Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Energy and exergy analysis of the turbo-generators and steam turbine

for the main feed water pump drive on LNG carrier
Vedran Mrzljak a,⇑, Igor Poljak b, Tomislav Mrakovčić a
a
Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, Vukovarska 58, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia
b
Rožići 4/3, 51221 Kostrena, Croatia

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

Article history: Nowadays, marine propulsion systems are mainly based on internal combustion diesel engines. Despite
Received 2 November 2016 this fact, a number of LNG carriers have steam propulsion plants. In such plants, steam turbines are used
Received in revised form 21 January 2017 not only for ship propulsion, but also for electrical power generation and main feed water pump drive.
Accepted 2 March 2017
Marine turbo-generators and steam turbine for the main feed water pump drive were investigated on
the analyzed LNG carrier with steam propulsion plant. The measurements of various operating parame-
ters were performed and obtained data were used for energy and exergy analysis. All the measurements
Keywords:
and calculations were performed during the ship acceleration. The analysis shows that the energy and
Turbo-generator
Main feed water pump
exergy efficiencies of both analyzed low-power turbines vary between 46% and 62% what is significantly
Energy efficiency lower in comparison with the high-power steam turbines. The ambient temperature has a low impact on
Exergy efficiency exergy efficiency of analyzed turbines (change in ambient temperature for 10 °C causes less than 1%
Exergy destruction change in exergy efficiency). The highest exergy efficiencies were achieved at the lowest observed ambi-
ent temperature. Also, the highest efficiencies were achieved at 71.5% of maximum developed turbo-
generator power while the highest efficiencies of steam turbine for the main feed water pump drive were
achieved at maximum turbine developed power. Replacing the existing steam turbine for the main feed
water pump drive with an electric motor would increase the turbo-generator energy and exergy efficien-
cies for at least 1–3% in all analyzed operating points.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, marine steam turbine propulsion plants can be
found in a number of LNG carriers [1,2]. Such steam propulsion
plant consists of many components [3]. Because of the complexity,
in these systems is required to be familiar with all the components
[4] and it is necessary to properly operate with them as a whole
[5]. Two of all components of such marine steam plant were taken
into consideration in this paper: turbo-generators (TG) and steam
turbine for main feed water pump drive (MFP).
Energy and exergy analysis of the base loaded conventional
steam power plants along with their most important components
can be found often in the scientific literature. Some of the impor-
tant researches in this area are presented below. A study con-
ducted in this paper is based on the methods and conclusions
from this literature.
Adibhatla et al. [6] presented energy and exergy analysis of a
super critical thermal power plant under constant and pure sliding
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vmrzljak@riteh.hr (V. Mrzljak).
pressure operation at three operating loads (100%, 80% and 60%).
Obtained energy and exergy efficiencies of high-power steam tur-
bines were 90% or larger in all operating regimes. At constant pres-
sure, the exergy destruction rate in the steam turbines decreases
sensibly when the operating load decreases from 100% to 80%,
while the exergy destruction rate remains constant for the operat-
ing loads of 80% and 60%. For pure sliding pressure operations, the
exergy destruction rate in the turbines decreases significantly with
the load condition. Main feed water pump in this thermal power
plant was powered by low-power steam turbine, but that steam
turbine was not investigated.
Energetic and exergetic performance analysis of various coal-
fired thermal power plants in Turkey were conducted by Erdem
et al. [7]. Calculation model for each plant was proposed and the
mass, energy and exergy balances were established. Exergy effi-
ciencies of the analyzed high-power steam turbines vary between
80% and 98%, while turbines exergy destruction rates reach mostly
between 1.5 MW and 10 MW.
Yang et al. [8] presented exergy-based evaluation of a coal-fired
ultra-supercritical power plant. Exergy efficiencies of high-power
steam turbines from the analyzed power plant are in the range

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.007
0196-8904/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
308 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323

Nomenclature

s specific entropy, kJ/kg
K

Abbreviations T temperature, K
BOG Boil Off Gas V_ volumetric flow, m3/h
BP Basic Plant Q_ heat transfer, kW
EM Electric Motor X_ heat heat exergy transfer, kW
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
HP High Pressure Greek symbols
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas v upper and lower limit of the calibration range
LP Low Pressure e specific exergy, kJ/kg
max. maximum q density, kg/m3
MFP main feed water pump gI energy efficiency,%
temp. temperature gII exergy efficiency,%
TG turbo-generator
Subscripts
Latin symbols 0 reference conditions of the ambient
_
En energy flow, kW in inlet
_
Ex exergy flow, kW out outlet
h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg S isentropic
m_ mass flow, kg/s (or kg/h in Eqs. (10) and (18)) D destruction
p pressure, MPa
P power, kW

75–97%, while turbines exergy destruction rates were between
2.5 MW and 10 MW.
Steady state simulation and exergy analysis of supercritical
coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture was conducted by Olaleye
et al. [9]. This paper, among other elements, presents exergy effi-
ciencies of several high-power steam turbines from the analyzed
power plant and that efficiencies vary between 87% and 99% while
turbines exergy destruction rates were between 0.5 MW and
7 MW.
Exergy analysis of a 300 MW lignite thermo-electric power
plant was presented in the paper Koroneos et al. [10]. Exergy effi-
ciency of high-power steam turbine in the presented thermo-
electric power plant at the observed load conditions was 96%.
Taillon et al. [11] proposed new graphs for thermal power plant
exergy efficiency determination. These graphs permit to determine
the efficiency ranks compared with the normally obtained values
for the industrial systems.
A lot of useful data and equations for energy and exergy analy-
sis of base loaded conventional steam power plants and all of its
components were presented by Ray et al. [12]. Similar important
data and equations for energy and exergy analysis are shown in
Kaushik et al. [13] for coal-fired thermal power plant and also for
gas-fired combined cycle thermal power plant.
Aljundi [14] presented an energy and exergy analysis of a steam
power plant in Jordan. Exergy efficiency of high-power steam tur-
bine in the observed power plant was 73.5%, while her exergy
destruction amounts 20.407 MW in the observed operating regime.
Study of the ambient temperature impact on steam generator,
main turbine and condenser exergy efficiency is also provided in
this paper. It is concluded that exergy efficiency of the main
high-power turbine and steam generator decreases (exergy
destruction increases) with an increase in the ambient tempera-
ture. The same conclusions for high-power steam turbines and
steam generator’s exergy efficiency can be found in the papers
Ahmadi et al. [15], Ameri et al. [16] and Kopac et al. [17].
Energy and exergy analysis of a steam turbine power plant in
the phosphoric acid factory are conducted in the paper Hafdhi
et al. [18]. Energy efficiencies of two analyzed turbo-generators
and steam turbine are in the range from 74% to 93%, while exergy
efficiencies of the same components vary between 60% and 74%.
Both energy and exergy efficiencies are calculated at the highest
steam system load. Analyzed steam turbine and turbo-generators
are low-power steam turbines with maximum power of about
7 MW. In the paper was also presented the variation of exergy effi-
ciency of turbo-generator 1 and turbo-generator 2 during the
change in steam mass flow. For turbo-generator 1 the highest
exergy efficiency was obtained for the highest allowed steam mass
flow while the highest exergy efficiency of turbo-generator 2 was
obtained for the 75.5% of the highest allowed steam mass flow.
Not only in the base loaded conventional steam power plants,
but also in other steam power plants, energy and exergy analysis
provide insight into the effectiveness of each plant component.
Optimization and the effect of steam turbine outlet quality on
the output power of a combined cycle power plant were presented
by Ganjehkaviri et al. [19]. Memon et al. [20] considered three
methods to conduct an analytic study on a combined cycle power
plant: exergoeconomic, thermo-environmental and statistical.
Lythcke-Jørgensen et al. [21] conducted an exergy analysis of a
combined heat and power plant.
Elsafi et al. [22] presented exergy and exergoeconomic analysis
of sustainable direct steam generation solar power plant while
Gupta et al. [23] conducted exergy analysis of direct steam gener-
ation solar–thermal power plant. Exergy evaluation of 330 MW
solar-hybrid coal-fired power plant in China was presented by
Peng et al. [24]. The solar system is used to heat the feed water
at nearly 300 °C with purpose to substitute the steam extraction
from a steam turbine. This improvement raised the net electrical
power generated by the steam turbine. A thermal and economic
comparison study is also established between solar-only and
solar-hybrid coal-fired power plants. It is concluded that the
hybrid coal-fired power plant is economically beneficial than the
solar-only thermal power plant.
Energy and exergy analysis is acceptable method for analysis of
various plants, not just necessarily steam power plants. Thus, for
example, Taner et al. [25] conducted energy-exergy analysis and
optimization of a model sugar factory in Turkey while Jokandan
et al. [26] presented an exergy analysis of an industrial-scale
yogurt production plant. Energy, exergy, economic and
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323
environmental evaluations of geothermal district heating systems
was conducted in the paper Keçebas [27] while Keçebas et al.
[28] presented a thermodynamic evaluation of 6.35 MW geother-
mal power plant located in Denizli, Turkey.
In this study energy and exergy analysis of turbo-generators
and steam turbine for the main feed water pump drive during
the ship acceleration is conducted. Energy and exergy efficiency
rates as well as exergy destruction rates for both of the analyzed
low-power turbines in the observed operating range are presented.
The influence of the ambient temperature on exergy efficiency of
both analyzed turbines was performed. Turbo-generators and
MFP steam turbine were analyzed at different loads in order to
determine working points with the highest energy and exergy effi-
ciencies. Finally, a method for increasing the turbo-generator
energy and exergy efficiency was presented.
2. Steam system and analyzed turbines description
Analyzed LNG carrier steam propulsion plant consists of two
identical turbo-generator units, Fig. 1, designed to cover all ship
requirements for electrical power. Steam turbine for each turbo-
generator consists of nine Rateau stages [29]. During navigation,
turbo-generators mainly operate in parallel for the sake of safe
navigation and they equally share the electrical load.
Feed water pump driven by steam turbine is traditionally
applied on ships with the steam propulsion due to safety, reliabil-
ity and easy control during load change. The main feed water pump
Fig. 1. General scheme of steam propulsion plant of the analyzed LNG carrier.
309
(MFP) is used for increasing the water pressure and pumping it into
the steam generators. Steam turbine for an MFP drive on the ana-
lyzed LNG carrier, Fig. 1, consists of single Curtis stage while the
whole unit has the following characteristics [30]:
– Pump maximum capacity: 175 m3/h
– Pump delivery height: 818 m
– Steam turbine maximum power: 570 kW
It is important to emphasize main feed water pump recircula-
tion line, Fig. 1. During the steam system startup, one part of the
feedwater is recirculated back into the deaerator. Recirculation
was performed in order to protect the main high-pressure pump
at low steam system loads. The main feed water pump has several
stages and a pump would significantly warm up feedwater at
reduced flow causing its evaporation. Feed water evaporation leads
to intense cavitation which can damage pump impeller and sealing
elements in a short period.
Steam turbines with Curtis and Rateau stages, and their com-
plete analysis, can be found in [31,32]. Many details of classic
and special designs of marine steam turbines and their auxiliary
systems are presented in [33–36]. Main particulars of the analyzed
LNG carrier are presented in Table 1.
Also, it is important to describe the steam generators, essential
components of the analyzed LNG carrier engine room, which pro-
vide superheated steam for each appointed steam turbine opera-
tion. A steam propulsion plant of the analyzed LNG carrier
310 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323

