0.5
First rotor height of 0.504 0.437
Environmental condition and parameters compressor/mb
15 °C 101.3 kPa, 60%RH First rotor hub diameter of 1.474 1.474
Compressor design parameter compressor/mb
Compressor efficiency/% 88.1 88.2 88.6 Last rotor height of 0.147
Cooling air ratio/% 18.45 compressor/mb
Last rotor hub diameter of 1.701
Turbine design parameter compressor/mb
Turbine efficiency First/second stage 0.900, third stage 0.908 Gas turbine power/MW 258.74 260.93 255.21
Steam turbine efficiency/% HP cylinder 87,IP cylinder 93,LP cylinder 89 Gas turbine efficiency/% 37 38.36 35.89
efficiency/% Combined cycle power/MW 404.02 393.37 417.02
Speed/r/min 3000 Combined cycle efficiency/% 57.79 57.83 57.58
HRSG design parameterc
Main-steam temperature/°C 567.5 538 603
4. Off-design characteristic analysis of three combined cycle Reheat steam temperature/°C 567.6 538 603
Main steam pressure/MPa 9.88 8.87 12.01
units
Reheat steam pressure/MPa 2.3 1.87 2.86
Main steam flow/kg/s 80.97 73.39 88.19
4.1. Operation characteristic curves of three compressors Steam turbine power/MW 145.28 132.44 161.82
a
Corresponding coolant flowrate divided by compressor inlet air flowrate.
On the basis of the relationship between the compressor flow b
These parameters are derived from Ref. [52].
and pressure coefficients, the characteristic curves of compressors c
More detailed design parameters of HRSG can refer to Ref. [22].
and the corresponding thermodynamic parameters can be
obtained with the stage-stacking method. The IGV angle ranges
from 27° to 88° to control the compressor inlet air flow. In this for the load below 80%. In this control scheme (Figs. 4–6), the
study, the IGV controls the gas turbine load from 100% to 80%; IGV opening of PG9351FA, high-pressure, and low-pressure units
the IGV angle decreases constantly, and the TIT is kept constant are in the range of 88–64.9°, 88–63.5°, and 88–65.7°, respectively.
until the load of 80%. Subsequently, the fuel control mode is used In addition, each characteristic curve in the figures possesses its
82 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88

and then along the curve bc. During the line ab period, the varia-
tion of the PR is proportional to that of the mass flow. The highest
pressure point of each characteristic curve is set as the surge
boundary point.

4.2. Off-design calculation and analysis of the topping cycle

4.2.1. Off-design characteristic of the gas turbine unit

The predicted off-design parameters of the gas turbine cycles
are shown in Figs. 7–9. The variation trend of this prediction is con-
sistent with that (a prediction of GE 7F) presented in Ref. [54].
Hence, the calculation model of the gas turbine is reliable.
When the gas turbine load decreases from 100% to 80%, the TIT
remains the same, the PR decreases, and the turbine exhaust tem-
perature (TET) increases, as shown in Figs. 7–9. The IGV regulation
is employed, and the inlet air flow of compressors decrease from
100% to 84%, 83.3%, and 82%, respectively. When the gas turbine
load decreases from 80% to 30%, the inlet air flow remains almost
Fig. 4. Operation characteristic curve of PG9351FA compressor.
the same (without IGV regulation and with the decrease of PR,
the air flow increases slightly), and the TIT decreases constantly,
resulting in the constant decrease in the TET. The curve trends of
the three gas turbines are similar, and the difference between the
corresponding relative values at the same load is derived mainly
from the effect of the IGV regulation on the inlet air flow at differ-
ent design PRs. The figures show that the relative value of the tur-
bine exhaust mass flow with a high design compressor ratio
changes significantly.
The relationship between the power output and the relative
load is shown in Fig. 10. The design PR of compressor slightly
affects the maximum power output of gas turbine. The gas turbine
power output is higher than that of PG9351FA unit by 0.66–
2.19 MW when the compressor PR is 18 and is lower than that of
PG9351FA unit by 1.06–3.53 MW when the PR is 12.73.

