Anda di halaman 1dari 18

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270285107

Parametric based thermo-environmental and


exergoeconomic analyses of a combined cycle
power plant with regression analysis and
optimization
ARTICLE in ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT MARCH 2015
Impact Factor: 4.38 DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.033

READS

152

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Abdul Ghafoor Memon

Rizwan Memon

Mehran University of Engineering and Tech

19 PUBLICATIONS 282 CITATIONS

8 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Khanji Harijan
Mehran University of Engineering and Tech
40 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Abdul Ghafoor Memon


Retrieved on: 28 September 2015

Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management


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

Parametric based thermo-environmental and exergoeconomic


analyses of a combined cycle power plant with regression
analysis and optimization
Abdul Ghafoor Memon a,, Rizwan Ahmed Memon a, Khanji Harijan a, Mohammad Aslam Uqaili b
a
b

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.

for quantifying and localizing the true magnitudes and means of


losses which appears in the forms of exergy destruction and waste
exergy emissions [2]. Additionally, exergoeconomics, which combines exergy analysis with economic principles, can facilitate
improved designs by incorporating the thermodynamic inefciencies and the costs associated with those inefciencies. Ahmadi and
Dincer [3] have performed a parametric study on a gas turbine
power plant to show the effects of various design parameters on
the exergy efciency and total cost. The optimal values of design
parameters obtained in the study showed increases in the exergy
efciency and decrease in the environmental impact. Similarly,
Avval et al. [4] have modeled a regenerative gas turbine power
plant to determine the effects of various operating parameters on
the performance, costs and environmental impact, followed by
an optimization to determine optimal values of objective functions.
Memon et al. [5] have made a comparison between simple and
regenerative gas turbine cycles and reported that the regenerative
cycle is more efcient and cost effective than the simple cycle,
with less CO2 emissions at different operating conditions. Also,
regression model equations are developed which appeared with
a very high coefcient of determination. Ahmadi and Dincer [6]

20

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

Nomenclature
C_
EnE
ex
_
Ex
ExE
h

h
i
j
k
M
_
m
N_
P
Q_
R2
s
T
_
W

cost rate ($/h)


energy efciency (%)
specic exergy ow (kJ/kg)
exergy transfer rate (kW)
exergy efciency (%)
specic enthalpy (kJ/kg)
molar specic enthalpy (kJ/kmol)
discount rate ()
number of carbon ()
number of hydrogen ()
molar mass (kg/kmol)
mass ow rate (kg/s)
molar ow rate (kmol/s)
pressure (MPa)
heat transfer rate (kW)
coefcient of determination (%)
specic entropy (kJ/kg K)
temperature, (K)
power (kW)

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

have performed a thermodynamic and a thermoeconomic study of


a gas turbine based CCPP, which includes optimization of total cost
of production at different fuel prices. The results showed a signicant effect of fuel price on the optimum total cost when different
operating parameters are varied. In the paper by Ahmadi et al.
[7], a CCPP has been analyzed on the basis of exergetic, exergoeconomic and environmental methods, followed by optimization. It is
concluded that the multi-objective optimization provides useful
insights into the trade-offs among various factors for efcient
and cost-effective production. Sanjay [8] has concluded that adoption of multiple pressures and reheating in heat recovery steam
generator (HRSG) of the combined cycle can lead to minimize exergy destruction. A dual pressure CCPP is modeled by Kaviri et al. [9]
for exergy based optimization and parametric study. The results
exhibited that three key operating parameters, namely gas turbine
temperature, pressure ratio and pinch point temperatures have a
signicant effect on exergy efciency and different costs of the
plant, which are considered as the objective functions. Mansouri
et al. [10] studied the effect of HRSG pressure levels on the exergetic performance and economic parameters and reported that an
increase in the pressure levels leads to an increase in the exergy
efciency. Kaviri et al. [11] also conducted a study on an HRSG with
exergoenvironmental optimization and showed that beyond a certain value of inlet gas temperature, the exergetic and environmental benets are reduced. The specic exergy costing (SPECO)

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.

method for exergoeconomic analysis of thermal systems has been


discussed by Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis [12]. The paper demonstrates the importance of including cost associated with the exergy
destruction in total cost of production, and that the SPECO method
can be used effectively in the optimization of thermal systems.
It is, therefore obvious that the exergy and exergoeconomic
analyses have been extensively employed in recent years, in particular to study the CCPPs. In this study, however, along with exergy
and exergoeconomic analyses, it is intended to include multiple
polynomial regression (MPR) analysis. To the best of our knowledge, such an analysis for a CCPP has not been reported previously.
Also, a more rigorous multi-objective optimization process is performed to obtain optimal conditions at different gas turbine outputs. In summary, a CCPP is analyzed by following steps (i) to
develop a thermodynamic model, (ii) to conduct exergy and exergoeconomic analyses with a parametric study in order to investigate the effects of various operating parameters (called as
predictor variables) on the thermo-environmental quantities and
costs (called as response variables), (iii) to develop regression models and (iv) to perform optimization. To model the plant, the EES
(Engineering Equation Solver) software [13] is used, which is a
numerical solver with built-in thermodynamic and mathematical
functions. Firstly, the model is validated by comparing the
simulated results with measured values. To investigate the effects
of operating parameters, four important thermo-environmental

21

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

_ 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.

