OPTIMIZATION OF THE TRIPLE- PRESSURE COMBINED CYCLE

POWER PLANT
by
Muammer ALUS, Milan V. PETROVIC*
University of Belgrade - Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Belgrade, Serbia
mpetrovic@mas.bg.ac.rs

The aim of this work was to develop a new system for optimization of
parameters for combined cycle power plants (CCGTs) with triple-pressure
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Thermodynamic and
thermoeconomic optimizations were carried out. The objective of the
thermodynamic optimization is to enhance the efficiency of the CCGTs and
to maximize the power production in the steam cycle (steam turbine gross
power). Improvement of the efficiency of the CCGT plants is achieved
through optimization of the operating parameters: temperature difference
between the gas and steam (pinch point P.P.) and the steam pressure in the
HRSG. The objective of the thermoeconomic optimization is to minimize the
production costs per unit of the generated electricity. Defining the optimal
P.P. was the first step in the optimization procedure. Then, through the
developed optimization process, other optimal operating parameters (steam
pressure and condenser pressure) were identified. The developed system was
demonstrated for the case of a 282 MW CCGT power plant with a typical
design for commercial combined cycle power plants. The optimized
combined cycle was compared with the regular CCGT plant.

Keywords: combined cycle, heat recovery steam generator, thermodynamic

optimization, thermoeconomic optimization.

1. Introduction

The heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) is one of the most important components of a
combined cycle power plant (CCGT) that significantly affect the efficiency and the cost of the whole
plant. The HRSG is an interface between the gas cycle and the steam cycle in a CCGTs. Here, the
exhaust gas from the gas turbine is cooled and the extracted heat is used to generate steam. In order to
improve the heat recovery in the HRSG, more than one pressure level is used. With a single-pressure
HRSG, about 30% of the total plant output is generated in the steam turbine. A dual-pressure
arrangement can increase the power output of the steam cycle by up to 10%, and an additional 3% can
be achieved with a triple-pressure cycle [1]. Modern combined cycle power plants with a triple-
pressure HRSG with steam reheat can easily reach thermal efficiencies above 55% [1].
Several studies have carried out thermodynamic and thermoeconomic optimizations of
CCGTs. Valdes et al. [2] performed a thermoeconomic optimization of combined cycle gas turbine
power plants using a genetic algorithm. They proposed two different objective functions: one

1
minimizes the cost of production per unit of electricity and the other maximizes the annual cash flow.
Attala et al. [3] optimized a dual pressure level CCGT. They worked with a simulation program that
included three modules: the first simulates the cycle, the second evaluates the thermodynamic and
thermoeconomic parameters and the third is the optimization model. Ravi Kumar et al. [4] studied the
effect of HRSG configuration of both single pressure and dual pressure on combined cycle power
plant efficiency by using first law and second law of thermodynamics. They discussed the effect of
various parameters like pinch point, approach point; steam pressure, steam temperature and gas flow
rate on the performance of the HRSG by using energy and exergy analysis. Behbahani-nia et al. [5]
presented an exergy based thermoeconomic method, which is applied to find optimal values of design
parameters (the pinch point and gas-side velocity) for a specific HRSG used in combined cycle power
plants. Ahmadi and Dincer [6] have thermodynamicaly analyzed a combined cycle power plant with a
supplementary firing system through energy and exergy. The optimal design of operating parameters
of the plant is then performed by defining an objective function and applying a generic algorithm (GA)
type optimization method. Valdes and Rapun [7] presented a method for optimization of an HRSG
based on the utilization of influence coefficients, which takes advantage of the influence of the design
parameters on the cycle thermodynamic performance, although its application to multiple pressure
configurations becomes complex because of the need to evaluate a large number of combinations.
In this work, we assume that the parameters of the gas at the gas turbine outlet (i.e. the mass
flow mGT ,out and the temperature TGT ,out ) are fixed and they are used as input data for optimization of
the HRSG. Two different types of optimization of the HRSG, thermodynamic and thermoeconomic
optimization were performed. The subject of both optimizations was the cycle operating parameters:
pinch point (P.P.), steam drum pressures and condenser pressure. These parameters have greater
effects on the cost of the HRSG than the all other operating parameters together [2]. The P.P.
represents the difference between the gas temperature leaving the evaporator and the saturation
temperature [5]. In the past, authors have used their experience to select a value for the P.P. for
thermodynamic and thermoeconomic optimization. In that respect, the P.P. was usually selected in the
range 5–15 K [8]. However, our idea was first to find the optimal value of the P.P. delivering minimal
production costs of electricity, and then to optimize the other operating parameters (steam drum
pressures and condenser pressure) keeping the optimal value of the P.P. constant. A comparison
between an initial case and an optimization case was made in order to test the model and the
methodology. To perform a power plant optimization a cost hypothesis for all components of the plant
had to be assumed.

