POLITECNICO DI MILANO

Energy Engineering Department

ENERGY CONVERSION A
PROJECT #3
COMPARISON OF HEAT RECOVERY STEAM CYCLES

Prof. Gianluca Valenti

Luca Mammoliti - 912893

Kilian Cooreman - 916452
Matías Garcés - 916040

Academic year 2018/2019

Introduction

On the previous project, an ideal evaporation pressure was found in order to maximize the net power output
in a combined cycle plant with a simple cycle gas turbine. The aim of this report is to analyze and compare
three possible heat recovery steam cycles configurations to the plant of the second project. The first one is
just as the one already seen, i.e. one evaporation level at 33.22 [𝑏𝑎𝑟], the second case is with two
evaporation levels this time, with pressures of 6.3 and 76 [𝑏𝑎𝑟]. The last case is with three evaporation levels
at the following pressures: 3, 25 and 150 [𝑏𝑎𝑟].

In order to do this, the software TURBOGAS was used. At first, the same conditions in the simple cycle gas
turbine had to be replicated, for this the power output from the gas turbine and its efficiency, 241.9 [𝑀𝑊]
and 38% respectively, had to be matched with less than a 1% of error changing the inlet temperature, 𝑇𝐼𝑇,
the compression ratio, 𝛽𝐶 , and the mass flow rate, 𝑚̇.

Parameters

For determining those parameters, an iteration process was made. First the kind of turbine had to be settled
in order to have a range for the compression ratio that could be used, as its power production was large, the
aero-derivative (less than 50 [𝑀𝑊]) was discarded and the ranges for a heavy-duty one were picked.

As the exhaust gas flow rate was known, and assuming an air fuel ratio of 50, the mass air flow rate was fixed,
and the inlet temperature and compression ratio were settled at their minimum, as expected the values
weren´t close enough to the target. Considering that the power output was further away, the 𝑇𝐼𝑇 was
increased in order to have a higher impact in the power generated. This produced a decrease in the efficiency,
which was compensated by an increase in the compression ratio. The inlet temperature was raised once
more, so the power could approach the target value, this iteration resulted in a higher value than the
expected and still lower efficiency, but a final increase in 𝛽𝑐 adjust both values in the right way.

These final values will be fixed for the following analysis of different number of evaporation levels in the heat
recovery steam cycle.

𝑘𝑔
Iteration n° 𝑇𝐼𝑇 [°𝐶] 𝛽𝑐 𝑚̇ [ ] 𝑃 [𝑀𝑊] 𝜂 [%]
𝑠
1 1250 15 646,9 228,18 35,43
2 1300 15 646,9 238,43 35,32
3 1300 20 646,9 235,05 37,51
4 1350 20 646,9 243,42 37,32
5 1350 22 646,9 240,78 37,89
Table 1: Iteration process made to get the target values from project n°2
 1. Comparison of cases a, b and c

Once the parameters in the simple cycle of the gas turbine were established, the analysis moves forwards to
the heat recovery steam cycle, where there´s a plant like the one in figure 1 with the parameters from table
2, with three possible configurations that will be detailed.

Figure 1: Schematic of the generic combined cycle

Condensing pressure 0.05 [𝑏𝑎𝑟] Δ𝑇𝑎𝑝 25 [°𝐶]

Deaerator pressure 2.0 [𝑏𝑎𝑟] Δ𝑇𝑎𝑐 10 [°𝐶]
Δ𝑇𝑝𝑝 10 [°𝐶] 𝑝 10 %
Δ ⁄𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑜
𝑇0 15 [°𝐶] 𝑝0 101325 [𝑃𝑎]
Table 2: Parameters fixed for cases a, b and c. all the others were settled as default by the TURBOGAS software

1.1 One evaporation level

In this case, the evaporation was fixed equal to the one found in project n°2, 𝑃𝑒𝑣𝑎 = 33.22 [𝑏𝑎𝑟] and the
layout of the HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) is like the one in figure 2. It´s important to notice that
there´s no condensate removal from the steam turbine, hence, no mass flow rate in the red line that exits
the turbine from the bottom.