2.2. Combustion chamber


An energy balance of combustion chamber yields

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

kCH4 0:7748 N2 0:2059 O2 0:0003 CO2 0:019 H2 O


 aN N2 aO O2 aCO CO2 aH O H2 O
! 1 k
2

0:7748
0:2059  2k
0:0003 k
; aO2
; aCO2
;


1k
1 k
1k
0:019 2k

1 k

2. Thermo-environmental modeling and assumptions

aN2

In this section, energy, exergy and CO2 emission analyses are


performed to evaluate the performance of a CCPP and possible
environmental impacts. It is worth mentioning here that the
impact of energy resource utilization in the CCPP is best understood by considering exergy analysis as an investigative tool. As
exhibited in Fig. 1, exergy analysis can measure the quantity of true
energy losses and identify its location, which is impossible to recognize with the help of energy analysis alone. Exergy analysis also
serves as an excellent basis for economic analysis, known as exergoeconomic analysis, which follows next in Section 3.
The schematic view of the CCPP under study is shown in Fig. 2.
Such system is adopted from the combined cycle power station situated in Kotri, 150 km north of Karachi, Pakistan. The total capacity
of the plant is 144 MW, consisting of four GT units of 25 MW each,
combined with one 44 MW ST bottoming cycle via four HRSGs. Following are the thermodynamic model equations applied to plant
components and the CCPP as a whole.

aH2 O

The mass fraction of each constituent of the combustion gas is


given by

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

The exergy destruction rate in the combustion chamber is given


as

_ D;CC Ex
_ 2 Ex
_ F  Ex
_3
Ex

2.1. Air compressor


2.3. Gas turbine
The energy balance of air compressor produces

_ AC m
_ a h2  h1
W

The compressed air temperature, with the inlet condition of


1 atm and T1 or CIT, is given as

T2 T1 

T 1 1  PR

ca 1
ca

i
2

gAC

The exergy destruction rate in air compressor is given by

_ D;AC W
_ AC Ex
_ 1  Ex
_2
Ex

An application of energy balance to gas turbine gives

_ 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

Fig. 1. Comparison between energy analysis and exergy analysis.

11

22

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

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

To/From other GT-units

10

19

ST

Fig. 2. Schematic view of combined cycle power plant (CCPP).

_ 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

The total exergy destruction rate for HRSGs is given as

_ 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

2.6.2. Overall CCPP


The net power output produced is determined from:

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

The exergy loss due to stack is determined from

_ 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

Here, the fuel exergy is approximated from the following relation


[9]



0:0169 k 0:0698
LHVf ; j 1; k 4
1:033

j
j

2.5. Steam turbine

exf

An application of energy balance to the steam turbine yields ST


power output as follows

The energy efciency and exergy efciency are determined


from:

_ ST m
_ s h9  h10
W

EnECCPP

_ CCPP
W
_
Q in;CCPP

30

ExECCPP

_ CCPP
W
_ in;CCPP
Ex

31

19

and exergy balance yields

_ D;ST Ex
_ 9  Ex
_ 10  W
_ ST
Ex

20

2.6. Steam condenser


The rate of cooling, mass ow rate of cooling water and exergy
destruction are respectively determined by the following equations

29

Using Eq. (6), the CO2 emissions in kg/MWh power produced


can be calculated from:

ECO2 ;CCPP

_ CO2
m
 1000
_ net
W

32

23

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

To carry out the analysis, several simplifying assumptions are


made, which are as under:
 Steady-state processes by all system components.
 Air and combustion products behave like an ideal gas with constant specic heat ratios as 1.4 and 1.35 respectively.
 Negligible change in kinetic energy/exergy and potential
energy/exergy in uid streams.
 Dead-state condition is at 1 atm and 298 K.
 Pressure drop in the combustion chamber is 5%.
 No heat transfer in system components, except combustion
chamber and HRSG.
 Heat transfer from the combustion chamber is 2% of LHV of fuel.
 Heat loss from HRSG is 2%.
 GT exhaust and superheated steam temperature difference is
30 K.
 Cooling water temperature difference is 15 K.
3. Exergoeconomic analysis