2. Thermodynamic optimization model

The objective of thermodynamic optimization is to enhance the efficiency of the CCGT and to
maximize the electrical power in the steam cycle (steam turbine gross power). Here, a CCGT cycle
with a triple-pressure HRSG will be considered. This case is the most complex one. The same
procedure can be applied for single-pressure or dual-pressure of the HRSG CCGTs. Fig. 1 shows a
schematic diagram of the triple-pressure HRSG for a combined cycle power plant. The assumptions
and parameters selected for the thermodynamic analysis of the plant are tabulated in Tab. 1.

2
 Figure 1. – Gas turbine and steam turbine combined cycle – heat balance diagram

Table 1. Gas turbine parameters and assumptions for component performances of the CCGT
with the triple-pressure HRSG selected for the optimization
Parameter Value
1. Gas Turbine Cycle ( Alstom GT24/1994)
Ambient air pressure [bar] 1.013
o
Ambient air temperature [ C ] 15
Relative humidity 0.60
Electrical power at the generator output [MW] 187.7
Exhaust gas mass flow [kg/s] 445
o
Exhaust gas temperature at the gas turbine outlet [ C ] 612
The gas turbine efficiency [%] 36.9
Lower heat value of the fuel H l [kJ/kg] 47141
Minimum stack temperature [ o C ] 100
2. Assumption
The isentropic efficiency of all three steam turbine parts 90%
The isentropic efficiencies of water pumps 82%
The mechanical efficiency 99.5%
The generator efficiency 98%
The heat recovery steam generator efficiency [9,10] 99.3%
The pressure drops for water in the economizers [10] 25%
The pressure drops for steam in the reheat and superheater tubes [10] 8%

3
 The overall heat transfer coefficients for sections of the HRSG [W/m2 K] [1]
 economizer 42.6
 evaporator 43.7
 superheater and reheat 50
The minimum temperature difference between the gas turbine exhaust gases and 25
live/reheat steam [ o C ]
Minimum dryness fraction of steam at low steam turbine outlet [9] 0.88
Low-pressure steam turbine outlet (condenser pressure PCond ) [bar] 0.055
The inlet cooling water temperature in condenser [ o C ] 20
Feed water temperature at 3 [ o C ] 60

2.1. Energy balance of HRSG sections

The water–steam properties were derived from the standard “IAPWS” 97 [11].The properties
of the gas turbine exhaust gases, which are combustion products of the specified fuel, were calculated
according to Baehr and Diederichsen [12]. The compute code to calculate the heat balance of triple-
pressure HRSG CCGTs was developed in FORTRAN 90. To find the optimum, the P.P. was varied
stepwise from 3 to 40 o C and heat balance of the plant, the overall efficiency and gross power output
were calculated for every step. The values for pinch points in all of the three pressure HRSG parts are
considered as equal.
The temperature of the gas entering the LP economizer, IP economizer and HP economizer
can be written as follows:
T6 g  T20  P.P. (1)
T8 g  T11  P.P. (2)
T10 g  T6  P.P. (3)

