Electromagnetism

© All Rights Reserved

8 tayangan

Electromagnetism

© All Rights Reserved

- Dunkerque Project Sheet (Alstom and Standardkessel)
- Sustainability
- degradation
- PDD_47420_11
- brief3_tcm18-25924
- PhD Thesis Guide for Quantitative Data Analysis 6
- The Unscrambler X v10.3 - User Manual
- ASME 3977-2-2000 Gas Turbines - Std Ref
- P List Generator&Panel 1908115
- Low Grade Waste Heat Recovery for Optimized Energy Efficiencies and Enhanced Sustainability in Process Industries a Comprehensive Review
- Electricity Transmission Code - Ver 2-Rev 1-27-04-2016
- EIB 504 Course Outline
- Once Through
- 6f01-fact-sheet.pdf
- sdarticle
- ATTExergydefinitionconcept.ppt
- Investment, Overhang, And Tax Policy
- 1
- turbine-dir.pdf
- 991e37fabbb0a51f399dc3934a6f0a76eecd.pdf

Anda di halaman 1dari 18

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

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

8 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Khanji Harijan

Mehran University of Engineering and Tech

40 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Retrieved on: 28 September 2015

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

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.

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

Nomenclature

C_

EnE

ex

_

Ex

ExE

h

h

i

j

k

M

_

m

N_

P

Q_

R2

s

T

_

W

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

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.

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

_ 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.

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

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

aN2

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

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

as

_ D;CC Ex

_ 2 Ex

_ F Ex

_3

Ex

2.3. Gas turbine

The energy balance of air compressor produces

_ AC m

_ a h2 h1

W

1 atm and T1 or CIT, is given as

T2 T1

T 1 1 PR

ca 1

ca

i

2

gAC

_ D;AC W

_ AC Ex

_ 1 Ex

_2

Ex

_ GT m

_ g h3 h4

W

10

With inlet combustion gas temperature T3 or GTIT and outlet pressure 1 atm, the outlet temperature is determined from

3

cgc1

g

P

4

5g

T 4 T 3 T 3 41

GT

P3

The exergy destruction rate of gas turbine is given as

11

22

Fuel

Stack

8

LPE

HRSG

Air

DE

CC

HPE

AC

14

15

12

13

HPD

EV

GT

FWP

CP

16

11

18

SH

Cooling

water

CND

17

10

19

ST

_ D;GT Ex

_ 3 Ex

_ 4W

_ GT

Ex

12

2.4. HRSG

By applying energy balance to the HRSG, the combustion gas

and water/steam properties are calculated by solving the following

equations simultaneously

_s

m

_ g h4 h5 1 HLHRSG

Superheater :

h17 h16 m

4

_s

m

_ g h5 h6 1 HLHRSG

Evaporator :

h16 h15 m

4

_s

m

_ g h6 h7 1 HLHRSG

High pressure economizer :

h15 h14 m

4

_s

m

_ g h7 h8 1 HLHRSG

Low pressure economizer :

h13 h12 m

4

13

14

15

16

_ D;HRSG

Ex

"

#

_ 12 Ex

_ 13 Ex

_ 14

Ex

_

_

_

4

Ex17 Ex4 Ex8

4

17

_ CP m

_ FWP m

_ s h12 h11 ; W

_ s h14 h13

W

_

_

_

_

_

_ FWP Ex

_ 14 Ex

_ 13

ExD;CP W CP Ex12 Ex11 ; ExD;FWP W

22

23

24

25

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

_ 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

[9]

0:0169 k 0:0698

LHVf ; j 1; k 4

1:033

j

j

exf

power output as follows

from:

_ ST m

_ s h9 h10

W

EnECCPP

_ CCPP

W

_

Q in;CCPP

30

ExECCPP

_ CCPP

W

_ in;CCPP

Ex

31

19

_ D;ST Ex

_ 9 Ex

_ 10 W

_ ST

Ex

20

The rate of cooling, mass ow rate of cooling water and exergy

destruction are respectively determined by the following equations

29

can be calculated from:

ECO2 ;CCPP

_ CO2

m

1000

_ net

W

32

23

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

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

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

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_ T C_ f

_ 3 Ex

_ 4

4Ex

_ 8

_ 4 Ex

4Ex

_ GT

4W

_ 13 Ex

_ 12 4Ex

_ 15 Ex

_ 14

Ex

_ 16 Ex

_ 15 4Ex

_ 17 Ex

_ 16

4Ex

_ 9 Ex

_ 10

Ex

_ 10 Ex

_ 11

Ex

_ CP

W

_ ST

W

_ 19 Ex

_ 18

Ex

_ 12 Ex

_ 11

Ex

_ 13 Ex

_ 12

Ex

DE

FWP

_ 8

_ 7 Ex

4Ex

_ FWP

W

_ 14 Ex

_ 13

Ex

36

where cF,j is the levelized fuel cost and E_ D;j is the exergy destruction

rate of jth component.

The total cost rate of the CCPP is now dened as

CP

35

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

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

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

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)

1.52

(Design) = 9.5

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.

4.1. 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.

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.

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

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

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

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).

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

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).

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

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

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,

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

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

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

HRSG

Exergy Dest cost

Costs [$/h]

The main objective of optimization is to nd the values of operating parameters that result in a maximum or minimum of a function, called the objective function. Two objective functions for

optimization are considered here, namely exergy efciency (to be

maximized) and total cost rate (to be minimized). In this study, a

multi-objective optimization is employed mainly to deal with a

contemplating issue of thermodynamic benets against incremental costs. The Nelder-Mead simplex method is adopted for the

GT

CC

AC

C_T

0.94

C_f

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

DE

P

CND

ST

0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

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

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

HRSG

Exergy Dest cost

Costs [$/h]

0.92

GT

CC

AC

C_T

C_f

31

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

DE

P

CND

ST

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

12

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

HRSG

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Costs [$/h]

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

GT

CC

AC

C_T

C_f

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

DE

P

CND

ST

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

HRSG

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Costs [$/h]

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

27.5

30

GT

CC

AC

C_T

C_f

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

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

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

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

DE

P

CND

ST

2000

3000

4000

5000

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

HRSG

Exergy Dest cost

Costs [$/h]

32

6000

GT

CC

AC

C_T

7000

C_f

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

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

GT

CC

AC

C_T

0.92

C_f

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

DE

P

CND

ST

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

Capital cost

HRSG

Exergy Dest cost

Capital cost

Costs [$/h]

GT

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

C_f

CC

AC

C_T

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

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

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

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)

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)

33.43

34.69

35.34

39.86

39.96

40.96

44.72

45.08

45.41

48.81

49.03

49.17

50.99

51.74

52.31

54.04

55.00

55.11

56.52

57.42

57.46

57.20

59.36

59.38

288.00

292.19

288.09

288.00

288.00

288.00

320.46

288.00

288.00

303.92

288.74

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

290.09

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

289.22

288.00

4.00

4.00

4.85

7.48

6.85

7.38

8.44

10.21

10.79

12.66

13.75

13.92

18.43

15.99

18.23

21.97

26.96

24.41

29.28

28.62

31.48

20.75

24.44

25.64

C_ T ($/h)

CIT (K)

PR ()

4128.15

6349.89

8038.26

3468.93

4838.10

6215.48

3024.34

4215.25

5409.46

2661.27

3690.40

4730.75

2462.12

3362.93

4262.16

2295.64

3078.46

3931.56

2160.41

2891.91

3701.28

2270.60

2994.61

3789.08

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

294.02

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

288.00

318.38

302.44

289.86

Table 6

Optimization results for minimum total cost rate.

GTIT (K)

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

_ GTnet (kW)

W

50,000

70,000

90,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

50,000

70,000

90,000

6.52

6.17

5.76

9.04

9.12

9.11

11.03

11.27

11.19

12.77

12.48

12.33

15.69

14.01

15.12

18.85

17.61

16.84

15.74

20.46

14.12

15.69

25.94

20.22

0.9195

0.9103

0.9125

0.9133

0.9135

0.9131

0.9050

0.9056

0.9072

0.8994

0.9010

0.9011

0.8966

0.9007

0.8971

0.8582

0.8881

0.8902

0.8500

0.8922

0.8903

0.9118

0.9100

0.8902

34

Fig. 16. Optimal exergy efciency and total cost with respect to GTIT at various GT outputs.