Component
name

Exergy cost rate balance


equations

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

4C_ 4 C_ 12 4z_ HRSG C_ 9 4C_ 8

1. Identication of exergy streams related to each component.


2. Denition of fuel and product for each component. The product
is what we desire from a component in terms of exergy, and the
fuel is the required exergy to generate the product [15]. Table 1
exhibits the denitions of fuel and producing for each plant
component shown in Fig. 1.
3. Application of cost balance for each component. The cost balance applied to the jth component states that the sum of cost
rates associated with all exiting exergy streams equals the
sum of cost rates of all entering exergy streams plus the cost
rate associated with the capital investment and operating maintenance costs, z_ j [14] as

X
X
_j
C_ e;j C_ w;j
C_ i;j C_ q;j z_ j ; C_ j cj Ex

33

The operating and maintenance costs of each component in $/s


are determined from

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_ D;j cF;j E_ D;j

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

Here, C_ f is the fuel cost rate of the plant and is given as

_ 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

Product exergy rate (kW)

CP

35

where i is the discount rate (taken as 14%) and n is the total


operating period of the plant (taken as 15 years). In this paper, PECs
are estimated by using the cost functions adopted from the recently
published literature [4,1517]. The constants used in these cost
functions may be different due to variation in Dollar price, but in
the parametric-based exergoeconomic analysis, the results of variation in the equipment capital cost with a change in the operating
parameters will show the same behavior. Therefore, in some recent
papers similar cost functions are adopted from the works appeared
even in the late 1960s [18,19].
Using Eq. (33), the cost balances for each component are determined and listed in Table 2 along with auxiliary equations
obtained from the F- and P-rules of the SPECO method.
In Eq. (33), term related to the cost of exergy destruction is not
dened explicitly. The cost ow rate associated with the exergy
destruction in the jth component (C_ D;j ) can be represented by the
cost of the additional fuel that needs to be supplied to this component to cover the exergy destruction and generate the same prod_ P;j , as
uct, Ex

_ 2  Ex
_ 1
4Ex
_3
4Ex

ST

34

where PECj is the purchasing equipment cost of each component


given in Appendix A, u is the maintenance factor (taken as 1.1), N
is the annualized number of operating hours of the plant (taken
as 7000 h) and CRF is the capital recovery factor dened as the ratio
of a constant annuity to the present value of receiving that annuity
at a discount rate, given as

Fuel exergy rate (kW)

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 

Exergoeconomics is the branch of engineering that combines


exergetic analysis and economic principles to deliver information
that is considered as a crucial aspect for the design and operation
of a cost-effective energy system [14]. Exergoeconomic analysis
addresses the costs of a thermal system associated with exergy
streams and exergy destruction/loss due to process irreversibilities. This type of analysis is especially useful when different types
of energy systems are compared on the scales of performance and
costs.
Among the various approaches available for exergoeconomic
analysis, the SPECO (specic exergy costing) method is adopted
in this paper, which includes following three steps [12]:

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.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

(a)

1.52

CIT (Design) = 288 K, GTIT (Design) = 1198 K, PR


(Design) = 9.5

CIT = 303 K, TIT = 1198 K, PR = 8.5,


PDE = 182 kPa, Pms = 2190 kPa, WGTnet=75200
kW

(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.

4. Results and discussion


4.1. Model verication
The model is veried by comparing the simulated values of fuelto-air ratio (FAR) and temperatures at different locations of HRSG
with the measured values and shown in Fig. 3. According to
Fig. 3(a) average of the difference between the values of FAR for
two GT power outputs is calculated as 1.6%. Similarly, Fig. 3(b)
exhibits an average of the difference between the temperatures
of around 1.8%. This veries the correct performance of the developed model.

4.2. Effects of operating parameters on thermo-environmental


quantities with regression modeling
In this section, the results of the parametric study are discussed
which show the effects of various operating parameters on
thermo-environmental quantities. The MPR models are also discussed which are plotted as sample regression curves and overlaid
in Figs. 47 (red1 in color). These models are used to predict the
effect of various predictor variables (operating parameters) on
response variables (thermo-environmental quantities), provided
that the value of the predictor variables lies within the ranges concerned, as shown in the gures.
Fig. 4(ad) exhibits the variation in thermo-environmental
quantities with respect to CIT and PR. Fig. 4(a) shows that the
net power output decreases with an increase in CIT and PR.
The reason of net power decrease with an increase in CIT is that
the density of intake air decreases at a constant mass ow rate that
increases the compressor work, resulting low net power output
from GT. Notably, there is no signicant effect of CIT on the ST
net power output because the temperature and mass ow rate of
exhaust gas do not change. According to a previous study conducted by the authors of this paper [5], the GT net power increases
with the PR and reaches maximum till PR = 12. This happens due to
the fact that both the compressor and turbine works increases with
PR, but for PR > 12, the increments in the compressor work become
higher than that for turbine work. In bottoming cycle; if the PR
increases the ST net power output decreases because production
of steam decreases due to a decrease in the temperature and mass
ow rate of exhaust gas. Therefore, an increase in the PR causes an
overall decrease in the CCPP net power output.
1
For interpretation of color in Figs. 47, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.