Figure 2: One evaporation level HRSG

Once all the parameters were settled, a simulation was done and with that the performance parameters
were obtained in the software and are shown in table 3, where the only value that was calculated is the
recuperative thermal efficiency, 𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡ℎ , which is calculated as it follows, where 𝜂𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 99%;
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡ℎ =
𝜂𝑐𝑣 𝜂𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟

𝑘𝐽
𝜂𝑐𝑣 32.15 % 𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝐿𝐻𝑉 1015.218 [ ]
𝑘𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡ℎ 77.51 %
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐 24.67 % Δ𝜂𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺𝐿𝐻𝑉 4.550 %
𝜂𝐼𝐼 55.84 % Δ𝜂𝑆𝑇𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.691 %
𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡 95.5 [𝑀𝑊] Δ𝜂𝐻𝑋𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.723 %
𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 142.8 [°𝐶] Δ𝜂𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘𝐿𝐻𝑉 2.834 %
Δ𝜂𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.466 %

Table 3: Summary of results obtained for the case “a” thanks to TURBOGAS software

It´s important to notice that the power output produced, and the cycle efficiency are quite like the ones
obtained in project n°2, which back the idea that the parameters chosen in the iteration are the right ones.

Now in order to get the second law efficiency losses, Δ𝜂𝐼𝐼 , with respect to the exhaust gasses reversible work,
which can be computed from the power produced in the steam cycle and the second law efficiency from
table 3., and of course taking into consideration the mass flow rate from air in order to convert power to
work.

𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑠𝑡 𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑔 = = 264,38 [ ]
𝜂𝐼𝐼 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑘𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑟

As the gas turbine doesn´t change in the other configurations, this value should be equal in case b and c.

Once this value is obtained, we can get Δ𝜂𝐼𝐼 according to the following equation, where the numerator part
comes from the fact that 𝑇0 𝑆𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚 = Δ𝜂𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚𝐿𝐻𝑉 𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝐿𝐻𝑉 .

Δ𝜂𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑚𝐿𝐻𝑉 𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝐿𝐻𝑉
Δ𝜂𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑔
𝑖 =
𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑔

Since all the values are already at disposal, the second law efficiency losses are obtained:

Cycle heat input Δ𝜂𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺𝑒𝑔

𝑎 17.47 %
Steam Turbine Δ𝜂𝑆𝑇𝑒𝑔
𝑎 6.49 %
Heat Rejection in the condenser Δ𝜂𝐻𝑋𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑒𝑔 6.62 %
Exhaust gases at the stack Δ𝜂𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑔
𝑎 10.88 %
Thermal, electrical and mechanical Δ𝜂𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑔
𝑎 5.63 %
losses and auxiliaries
 1.2 Two evaporation levels

The same procedure carried in the first case will be done now, with the difference that now the combined
cycle has two evaporation levels, the low pressure one at 6.3 [𝑏𝑎𝑟] and the high pressure at 76 [𝑏𝑎𝑟].

Figure 3: Two evaporation level HRSG

𝑘𝐽
𝜂𝑐𝑣 32.05 % 𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝐿𝐻𝑉 1032.668 [ ]
𝑘𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡ℎ 86.39 %
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐 27.41 % Δ𝜂𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺𝐿𝐻𝑉 3.384 %
𝜂𝐼𝐼 62.06 % Δ𝜂𝑆𝑇𝐿𝐻𝑉 2.234 %
𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡 106.14 [𝑀𝑊] Δ𝜂𝐻𝑋𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.923 %
𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 93.2 [°𝐶] Δ𝜂𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.463 %
Δ𝜂𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.642 %

Table 4: Summary of results obtained for the case “b” thanks to TURBOGAS software

The reversible work is checked, and it remains the same to the one in case a, as it was expected.
𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑠𝑡 𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑔 = = 264,38 [ ]
𝜂𝐼𝐼 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑘𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑟

Δ𝜂𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺𝑒𝑔
𝑏 13.22 %
Δ𝜂𝑆𝑇𝑒𝑔
𝑏 8.73 %
Δ𝜂𝐻𝑋𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑏 7.51 %
𝑒𝑔
Δ𝜂𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑔
𝑏 5.71 %
Δ𝜂𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑔
𝑏 6.41 %
 1.3 Three evaporation levels with superheating of the high-pressure stream

For this case, a new evaporation level is added and there´s superheating of the high-pressure stream. The
values for the streams now are: 3 [𝑏𝑎𝑟] for the low-pressure one, 25 [𝑏𝑎𝑟] for the intermediate and
150 [𝑏𝑎𝑟] for the high-pressure.

Figure 4: Three evaporation level HRSG

𝑘𝐽
𝜂𝑐𝑣 34.14 % 𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝐿𝐻𝑉 1015.223 [ ]
𝑘𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡ℎ 87.43 %
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐 29.55 % Δ𝜂𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺𝐿𝐻𝑉 2.415 %
𝜂𝐼𝐼 66.90 % Δ𝜂𝑆𝑇𝐿𝐻𝑉 2.043 %
𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡 114.43 [𝑀𝑊] Δ𝜂𝐻𝑋𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.886 %
𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 87.3 [°𝐶] Δ𝜂𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.333 %
Δ𝜂𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝐿𝐻𝑉 1.705 %

Table 5: Summary of results obtained for the case “c” thanks to TURBOGAS software

𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑠𝑡 𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑔 = = 264.41 [ ]
𝜂𝐼𝐼 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑘𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑟

There´s a tiny difference to the previous values, but not significant, and as it was delivered by the software
it was kept doing the calculations of the second law efficiency losses.

Δ𝜂𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺𝑒𝑔
𝑐 9.27 %
Δ𝜂𝑆𝑇𝑒𝑔
𝑐 7.84 %
Δ𝜂𝐻𝑋𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑒𝑔 7.24 %
Δ𝜂𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑔
𝑐 5.12 %
Δ𝜂𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑔
𝑐 6.55 %
 1.4 Results

From all the previous calculations and collected data, the following table was made as a way to better
compare the three cases.

One level Two levels Three levels

𝜂𝑐𝑣 32.15 % 32.05 % 34.14 %
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡ℎ 77.51 % 86.39 % 87.43 %
𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑐 24.67 % 27.41 % 29.55 %
𝜂𝐼𝐼 55.84 % 62.06 % 66.90 %
𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑡 95.5 [𝑀𝑊] 106.14 [𝑀𝑊] 114.43 [𝑀𝑊]
𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 142.8 [°𝐶] 93.2 [°𝐶] 87.3 [°𝐶]
Δ𝜂𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺 17,47 % 13,22 % 9.27 %
Δ𝜂𝑆𝑇 6,49 % 8,73 % 7.84 %
Δ𝜂𝐻𝑋𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 6,62 % 7,51 % 7.24 %
Δ𝜂𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 10,88 % 5,71 % 5.12 %
Δ𝜂𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐 5,63 % 6,41 % 6.55 %
Table 6: Summary of the parameters obtained for the three cases.

We can see how, by adding more levels of evaporation, all the performance values tend to increase. This
happens because the steam cycle exploits better the gas heat coming from the gas cycle, in fact the working
fluid follows in a better the way cooling curve of the gases, reducing the irreversibility linked to the heat
exchanged in conditions of finite Δ𝑇´s. The use of several levels of pressure leads to an increase in the
system's net power, as well as to a decrease in the gas temperature at the stack, precisely because there is a
better thermal recovery in the steam boiler. In order to achieve the maximum heat recovery, the
temperature of the stack should match the environment´s one (considering, however, the technical limit to
avoid acid condensation).