After the thermodynamic properties of water–steam in all steam cycle points have been
calculated, the mass flow rate of steam generation in the HRSG can be determined by applying the
energy balances for flow at each single pressure. The energy balance equation for the high-pressure
part of the HRSG gives
 
mGT ,out HRSG h4 g  h6 g  mST , HP   h22  h20    h15  h24    mST , IP  h15  h13  (4)

where mGT ,out and mST , HP , mST , IP are the mass flow rates of gas and steam, respectively,
entering sections 1 and 2. h4 g and h13 , h24 are the enthalpies of gas and steam entering section 1,
h20 is the enthalpy of steam entering section 2, h15 and h22 are the enthalpies of steam at the exit of
section 1 and h6 g is the enthalpy of gas at the exit of section 2.
Applying the energy balance equation for the intermediate-pressure part of the HRSG yields
 
mGT ,out HRSG h6 g  h8 g  mST , HP  h20  h19   mST , IP  h13  h11  (5)

where h6 g is the enthalpy of gas entering section 3, h8g is the enthalpy of gas at the exit of
section 4, h11 is the enthalpy of steam entering section 4 and h13 , h20 are the enthalpies of steam at the
exit of section 3.
The application of the energy balance equation for the low-pressure part of the HRSG gives
 
mGT ,out HRSG h8 g  h10 g  mST , HP  h19  h18   mST , IP  h11  h10   mST , LP  h8  h6  (6)

4
 where h8 g and h10 , h18 are the enthalpies of gas and steam entering section 5, h6 is the
enthalpy of steam for the entire section 6, h8 , h11 and h19 are the enthalpies of steam at the exit of
section 5 and h10 g is the enthalpy of gas at the exit of section 6.
To find the total steam mass flow, the mass balance equation for the HRSG is applied:
mST  mST , HP  mST , IP  mST , LP (7)

The temperature of gas leaving sections 1 of the HRSG, T5g , is determined from the energy
balance for this section
mST , HP   h22  h21    h15  h13    mST , IP  h15  h24 
h5 g  h4 g  (8)
mGT ,out  HRSG

The temperature of gas leaving sections 3, 5 and 7, T7 g , T 9 g and T11g , are determined in a similar
manner to T5g .

2.2. Calculation of the heat transfer area

In the present work, the HRSG model is assumed to be counter flow heat exchanger. The area
A of HRSG necessary to ensure the heat transfer at a given P.P. was calculated according to Rovira et
al. [13]. The heat transferred through each area of HRSG is given by:

Qi  U m,i  Ai  LMTDi
(9)
where A refers to the heat exchange area and U m is average overall heat transfer coefficient.
The log mean temperature difference (LMTD) is calculated as follows:
T1,i  T2,i
LMTDi  (10)
ln  T1,i /T2,i 

where T1 is the temperature difference between gas and steam at the inlet of the heater and
T2 is the temperature difference between gas and steam at the exit of the heater.
The HRSG net heat transfer area is calculated as sum of the necessary heat transfer area for
each steam pressure level:
AHRSG  A A A
E
E
V
V
SH
SH  A
RE
RE
(11)

The condenser heat transfer area ACond was calculated according to [14]:
QCond (12)
ACond 
U Cond LMTDCond
where QCond is the heat transferred and U Cond is the heat transfer coefficient in condenser.
The condenser log mean temperature difference, LMTDCond , is defined as
TR
LMTDCond  (13)
1
ln
TR
1
ITD
where TR is the temperature rise of cooling water in the condenser and ITD is the difference
between the steam temperature and cooling water inlet temperature (the initial temperature difference).

5
2.3. Combined cycle efficiency
The overall cycle efficiency can be obtained from the steam and gas turbine powers, which are
dependent not only on the HRSG area, but also on many other variables such as condenser pressure,
pressure drum and ambient temperature:

WST (mST , hCond ,ST )  WGT

CCGT  (14)
m f .H l

For the initial case, the typical values for P.P. and for HP, IP and LP drum were selected. The
results of heat balance calculation are presented in Tab. 2. The results of the initial case will be
compared with the results of the optimized case.

Table 2. Initial case – Results of the thermodynamic analysis

Parameter Value
1. Steam Turbine Cycle
The pinch point temperature difference for HP, IP and LP [ o C ] 13
Live steam pressure (HP) P22 [bar] 104
Live steam temperature at the inlet of the HP steam turbine T22 [ o C ] 545
Pressure of reheat steam (IP steam turbine) P15 [bar] 36
Temperature of the reheat steam (IP steam turbine) T15 [ o C ] 545
Pressure of the inlet LP steam turbine P25 [bar] 5
Temperature of the superheated steam at 8 [ o C ] 235
Temperature of the superheated steam at 13 [ o C ] 325
Steam mass flow [kg/s] 70
 High-pressure steam mass flow [kg/s] 52.5
 Intermediate-pressure mass flow [kg/s] 10.5
 Low-pressure mass flow [kg/s] 7
Steam turbine gross power [MW] 94.6
2. Combined Cycle Power Plant
Combined cycle gross power [MW] 282.3
Combined cycle efficiency [%] 55.5

3. Thermoeconomic optimization model

The goal of thermoeconomic optimization is to minimize the production costs of electricity of

the plant.