The slope of each contour of the CIT-PR plane represents the


increment required in the PR for each degree drop in the CIT for
the plant to generate a constant power output. These contours
are shown attening as the net power output increases, which suggests that the increment required in PR increases for drop in each
degree in CIT at lower power outputs. Fig. 4(b and c) shows the
effects of CIT and PR on the energy efciency and exergy efciency.
As CIT increases, the efciencies increase only slightly for PR = 4,
however, efciencies tend to decrease when PR increases after 4.
For a given CIT, the efciencies increase with an increase in PR till
it reaches 12, and then start to decrease with subsequent increase
in PR. The reason is that the specic fuel consumption decreases
until PR reaches 12, and then increases as PR increases further.
The contours on the CIT-PR plane get closer as CIT and PR increases,
which indicates that the variation in efciencies is rather signicant at higher CIT and PR values. Fig. 4(d) exhibits the effects of
CIT and PR on CO2 emissions. At PR = 4, the CO2 emission remains
nearly constant as CIT increases, but starts to increase with CIT for
an increase in PR after 4. For a given CIT, the CO2 emissions rst
decrease as PR increases till it reaches 12, and then start to increase
due to an increase in the specic fuel consumption. The variation in
CO2 emission is prominent at higher CIT and PR values.
The effects of CIT and GTIT on the thermo-environmental quantities are shown in Fig. 5(ad). Fig. 5(a) shows that the variation in
net power output with respect to CIT and GTIT is almost linear. At
constant CIT, the net power output increases with GTIT, due to
simultaneous increase in the GT- and ST net power outputs. The
reason that GT net power increases with GTIT is that the ratio of
compressor power input to turbine power output (i.e., back work
ratio) decreases.
Moreover, the temperature and mass ow rate of the exhaust
gas increase with GTIT at a xed GT expansion ratio, which has
resulted in an increase in the mass ow rate of steam, so the ST
net power also increases. Also, the sensitivity of GTIT to CIT for
all power output values looks similar. According to Fig. 5(b and
c), efciencies vary inversely with the CIT and directly with the
GTIT. The increment of efciencies is prominent during the initial
course of the increase in the GTIT, but decreases as the GTIT
increases continuously.
This might be because as GTIT increases, fuel consumption also
increases, which increases the tendency of ill utilization of the fuel
in the combustion chamber. This causes the specic fuel consumption increase more at higher GTIT values. Moreover, the efciencies
increase with the decrease in CIT, which is rather signicant at
lower GTITs. Hence, for efciency improvement through an intake
air cooling method, there should be an optimal value of GTIT at
which the method proves to be most effective. Fig. 5(d) exhibits

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

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

a given set of GTIT-PR values discussed above in the context of


Fig. 6(b and c).
Fig. 7(ad) shows the effects of PP and Pms on the thermo-environmental quantities. Notably, for a given value of PR, the net
power increases as the Pms and reaches a maximum before a
decrease, as shown in Fig. 7(a). This is because the enthalpy of
main steam increases and the mass ow rate decreases with an
increase in the Pms; the diminution in later is higher than the
increase in former during Pms values between 5000 and 6000 kPa.
For a given Pms, the net power output increases with decreasing
PP. This increment, which is rather signicant at lower Pms values,
is due to the larger heat transfer area and therefore larger steam
production capacity with decreasing PP. The variation in these
two operating parameters affects the ST power output without
causing any change in the GT power output, which leads to a very
small change in the net power output of the plant. Since the quantity of fuel supply remains constant during any change in the values of PP and Pms, the trend of variation in energy and exergy
efciencies with respect to PP and Pms is nearly similar to that in
the net power output, as demonstrated in Fig. 7(b and c). Similarly,
since the variation in efciencies is very small with a change in PP
and Pms, the CO2 emissions also follow a similar trend, as shown in
Fig. 7(d).

26

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

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).