4.2.2. Topping cycle design/off-design characteristic analysis

The variation in gas turbine (topping cycle) efficiency with rel-
ative power output is shown in Fig. 11. The design efficiencies of
the three gas turbine cycles are consistent with those presented
Fig. 5. Operation characteristic curve of low-pressure compressor.
by Ref. [31], thus indicating that the bleeding air ratio of the three
units remains constant is reliable at design condition in this work.
Fig. 11 shows that if the efficiency of the conventional gas tur-
bine cycle under the design condition is higher than that of the
other one, its efficiency under the off-design conditions is also
higher. For example, when the design PR of compressor reaches
18 regardless of the design condition or off-design conditions,

Fig. 6. Operation characteristic curve of high-pressure compressor.

own IGV opening, with a rotational speed of 3000 r/min. The oper-
ation characteristic curves depend on the matching relationship
between the compressor and turbine. The change trends of the
pressure and flow are the same, that is, initially along the line ab Fig. 7. Off-design operation characteristic curve of low-pressure gas turbine.
 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88 83

Fig. 8. Off-design operation characteristic curve of the high-pressure gas turbine.

Fig. 11. Variation in gas turbine thermal efficiency with power output.

Fig. 9. Off-design operation characteristic curve of PG9351FA gas turbine.

Fig. 12. Variation in compressor outlet temperature with power output.

Fig. 10. Gas turbine power output of three units during off-design operation
process.
Fig. 13. Variation in gas turbine fuel consumption flow with power output.

the outlet temperature of compressor shown in Fig. 12 increases,

and the fuel consumption decreases, as shown in Fig. 13. In addi- PG9351FA unit. With a load of 100–30%, the increment of the ther-
tion, the exhaust temperature decreases for the same gas turbine mal efficiency of high-pressure unit, compared with PG9351FA
inlet temperature, and the net power output increases. Therefore, unit, ranges from 1.38% to 1.70%. On the contrary, if the design
the efficiency of high-pressure unit is higher than that of the PR of compressor is 12.73, the reduction of the gas turbine
84 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88
efficiency ranges from 1.25% to 1.75%. As the design PR decreases
when the load decreases from 100% to 30%, the thermal efficiency
drops dramatically by 12.1%, 12.6%, and 12.8%. Therefore, a high
design compressor PR can narrow down the variation range of
thermal efficiency.
The exergy efficiency of topping cycle versus the relative gas
turbine load is shown in Fig. 14. The variation intervals of the
exergy efficiency of topping cycle are 25.8–37.6%, 23.9–36.3%,
and 22.6–34.6% for the high-pressure, PG9351FA, and low-
pressure units, respectively. In terms of the comparison of the
three units, a high design PR results in high exergy efficiency. Com-
pared with the PG9351FA unit, the exergy efficiency of topping
cycle increases by 1.33–1.84% if the design PR is 18, whereas the
exergy efficiency decreases by 1.30–1.71% as the design PR
becomes 12.73. It is beneficial to the topping cycle performance
with a relatively high design PR.
The main reason for the decrease in the exergy efficiency of top-
ping cycle at part load conditions is the reduction in the inlet air
temperature and outlet flue gas of combustion chamber. The low
design PR of compressor lowers the outlet air temperature; hence,
more fuel is consumed to gain the given TIT. Thus, the exergy
destruction of the combustion chamber increases (fuel exergy
Fig. 14. Variation in gas turbine exergy efficiency with power output.
Fig. 15. Variation in combustor exergy destruction with gas turbine power output.
+ compressed air exergy  exergy of the flue gas to the first stage
rotor blade rows), as shown in Fig. 15. The exergy destruction of
the combustion chamber decreases linearly under design/off-
design conditions. Fig. 16 shows the variation trend of the exergy
destruction rate of the combustion chamber (the exergy destruc-
tion of the combustion chamber/the fuel exergy). When the gas
turbine load decreases from 100% to 80%, the exergy destruction
rate of the combustion chamber rises gradually because of the
decrease in the inlet compressed air temperature. The correspond-
ing decrements for high-pressure, PG9351FA, and low-pressure
units are 0.69%, 0.66%, and 0.59%, respectively. However, when
the load is below 80%, the exergy destruction rate of the combus-
tion chamber reduces dramatically with the TIT at decrements of
7.12%, 7.43%, and 8.03%. Therefore, the TIT affects dramatically
the exergy efficiency of topping cycle. By ignoring the change in
the cooling air amount for blades, the high design PR of gas turbine
is highly suitable for the pitch peak.
4.3. Bottoming cycle design/off-design characteristic analysis
4.3.1. HRSG design/off-design characteristics
Figs. 17 and 18 show the variation trend of the thermal effi-
ciency of HRSG and the exergy efficiency (the exergy absorption
Fig. 16. Variation in combustor exergy destruction ratio with gas turbine power
output.
Fig. 17. Variation in HRSG thermal efficiency with gas turbine power output.
 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88 85