Table 1 Exergy analysis is based on the second law of thermodynamics

Main particulars of the analyzed LNG carrier. [40]. The main exergy balance equation for a control volume in
Dead weight tonnage 84,812 DWT steady state is [22,41,42]:
Overall length 288 m X X
Max breadth 44 m X_ heat  P ¼ _ out
eout 
m m _ D
_ in
ein þ Ex ð5Þ
Design draft 9.3 m
Steam generators 2  Mitsubishi MB-4E-KS where the net exergy transfer by heat (X_ heat ) at the temperature T
Propulsion turbine Mitsubishi MS40-2 (max. power 29.420 kW) equals [43]:
Turbo-generators 2  Shinko RGA 92-2 (max. power 3.850 kW each)
MFP steam turbine Shinko DMG 125-3 (max. power 570 kW) X 
T0 _
X_ heat ¼ 1 Q ð6Þ
T
Specific exergy was defined according to [14,44] by following
consists of two identical, mirror-oriented, natural circulation type
equation:
steam generators with a wide range of partial load change. During
simultaneous parallel operation of two or more steam generators, e ¼ ðh  h0 Þ  T 0
ðs  s0 Þ ð7Þ
it is necessary to develop a steam quality management and elec-
The total exergy of a flow for any fluid stream can be calculated
tronic control system [37], which is in this case provided by the
according to [25]:
steam generators manufacturer. Essential parts of each steam gen-
erator are combined burners, similar to those presented in [38], _ ¼m
Ex _
e¼m
_
½ðh  h0 Þ  T 0
ðs  s0 Þ ð8Þ
which can burn HFO, diesel fuel or dual fuel combination (HFO/gas
or diesel/gas). Burners are located in the upper part of the furnace. Exergy efficiency is also called second law efficiency or effec-
Steam generator is composed of a steam drum and a water drum tiveness [45]. It can be defined as:
connected with a bank of inclined steam generating tubes. Other Exergy output
water side components include: front screen tubes shielding the gII ¼ ð9Þ
Exergy input
superheater elements from direct radiant heat of the furnace, side
and roof water wall, front and rear water wall tubes, down-comers, These governing equations including energy and exergy bal-
bottom headers, roof and bottom front wall headers, roof and bot- ances are used in TG and MFP steam turbine numerical analysis.
tom rear wall headers, and front and rear wall riser pipe. Remain-
ing principal components of construction are superheater, an 3.2. Turbo-generator
internal desuperheater, the economiser, steam air heater and hous-
ing. Design simplicity of marine steam generators gives them a Steam mass flow related to the developed turbine power of each
high reliability [39], which is very important in the shipping indus- TG turbine according to producer specifications [29] is presented in
try because safe navigation always has the highest priority. Any Fig. 2.
marine steam propulsion plant has at least two turbo-generators Accurate turbo-generator power calculation at different loads
because it cannot be allowed that the ship fully remain without was necessary for the turbo-generator energy and exergy analysis.
electricity at any moment. The turbine power curve of one turbo-generator was approximated
In Fig. 1 the steam streams are marked with red1 and black lines by the third degree polynomial using data from Fig. 2:
(continuous or dashed) while the water (condensate) streams are PTG ¼ 4:354
1010
m
_ 3TG þ 6:7683
106
m
_ 2TG þ 0:251318
marked with blue lines (continuous or dashed).
_ TG  256:863

m ð10Þ
3. Mathematical description of turbo-generator and MFP steam where P TG was obtained in (kW) when m _ TG in (kg/h) was placed in
turbine Eq. (10).
Enthalpy and mass flow through one of the analyzed turbo-
3.1. Equations for the energy and exergy analysis generators are presented in Fig. 3(a), where h1 is steam enthalpy
at the turbine inlet and h2 is steam enthalpy at the turbine outlet.
Energy analysis is based on the first law of thermodynamics, Steam enthalpy at the turbine inlet was calculated from the mea-
which is related to the conservation of energy [13]. Mass and sured pressure and temperature. Steam enthalpy at the turbine
energy balance equations for a control volume in steady state dis- outlet was calculated from the turbine power PTG in (kW) and mea-
regarding potential and kinetic energy can be expressed as [1,18]: sured steam mass flow m _ TG in (kg/s) according to [43] with the
X X equation:
_ in ¼
m _ out
m ð1Þ
PTG
X X h2 ¼ h1  ð11Þ
Q_  P ¼ _ out
hout 
m _ in
hin
m ð2Þ _ TG
m
Fig. 3(b) presents an ideal (isentropic) and real expansion
The total energy of a flow for any fluid stream can be calculated
through a TG steam turbine in h-s diagram. The characteristic
according to the equation:
points for every expansion were marked in accordance with Eqs.
_ ¼m
En _
h ð3Þ (10)–(16) for energy and exergy analysis. The diagram in Fig. 3(b)
shows measured and calculated values of the operating point 21
Energy efficiency may take different forms and different names
(Table 2).
depending on the type of the system. Usually, energy efficiency can
be written as [40]:
(a) Turbo-generator mass flow balance:
Energy output
gI ¼ ð4Þ _ TG;1 ¼ m
m _ TG;2 ¼ m
_ TG ð12Þ
Energy input
(b) Turbo-generator energy balance [14,18]:
1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 1, the reader is referred to the web version of _ TG;1  En
PTG ¼ En _ TG;2 ¼ m
_ TG
ðh1  h2 Þ ð13Þ
this article.
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323 311

Fig. 2. Steam mass flow in relation to turbine power of one turbo-generator [29].

Fig. 3. Turbo-generator: (a) enthalpy and mass flow, (b) isentropic and real expansion (operating point 21 - Table 2).

Table 2
Measurement results for turbo-generators and MFP steam turbine in various operation regimes.