In Figs. 815, the variability in cost rates associated with exergy


destruction and capital investment of the plant components, fuel
cost and total cost are plotted against the operating parameters.
These gures exhibit a common observation that the combustion
chamber carries a major share in the total exergy destruction cost,
followed by air compressor, gas turbine, HRSG and steam turbine.
The irreversibilities associated with the chemical reaction and heat
transfer across the large temperature differences are the main
reasons behind the signicant exergy destruction in the combustion chamber. These results are consistent with those reported in
[2,5,7].
Fig. 8 shows the variation in different costs with respect to gAC.
It is evident from this gure that the total cost decreases as the gAC
increases, reaches a minimum at around 0.9, and then starts to
increase. This is because for gAC > 0.9, the capital cost would be
higher than the savings from fuel cost and the exergy destruction
cost begins to rise. The rise in capital cost is a result of the drastic
rise of capital cost for air compressor. The capital cost of other
components decreases with gAC. The exergy destruction cost
decreases with an increase in gAC, however, the same increases
as soon as gAC goes beyond 0.92.
Fig. 9 shows the effect of gGT on different costs. The total cost
decreases with an increase in gGT, which is more pronounced at
lower gGT values. In this diminution, the fuel and exergy

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

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).

destruction costs of the plant play a major role. In particular, the


decrease in the exergy destruction cost of the gas turbine and
the combustion chamber is more drastic than that for the other
components. This decrease in exergy destruction cost is mainly
due to a decrease in the exergy destruction in these components.
The total capital cost decreases with gGT but due to a severe
increase in the capital cost of gas turbine for gGT > 0.9, it starts to
increase at a signicant rate.
Fig. 10 exhibits the effect of GTIT on the costs of the plant components. It can be seen in this gure that the total cost decreases as
the GTIT increases, rather signicantly from 1000 to 1500 K, primarily due to a decrease in the overall exergy destruction. Notably,
a drastic increase in the total cost occurs when GTIT rises beyond
1500 K, only due to steeper rise in the ST capital cost. Actually,
the ST capital cost varies directly with its power output capacity
and exponentially with the main steam temperature (see Eq.
(A.8)). Both these quantities increase with an increase in the GTIT.
Specically if the function in Eq. (A.8) is plotted for GTIT between
1500 and 1600 K, PEC rises exponentially from US$1.089E+07 to
US$1.823E+09. This is actually the main reason behind the abrupt
increase in the ST capital cost. Moreover, the capital cost of CC and
GT rst decreases as the GTIT increases. However, the capital cost
of CC and GT increase once the GTIT crosses the temperature of
1500 K. Actually; the capital cost of both these components varies

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

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

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

increases. As the Pms increases, saturation temperature of the main


steam increases, which causes a decrease in the temperature difference for heat transfer in the evaporator. This decreases the exergy destruction in the HRSG, and thereby its associated cost. At
higher Pms values, the material strength of HRSG needs to be
improved, which causes a proportional rise in its capital cost. For
this reason, the capital cost of the plant increases with Pms.
Fig. 14 elucidates the effect of gST on the costs, according to
which total cost decreases only slightly with an increase in gST. This
is due to a simultaneous increase in the capital cost and decrease in
the exergy destruction cost, while the latter is more pronounced.
The increase in the total capital cost is mainly due to increase
in the ST capital cost of making it exergy efcient, which alternately decreases its exergy destruction cost.
Fig. 15 exhibits a small increase in the total cost with respect to
PCND. As PCND increases, the ST power output decreases, which lead
to a decrease in the capital cost of ST. The increase in PCND is also
accompanied with a signicant rise in the exergy destruction cost
of the condenser, which is the only reason of increase in the exergy
destruction cost and total cost of the plant.
The results discussed so far have broader implications on application decisions and policy making for an increase in efciency,