5. Conclusion

A comprehensive study of a gas turbine based combined cycle

power plant (CCPP) has been conducted. Firstly, model is developed

and results were veried by comparing them with the measured

data, followed by parametric study to show the effects of various

operating parameters on the thermo-environmental quantities.

The results showed that the quantities like net power output, energy

efciency and exergy efciency, increase while CO2 emissions

decrease with a decrease in the CIT, an increase in the GTIT and an

increase in the PR in some initial values. There was an insignicant

effect of PP and Pms on these quantities. Furthermore, these quantities were regressed against operating parameters to develop MPR

models. Satisfactory R2 values were obtained for each model. These

models can be used to determine a response variable for giving predictor variables so that the thermo-environmental quantities of

actual plant can be estimated. Moreover, the exergoeconomic analysis was performed to determine total cost of plant generation,

which consists of fuel cost and capital and exergy destruction costs

of the individual plant components. The effects of various operating

parameters on the equipment costs and the total cost were assessed.

According to the results, improvement in the isentropic efciency of

the rotating components leads to a decrease in the total cost of the

plant. Also, on the basis of parametric study, the total cost decreases

with an increase in the GTIT and an increase in the PR in its some initial values. The effects of PP, Pms and PCND on the total cost were negligible. The combustion chamber incurs the greatest exergy

destruction cost of all components due to high exergy destruction.

According to the results this can be reduced by increasing the GTIT.

Lastly, a multi-objective optimization was performed to optimize

two objective functions, namely exergy efciency (maximized)

and total cost (minimized) that provided a set of best trade-off values, which gives maximum performance and cost-effective power

generation. Based on the results of optimization, it is concluded that

the plant operation could be more effective and economically justiable; if the optimal operating parameters are used corresponding

to a GTIT value around 1500 K for a given GT power output. This

may also decrease possible environmental problems due to the

lower fuel ow rate into the combustion chamber.

The results shows that exergy-based analyses as performed on

the CCPP in this study can be useful addition for efcient utilization

of energy resources and decrease in CO2 emissions and generation

cost in the power generation industry of Pakistan. As an extension

to current work, similar methods can be employed to study the

CCPP by (i) generating power with different types of fuels, like

oil or biofuels, (ii) considering some additional environmental indicators like NOx, SOx and CO emissions, (iii) utilizing supplementary

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

0:95 gs;AC

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

Q_ CND

_ cw 70:5 Q_ CND

746 m

k LMTDCND

k 2200 W=m2 K

PEC PUMP 705:48 1

0:2

_ 0:71

W

PUMP

1 gs;PUMP

A:9

A:10

A:11

References

[1] Pakistan Energy Yearbook. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources.

Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan; 2012. p. 81, 82.

[2] Memon AG, Memon RA, Harijan K, Uqaili MA. Thermo-environmental analysis

of an open cycle gas turbine power plant with regression modeling and

optimization. J Energy Inst 2014;87:818.

[3] Ahmadi P, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and exergoenvironmental analyses, and

multi-objective optimization of a gas turbine power plant. Appl Thermal Eng

2011;31:252940.

[4] Barzegar Avval H, Ahmadi P, Ghaffarizadeh AR, Saidi MH. Thermo-economicenvironmental multiobjective optimization of a gas turbine power plant with

preheater using evolutionary algorithm. Int J Energy Res 2011;35:389403.

[5] Memon AG, Khanji H, Uqaili MA, Memon RA. Thermo-environmental and

economic analysis of simple and regenerative gas turbine cycles with

regression modeling and optimization. Energy Convers Manage 2013;76:

85264.

[6] Ahmadi P, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic

optimization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with

supplementary ring unit. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:2296308.