Therefore, the best configuration for the heat exchange is the third one with three levels of evaporation and
superheating of the high-pressure steam. This is clear, because, despite the difference in the temperature
throughout the cycle is very high, the ΔT between the two transformations of cooling and heating are modest
(see figure 8a). However, the limits of this plant engineering solution are evident in the complexity and the
costs that could derive from it, so the feasibility of the cycle must also be verified considering the necessary
investment.
 Δ𝜂𝐼𝐼 by case
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
one level two levels three levels

HRSG ST COND STACK MISC

Graph 1 Second law efficiency losses grouped by items for each case

From this graph, it´s noticeable that with the addition of more levels, the losses are reduced. The HRSG losses
come from the heat exchange into the cycle, pressure drops and thermal losses to the environment, and as
the mean temperature difference at which these processes occur, the HRSG loss decreases.

The losses at the steam turbine increase in the second configuration and the decrease for the third one, this
is due to the fact the in the second one, there´s a lower quality steam, hence, the performance of the turbine
is affected.

The losses at the stack are due to the heat exchange with the environment, and as the temperature goes
down as more levels are added, this loss is reduced too.

The miscellaneous losses include the thermal, electrical and mechanical losses and auxiliaries, and as more
levels imply a larger plant, more equipment is needed and with this, this loss is increased, but just a little bit
and are small compared to the benefit these additions bring.
 2.Three levels of evaporation analysis

For the last case, the thermodynamic properties of each point of the cycle are detailed, the stream line that
starts at 6, belongs to the low-pressure stream, 12 for the intermediate and 18 for the high-pressure one.

Figure 4 Three evaporation level HRSG

[The enthalpy and entropy values are computed with reference to the condensate extraction pump inlet]
Point T [°C] P [bar] h [kJ/kg] s [kJ/kgK] m [kg/s]
1 32,9 0,05 0,00 0,000 94,318
2 110,2 2 324,52 0,945 94,318
3 120,2 2 2568,51 6,651 1,811
4 234,4 2,16 2801,35 7,136 0,000
5 120,2 2 366,92 1,054 94,318
6 123,5 3 381,05 1,089 13,520
7 133,5 3 423,65 1,195
8 133,5 3 2586,88 6,515 13,520
9 208,9 3 2746,15 6,874 13,520
10 327,1 3 2987,4 7,322 13,520
11 350 3 3034,11 7,398 13,520
12 133,5 25 425,12 1,193 21,995
13 213,9 25 778,14 1,984 21,995
14 223,9 25 824,19 2,078
15 223,9 25 2663,16 5,777 21,995
16 327,1 25 2937,59 6,281 21,995
17 529,1 25 3388,63 6,93 80,086
18 133,5 150 433,55 1,181 58,803
19 223,9 150 827,67 2,055 58,803
20 332,1 150 1396,41 3,084 58,803
21 342,1 150 1473,23 3,21
22 342,1 150 2477,25 4,842 58,803
23 529,1 150 3254,14 5,976 58,803
24 302,6 25 2879,12 6,182 58,092
25 32,9 0,05 2237,46 7,311 94,318

Table 7 Properties of each point in the HRSG from the third case in figure 4
2.1 T-Q diagram

As it was discussed before, the heat exchange is more efficient as more evaporation level are added, due to
a smaller mean temperature difference between the flue gasses and the stream. This clearly visible in the
next figures:

Figure 6 Case a Figure 7 Case b Figure 8.a Case c

Figure 8.a T-Q for each section in the HRSG Figure 8.b T-Q for each streamline

As a final analysis, two T-Q diagrams will be compared for the third case, where the one in the figure 8.a
represents the heat exchange through the HRSG (if seen in the figure 4, it would be like following a path from
right to left), where each stream line is parallel and flowing simultaneously to get heat from the exhaust gas
flow. Whilst on the figure 8.b, the heat exchange is shown between the flue gas flow and each stream line
individually, so visually there´s a hint of which gets more heat exchanged (the high-pressure one, as it has
more mass flow rate), and the slopes are inversely proportional to the thermal capacity, so it´s natural to see
that the high-pressure slope is the smaller of three.