OP.* Propulsion Steam Steam temp. Steam mass Steam Steam pressure at Steam temp. at MFP water Steam pressure at
propeller pressure at at the TG flow through pressure at the the MFP turbine the MFP turbine volume the MFP turbine
speed the TG inlet inlet (°C) one TG (kg/h) TG outlet inlet (MPa) inlet (°C) flow (m3/h) outlet (MPa)
(min1) (MPa) (MPa)
1 25.00 6.21 491.0 4648.83 0.00541 6.21 485 74.49 0.2715
2 34.33 6.20 491.0 4685.54 0.00512 6.20 487 78.87 0.2701
3 41.78 6.22 491.0 4556.16 0.00489 6.22 488 75.08 0.2704
4 53.50 6.09 495.0 4718.74 0.00511 6.09 502 88.14 0.2673
5 56.65 5.97 490.5 4000.58 0.00425 5.97 496 84.48 0.2763
6 61.45 5.97 491.0 4102.44 0.00428 5.97 496 70.07 0.2748
7 62.52 5.98 490.5 4004.09 0.00432 5.98 497 69.71 0.2723
8 63.55 5.97 491.0 4156.83 0.00451 5.97 497 73.59 0.2708
9 65.10 6.07 491.0 3838.78 0.00392 6.07 502 76.64 0.2655
10 66.08 6.06 493.0 3872.22 0.00396 6.06 502 79.11 0.2582
11 67.68 6.06 497.0 3754.24 0.00404 6.06 507 83.23 0.2564
12 68.66 6.07 500.0 3794.76 0.00404 6.07 510 82.90 0.2513
13 69.49 6.07 502.5 3775.38 0.00397 6.07 511 84.98 0.2417
14 70.37 6.07 502.5 3778.91 0.00397 6.07 511 86.88 0.2411
15 71.03 6.08 503.5 3798.28 0.00399 6.08 511 87.29 0.2374
16 73.09 6.06 504.5 3847.58 0.00408 6.06 512 94.24 0.2414
17 74.59 6.02 504.0 3951.37 0.00412 6.02 513 94.22 0.2391
18 76.56 6.01 504.5 4070.84 0.00420 6.01 512 100.52 0.2557
19 78.41 6.03 504.5 4116.48 0.00422 6.03 512 107.91 0.2425
20 79.46 5.87 504.5 4400.42 0.00433 5.87 510 106.01 0.2351
21 80.44 5.89 501.5 4689.03 0.00554 5.89 504 111.09 0.2531
22 81.49 5.91 495.5 4382.91 0.00550 5.91 501 110.66 0.2391
23 82.88 5.80 493.0 4428.43 0.00557 5.80 500 117.04 0.2495
24 83.00 5.90 493.5 4487.93 0.00561 5.90 500 118.26 0.2457

OP.* = Operating Point.

312 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323

Isentropic (energy) efficiency of the turbo-generator [40,19,46]: PMFP ¼ 1:78582
105
V_ 3MFP  3:08892
103
V_ 2MFP
Dh ðh1  h2 Þ þ 2:002
V_ MFP þ 189:48 ð17Þ
gI;TG ¼ ¼ ð14Þ
DhS ðh1  h2S Þ
PMFP was obtained in (kW) when V_ MFP in (m3/h) was placed in Eq.
(c) Turbo-generator exergy balance [6,7]: (17).
_ TG;1  Ex
_ D;TG ¼ Ex _ TG;2  PTG ¼ m Steam mass flow through MFP turbine was approximated with
Ex _ TG
ðe1  e2 Þ  PTG ð15Þ
the pump power demand PMFP , Fig. 5(b). Approximation was made
Exergy efficiency of the turbo-generator [15,20,47]: according to producer specifications [30], by using third degree
polynomial:
P P
gII;TG ¼ _ TG
¼
TG
ð16Þ _ MFP ¼  3
105
P3MFP þ 3:1326
102
P2MFP  4:396794
PMFP
mTG
ðe1  e2 Þ m_ TG
½h1  h2  T 0
ðs1  s2 Þ m
The steam entropy at the turbine inlet (s1 ) was calculated from þ 2386:60 ð18Þ
measured steam pressure and temperature at the turbine inlet. The where m _ MFP was obtained in (kg/h) when PMFP in (kW) was placed in
steam entropy at the turbine outlet (s2 ) was calculated from steam Eq. (18).
enthalpy at the turbine outlet (h2 ) and measured pressure at the Steam enthalpy at the MFP turbine outlet, where P MFP in (kW) is
turbine outlet. the turbine power and m _ MFP in (kg/s) is turbine steam mass flow,
Steam enthalpy at the turbine inlet, steam enthalpy at the end was calculated according to [49] by using the equation:
of isentropic expansion and both steam entropies (at the turbine
inlet and outlet) were calculated by using NIST REFPROP 8.0 soft- PMFP
h2 ¼ h1  ð19Þ
ware [48]. _ MFP
m
Enthalpies shown in the equations from (11)–(16) do not con- (a) MFP steam turbine mass flow balance:
tain steam kinetic energy. T 0 is the referent ambient (engine room) m _ MFP;2 ¼ m
_ MFP;1 ¼ m _ MFP ð20Þ
temperature (298.15 K) while referent ambient pressure p0 is
0.1 MPa. (b) MFP steam turbine energy balance [14,18]:
_ MFP;1  En
PMFP ¼ En _ MFP;2 ¼ m
_ MFP
ðh1  h2 Þ ð21Þ
3.3. Steam turbine for main feed water pump drive Isentropic (energy) efficiency of the MFP steam turbine
[40,19,46]:
Energy and volume flow through the steam turbine and through
the main feed water pump is presented in Fig. 4(a), where h1 is Dh ðh1  h2 Þ
gI;MFP ¼ ¼ ð22Þ
steam enthalpy at the turbine inlet and h2 is steam enthalpy at DhS ðh1  h2S Þ
the turbine outlet. Steam enthalpy at the turbine inlet was calcu-
(c) MFP steam turbine exergy balance [6,7]:
lated from the measured pressure and temperature. Steam _ D;MFP ¼ Ex
_ MFP;1  Ex
_ MFP;2  PMFP ¼ m
Ex _ MFP
ðe1  e2 Þ  PMFP ð23Þ
enthalpy at the turbine outlet was calculated from the turbine
required power P MFP and turbine steam mass flow m _ MFP . Exergy efficiency of the MFP steam turbine [15,20,47]:
Fig. 4(b) presents an ideal (isentropic) and real expansion
P P
through an MFP steam turbine in h-s diagram. The characteristic gII;MFP ¼ _ MFP
¼
MFP
ð24Þ
expansion points are marked in accordance with the equations
mMFP
ðe1  e2 Þ m_ MFP
½h1  h2  T 0
ðs1  s2 Þ
for energy and exergy analysis, equations from (17)–(24). The dia- The steam entropy at the MFP turbine inlet (s1 ) was calculated
gram in Fig. 4(b) is drawn by using the measured and calculated from measured steam pressure and temperature at the turbine
values of the operating point 21 (Table 2). inlet. The steam entropy at the MFP turbine outlet (s2 ) was calcu-
Required turbine power is approximated from the main feed lated from steam enthalpy at the turbine outlet (h2 ) and measured
water pump volume flow V_ MFP by using third degree polynomial pressure at the turbine outlet.
(17). Main feed water pump volume flow in relation to the pump Steam enthalpy at the turbine inlet, steam enthalpy at the end
power demand was calculated for medium feed water density of isentropic expansion and both steam entropies (at the turbine
q = 937.48 kg/m3 at a temperature of 127 °C, according to producer inlet and outlet) were calculated by using NIST REFPROP 8.0 soft-
specifications [30], Fig. 5(a). ware [48].