[7] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy, exergoeconomic and environmental

analyses and evolutionary algorithm based multi-objective optimization of

combined cycle power plants. Energy 2011;36:588698.

[8] Sanjay. Investigation of effect of variation of cycle parameters on

thermodynamic performance of gas-steam combined cycle. Energy 2011;36:

15767.

[9] Kaviri AG, Jaafar MNM, Lazim TM. Modeling and multi-objective exergy based

optimization of a combined cycle power plant using a genetic algorithm.

Energy Convers Manage 2012;58:94103.

35

[10] Mansouri MT, Ahmadi P, Kaviri AG, Jaafar MNM. Exergetic and economic

evaluation of the effect of HRSG congurations on the performance of

combined cycle power plants. Energy Convers Manage 2012;58:4758.

[11] Kaviri AG, Jaafar MNM, Lazim TM, Barzegaravval H. Exergoenvironmental

optimization of heat recovery steam generators in combined cycle power plant

through energy and exergy analysis. Energy Convers Manage 2013;67:2733.

[12] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for

calculating efciencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:

125789.

[13] F-Chart Software. Engineering Equation Solver (EES) (license # 3476),

Madison, WI, USA; 2014.

[14] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. Wiley;

1995.

[15] Roosen P, Uhlenbruck S, Lucas K. Pareto optimization of a combined cycle

power system as a decision support tool for trading off investment vs.

operating costs. Int J Thermal Sci 2003;42:55360.

[16] Ameri M, Ahmedi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy & exergoeconomic analyses of a

steam power plant: a case study. Int J Energy Res. 2009;33:499512.

[17] Mohan G, Dahal S, Kumar U, Martin A, Kaya H. Development of natural gas

red combined cycle plant for tri-generation of power, cooling and clean water

using waste heat recovery: techno-economic analysis. Energies 2014;7:

635881. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en7106358.

[18] Ahmedi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Multi objective optimization of a novel solarbased multigeneration energy system. Solar Energy 2014;108:57691.

[19] Yao H, Sheng D, Chen J, Li W, Wan A, Chen H. Exergoeconomic analysis of a

combined cycle system utilizing associated gases from steel production

process based on structural theory of thermoeconomics. Appl Thermal Eng

2013;51:47689.

[20] Sui Southern Gas Company Limited ofcial website. <http://www.ssgc.com.pk/

ssgc/customer/industrial/rates.php> January 9; 2014.

[21] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy. Elsevier; 2007.

[22] Baskut O, Ozgener L. Exergoeconomic assessment of a wind turbine power

plant (WTTP): Cesme, Izmir, example. Energy 2012;47:57781.

[23] Sogut MZ, Oktay Z, Hepbasli A. Energetic and exergetic assessment of a trass

mill process in a cement plant. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:231623.

[24] Mert MS, Dilmac OF, zkan S, Karaca F, Bolat E. Exergoeconomic analysis of a

cogeneration plant in an iron and steel factory. Energy 2012;46:7884.

[25] El-Emam RS, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of

seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant with energy recovery. Energy

2014;64:15463.

[26] Garousi Farshi L, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA, Yari M, Amidpour M.

Exergoeconomic analysis of double effect absorption refrigeration systems.

Energy Convers Manage 2013;65:1325.