of steam and water/the exergy of gas turbine outlet flue gas

exergy), respectively. The variation intervals of the thermal
efficiency of high-pressure, PG9351FA, and low-pressure units
are 78.4–89.1%, 80.2–89.5%, and 80.7–90.1%, respectively. There-
fore, under design/off-design conditions, the heat loss caused by
the HRSG exhaust gas is in the range of 10–21%, which is relative
to the HRSG inlet temperature of the flue gas. The variation inter-
vals of the corresponding exergy efficiency are 77.5–80.9%, 78.6–
81.8%, and 79.6–83.0%, respectively. This variation is relatively
small, and the differences between the different units are close.
On the basis of the data mentioned above, the thermal/exergy
efficiencies of the HRSG under design/off-design conditions remain
at a high level and change slightly. This condition indicates that the
HRSG can recover effectively the heat/heat exergy of the gas
turbine exhaust to the steam under most of load conditions.
Therefore, increasing the exhaust temperature and the design
parameters of the bottoming cycle alone cannot effectively
increase the thermal/exergy efficiency of HRSG.
Fig. 19. Variation in steam turbine power output with gas turbine power output.

4.3.2. Steam turbine design/off-design characteristics

The variation curves of the steam turbine power output during
the gas turbine off-design operations are shown in Fig. 19. The
available heat and final power output of steam turbine decrease
as the designed PR increases. The decrement of the steam turbine
power output compared with that of PG9351FA unit is in the range
of 6.94–12.84 MW as the design PR of compressor increases to 18.
On the contrary, if the design PR decreases to 12.73, then the incre-
ment of the power output falls in the range of 5.66–16.54 MW. The
decrement of the relative power output of steam turbine is less
than that of the gas turbine as the load decreases. For example,
when the gas turbine load is reduced to 30%, the steam turbine
load decreases to about 40% (PG9351FA unit).
The variation curves of the thermal and exergy efficiency (the
power output of steam turbine/the exergy absorption of steam
and water) of steam turbine are shown in Figs. 20 and 21. Fig. 20
shows that the variation intervals of the thermal efficiency of
high-pressure, PG9351FA, and low-pressure units are 28.5–36.8%,
29.3–37.8%, and 30.3–39.3% with corresponding variations of
8.3%, 8.5%, and 9.0%, respectively. The change in the steam temper-
Fig. 20. Variation in steam turbine thermal efficiency with gas turbine power
ature (caused by the change in the flue gas temperature) affects the output.
thermal efficiency of steam turbine. A high flue gas temperature
results in a high thermal efficiency. Fig. 21 shows that the exergy
efficiency of steam turbine, similar to its thermal efficiency,
depends on the flue gas/steam temperature of HRSG. For example,