Fig. 4. Steam turbine and the main feed water pump: (a) energy and volume flow, (b) turbine isentropic and real expansion (operating point 21 - Table 2).
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323
Fig. 5. MFP turbine: (a) turbine power, (b) turbine steam mass flow [30].
Enthalpies shown in the equations from (19)–(24) do not con-
tain steam kinetic energy. T 0 is the referent ambient (engine room)
temperature (298.15 K) while referent ambient pressure p0 is
0.1 MPa.
4. Energy and exergy efficiency of various steam turbines
When considering the energy and exergy efficiency of steam
turbines, all conclusions and considerations must be divided into
two groups regarding the steam turbine power.
For high-power steam turbines which are used in land-based
power plants, following three important facts are valid:
– Energy and exergy efficiencies are very high (approximately
80% or higher) [6,7,9]
– Energy and exergy efficiencies have almost identical trends of
change [12,18]
– Ambient temperature has a little impact on exergy efficiency
[14–17]
For low-power steam turbines similar to those analyzed in this
paper, there are not found exact indicators for energy and exergy
efficiency values range, trends of change or indicators for the influ-
ence of the ambient temperature on exergy efficiency. Available lit-
erature provides only guidelines for energy efficiency values of
low-power steam turbines according to their power range.
As shown in Fig. 6, it can be expected that the energy efficiency
of analyzed steam turbines is much lower when compared to the
high-power steam turbines [50]. The same conclusion can be found
in [51–53].
Fig. 6. Energy efficiency in relation to steam turbine power [50].
313
5. Measurement results from the analyzed LNG carrier
Measurement results of required operating parameters for
turbo-generators and MFP steam turbine are presented in Table 2
in relation to the propulsion propeller speed. Turbo-generators
are identical and measurements have shown that their operating
parameters are also identical (steam pressures, temperatures and
mass flows). All the measurement results were obtained from the
existing measuring equipment mounted on every individual com-
ponent of the analyzed propulsion plant. List and specifications of
all used measuring equipment are presented in the Appendix A at
the end of this paper.
6. Results and discussion
Diagram in Fig. 7 shows turbo-generators and MFP turbine
power, according to measured values in Table 2. Throughout the
whole examined operating range, the highest produced power of
both turbo-generators in parallel operation was only 30% of their
maximum power (Fig. 7 shows the cumulative power of both
turbo-generators).
At the beginning of observed operating range, turbo-generators
developed power greater than 2000 kW, because during that part
of operating range several electrical consumers are in full opera-
tion (bow thruster, electric motors of anchor capstan hydraulics
and mooring winches). The exact moment when captain shut
down mentioned devices (one by one) depends on his evaluation.
At the observed propulsion propeller operating range, mentioned
devices shutting down starts between 55 min1 and 60 min1 of
the propulsion propeller. Electrical consumers’ shutting down is
314 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323
Fig. 7. Turbo-generators and MFP steam turbine power change.
visible as turbo-generators power decrease. The lowest power of
turbo-generators in the observed operating range was 1518 kW
at the propulsion propeller speed of 67.68 min1.
Increase in turbo-generators power at the end of observed oper-
ating range is caused by an increase in power of low duty compres-
sor, which compresses the boil off gas (BOG) from the cargo tanks
to the steam generators. Steam generators at the analyzed LNG car-
rier operate in dual fuel regime (HFO/gas). HFO consumption is
kept to a minimum and the increase in the steam system load is
reflected in the BOG consumption increase. Increase of the propul-
sion propeller speed is directly proportional to increase of steam
system load.
From the viewpoint of the produced power it can be concluded
that, in the observed operating range, application of only one
turbo-generator will be sufficient. The parallel operation of two
turbo-generators is justified only from the aspect of safety.
An MFP turbine at the beginning of the observed operating
range developed more power than necessary. The reason for this
fact is relatively small feed water mass flow through the system,
so the main feed water pump must recycle a certain amount of
feed water into the deaerator, Fig. 1, in order to prevent cavitation.
After the recirculation period, the power of MFP turbine
decreases (at propulsion propeller speed of 61.45 min1) and then
slightly increases with an increase in steam system load. Notable
increase in MFP turbine developed power is noticed at propulsion
propeller speed of 73.09 min1 due to considerable increase in feed
water volume flow (Table 2). The highest achieved power of the
MFP turbine during a measurement period was 73% of its maxi-
mum power (413 kW) and it can be seen at the highest propulsion
propeller speed, Fig. 7.
Adibhatla and Kaushik [6] in their analysis concluded that
exergy efficiency of high-power steam turbine has a declining
trend with decreasing unit load. The same conclusion for high-
power steam turbines can be derived from the papers Erdem
et al. [7] and Yang et al. [8]. It is therefore interesting to investigate
whether the same conclusions are valid also for low-power steam
turbines.
Fig. 8, according to Table 2, presents energy and exergy effi-
ciency change of TG steam turbine in the observed steam system
operating range. Both efficiencies are highly dependent on the gen-
erator electric load. Energy and exergy efficiency reduces when the
load decreases (propulsion propeller speeds from 56.65 min1 to
70.37 min1). By increasing the load, both efficiencies increase.
For the analyzed TG steam turbine it is important to point out that
for energy efficiency is valid the same trends of change and depen-
dence on the electrical load as for the exergy efficiency. It can be
assumed that the same conclusions will be valid for the energy effi-
ciency of high-power steam turbines during the load change, when
the energy efficiency is calculated according to Eqs. (14) and (22).
In the whole investigated operating range, energy and exergy
efficiencies of the TG steam turbine have an almost identical trend
of change, what is also valid for high-power steam turbines. In the
examined operating range, both efficiencies vary between 54% and
61%, what are to be the expected values for the low-power steam
turbines (according to Fig. 6).
From the viewpoint of energy and exergy efficiencies, usage of
only one turbo-generator instead of two in the parallel operation
would be advisable in the analyzed operating range. Only one
operational turbo-generator would be more loaded and it would
achieve higher efficiencies. On the other side, such arrangement
could lead to the potential danger in the ship electricity supply net-
work if any of unexpected problems occur. That is the main reason
why at least two turbo-generators are always in parallel operation
during the ship navigation.
Especially in the case of turbo-generators, energy and exergy
efficiencies can be greatly reduced due to intense corrosion on tur-
bine blades [54] or due to the increased vibrations of the turbine
rotor [55–57]. For these reasons, it is necessary to perform con-
stant maintenance and control of steam turbines driving electric
generators [58,59].
The exergy destruction rate of one TG steam turbine is pre-
sented in Fig. 9 for all operating points during observed steam sys-
tem operating range, according to Table 2. Graph in Fig. 9 shows
that the exergy destruction rate of one TG steam turbine varies
between 621.5 kW and 679 kW. During the increase in propulsion
propeller speed, the exergy destruction rate of TG turbine does not
show a continuous trend of change. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the increase in steam system load has no major impact on the
TG turbine exergy destruction rate.
From the diagrams shown in the papers Ahmadi et al. [15] and
Ameri et al. [16] can be concluded that high-power steam turbines
exergy destruction rate is proportional to steam turbine load.
Higher load results in higher exergy destruction rate and vice
versa. A direct comparison of Figs. 9 and 7 show that the same con-
clusion is valid also for low-power steam turbine (TG steam tur-
bine). Steam turbine load is the most influential parameter on
which depend the change of energy and exergy efficiencies and
also the change of exergy destruction rate regardless of maximum
steam turbine power.
In order to explain the most influential changes in the exergy
destruction rate during observed TG operating period, it is neces-
sary to compare results presented in Fig. 9 with the results
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323 315

Fig. 8. TG steam turbine energy and exergy efficiency change.

Fig. 9. Exergy destruction rate of one TG steam turbine in observed operating range.

presented in Table 2. It will not be considered the TG developed
power, but steam mass flow through one TG in kg/h, according
to Table 2 and Fig. 2.
A significant decrease in TG exergy destruction rate (from
669.5 kW to 629 kW) is caused by a decrease in steam mass flow
from 4718.74 kg/h to 4000.58 kg/h (propulsion propeller speeds
53.50 min1 and 56.65 min1).
Notable increase in the TG exergy destruction rate is visible at
propulsion propeller speeds 78.41 min1 and 79.46 min1 where
steam mass flow increases from 4116.48 kg/h to 4400.42 kg/h.
Even a higher increase in steam mass flow, in comparison to a
previous case, occurs between propulsion propeller speeds of
79.46 min1 and 80.44 min1 (from 4400.42 kg/h to 4689.03 kg/
h). But, in this situation, exergy destruction rate decreases (from
679 kW to 658 kW). The reason of such decrease in the exergy
destruction rate lies in the decrease of steam temperature at the
TG inlet (from 504.5 °C to 501.5 °C). Such a decrease in tempera-
ture significantly increases the specific exergy at the TG outlet
(from 53.49 kJ/kg to 83.71 kJ/kg). According to Eq. (15), a signifi-
cant increase in specific exergy at the TG outlet along with an
increase in TG developed power, results in a decrease of the TG
exergy destruction rate.
Decrease in TG exergy destruction rate between propulsion pro-
peller speeds of 80.44 min1 and 81.49 min1 is caused by a
decrease in steam mass flow (from 4689.03 kg/h to 4382.91 kg/h)
along with further decrease of steam temperature at the TG inlet
(from 501.5 °C to 495.5 °C).
It can be concluded that the change in the exergy destruction
rate of low-power steam turbines is mostly influenced by the
change of steam turbine load (steam mass flow rate) or in some sit-
uations with the change of steam operating parameters (mainly
with steam inlet temperature).
The main conclusion derived from TG steam turbine energy and
exergy efficiency analysis is also valid for any steam turbine,
including MFP turbine. MFP steam turbine energy and exergy effi-
ciencies do not show major changes across the whole range of
propulsion propeller speeds and they primarily depend on the
MFP turbine load, Fig. 10. Change in MFP turbine load can be con-
sidered as a change of feed water volume flow, according to
Table 2.
After the recirculation period, energy efficiency of MFP steam
turbine decreases from 49.36% to 48%, while its exergy efficiency
decreases from 60.25% to 59% (propulsion propeller speeds
56.65 min1 and 61.45 min1).
From propulsion propeller speed of 61.45 min1 to 71.03 min1
developed power of MFP turbine increases slightly with an
increase in feed water volume flow. Due to increase of steam tem-
perature at the MFP turbine inlet (Table 2) in this range of propul-
sion propeller speeds, energy and exergy efficiencies slightly
decrease. The decrease of both efficiencies is small (approximately
316 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323
Fig. 10. MFP steam turbine energy and exergy efficiency change.
1% from the beginning to the end of observed operating range).
Increase of steam temperature at the MFP turbine inlet causes an
intense increase in steam enthalpy, what is the main reason for
efficiencies reduction, Fig. 10. Slight increase in MFP turbine power
has a smaller influence on exergy efficiency in comparison with the
increase in steam enthalpy at the turbine inlet, Eq. (24).
At propulsion propeller speed of 73.09 min1 due to consider-
able increase in feed water volume flow, both efficiencies of MFP
steam turbine start to increase. The increase in MFP turbine effi-
ciencies lasts until the highest observed propulsion propeller speed
at which the highest values of both efficiencies were achieved.
Exergy efficiency of MFP turbine varies between 58% and 62% at
all running regimes what indicates that the exergy efficiency is
within the same range as for the turbo-generator.
Energy efficiency of MFP turbine shows that this component has
the lowest energy efficiency (from 46.8% to 51%) within the whole
steam propulsion plant at all running regimes, Fig. 10. In a favour
of MFP steam turbine low energy efficiency contributes the fact
that single Curtis stage has always lower energy efficiency when
compared with conventional impulse steam turbine stage.
From the standpoint of MFP turbine energy efficiency, the ship-
owner proposal that the main feed water pump, in such plants,
should be powered by the electric motor instead of the steam tur-
bine is justified. The main feed water pump drive by electric motor
will increase both turbo-generators efficiencies, because the turbo-
generators will be additionally loaded with a new electric
consumer.
The exergy destruction rate of MFP steam turbine is presented
during observed steam system operating range, according to
Table 2. Fig. 11 shows that the exergy destruction rate of MFP
turbine amounts between 222.7 kW and 264.5 kW. In comparison
with TG turbine, the exergy destruction rate of MFP turbine is
much lower because MFP turbine develops approximately three
times less power than each TG turbine, during the whole
observed operating range. According to Table 2 and Fig. 5, change
in MFP turbine load can be considered as a change of feed water
volume flow.
In the propulsion propeller speed operating range from
25.00 min1 to 74.59 min1, change in MFP turbine load is the
most influenced parameter of which depend the change in MFP
turbine exergy destruction rate, Fig. 11. The only intense jump in
the exergy destruction rate in this operating range can be noticed
at propulsion propeller speed of 53.50 min1, caused by an
increase in feed water volume flow (from 75.08 m3/h at
41.78 min1 to 88.14 m3/h at 53.50 min1).
After propulsion propeller speed of 74.59 min1 until the end of
complete observed operating area (until 83.00 min1), intense
impact on MFP turbine exergy destruction rate has a steam tem-
perature at the turbine inlet. As can be seen in Table 2, steam tem-
perature at the turbine inlet constantly decreases (from 513 °C to
500 °C) in this operating range. Decrease in MFP turbine exergy
destruction rate in this operating range (which occurs at propul-
sion propeller speeds 76.56 min1, 80.44 min1 and 82.88 min1)
has the same explanation as a decrease in the exergy destruction
rate of turbo-generator between propulsion propeller speeds of
79.46 min1 and 80.44 min1, Fig. 9. Despite an increase in feed
water volume flow (compared to the previous observed operating
point), steam temperature at the MFP turbine inlet decreases what
significantly increases the specific exergy at the MFP turbine out-
let. According to Eq. (23), a significant increase in specific exergy
at the MFP turbine outlet along with an increase in MFP turbine
developed power, results in a decrease of the MFP turbine exergy
destruction rate.
In the energy and exergy analysis of land-based steam power
plants, some authors investigate the influence of the ambient tem-
perature on exergy efficiency rate of steam plant components. The
ambient temperature change has no influence on the energy effi-
ciency of any steam plant component [13].
Ahmadi et al. [15], Ameri et al. [16] and Aljundi [14] investigate
the influence of the ambient temperature on high-power steam
turbine exergy efficiency. They concluded that the ambient tem-
perature has low impact on exergy efficiency of high-power steam
turbines. The ambient temperature increase causes decrease in
exergy efficiency of all analyzed high-power steam turbines and
the same conclusion is valid for other steam plant components
analyzed in mentioned literature. Usually, an increase in the ambi-
ent temperature of 10 °C causes a decrease in high-power steam
turbine exergy efficiency for about 1% or less.
Kopac et al. [17] obtained the same conclusion for the high-
power steam turbine exergy efficiency in correlation to the ambi-
ent temperature. In contrast to the aforementioned, this paper also
describes the influence of the ambient temperature on steam con-
denser exergy efficiency. An increase in the ambient temperature
has a significant impact on steam condenser exergy efficiency.
Steam condenser exergy efficiency firstly decreases with a slight
increase in the ambient temperature. During the further increase
in the ambient temperature, exergy efficiency of steam condenser
increases significantly.
It is realistic to expect that the influence of ambient tempera-
ture on the exergy efficiency of the TG steam turbines and MFP
steam turbine will also have low impact. Ambient temperature of
marine propulsion steam plants usually has a greater influence
when compared to the land-based plants, depending greatly on
the geographic area in which ship operates. Likewise, ship steam
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323 317