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935


Table 3
Multiple polynomial regression models (coefcients are rounded off to two signicant digits).
_ a 1 kg=s
Response variable = f (predictor variables), m
_ CCPP 7:88E 04 3:11E 02  CIT  2:03E 00  CIT 2 1:06E  06  CIT 3 1:34E 01  TIT  4:64E  03
W
TIT 2 2:12E  07  TIT 3  3:73E 01  PR 9:39E  01  PR2 5:30E  03  PR3  3:54E 03  PP  5:02E 01
PP 2 3:58E  04  PP 3 6:31E 00  P ms  1:12E  03  P 2ms 2:68E  10  P 3ms  8:86E  02  CIT  TIT 3:61E
05  CIT  TIT 2  4:40E  01  CIT  PR 6:50E  03  CIT  PR2 5:47E  01  CIT  PP  2:07E  01  CIT  PP2 
5:48E  02  CIT  P ms 3:49E  06  CIT  P 2ms 1:49E  04  CIT 2  TIT  6:04E  08  CIT 2  TIT 2 1:96E  05
CIT 2  PR  3:31E  06  CIT 2  PR2 4:06E  02  CIT 2  PP 1:33E  03  CIT 2  PP2 1:11E  04  CIT 2  P ms
1:57E  09  CIT 2  P 2ms 1:59E  01  TIT  PR  3:43E  03  TIT  PR2 3:01E  02  TIT  PP  7:66E  04
TIT  PP2 3:13E  04  TIT  P ms  2:05E  08  TIT  P 2ms  4:20E  05  TIT 2  PR 9:85E  07  TIT 2  PR2 
1:26E  05  TIT 2  PP 3:21E  07  TIT 2  PP2  9:21E  08  TIT 2  P ms 7:04E  12  TIT 2  P 2ms 4:31E  02
PR  PP  8:03E  04  PR  PP2  2:94E  03  PR  P ms 1:17E  07  PR  P 2ms  9:22E  04  PR2  PP 1:88E
05  PR2  PP2 4:00E  05  PR2  P ms  1:57E  09  PR2  P 2ms 9:04E  04  PP  P ms  7:81E  08  PP  P 2ms 
2:83E  05  PP 2  P ms 2:24E  09  PP2  P 2ms ; R2 0:9999
EnECCPP 9:543E 03 2:44E 01  CIT  2:01E  01  CIT 2  2:42E  06  CIT 3 1:34E 00  TIT  6:82E
04  TIT 2 1:06E  07  TIT 3  4:13E 00  PR  2:19E  01  PR2 4:88E  04  PR3  3:84E 02  PP  4:72E
00  PP2 1:86E  05  PP 3 3:63E  01  P ms  1:04E  04  P 2ms 9:24E  12  P 3ms  7:88E  03  CIT  TIT
2:64E  06  CIT  TIT 2  4:62E  02  CIT  PR 1:53E  03  CIT  PR2 5:03E  02  CIT  PP  1:50E  02
CIT  PP2  4:44E  03  CIT  P ms 3:32E  07  CIT  P 2ms 1:69E  05  CIT 2  TIT  5:67E  09  CIT 2  TIT 2
7:15E  05  CIT 2  PR  2:68E  06  CIT 2  PR2 4:45E  03  CIT 2  PP 1:08E  04  CIT 2  PP 2 1:09E  05
CIT 2  P ms 1:147E  10  CIT 2  P 2ms 1:69E  02  TIT  PR  7:79E  05  TIT  PR2  5:13E  04  TIT  PP
2:80E  05  TIT  PP2 1:72E  05  TIT  P ms  6:39E  10  TIT  P 2ms  5:67E  06  TIT 2  PR 3:29E  08
TIT 2  PR2 2:38E  07  TIT 2  PP  1:07E  08  TIT 2  PP 2  5:43E  09  TIT 2  P ms 1:98E  13  TIT 2  P 2ms
1:06E  02  PR  PP  2:96E  04  PR  PP2  5:98E  06  PR  P ms  3:18E  09  PR  P 2ms  2:25E  04  PR2 
PP 5:76E  06  PR2  PP 2  4:59E  07  PR2  P ms 7:92E  11  PR2  P 2ms 1:33E  05  PP  P ms  9:39E
10  PP  P 2ms  4:32E  07  PP 2  P ms 2:59E  11  PP2  P 2ms ; R2 0:9983
ExECCPP 1:00E 04 2:28E 01  CIT  2:01E  01  CIT 2  2:37E  06  CIT 3 1:32E 00  TIT  6:70E  04
TIT 2 1:02E  07  TIT 3  4:02E 00  PR  2:11E  01  PR2 4:74E  04  PR3  4:19E 02  PP  4:71E 00
PP 2 1:79E  05  PP 3 3:73E  01  P ms  9:75E  05  P 2ms 8:95E  12  P 3ms  7:78E  03  CIT  TIT 2:61E
06  CIT  TIT 2  4:47E  02  CIT  PR 1:48E  03  CIT  PR2  9:21E  03  CIT  PP  1:12E  02  CIT  PP 2 
4:10E  03  CIT  P ms 3:11E  07  CIT  P 2ms 1:66E  05  CIT 2  TIT  5:59E  09  CIT 2  TIT 2 6:91E  05
CIT 2  PR  2:58E  06  CIT 2  PR2 5:09E  03  CIT 2  PP 9:57E  05  CIT 2  PP2 9:61E  06  CIT 2  P ms
9:87E  11  CIT 2  P 2ms 1:64E  02  TIT  PR  7:54E  05  TIT  PR2  4:93E  04  TIT  PP 2:70E  05
TIT  PP2 1:67E  05  TIT  P ms  6:23E  10  TIT  P 2ms  5:50E  06  TIT 2  PR 3:190E  08  TIT 2  PR2
2:29E  07  TIT 2  PP  1:03E  08  TIT 2  PP2  5:27E  09  TIT 2  P ms 1:93E  13  TIT 2  P 2ms 1:03E  02
PR  PP  2:88E  04  PR  PP 2  5:57E  06  PR  P ms  3:11E  09  PR  P 2ms  2:19E  04  PR2  PP 5:62E
06  PR2  PP2  4:50E  07  PR2  P ms 7:74E  11  PR2  P 2ms 1:31E  05  PP  P ms  9:30E  10  PP  P 2ms 
4:23E  07  PP 2  P ms 2:56E  11  PP2  P 2ms ; R2 0:9983
ECO2 CCPP 9:40E 05  2:77E 03  CIT 2:09E 01  CIT 2 1:93E  04  CIT 3  1:58E 02  TIT 6:37E
02  TIT 2  3:62E  06  TIT 3  5:01E 01  PR 8:38E 00  PR2  3:71E  03  PR3 4:21E 04  PP 5:43E
02  PP2  4:75E  04  PP3  5:92E 01  P ms 1:123E  02  P 2ms  1:55E  10  P 3ms 1:03E 00  CIT  TIT
3:64E  04  CIT  TIT 2 1:89E 00  CIT  PR  5:67E  02  CIT  PR2  7:53E 00  CIT  PP 1:028E 00
CIT  PP2 5:45E  01  CIT  P ms  3:60E  05  CIT  P 2ms  1:85E  03  CIT 2  TIT 6:56E  07  CIT 2  TIT 2 
3:11E  03  CIT 2  PR 9:67E  05  CIT 2  PR2  4:82E  01  CIT 2  PP  1:01E  02  CIT 2  PP 2  1:17E  03
CIT 2  P ms  1:03E  08  CIT 2  P 2ms  3:41E  01  TIT  PR 7:27E  04  TIT  PR2  6:67E  03  TIT  PP
5:73E  04  TIT  PP2  4:78E  04  TIT  P ms 1:95E  08  TIT  P 2ms 1:21E  04  TIT 2  PR  4:39E  07
TIT 2  PR2 1:11E  06  TIT 2  PP 2:25E  07  TIT 2  PP 2 1:62E  07  TIT 2  P ms  6:55E  12  TIT 2  P 2ms 
4:12E  01  PR  PP 1:059E  02  PR  PP 2  1:28E  03  PR  P ms 1:64E  07  PR  P 2ms 8:52E  03  PR2 
PP  2:10E  04  PR2  PP2 3:14E  05  PR2  P ms  3:40E  09  PR2  P 2ms  6:47E  04  PP  P ms 4:31E
08  PP  P 2ms 1:49E  05  PP 2  P ms  8:58E  10  PP2  P 2ms ; R2 0:9872
_ GT;net range from 50 to 100 MW)
Response variable = f (predictor variables), (for W
_ GTnet  1:50E  06  W
_ 2
_ 3
_ 4
_ CCPP 7:25E 06 1:40E 00  W
W
GTnet 2:06E  11  W GTnet  1:39E  16  W GTnet
_ 5
1:02E 05  CIT  5:11E 02  CIT 2 1:20E 00  CIT 3  1:27E  03  CIT 4 4:30E  07
3:72E  22  W
GTnet