Fig. 21. Variation in steam turbine exergy efficiency with gas turbine power output.

under the load of 100–80%, the variation intervals of the exergy

efficiency of the corresponding steam turbine are very small.
The steam cycle is in a passive position in the gas-steam
Fig. 18. Variation in HRSG exergy efficiency with gas turbine power output. combined cycle. In terms of the design condition, high steam
86 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88

parameters result in high steam turbine performance. However,

the complete combined cycle should be considered in the selection
of steam parameters. As the steam temperature decreases under
off-design conditions, the exergy efficiency of the steam turbine
decreases apparently. The off-design parameters of the steam cycle
rely on the exhaust of gas turbine. Thus, comprehensively summa-
rizing and analyzing the off-design characteristics of topping cycle
and maintaining a high exhaust temperature is very important for
the off-design operation of the steam cycle.

4.3.3. Bottoming cycle design/off-design characteristics

The variations in bottoming cycle thermal efficiencies of the
three units with gas turbine power are shown in Fig. 22. Under
design/off-design conditions, the variation intervals of high-
pressure, PG9351FA, and low-pressure units are 22.3–32.0%,
23.5–33.2%, and 24.4–34.8% with the corresponding variations of
9.7%, 9.7%, and 10.4%, respectively. For both the design and off-
design conditions, a high exhaust temperature can result in a high
thermal efficiency. The variation trend of the exergy efficiency (the
power output of steam turbine/the exergy of gas turbine outlet flue
Fig. 23. Variation in bottoming cycle exergy efficiency with gas turbine power
gas exergy) of the bottoming cycle is similar to that of the thermal
output.
efficiency, as shown in Fig. 23. The variation intervals of high-
pressure, PG9351FA, and low-pressure units are 57.9–67.3%,
59.2–68.4%, and 60.3–69.8% with the corresponding variations of
9.4%, 9.2%, and 9.5%, respectively. The decrements in the thermal
and exergy efficiencies of the bottoming cycle are less than those
of the topping cycle.
As indicated in the results, the characteristic parameters of the
topping cycle affect the thermodynamic performance of bottoming
cycle under design/off-design conditions. The HRSG can almost
efficiently transfer the heat exergy of the gas turbine exhaust flue
gas to the steam/water of steam turbine. However, the conversion
efficiency of the steam heat/exergy to power is highly dependent
on the steam temperature. For a given topping cycle, a high gas tur-
bine exhaust temperature is important to the efficient operation of
the bottoming cycle and combined cycle.

4.4. Combined cycle design/off-design characteristics

The variation curves of the thermal efficiency and power output

for combined cycles are presented in Figs. 24 and 25. The variation
intervals of the thermal efficiency of high-pressure, PG9351FA, and
low-pressure units are 42.8–57.8%, 42.2–57.8%, and 41.9–57.6% Fig. 24. Variation in combined cycle thermal efficiency with gas turbine power
with the corresponding variations of 15.0%, 15.6%, and 15.7%, output.
respectively. Therefore, a high design PR of compressor can narrow