3.1. Main thermoeconomic characteristics of CCGTs

The thermoeconomic optimization was performed under the following conditions, which were
chosen according to experience and the current market conditions:

1. The average life of the combined cycle power plant is 20 years.

2. The power plant is in operation 7500 h a year.
3. Price of natural gas is c f =0.0467 $/kWh .

6
 4. The installed costs of the economizer, evaporator, superheater and reheat sections of the
HRSG are 45.7, 34.8, 96.2 and 56.2 $/m2, respectively [1].

3.2. Functions of component capital costs

The basic problem in the analysis of the economic effectiveness of investments in energy
systems is the determination of capital costs. For this study the cost functions for the major
components of a combined cycle power plants were taken from literature: cost of gas turbine CGT
[15], cost of HRSG CHRSG [5], cost of steam turbine CST [16], cost of condenser CCond [3], cost of
pump CPump [16] and cost of generator CGen [16].
The cost functions give net capital costs of the components. However, the net capital cost does
not include: transport and assembly costs, supervising, accessories, engineering and project
management, commissioning and other connected costs. Therefore, the additional correction factor R
was introduced in the Eq. 15 to cover these additional costs and increase in price in the recent period.
The R value is obtained by analysis and consulting the market. In the calculations, the value of R is
assumed to be 3.0.
The total capital costs (investment costs) of a combined cycle power plant are given by:
CCCGT  R . C  R C
i
GT  CHRSG  CST  CCond  CPump  CGen  (15)

The cost function of HRSG, steam turbine, condenser, pump and generator in Eq.15 is
expressed as a function of the operating parameters (P.P., HP, IP, LP and PCond ). Therefore, any
change in these variables will cause a change in the total capital costs.

3.3. Objective function

The objective of the optimization is a minimization of production costs of electricity in the

CCGT power plant.

The production cost of electricity CkWh is the ratio between the total cost per year Ctot and the
total annual energy production WCCGT  h [2, 17]:
Ctot
CkWh 
WCCGT . h (16)

The total cost per year includes the fuel cost, the amortization cost and the operating and
maintenance cost:
(17)
Ctot  CTf  Ca  Co&m
The total fuel cost CTf could be found from:
W 
CTf  cf . CCGT  . h (18)
 CCGT 
The amortization cost Ca that accounts for the total fixed cost divided by the plant economic
lifetime is
CCCGT
Ca  (19)
N

7
The annual operating and maintenance cost Co&m is assumed to be 10% of the total plant cost [17]:
C  0.10  C (20)
o&m tot

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. The optimization procedure

The aim of this study was to develop a simple procedure for optimizing of five most
influential CCGT parameters: pinch point, HP, IP, LP drum and condenser pressure. Here, a 4-step
procedure is developed.
In the first step, the experience-based values for the pressure of the HP, IP and LP drum are
selected and held constant during this step. In our case, the values for HP, IP and LP drum were taken
to be the same as in the initial case. The value for the P.P. is varied in the range of 3 to 40 o C in steps
of 0.5 o C . The thermodynamic parameters and thermoeconomic parameters are calculated. The
optimal value for the P.P. is determined based on the steam turbine gross power i.e. the production
cost of electricity.
In the second step, for the determined optimal value of P.P., we seek optimal values for HP, IP
and LP drum by varying one parameter while keeping the other three parameters constant. For
example, the HP drum was varied in the range of 100 to 200 bar, while the P.P. and the IP and LP
drum were kept constant. Based on the calculated production cost of electricity, the optimal value for
HP drum is determined. The procedure is then repeated for the IP and LP drum.
In the third step, the mutual influence of individual parameters is checked in an iterative
procedure. For example, the selection of P.P. (step 1) is repeated with the new, improved values for
HP, IP and LP drum. Then, with the new, optimal value for the P.P. and the new, improved steam
pressure in the HRSG, the procedure for selection of the HP, IP and LP drum is repeated. The
procedure converges quickly and gives the final solution in a few iterations.
In the proposed method, the steam drum pressures (HP, IP and LP drum) were varied as
following: HP drum is from 100 to 200 bar, IP drum is from 32 to 50 bar and LP drum is from 1 to
4.25 bar.
Once the optimum values of the HRSG operating parameters was determined, the pressure
condenser was varied in the range of 0.04 to 0.08 bar and then the optimization procedure is repeated
(the fourth step).