Fig. 11. Exergy destruction rate of steam turbine for MFP drive in observed operating range.

propulsion plants are more frequently affected by different ambi-
ent temperatures than land-based steam plants.
Trend of exergy efficiency rate for low-power steam turbines
(TG steam turbines and MFP turbine) must be the same as for
high-power steam turbines. The reason for this conclusion is pre-
sented in Eqs. (16) and (24) for steam turbine exergy efficiency cal-
culation. The ambient temperature (T0) is operating parameter
which is located in the equation’s denominator. As all other steam
operating parameters in those equations remain the same as
before, increase in ambient temperature will reduce the exergy
efficiencies. The increase in the denominator occurs because steam
entropy at each turbine outlet (s2) is always higher than steam
entropy at the turbine inlet (s1), Figs. 3 and 4. The only remaining
question is will the ambient temperature have a strong or weak
impact on the analyzed low-power steam turbines exergy
efficiency.
TG steam turbine exergy efficiency in relation to the ambient
temperature is presented in Fig. 12, according to Table 2. The ambi-
ent temperature was varied from 10 °C to 40 °C, what is expected
range of ship engine room temperatures. The highest exergy effi-
ciency values of the TG turbine were obtained at the lowest engine
room temperature (10 °C) and their values was from 56% up to a
maximum of 62% at the highest observed load. With a temperature
increase of 10 °C TG turbine exergy efficiency was reduced from
0.8% to 1% at all analyzed loads. At the highest observed engine
room temperature (40 °C) exergy efficiency was from 53% up to
60%.
The ambient temperature was also varied from 10 °C to 40 °C in
order to obtain the exergy efficiency change for MFP steam turbine,
Fig. 13, according to Table 2. MFP steam turbine exergy efficiency
show trend that is similar to TG turbine. The highest exergy effi-
ciency values were obtained for the engine room temperature of
10 °C (from 59% up to 63%) and the lowest exergy efficiency values
were obtained for the engine room temperature of 40 °C (from
56.7% up to 60.5%). A temperature increase of 10 °C causes the
reduction of exergy efficiency from 0.8% to 1% also in the steam
turbine for MFP drive.
In order to determine the energy and exergy efficiency maxi-
mum for turbo-generator and MFP steam turbine, additional anal-
ysis was performed for all operating points presented in Table 2
and results for operating points 13 and 21 are presented for each
turbine. At each operating point of both turbines, steam pressure
and temperature at the turbine inlet and steam pressure at the tur-
bine outlet remain identical to the measured data. By changing the
steam mass flow, change in developed power of both turbines
occurs. Steam enthalpies at the turbine outlets (h2) that are calcu-
lated according to Eqs. (11) and (19) have been calculated again as
well as outlet steam entropies (s2).