Fig. 22. Variation in bottoming cycle thermal efficiency with gas turbine power
output. Fig. 25. Variation in combined cycle power output with gas turbine power output.
 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88
down the variation range of the combined cycle thermal efficiency.
In addition, the combined cycle efficiency decreases dramatically
as the gas turbine load falls below 80% because TIT starts to
decrease. After increasing the design PR of the compressor, the
design/off-design performance of high-pressure unit is better than
that of PG9351FA unit. Compared with PG9351FA unit, the incre-
ment of the efficiency of high-pressure unit is in the range of
0.03–0.42%. This increment of the off-design efficiency rises, and
the maximum value reaches 0.42% at 80% gas turbine load. Fur-
thermore, when the gas turbine load is below 80%, the increase
in the combined cycle efficiency remains at 0.4%. The TIT is a very
important parameter in design and off-design conditions. To
reduce the load of gas turbine/combined cycle, either the TIT or
the mass flow of the working medium should be reduced. As the
design PR increases, the relative air flow decreases significantly
when the IGV regulation is applied, which results in a relatively
high performance. Therefore, for the combined cycle unit that
always participates in the pitching peak, increasing the design PR
properly can result in satisfactory design/off-design characteristics.
As for the combined cycle with a design PR of 12.73, the decrement
of the efficiency under the design/off-design conditions is in the
range of 0.20–0.39%.
A low design PR results in high specific work. For the combined
cycle unit with a design PR of 12.73, the power output increases by
4.80–13.20 MW (1.19–3.27%) relative to the PG9351FA unit
(Fig. 25). For the combined cycle unit with a design PR of 18,
although the overall efficiency increases relative to the benchmark
unit, the power output decreases by 6.70–11.00 MW (1.66–2.72%).
We find in the comparison of the topping and bottoming cycles
that the variation of the thermal/exergy efficiency of the topping
cycle is higher than that of the bottoming cycle and that the power
output of the topping cycle holds the main part. Therefore, the
thermodynamic efficiency degree of the topping cycle exerts a sig-
nificant influence on the combined cycle. Meanwhile, the exhaust
temperature of the topping cycle affects the thermodynamic per-
formance of bottoming cycle. Thus, thermodynamic efficiency
itself should be considered first in designing a reasonable topping
cycle, followed by a proper exhaust temperature for bottoming
cycle. Such consideration shows the reasonable relationship
between the topping and bottoming cycles for the traditional
gas-steam combined cycle. For an efficient operation, keeping TIT
first and then the inlet temperature of HRSG as high as possible
is very important.
Comparing the three units, if the design efficiency of a tradi-
tional gas-steam combined cycle is high, the off-design efficiency
is also high in the range of the general PR. For PG9351FA unit,
increasing the design PR properly can result in good design and
off-design performance, but the design power output decreases.
5. Conclusions
On the basis of the design parameter of the given PG9351FA gas
turbine and the matching HRSG, two redesigned combined cycles
are designed by increasing or decreasing the design PR of compres-
sor. The interaction relationship between the topping and bottom-
ing cycles and the combined cycle is studied by analyzing their
detailed design/off-design condition characteristics. The main
conclusions can be summarized as follows:
(1) The thermal efficiency decrements of the topping cycles for
the high-pressure, PG9351FA, and low-pressure units are
12.1%, 12.6%, and 12.8% with the corresponding exergy
efficiency decrements of 11.9%, 12.4%, and 12.0%, respec-
tively. The TIT affects dramatically the exergy efficiency of
topping cycle. The thermal efficiency decrements of the
87
corresponding bottoming cycle are 9.6%, 9.7%, and 10.3%