4.2. Results of the thermodynamic optimization

Fig. 2 shows the effect of P.P. variation on the combined cycle gross power. The results show
the combined cycle gross power decreases with increasing value of the P.P.. A decrease in the P.P.
will significantly increase the necessary HRSG area and, therefore, the cost (capital cost of devices),
as defined in Eq. 15. It is easy to conclude that the maximum efficiency and maximum steam turbine
gross power will be reached at a null value for P.P. and infinite heat transfer surface (HRSG area). In
order to find a compromise between maximum CCGTs gross power and low cost of the HRSG,
thermoeconomic optimization was also performed.

8
 Fig. 3 shows the combined cycle gross power as a function of HRSG high pressure drum. It
was found out that there is no upper limit value of the HP drum. This means that the combined cycle
gross power increases with increasing HP drum.

Figure 2. Effect of P.P. variation on the Figure 3. Combined cycle gross power at
combined cycle gross power optimal P.P. as a function of HRSG high
drum pressure

Figure 4. Combined gross power at optimal Figure 5. Combined cycle gross power at
P.P. as a function of HRSG intermediate optimal P.P. as a function of HRSG low
drum pressure pressure drum

9
Fig. 4 shows the combined cycle gross power as a function of HRSG intermediate pressure drum. The
result shows that the combined cycle gross power decreases with increase in IP drum.
The dependence of the combined cycle gross power on HRSG low-pressure drum is presented
in the Fig. 5. The results show that the combined cycle gross power increases with increase in LP
drum until 4 bar and than the combined cycle gross power decreases with increase in LP drum. The
maximum CCGTs gross power is at 4 bar.

4.3. Results of the thermoeconomic optimization

Fig. 6 shows the effect of P.P. variations on the production cost of electricity CkWh , which is
defined by Eq. 16 for a CCGTs with a triple-pressure HRSG. The production cost of electricity CkWh
decreases with an increase in the P.P. until it reaches the optimal value and then increases with further
increases in the P.P.. The results show that the optimal value for the P.P., at which the minimum
production cost of electricity CkWh is achieved, is 9.5 o C . The calculated value seems reasonable
based on what is suggested by experience. However, the optimum value of the pinch point strongly
depends on the cost hypothesis.
Figs. 7, 8 and 9 show the effect of variations in the HP, IP and LP drum on the production cost
of electricity CkWh . From the previous figures, it may be seen that, for this case, the major parameter
that affects the efficiency is the pinch point, while the steam pressures in HRSG have more effect on
the production cost of electricity.
It can be observed that for all three steam pressures, which were the subject of optimization,
there is an optimal value at which the best results can be achieved. These values are 188 bar for HP
drum, 35 bar for IP drum and 3 bar for LP drum.
Analyzing these results, it can be seen that for HP drum a higher value is obtained in the
optimized case (188 bar) then it was in the initial case (104 bar). With a fixed steam turbine inlet
temperature due to material restrictions, the increased high pressure steam drum (HP) in the triple-
pressure HRSG will have two major effects. First, an increase in pressure will change the distribution
of heat between the economizer and the superheater. Secondly, a higher pressure steam drum goes
hand in hand with a higher evaporation temperature and, hence, the HRSG pinch point (P.P.) is moved
up along the flue-gas line. On other hand, the optimization identified lower value for LP drum than
was used in the initial case and the optimum value for IP drum is not so far from the initial case.
The increased costs for HRSG due to increase in the initial costs for the HP-level (Area,
piping, material, etc) are covered by a larger production of electricity and better overall efficiency
value
Fig. 10 shows the effect of the condenser pressure PCond on the production cost of electricity CkWh . As
can be seen, production cost of electricity decreases with an increase in the PCond , until it reaches the
optimal value and then increases with further increase in the PCond . The result shows that the optimal
value for the PCond , at which the minimum production cost of electricity CkWh is achieved, is 0.045
bar.