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

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

minimization of emissions and cost of power generation. More


specically, the exergy based analyses have provided more insights
into the best directions for research and development effort
because of their ability to represent true losses (exergy loss/
destruction) which are impossible to be recognized by energy analysis alone. For instance, the energy loss from the combustion
chamber is taken only 2% of LHV of the fuel in this study, while
by virtue of exergy analysis, the exergy destruction in the combustion chamber carries a major share of the total exergy loss of the
plant and thus incurred maximum exergy destruction cost (more
than 50% of total). Similarly, the condenser is usually responsible
for major energy loss of the plant, but exergy destruction remains
below 5% of total in each case discussed. Therefore, improvement
potential in the combustion chamber is the highest amongst all
other components. Furthermore, the developed MPR models can
be used to interpolate a response variable with given predictor
variables at the plant site for effective control and optimization
of the processes.

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

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest 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

Air compressor isentropic eciency (AC ) [-]

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

Gas turbine isentropic eciency (GT ) [-]


Fig. 9. The effects of gGT on different costs of the plant.

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

HRSG
Exergy Dest cost

Costs [$/h]

Fig. 8. The effects of gAC on different costs of the plant.

0.92

GT
CC
AC
C_T
C_f

31

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

DE
P
CND
ST

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

12

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Capital cost

Costs [$/h]

Fig. 10. The effects of GTIT on different costs of the plant.

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

GT
CC
AC
C_T
C_f

Air compressor pressure rao (PR) [-]

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

DE
P
CND
ST

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Capital cost

Costs [$/h]

Fig. 11. The effects of PR on different costs of the plant.