- Dunkerque Project Sheet (Alstom and Standardkessel)Diunggah olehpeter34567
- SustainabilityDiunggah olehashsmartblog
- degradationDiunggah olehrmee8485
- PDD_47420_11Diunggah oleheco2data
- brief3_tcm18-25924Diunggah olehValya Ruseva
- PhD Thesis Guide for Quantitative Data Analysis 6Diunggah olehchanakyaresearch
- The Unscrambler X v10.3 - User ManualDiunggah olehjohneiver
- ASME 3977-2-2000 Gas Turbines - Std RefDiunggah olehibson045001256
- P List Generator&Panel 1908115Diunggah olehHumayun Nawaz
- Low Grade Waste Heat Recovery for Optimized Energy Efficiencies and Enhanced Sustainability in Process Industries a Comprehensive ReviewDiunggah olehEhab Sabry
- Electricity Transmission Code - Ver 2-Rev 1-27-04-2016Diunggah olehSaba Mannan
- EIB 504 Course OutlineDiunggah olehSajib Jahan
- Once ThroughDiunggah olehmike
- 6f01-fact-sheet.pdfDiunggah olehMarutisinh Raj
- sdarticleDiunggah olehgeeva325194
- ATTExergydefinitionconcept.pptDiunggah olehJamshid
- Investment, Overhang, And Tax PolicyDiunggah olehvinibarcelos
- 1Diunggah olehFatma Ageel
- turbine-dir.pdfDiunggah olehsppram
- 991e37fabbb0a51f399dc3934a6f0a76eecd.pdfDiunggah olehFhikri Cahaya Fatoni
- exergyDiunggah olehIvanov Alexandru
- A96001-S90-A192-V2-4A00Diunggah olehmanreza
- DistressRiskJun05[1]Diunggah olehragothba
- JIT-Chap_4MDiunggah olehcup5000
- 207-649-1-PBDiunggah olehAlida Neto
- Ho RandfixdDiunggah olehricky5ricky
- IPPTCh010Diunggah olehRene
- HMB1Diunggah olehPeter George
- Eco No Metric Analysis LimDep Users Manual - GreeneDiunggah olehMurtaza Baygun
- Age Differences in DailyDiunggah olehcar

- Commissioning, and Operating Maintenance Manuals - Volume 1 of 5.pdfDiunggah olehMarcel
- Assessment of Energy and Exergy Efficiencies of Power Generation Sub-Sector in Jordan.pdfDiunggah olehmohammadjm2008
- TOSHIBA Global Internship 2018_Application Guidelines & Position ListDiunggah olehVienNgocQuang
- Electricity Economics Regulation and Deregulation - Geoffrey Rothwell, Tomás GómezDiunggah olehSerTalman
- HydrogenDiunggah olehClaudio Ibarra Casanova
- Co2 reductionDiunggah olehmariodadds
- Ras Az Zawr FileDiunggah olehMohammad Sajid Alam
- Thailand FactsheetDiunggah olehPower Power
- ME6701-Power Plant EngineeringDiunggah olehTHANGARAJ
- PRIMO Lubricants CatalogDiunggah olehPrimo Talk
- Type of BoilersDiunggah olehMamta Singh
- third semDiunggah olehArjunSingh
- Gas Turbine Performance Increase Using an Air Cooler With a Phase ChangeDiunggah olehArgenomSaubi
- Internship Report of M AZHAR IQBALDiunggah olehAzhar Iqbal Jutt
- NGCC LCA - Final Report - Presentation - 9-10-12 - Final - VDiunggah olehPatrick Mcdonald
- Contoh CCPP Plant Operating Manual ProceduresDiunggah olehDwi Mulyanti Dwimulyantishop
- Combined Cycle Power PlantDiunggah olehAbinCBabu
- Single Shaft Design of Power PlantDiunggah olehSrinivasa Rao Pallela
- IC Power Corporate Presentation.pdfDiunggah olehRicardoMallma
- Industrial Training Report on NTPC DADRIDiunggah olehdigvijay singh
- Teoria de AbsorbedoresDiunggah olehOmar Jimenez
- Eagleburgmann Ke Pte Ltd Fabric Expansion Joint Flex Seal for Ge Gt2015 08-27-09 47Diunggah olehPeter_Phee_341
- FMDS1303Diunggah olehJack Weaver
- Energy Turbines MaterialsDiunggah olehMallinatha PN
- Acid Dew Point Corrosion in HRSGsDiunggah olehajaysharma_1009
- ABPR3-G-T-PJ-0005-R1 Detailed Project Schedule.pdfDiunggah olehpstechnical_43312697
- Clean Coal TechnologyDiunggah olehigunhakam55
- Turbine Inlet Air CoolingDiunggah olehAnescu Veronica
- 2_Introducing_the_SGC65000F.pdfDiunggah olehpalash11
- Presentation in EnglishDiunggah olehspalaniyandi