with exergy efficiency decrements of 9.4%, 9.2%, and 9.5%,
respectively. The variations of the thermal/exergy efficien-
cies of the topping cycle are higher than those of the bottom-
ing cycle, and the power output of the topping cycle holds
the main part. Thus, the off-design characteristics of the top-
ping cycle plays a dominant role in the combined cycle.
(2) The exergy efficiency of HRSG is at a high level and changes
slightly (77.5–80.9%, 78.6–81.8%, and 79.6–83.0%) under
design/off-design conditions, therefore, the HRSG can effec-
tively recover the heat/heat exergy of the gas turbine
exhaust to the steam under most of the load conditions.
Therefore, increasing the exhaust temperature and the
design parameters of bottoming cycle alone cannot effec-
tively increase the thermal/exergy efficiency of the HRSG.
(3) Compared with PG9351FA unit, the increment of the com-
bined cycle efficiency of the high-pressure unit is in the
range of 0.03–0.42%. However, as for the combined cycle
with a design PR of 12.73, the decrement of the efficiency
under the design/off-design conditions is in the range of
0.20–0.39%. Thus, for the combined cycle unit that often par-
ticipates in pitch peak, the design PR of the compressor
should be relatively high, but the specific power decreases.
For a traditional gas-steam combined cycle, a high design
efficiency results in a high off-design efficiency in the usual
range of PR.
(4) For the efficient design of a combined cycle, the optimal effi-
ciency and maximum specific power of combined cycle,
instead of that of topping cycle, should be considered. The
topping cycle thermodynamic performance should be first
considered, followed by a proper exhaust temperature for
bottoming cycle. Such considerations highlights the reason-
able relationship between the topping and bottoming cycles.
For an efficient operation, keeping first the TIT and then the
inlet temperature of HRSG as high as possible is very
important.
(5) To obtain relatively high design/off-design efficiencies of
traditional gas-steam combined cycle, the TIT, which has
been reached in modern advanced heavy-duty gas turbine
(about 1327–1427 °C), cannot match the bottoming cycle
with the initial temperature of over 603 °C. Therefore, the
relatively high steam turbine initial temperature is not
always beneficial to improve the traditional gas-steam com-
bined cycle efficiency.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by National Nature Science Fund of
China (Grant No. 51436006); National Nature Science Fund of
China (Grant No. 51306049); Supported by the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2014MS12).
References
[1] Matta RK, Mercer GD, Tuthill RS. Power systems for the 21st century-‘‘H” gas
turbine combined-cycles. Schenectady, NY: GE Power Systems; 2000.
[2] Ganapathy V. Industrial boilers and heat recovery steam generators. New
York: Marcel Dekker Inc.; 2003.
[3] Sadatsakkak SA, Ahmadi MH, Bayat R, Pourkiaei SM, Feidt M. Optimization
density power and thermal efficiency of an endoreversible Braysson cycle by
using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. Energy Convers Manage
2015;93:31–9.
[4] Sadatsakkak SA, Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA. Thermodynamic and thermo-
economic analysis and optimization of an irreversible regenerative closed
Brayton cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2015;94:124–9.
[5] Sadatsakkak SA, Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA. Optimization performance and
thermodynamic analysis of an irreversible nano scale Brayton cycle operating
with Maxwell-Boltzmann gas. Energy Convers Manage 2015;101:592–605.
88 G. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 126 (2016) 76–88
[6] Bakhshmand SK, Saray RK, Bahlouli K, Eftekhari H, Ebrahimi A.
Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a triple-pressure combined
cycle plant using evolutionary algorithm. Energy 2015;93:555–67.
[7] Stone A. Effects of stage characteristics and matching on axial flow compressor
performance. Trans, ASME 1958;80:1273–93.