Fig. 12. TG steam turbine exergy efficiency in relation to the ambient temperature.
318 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323
Fig. 13. MFP steam turbine exergy efficiency in relation to the ambient temperature.
Fig. 14. TG steam turbine efficiencies for operating point 13.
Fig. 14 presents change in the cumulative power for both turbo-
generators in relation to energy and exergy efficiency for operating
point 13 (Table 2).
Turbo-generator energy and exergy efficiencies increases until
cumulative turbo-generators power reach 5500 kW. The highest
efficiencies were achieved at 71.5% of maximum developed
turbo-generator power. This fact applies not only at this operating
point, but also in all other analyzed operating points.
Increase in turbo-generators energy efficiency during the steam
mass flow increase occurs because until cumulative turbo-
generators power reach 5500 kW the increase in developed power
has a greater intensity than the increase in steam mass flow, Fig. 2.
According to Eq. (11) this fact resulted with the decrease in
enthalpy at each turbo-generator outlet (h2) what increases
numerator in Eq. (14). All the other elements of Eq. (14) remain
the same as before. After the turbo-generator energy efficiency
reaches a maximum value, the opposite occurrence happens. From
cumulative turbo-generators power of 5500 kW onwards, increase
in developed power has a lower intensity than the increase in
steam mass flow, Fig. 2. This leads to the increase in enthalpy at
each turbo-generator outlet and energy efficiency decreases.
The change in turbo-generator exergy efficiency during the
increase in steam mass flow is also caused by differences in devel-
oped power and steam mass flow. Energy and exergy efficiency
trend for turbo-generator, during increase in steam mass flow, will
be the same according to Eq. (16).
Highest energy efficiency of turbo-generator in this operating
point is 66.5%, while the maximum exergy efficiency is 66.79% at
a standard ambient temperature of 25 °C.
With the variation of steam mass flow, the ambient tempera-
ture was also varied in the range from 10 °C to 40 °C. As concluded
before, an increase in the ambient temperature causes a decrease
in exergy efficiency and vice versa for any steam turbine. During
the change in the ambient temperature along with a simultaneous
variation of steam mass flow, turbo-generators exergy efficiency
trend remains the same as for the ambient temperature of 25 °C,
Fig. 14.
Maximum exergy efficiency of 67.92% is achieved at a lowest
ambient temperature of 10 °C. It is interesting to note that the
highest turbo-generator exergy efficiency at ambient temperature
of 40 °C was 65.69%, therefore it would be 1.10% lower than the
maximum exergy efficiency at ambient temperature of 25 °C or
2.23% lower than the maximum exergy efficiency at ambient tem-
perature of 10 °C. Also, ambient temperature had no significant
impact on turbo-generator exergy efficiency in analysis with a
variation of steam mass flow.
It is important to note the range of achieved turbo-generators
efficiencies, according to measured operating parameters (BP) dur-
ing ship exploitation. In operating point 13, Fig. 14, energy effi-
ciency of each turbo-generator amounts only 53.82% (grey dot)
while the exergy efficiency at the same operating point amounts
54.77% (black dot). It can be concluded that these efficiencies are
much lower than calculated maximum values.
From the aspect of energy efficiency, MFP steam turbine is
detected as one of the poorest components in the steam propulsion
system what is confirmed also by this analysis. Introducing an
electric motor instead of MFP steam turbine at the analyzed LNG
carrier would bring at least two important improvements:
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323
– The MFP steam turbine has energy efficiency between 46.8%
and 51%, while its exergy efficiency is in the range between
57.5% and 62%. Both energy and exergy efficiency of electric
motor amounts between 80% and 87%, according to [60].
According to [45], energy and exergy efficiency of electric motor
amounts around 90%. Thus, the electric motor has considerably
higher energy and exergy efficiency, which will improve the
overall energy-exergy efficiency of the whole propulsion plant.
– As shown in Fig. 8, energy and exergy efficiencies of turbo-
generator increases with the load increase. Electric motor
power consumption directly increases the load of turbo-
generators. If it is assumed that electric motor would have max-
imum power of 570 kW and that his power has changed
between 200 kW and 570 kW during operation (power change
of MFP steam turbine), increase in turbo-generator energy and
exergy efficiency would be between 1% and 4% (EM in
Fig. 14). The analyzed system would require inclusion of
additional electrical consumers if maximum turbo-generator
efficiencies will be set as a target (but only until the turbo-
generators cumulative power of 5500 kW).
In the presented analysis, MFP turbine uses between 3250 kg/h
and 3650 kg/h of superheated steam during all observed propul-
sion propeller speeds. Both turbo-generators will require between
750 kg/h and 2000 kg/h more superheated steam to develop
200 kW to 570 kW more power, Fig. 2. The rest of the steam with
higher pressure and temperature will be sent to the deaerator to
ensure its smooth operation, Fig. 1. It is an open question whether
the remaining steam quantity would be sufficient for the smooth
deaerator operation. If not, steam generators will have to produce
more superheated steam, which will increase the fuel consumption
and propulsion plant costs, at least in some steam plant operating
regimes. The real answer to this question can offer only a detailed
analysis of the entire steam system before and after the proposed
change.
The conclusions derived from Fig. 14 are valid in any analyzed
turbo-generator operating point (Table 2). In the operating point
21, Fig. 15, the highest turbo-generator energy efficiency is
68.62% and the highest exergy efficiency amounts 69.31% at a stan-
dard ambient temperature of 25 °C while at the ambient tempera-
ture of 10 °C maximum exergy efficiency grow up to the value of
70.4%.
According to measured operating parameters during the ship
exploitation (BP), turbo-generator energy efficiency is 59.94% (grey
dot) while the exergy efficiency amounts 60.92% (black dot) in the
operating point 21. The introduction of electric motor instead of
the MFP steam turbine, with the same assumptions as before,
Fig. 15. TG steam turbine efficiencies for operating point 21.
319
would cause an increase in both turbo-generator efficiencies
between 1% and 3% (EM in Fig. 15).
Variations of steam mass flow were made also for the MFP
steam turbine and energy and exergy efficiency rates were investi-
gated in the same two operating points as for the turbo-generators.
In contrast to the turbo-generators, the highest MFP steam turbine
efficiencies appear during the highest load of 570 kW for all oper-
ating points. Both efficiencies of the MFP steam turbine are
increasing continuously with the driving power.
Increase in MFP steam turbine energy efficiency during the
steam mass flow increase for the whole observed operating range
occurs because the increase in developed power has a greater
intensity than the increase in steam mass flow, Fig. 5. According
to Eq. (19) this resulted with the decrease in enthalpy at the MFP
turbine outlet (h2) what increases numerator in Eq. (22). All the
other elements of Eq. (22) remain the same as before.
Change in MFP turbine exergy efficiency during the increase in
steam mass flow is also caused by differences in developed power
and steam mass flow. The increase in developed power has a
greater intensity than the increase in steam mass flow for the
whole observed operating range, Fig. 5, what results with continu-
ous increase in MFP turbine exergy efficiency.
During the change in the ambient temperature along with a
simultaneous variation of steam mass flow, MFP steam turbine
exergy efficiency trend remains the same as for the ambient tem-
perature of 25 °C, Fig. 16.
Highest energy efficiency of MFP steam turbine in operating
point 13 (Table 2), is 57.34%, while the highest exergy efficiency
for the same operating point amounts 66.99% at a standard ambi-
ent temperature of 25 °C, Fig. 16. By reducing the ambient temper-
ature to 10 °C, maximum exergy efficiency increases to 68.12%,
while the ambient temperature increase to 40 °C lowers maximum
exergy efficiency to 65.89%. According to the measured data from
the ship exploitation (BP), energy efficiency of MFP steam turbine
in operating point 13 is 46.75% (grey dot) while the exergy effi-
ciency for the same operating point amounts 57.92% (black dot)
giving significantly lower values when compared to those at max-
imum power. The required power of the MFP steam turbine was
changed according to the required feed water mass flow in the
steam propulsion system. Therefore, it was not possible to main-
tain the MFP steam turbine at constant maximum power and max-
imum efficiencies.
In the operating point 21 (Table 2), the highest energy efficiency
of MFP steam turbine is 58.85%, while the highest exergy efficiency
amounts 68.27% at a standard ambient temperature of 25 °C,
Fig. 17. Both maximum efficiencies were calculated at the highest
MFP steam turbine power. With an increase of the ambient
320 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323
Fig. 16. MFP steam turbine efficiencies for operating point 13.
Fig. 17. MFP steam turbine efficiencies for operating point 21.
temperature to 40 °C maximum exergy efficiency decreases to
67.19%, while decrease of the ambient temperature to 10 °C causes
that maximum exergy efficiency increases to 69.37%. According to
the measured data from the ship exploitation (BP), energy effi-
ciency of MFP steam turbine in operating point 21, Fig. 17, is
50.20% (grey dot) while the exergy efficiency amounts 60.99%
(black dot).
The same variations of the steam mass flow and influence of
those variations on the exergy efficiency for two turbo-
generators (STGI and STGII) performed Hafdhi et al. [18]. The
obtained trends are comparable with the results obtained for
turbo-generator and MFP steam turbine.
Analyzed turbo-generators can be compared with STGII from
mentioned analysis. Obtained trends of exergy efficiency rates
are the same. With the increase in steam mass flow, exergy effi-
ciency increases to maximum value. Further increase in steam
mass flow causes exergy efficiency to decrease. Hafdhi et al. [18]
concluded that maximum exergy efficiency amounts 75.5% and is
achieved at 89% of maximum steam mass flow for STGII. In this
paper, maximum exergy efficiency of the analyzed turbo-
generator amounts 66.79% (operating point 13) and 69.31% (oper-
ating point 21) at the ambient temperature 25 °C. Both maximum
exergy efficiencies were achieved at 71.5% of maximum developed
turbo-generator power.
The MFP steam turbine is comparable with STGI. Again, trends
in exergy efficiency are the same for STGI and MFP steam turbine
analyzed in this paper. With the increase in steam mass flow,
exergy efficiency increases continuously and reaches maximum
value at the highest steam flow. Hafdhi et al. [18] maximum exergy
efficiency of 52% for STGI obtained at the highest steam mass flow.
MFP steam turbine maximum exergy efficiencies were obtained at
maximum developed power of 570 kW and they were 66.99%
(operating point 13) and 68.27% (operating point 21) at the ambi-
ent temperature 25 °C.
Similar research on energy efficiency rate and ambient temper-
ature influence on exergy efficiency of low-power steam turbines
authors didn’t find in available literature. Analysis of these two
parameters in relation to low-power steam turbine load was per-
formed in this paper.
7. Final remarks
Not only the turbo-generators and MFP steam turbine, but also
the other components of steam propulsion plant must have a series
of measurement and control devices [61,62]. Ship engine room
electronic management and control system gives the possibility
of monitoring and control of each individual component.
During energy and exergy efficiency investigation of any steam
system or some of its components, some uncertainties should be
considered [63–65]. In the presented analysis, they were not con-
sidered in detail, but it was assumed that uncertainties would
not change the essential conclusions.
Efficiencies optimization for turbo-generators and MFP steam
turbine can be performed in many different ways. Nowadays, opti-
mization of steam turbines and their processes is usually con-
ducted through the application of artificial neural networks
[66,67], genetic algorithms [44,68,69] or multi-objective optimiza-
tion [42,70].
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323 321