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

27.5

30

GT
CC
AC
C_T
C_f

Pinch point temperature dierence (PP) [K]


Fig. 12. The effects of PP on different costs of the plant.

condition corresponding to GTIT = 1500 K arrives, afterwards,


total cost starts to rise. At GT power output of 50 MW, the rise
in the total cost, for a range of GTIT values from 1500 to
1600 K is rather steeper, i.e., 110 $/h, with a very small increase
in the exergy efciency, i.e., 0.68%. Therefore, the best design
point at 50 MW corresponds when GTIT = 1500 K. At this optimal
condition, the maximum exergy efciency and the minimum total
cost are 56.52% and 2160.4 $/h, respectively. However, at 70 and

90 MW, a small increase in the total cost yields a moderate


increase in the exergy efciency in the same range of GTIT. The
increment in the maximum exergy efciency in this range is
nearly same for both power outputs, i.e., 1.9%, while the increment in the minimum total cost is around 103 $/h at 70 MW
and 88 $/h at 90 MW. Therefore, in this case, it is useful to consider the exergy efciency when GTIT values are between 1500
and 1600 K. These results are consistent with those appeared in

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

DE
P
CND
ST

2000

3000

4000

5000

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

HRSG
Exergy Dest cost

Costs [$/h]

32

6000

GT
CC
AC
C_T

7000

C_f

Main steam pressure (Pms)[kPa]


Fig. 13. The effects of Pms on different costs of the plant.

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

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost

GT
CC
AC
C_T

0.92

C_f

Steam turbine isentropic eciency (ST) [-]

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

DE
P
CND
ST

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

Exergy Dest cost


Capital cost

HRSG
Exergy Dest cost
Capital cost

Costs [$/h]

Fig. 14. The effects of gST on different costs of the plant.

GT

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

C_f

CC
AC
C_T

Condenser pressure (PCND)[kPa]


Fig. 15. The effects of PCND on different costs of the plant.

[7], where genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization


technique has been performed on the CCPP.
The methodology and results in this study may have wideranging impacts on the power generation industry in Pakistan,
in particular and worldwide, in general. In the light of this
study, it seems necessary to use exergy based analysis, multiobjective optimization and regression modeling for a reliable,
efcient, cost-effective and environmentally-friendly power

generation in Pakistan. One of the main application areas could


be industrial sector with annual electricity consumption of
22 GWh, i.e., around 30% of the total consumption [1]. Due to
the prevalence of unreliable and costly power supply in the
country, many industries have already went on generating their
own power to avert any huge productivity loss. These captive
power plants have greater energy savings potential because of
occurrence of negligible distribution losses and emergence of

33

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935


Table 4
Bound constraints of optimization process.
Operating
parameter

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)

cogeneration processes, which may be effectively assessed by


the methods outlined in this study.
Similarly, other energy areas for applying the methodology
presented in this study are refrigeration, air conditioning,
desalination, renewable energy and energy storage systems
[2126]. Investigating these important systems based on the
methodology presented in this paper may help engineers and
researchers identify the real thermodynamic losses with their
associated costs. Moreover, with the methods of MPR modeling
and multi-objective optimization presented in this paper,
performance parameters and environmental impact can be
estimated and optimized for a cost effective and sustainable
production.

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)

Objective function maximized

Optimal operating parameters

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 ()

Objective function minimized

Optimal operating parameters

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

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

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

ring in HRSG, (iv) integrating a low-temperature power cycle for


any additional waste heat recovery, like organic cycle or Kalina
cycle and (v) integrating a heating and/or cooling systems (cogeneration). Moreover, the MPR models can be further processed to
examine the signicance of each predictor variable for generation
of uncomplicated models.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the authorities of Mehran
University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan for
their support to carry out the current work.
Appendix A
Purchasing Equipment Cost (PEC) of different plant components
are given as under [4,1517]:

PEC AC

44:71  mair  PR  lnPR


0:95  gs;AC

1 exp0:015  GTIT  23:1


 
0:995  PP32
 
P3
PEC GT 301:45  mgas  ln
P4
1 exp0:025  GTIT  39:25

0:94  gs;GT
!0:8
X
Q_ i
PEC HRSG 4131:8 
f p;i  f T;steam;i  f T;gas;i
LMTDi
i
X
_ steam;j 1489:7  mgas 1:2
13; 380 
f p;j  m
PEC CC 28:98  mair 

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

A.G. Memon et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 92 (2015) 1935

PEC CND 280:74 

Q_ CND
_ cw 70:5  Q_ CND
746  m
k  LMTDCND

 0:6936  lnT cw  T wb 2:1898;


k 2200 W=m2 K
PEC PUMP 705:48  1

0:2
_ 0:71
W
PUMP
1  gs;PUMP

PEC DE 145315  msteam 0:7

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.