[8] Doyle MD, Dixon SL. The stacking of compressor stage characteristics to give an
overall compressor performance map. Aeronaut Quart 1962;13:349–67.
[9] Robbins WH, Dugan JF. Prediction of off-design performance of multi-stage
compressors. NASA SP 1965;36:297–310.
[10] Steinke RJ. STGSTK- A Computer Code for Predicting Multistage Axial Flow
Compressor Performance by a Mean-line Stage Stacking Method. 1982; NASA-
TP-2020.
[11] Song TW, Kim JH, Kim TS, Ro ST. Performance prediction of axial flow
compressors using stage characteristics and simultaneous calculation
of interstage parameters. Proc. IMechE, Part A: J. Power Energy 2001;215:
89–98.
[12] Tsoutsanis E, Li YG, Pilidis P, Newby M. Part-load performance of gas turbines:
Part I-A novel compressor map generation approach suitable for adaptive
simulation. In: ASME 2012 Gas Turbine India Conference. ASME. ASME; 2012.
[13] Tsoutsanis E, Li YG, Pilidis P, Newby M. Part-load performance of gas turbines:
Part II-multi-point adaptation with compressor map generation and GA
optimization. In: ASME 2012 Gas Turbine India Conference. ASME; 2012.
[14] Tsoutsanis E, Meskin N, Benammar M, Khorasani K. A component map tuning
method for performance prediction and diagnostics of gas turbine
compressors. Appl Energy 2014;135:572–85.
[15] Department of Thermal Engineering, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen Nanshan
Power Co., Ltd. gas turbine and gas-steam combined cycle system. 1st ed.
Beijing: China Electric Power Press; 2007. p. 41–191 [in Chinese].
[16] Nord LO, Anantharaman R, Bolland O. Design and off-design analyses of a pre-
combustion CO2 capture process in a natural gas combined cycle power plant.
Int J Greenh Gas Control 2009;3:385–92.
[17] Incropera FP, Dewitt DP. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 3rd ed. New
York, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1990. p. 422.
[18] Assato M, Barbosa R, Silva L, Ferreira S. Off design modeling and simulation of
the HRSG components in combined cycle plants. In: 12th Brazillian Congress
of Thermal Engineering Sciences.
[19] Kim TS, Ro ST. The effect of gas turbine coolant modulation on the part load
performance of combined cycle plants. Part 2: Combined cycle plant. Proc Inst
Mech Eng, Part A: Proc Inst Mech Eng 1997;211:453–9.
[20] Haglind F. Variable geometry gas turbines for improving the part-load
performance of marine combined cycles-combined cycle performance. Appl
Therm Eng 2011;31:467–76.
[21] Ganapathy V. Simplify heat recovery steam generator evaluation, Hydrocarbon
Processing, 1990. p 77.
[22] Zhang G, Zheng J, Yang Y, Liu W. Thermodynamic performance simulation
and concise formulas for triple-pressure reheat HRSG of gas–steam combined
cycle under off-design condition. Energy Convers Manage 2016;122:
372–85.
[23] Murugan RS, Subbarao PMV. Off design performance prediction of steam
turbines. In: ASME 2007 international mechanical engineering congress and
exposition. ASME; 2007. p. 303–13.
[24] Consonni S. Performance prediction of gas/steam cycles for power generation
MAE Dept. PhD thesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University; 1992.
[25] Spencer RG, Cotton KC, Cannon CN. A method for predicting the performance
of steam turbine-generators: 16,500 kW and larger. Trans ASME J Eng Power
1963;85:249–301.
[26] Goodarzi M. Comparative energy analysis on a new regenerative Brayton cycle.
Energy Convers Manage 2016;120:25–31.
[27] Korakianitis T, Svensson K. Off-design performance of various gas-turbine
cycle and shaft configurations. J Eng Gas Turb Power, Trans ASME
1999;121:649–55.
[28] Kim TS, Hwang SH. Part load performance analysis of recuperated gas turbines
considering engine configuration and operation strategy. Energy
2006;31:260–77.
[29] Hwang SH, Yoon SH, Kim TS. Design and off design characteristics of the
alternative recuperated gas turbine cycle with divided turbine expansion.
Trans ASME J Eng Gas Turb Power 2007;129:428–35.
[30] Kim JH, Kim TS, Song TW. Comparative analysis of off-design performance
characteristics of single and two-shaft industrial gas turbines. J Eng Gas Turb
Power 2003;125:954–60.