The recommendations in this paper can be helpful to the crew Appendix A

of the analyzed LNG carrier in choosing a more favourable energy
solution which is, according to SEEMP (Ship Energy Efficiency Man- A.1. List and specifications of used measuring equipment
agement Plan) convention [71,72], the obligation for the crew and
ship-owner. TG steam mass flow:
? Yamatake JTD960A - Differential Pressure Transmitter [73]
8. Conclusions
Measuring span: 0.25–14 MPa
Setting span: 100 to 14 MPa
Although at the present time ship propulsion systems are
Working pressure range: 2.0 kPa–14 MPa
mainly based on internal combustion diesel engines, steam propul-
sion plants are still a dominant occurrence on a number of LNG
carriers.
Based on the measurement data from the analyzed LNG carrier,
energy and exergy analysis was performed in this paper for two
Accuracy Linear output: 0:15% ðv P 3:5 MPaÞ
components of the steam propulsion plant: turbo-generators and
 
steam turbine for main feed water pump drive. Results of pre- 3:5
 0:1 þ 0:05
% ðv < 3:5 MPaÞ
sented mathematical equations show the advantages and disad- v
vantages of these components throughout the whole investigated
propulsion operating range. Square-root output:
For low-power steam turbines, which were taken into consider- – When output is 50–100%: same as linear
ation in this research, the following conclusions are valid: output
– When output is 7.1–50%:
– Energy and exergy efficiencies are quite low (between 46.8% linear output
squareroot output %
50
and 62%), what is significantly lower when compared to high-
– When output is less than 7.1%: dropout
power steam turbines
– Energy and exergy efficiencies have almost identical trends of
change
Pressure at the TG outlet:
– Ambient temperature has low impact on exergy efficiency
? Yamatake JTD910A - Differential Pressure Transmitter [73]
(change in the ambient temperature for 10 °C causes less than
1% change in exergy efficiency)
Measuring span: 0.1–2 kPa
Setting span: 1 to 1 kPa
By varying the steam mass flow for turbo-generators and MFP
Working pressure range: 70 to 0.206 MPa
steam turbine, a complete insight was obtained in a range of
energy and exergy efficiencies. Highest energy and exergy efficien-
cies of turbo-generator were achieved at 71.5% of maximum devel-
oped power while the MFP steam turbine achieves the highest
efficiencies at maximum power. The conclusion about maximum
efficiencies for both analyzed turbines is valid in all measured
Accuracy Linear output: ð0:15 þ 0:15
v1Þ%
operating points. Square-root output:
Energy and exergy efficiencies of the turbo-generator and MFP – When output is 50–100%: same as linear
steam turbine that are calculated from measured exploitation output
points are much lower than the maximum possible values. There- – When output is 7.1–50%:
fore, it would be advisable to perform an energy and exergy opti- linear output
squareroot
50
output %
mization of the entire steam propulsion system in order to – When output is less than 7.1%: dropout
achieve the optimal efficiencies in different operating regimes.
The paper presents one of the possible methods for improving
the analyzed steam propulsion plant efficiencies by replacing an MFP water volume flow:
existing MFP steam turbine with an electric motor. This modifica- ? Promass 80F - Coriolis Mass Flow Measuring System [74]
tion would have at least two useful benefits. One of them is
increase in turbo-generator energy and exergy efficiencies for at Measuring range: 0–180,000 kg/h
least 1–3% in all measured operating points. Maximum measured error: ±0.15%
Substitution of MFP steam turbine with an electric motor, anal- Zero point stability: 9.00 kg/h
ysis of his impact on the entire steam system as well as profitabil- Repeatability: ±0.05%
ity calculation of such investment will be the topic for future Ambient temperature range: 20 to +60 °C
scientific research. Medium temperature range: 50 to +200 °C

Acknowledgment
Temperature at the TG and MFP turbine inlet:
The authors would like to extend their appreciations to the ? Greisinger GTF 601-Pt100 - Immersion probe [75]
main ship-owner office for conceding measuring equipment and
for all help during the exploitation measurements. Prof. Vladimir Measuring range: 200 to +600 °C
Medica, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka is gratefully Response time: approx. 10 s
acknowledged for helpful suggestions and discussions. This Standard: 1/3 DIN class B
research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the Error ranges: ð0:10 þ 0:00167
jTemp: in  CjÞ
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
322 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323

Pressure at the TG and MFP turbine inlet: [10] Koroneos CJ, Fokaides PA, Christoforou EA. Exergy analysis of a 300 MW lignite
? Yamatake JTG980A - Pressure Transmitter [76] thermoelectric power plant. Energy 2014;75:304–11. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.079.
[11] Taillon J, Blanchard RE. Exergy efficiency graphs for thermal power plants.
Measuring span: 0.7–42 MPa Energy 2015;88:57–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.055.
[12] Ray TK, Datta A, Gupta A, Ganguly R. Exergy-based performance analysis for
Setting span: 100 to 42 MPa
proper O&M decisions in a steam power plant. Energy Convers Manage
Working pressure range: 2.0 kPa–42 MPa 2010;51:1333–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.01.012.
[13] Kaushik SC, Reddy VS, Tyagi SK. Energy and exergy analyses of thermal power
plants: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1857–72. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.12.007.
[14] Aljundi IH. Energy and exergy analysis of a steam power plant in Jordan. Appl
Therm Eng 2009;29:324–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Accuracy 0:15% ðv P 7 MPaÞ applthermaleng.2008.02.029.
  [15] Ahmadi GR, Toghraie D. Energy and exergy analysis of Montazeri Steam Power
 0:05 þ 0:1
v7 % ðv < 7 MPaÞ Plant in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:454–63. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.074.
[16] Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of
a steam power plant: a case study. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:499–512. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1495.
Pressure at the MFP turbine outlet: [17] Kopac M, Hilalci A. Effect of ambient temperature on the efficiency of the
? Yamatake JTG940A - Pressure Transmitter [76] regenerative and reheat Catalagzi power plant in Turkey. Appl Therm Eng
2007;27:1377–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.10.029.
[18] Hafdhi F, Khir T, Ben Yahyia A, Ben Brahim A. Energetic and exergetic analysis
Measuring span: 35–3500 kPa of a steam turbine power plant in an existing phosphoric acid factory. Energy
Setting span: 100 to 3500 kPa Convers Manage 2015;106:1230–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Working pressure range: 2.0 kPa–3500 kPa enconman.2015.10.044.
[19] Ganjehkaviri A, Mohd Jaafar MN, Hosseini SE. Optimization and the effect of
steam turbine outlet quality on the output power of a combined cycle power
plant. Energy Convers Manage 2015;89:231–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2014.09.042.
[20] Memon AG, Memon RA, Harijan K, Uqaili MA. Parametric based thermo-
environmental and exergoeconomic analyses of a combined cycle power plant
Accuracy 0:1% ðv P 0:14 MPaÞ with regression analysis and optimization. Energy Convers Manage
 
2015;92:19–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.033.
v %
 0:025 þ 0:075
0:14 ðv < 0:14 MPaÞ [21] Lythcke-Jørgensen C, Haglind F, Clausen LR. Exergy analysis of a combined
heat and power plant with integrated lignocellulosic ethanol production.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;85:817–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2014.01.018.
Propulsion propeller speed: [22] Elsafi AM. Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of sustainable direct steam
? Kyma Shaft Power Meter (KPM-PFS) [77] generation solar power plants. Energy Convers Manage 2015;103:338–47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.06.066.
[23] Gupta MK, Kaushik SC. Exergy analysis and investigation for various feed
Accuracy Absolute Relative water heaters of direct steam generation solar–thermal power plant. Renew
Energy 2010;35:1228–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.09.007.
Torque < ±0.5% < ±0.5%
[24] Peng S, Wang Z, Hong H, Xu D, Jin H. Exergy evaluation of a typical 330 MW
Thrust < ±5.0% < ±5.0% solar-hybrid coal-fired power plant in China. Energy Convers Manage
Revolution < ±0.1% < ±0.1% 2014;85:848–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.073.
Power < ±0.5% < ±0.5% [25] Taner T, Sivrioglu M. Energy-exergy analysis and optimisation of a model
sugar factory in Turkey. Energy 2015;93:641–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2015.09.007.
[26] Jokandan MJ, Aghbashlo M, Mohtasebi SS. Comprehensive exergy analysis of
an industrial-scale yogurt production plant. Energy 2015;93:1832–51. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.003.
References [27] Keçebas A. Energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental evaluations of
geothermal district heating systems: an application. Energy Convers Manage
[1] Tan H, Zhao Q, Sun N, Li Y. Enhancement of energy performance in a boil-off 2013;65:546–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.07.021.
gas re-liquefaction system of LNG carriers using ejectors. Energy Convers [28] Keçebas A, Gokgedik H. Thermodynamic evaluation of a geothermal power
Manage 2016;126:875–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. plant for advanced exergy analysis. Energy 2015;88:746–55. http://dx.doi.org/
enconman.2016.08.031. 10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.094.
[2] Schinas O, Butler M. Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled [29] Final drawing for generator turbine. Hiroshima (Japan): Shinko Ind. Ltd.; 2006
ships. Ocean Eng 2016;122:84–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [internal ship documentation].
oceaneng.2016.04.031. [30] Final drawing for main feed pump & turbine. Hiroshima (Japan): Shinko Ind.
[3] Fernández IA, Gómez MR, Gómez JR, Insua AAB. Review of propulsion systems Ltd.; 2006 [internal ship documentation].
on LNG carriers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:1395–411. http://dx.doi. [31] Bloch HP, Singh MP. Steam turbines-design, applications and re-rating. 2nd
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.095. ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2009.
[4] Kitto JB, Stultz SC. Steam/its generation and use. 41st ed. Ohio: The Babcock & [32] Sarkar DK. Thermal power plant – design and operation. Elsevier Inc.; 2015.
Wilcox Company; 2005. [33] Taylor DA. Introduction to marine engineering. Elsevier Butterworth-
[5] Woodruff EB, Lammers HB, Lammers TF. Steam plant operation. The McGraw- Heinemann; 1998.
Hill Companies, Inc.; 2005. [34] Baldi F, Ahlgren F, Melino F, Gabrielii C, Andersson K. Optimal load allocation
[6] Adibhatla S, Kaushik SC. Energy and exergy analysis of a super critical thermal of complex ship power plants. Energy Convers Manage 2016;124:344–56.
power plant at various load conditions under constant and pure sliding http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.009.
pressure operation. Appl Therm Eng 2014;73:49–63. http://dx.doi.org/ [35] Haglind F. Variable geometry gas turbines for improving the part-load
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.07.030. performance of marine combined cycles – combined cycle performance.
[7] Erdem HH, Akkaya AV, Cetin B, Dagdas A, Sevilgen SH, Sahin B, et al. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:467–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Comparative energetic and exergetic performance analyses for coal-fired applthermaleng.2010.09.029.
thermal power plants in Turkey. Int J Therm Sci 2009;48:2179–86. http://dx. [36] Welaya YMA, Mosleh M, Ammar NR. Thermodynamic analysis of a combined
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2009.03.007. gas turbine power plant with a solid oxide fuel cell for marine applications. Int
[8] Yang Y, Wang L, Dong C, Xu G, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Comprehensive J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 2013;5(4):529–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-
exergy-based evaluation and parametric study of a coal-fired ultra- 2013-0151.
supercritical power plant. Appl Energy 2013;112:1087–99. http://dx.doi.org/ [37] Costanza V, Rivadeneira PS. Optimal supervisory control of steam generators
10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.12.063. operating in parallel. Energy 2015;93:1819–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
[9] Olaleye AK, Wang M, Kelsall G. Steady state simulation and exergy analysis of energy.2015.10.018.
supercritical coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture. Fuel 2015;151:57–72. [38] Pourramezan M, Kahrom M, Passandideh-Fard M. Numerical investigation on
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.013. the lifetime decline of burners in a wall-fired dual-fuel utility boiler. Appl
 V. Mrzljak et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 140 (2017) 307–323 323

Therm Eng 2015;82:141–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [57] Vaziri A, Nayeb-Hashemi H. A theoretical investigation on the vibrational
applthermaleng.2015.02.067. characteristics and torsional dynamic response of circumferentially cracked
[39] Teir S, Kulla A. Steam/water circulation design. Helsinki University of turbo-generator shafts. Int J Solids Struct 2006;43:4063–81. http://dx.doi.org/
Technology Department of ß Mechanical Engineering, Energy Engineering 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.05.029.
and Environmental Protection Publications, Steam Boiler Technology eBook, [58] Al-Masri AN, Ab Kadir MZA, Hizam H, Mariun N. Simulation of an adaptive
Espoo; 2002. artificial neural network for power system security enhancement including
[40] Kanoğlu M, Çengel YA, Dincer I. Efficiency evaluation of energy systems. control action. Appl Soft Comput 2015;29:1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Springer briefs in energy. Springer 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1- asoc.2014.12.006.
4614-2242-6. [59] Hamzaoui YEl, Rodríguez JA, Hernandez JA, Salazar V. Optimization of
[41] Zisopoulos FK, Moejes SN, Rossier-Miranda FJ, Van der Goot AJ, Boom RM. operating conditions for steam turbine using an artificial neural network
Exergetic comparison of food waste valorization in industrial bread inverse. Appl Therm Eng 2015;75:648–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
production. Energy 2015;82:640–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. applthermaleng.2014.09.065.
energy.2015.01.073. [60] Rosen MA, Bulucea CA. Using exergy to understand and improve the efficiency
[42] Nazari N, Heidarnejad P, Porkhial S. Multi-objective optimization of a combined of electrical power technologies. Entropy 2009;11:820–35. http://dx.doi.org/
steam-organic Rankine cycle based on exergy and exergo-economic analysis for 10.3390/e11040820.
waste heat recovery application. Energy Convers Manage 2016;127:366–79. [61] Basu S, Debnath AK. Power plant instrumentation and control handbook – a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.022. guide to thermal power plants. Academic Press (Elsevier); 2015.
[43] Ahmadi G, Toghraie D, Azimian A, Akbari OA. Evaluation of synchronous [62] Zhang H, Xie D, Yu Y, Yu L. Online optimal control schemes of inlet steam
execution of full repowering and solar assisting in a 200 MW steam power temperature during startup of steam turbines considering low cycle fatigue.
plant, a case study. Appl Therm Eng 2017;112:111–23. http://dx.doi.org/ Energy 2016;117:105–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.075.
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.083. [63] Ege A, Sßahin HM. Uncertainties in energy and exergy efficiency of a high
[44] Vandani AMK, Bidi M, Ahmadi F. Exergy analysis and evolutionary pressure turbine in a thermal power plant. Int J Hydrogen Energy
optimization of boiler blowdown heat recovery in steam power plants. 2016;41:7197–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.002.
Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [64] Guo S, Liu P, Li Z. Data reconciliation for the overall thermal system of a steam
enconman.2015.09.018. turbine power plant. Appl Energy 2016;165:1037–51. http://dx.doi.org/
[45] Szargut J. Exergy method – technical and ecological applications. WIT Press; 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.002.
2005. [65] Ege A, Sß ahin HM. Determination of uncertainties in energy and exergy analysis
[46] Ifaei P, Rashidi J, Yoo CK. Thermoeconomic and environmental analyses of a of a power plant. Energy Convers Manage 2014;85:399–406. http://dx.doi.org/
low water consumption combined steam power plant and refrigeration 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.088.
chillers – Part 1: energy and economic modelling and analysis. Energy [66] Benedetti M, Cesarotti V, Introna V, Serranti J. Energy consumption control
Convers Manage 2016;123:610–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. automation using Artificial Neural Networks and adaptive algorithms:
enconman.2016.06.036. proposal of a new methodology and case study. Appl Energy
[47] Talukdar K, Gogoi TK. Exergy analysis of a combined vapor power cycle and 2016;165:60–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.066.
boiler flue gas driven double effect water–LiBr absorption refrigeration [67] Nowak G, Rusin A. Using the artificial neural network to control the steam
system. Energy Convers Manage 2016;108:468–77. http://dx.doi.org/ turbine heating process. Appl Therm Eng 2016;108:204–10. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2015.11.020. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.129.
[48] Lemmon EW, Huber ML, McLinden MO. NIST reference fluid thermodynamic [68] Gopalakrishnan H, Kosanovic D. Operational planning of combined heat and
and transport properties-REFPROP, version 8.0. User’s guide, Colorado; 2007. power plants through genetic algorithms for mixed 0–1 nonlinear
[49] Khalid F, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy and exergy analyses of a solar-biomass programming. Comput Oper Res 2015;56:51–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
integrated cycle for multigeneration. Sol Energy 2015;112:290–9. http://dx. j.cor.2014.11.001.
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.11.027. [69] Nikmanesh E, Hariri O, Shams H, Fasihozaman M. Pareto design of load
[50] Elčić Z. Steam turbines, ABB. Karlovac: National and University Library Zagreb; frequency control for interconnected power systems based on multi-objective
1995. uniform diversity genetic algorithm (MUGA). Electr Power Energy Syst
[51] Kim CK, Yoon JY. Performance analysis of bladeless jet propulsion micro-steam 2016;80:333–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2016.01.042.
turbine for micro-CHP (combined heat and power) systems utilizing low- [70] Banaszkiewicz M. Multilevel approach to lifetime assessment of steam
grade heat sources. Energy 2016;101:411–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. turbines. Int J Fatigue 2015;73:39–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2016.01.070. ijfatigue.2014.10.009.
[52] https://www.epa.gov [accessed 03.10.16]. [71] Armstrong VN, Banks C. Integrated approach to vessel energy efficiency. Ocean
[53] Hicks TG. Power plant evaluation and design reference guide. McGraw-Hill, Eng 2015;110:39–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.10.024.
Inc.; 1986. [72] Perera LP, Mo B. Emission control based energy efficiency measures in ship
[54] Stifanese R, Belsanti L, Toselli M, Letardi P, Traverso P. Corrosion investigation operations. Appl Ocean Res 2016;60:29–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
of a steam turbine after power generator failure onboard a vessel: a case study. apor.2016.08.006.
Eng Fail Anal 2016;64:58–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [73] http://www.krtproduct.com [accessed 12.10.16].
engfailanal.2016.03.007. [74] https://portal.endress.com [accessed 12.10.16].
[55] Lal M, Tiwari R. Quantification of multiple fault parameters in flexible turbo- [75] https://www.greisinger.de [accessed 15.10.16].
generator systems with incomplete rundown vibration data. Mech Syst Signal [76] http://www.industriascontrolpro.com [accessed 15.10.16].
Process 2013;41:546–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2013.06.025. [77] https://www.kyma.no [accessed: 03.01.2017].
[56] Wenzhi G, Zhiyong H. Active control and simulation test study on torsional
vibration of large turbo generator rotor shaft. Mech Mach Theory
2010;45:1326–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2010.04.005.