[31] Kim TS. Comparative analysis on the part load performance of combined cycle
plants considering design performance and power control strategy. Energy
2004;29:71–85.
[32] Kim TS, Ro ST. The effect of gas turbine coolant modulation on the part load
performance of combined cycle plants – part 1: gas turbines. Proc Inst Mech
Eng Part A 1997;2:443–51.
[33] Barelli L, Ottaviano A. Supercharged gas turbine combined cycle: an
improvement in plant flexibility and efficiency. Energy 2015;81:615–26.
[34] Rovira A, Sánchez C, Munoz M, Valdés M, Duran MD. Thermoeconomic
optimisation of heat recovery steam generators of combined cycle gas turbine
power plants considering off-design operation. Energy Convers Manage
2011;52:1840–9.
[35] Alobaid F, Starkloff R, Pfeiffer S, Karner K, Epple B, Kim HG. A comparative
study of different dynamic process simulation codes for combined cycle power
plants – Part A: Part loads and off-design operation. Fuel 2015;153:692–706.
[36] Benato A, Stoppato A, Bracco S. Combined cycle power plants: a comparison
between two different dynamic models to evaluate transient behaviour and
residual life. Energy Convers Manage 2014;87:1269–80.
[37] Carapellucci R, Giordano L. Studying the effects of combining internal and
external heat recovery on techno-economic performances of gas–steam power
plants. Energy Convers Manage 2016;107:34–42.
[38] Gogoi TK. A combined cycle plant with air and fuel recuperator for captive
power application, Part 1: Performance analysis and comparison with non-
recuperated and gas turbine cycle with only air recuperator. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;79:771–7.
[39] Cao Y, Gao Y, Zheng Y, Dai Y. Optimum design and thermodynamic analysis of
a gas turbine and ORC combined cycle with recuperators. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;116:32–41.
[40] Fan QG. Boiler Principle. 1st ed. Beijing: China Electric Power Press; 2008. p.
2–21 [in Chinese].
[41] Weitzel PS. Steam generator for advanced ultra-supercritical power plants 700
to 760c. In: ASME 2011 power conference. Colorado (USA): Denver. p. 281–91.
[42] Muir DE, Saravanamuttoo HIH, Marshall DJ. Health monitoring of variable
geometry gas turbines for the Canadian Navy. J Eng Gas Turb Power
1989;111:244–50.
[43] Howell AR, Bonham RP. Overall and stage characteristics of axial flow
compressors. Inst Mech Eng 1950;163:235–48.
[44] Herzke K. Describe the erratic behavior of gas turbines by simulation models
Dissertation. Germany: University of Hannover; 1983 [in Germen].
[45] Zhang SZ. Polynomial expressions of thermodynamic properties of the
products of combustion of fuel with air. J Eng Thermophys 1980;1:10–6 [in
Chinese].
[46] Zhang LL. Modeling and performance analysis for coal gas fired gas turbine
Master degree Thesis. Beijing, China: Department of Chinese Academy of
Sciences (Institute of Engineering Thermophysics); 2010 [in Chinese].
[47] GUIDE G U S. Gatecycle for windows, version 5.32.0.rÓ1989-1999 GE Software
LLC.
[48] Jonsson M, Bolland O, Bücker D, Rost M. Gas turbine cooling model for
evaluation of novel cycles. In: Proc ECOS. p. 20–2.
[49] Lu SG, Lin RM. Gas turbine steady-state design and off-design characteristic
general model. Inst Eng Thermophys 1996;17:404–7 [in Chinese].
[50] Palmer CA, Erbes MR, Pechtl PA. Gate cycle performance analysis of the
LM2500 gas turbine utilizing low heating values. IGTI ASME Cogen-Turbo
1993;8:69–76.
[51] Cui N. Study and application on real-time dynamic simulation model for
heavy-duty gas turbine combined cycle power unit PhD thesis. Baoding,
China: North China Electric Power University; 2008 [in Chinese].
[52] Wang HZ. The Method of the S109FA unit‘s operation about Deeply Unloading
in the abnormal working conditions Master degree Thesis. Guangzhou,
China: South China University of Technology; 2010 [in Chinese].
[53] Zhong FY. Gas turbine design foundation. 1st ed. Beijing: China Machine Press;
1987 [in Chinese].
[54] Kim JH, Song TW, Kim TS. Model development and simulation of transient
behavior heavy duty gas turbines. J Eng Gas Turb Power 2001;123:589–94.