10
Figure 6. Effect of P.P. variations on the Figure 7. Effect of HP drum variations on
production cost of electricity the production cost of electricity

Figure 8. Effect of IP drum variations on the Figure 9. Effect of LP drum variations on the
production cost of electricity production cost of electricity

Tab. 3 shows a comparison of the results for the initial case and optimized case. The results
show that the financial parameters are significantly better than the initial case. Thermoeconomic
optimization intend to achieve a trade-off between enhance the efficiency and minimum production
costs of electricity. In our case, applying the developed method the efficiency of the selected
combined cycle could be increased by about 1.2% and the electrical output by more then 6 MW. On
the other hand, the production costs of electricity were decreased by 0.12 cent-dollar per kilowatt-hour
by optimal selection of the parameters.

11
 Figure 10. Effect of PCond variations on production cost of the electricity

Table 3. Comparison between the initial case and the optimized case
Parameter Initial case Optimized case
o
Pinch point (P.P.) 13 C 9.5 o C
High pressure drum (HP) 104 bar 188 bar
Intermediate pressure drum (IP) 36 bar 35 bar
Low pressure drum (LP) 5 bar 3 bar
Condenser pressure ( PCond ) 0.055 bar 0.045 bar
Combined cycle- efficiency ( CCGT ) 55.5% 56.7%
Combined cycle-gross power ( WCCGT ) 282.3 MW 288.4 MW
Production cost ( CkWh ) 9.88 c$/kWh 9.76 c$/kWh

5. Conclusion

A new method for thermodynamic and thermoeconomic optimization of triple-pressure

combined cycle power plants was presented in this paper. The aim of these optimizations was to
improve the performances of power plants. Thermodynamic analysis provided a zero pinch point (i.e.
infinite evaporators surfaces) for optimum, as expected. Also, the optimal value for steam pressures
could not be found from the thermodynamic optimization.
The proposed thermoeconomic optimization procedure considers, in addition to the
thermodynamic parameters, also the economic effectiveness through the calculated economic
parameters. The optimal operating parameters in the thermoeconomic optimization were identified
with the aim to minimize the production cost of electricity. Through an interactive procedure, the

12
mutual influences of the parameters were taken into account. The results of the thermoeconomic
optimization have shown that optimal settings for the operating parameters can be found.
The developed thermoeconomic method is successfully applied to an example. The
optimization procedure used in this study led to a significant improvement in the economic
parameters. Compared with the initial case, the production cost was decreased by 0.12 c$/kWh. It can
be concluded that the proposed optimization method could be used instead of that based on the a
priori choice method, as it is more comprehensive and reliable.
The results obtained here depend strongly on the gas turbine selection and cannot be
extrapolated to other CCGT power plant because of the complexity and large number of possible
power plant configurations
Further investigations should use optimization algorithms to study both the triple-pressure
HRSG and the steam cycle operating parameters.
.
Nomenclature
A Heat transfer area [ m2 ]
C Cost [$ ]
cf Price of the fuel [$/kWh]
h Specific enthalpy [ kJ/kg ]
h Number of operating hours of the plant per year [ hour ]
Hl Lower heat value of the fuel [kJ/kg]
LMTD Log mean temperature difference [ oC ]
mST Steam mass flow rate [ kg/s ]
mST , HP High-pressure steam mass flow rate [ kg/s ]
mST , IP Intermediate-pressure steam mass flow rate [ kg/s ]
mST , LP Low-pressure steam mass flow rate [ kg/s ]
mGT ,out Gas turbine exhaust mass flow rate [ kg/s ]
mf Fuel mass flow rate [ kg/s ]
N Economic life of the plant [ year ]
P Pressure [ bar ]
P.P. Pinch point (P.P.) temperature difference [ oC ]
Q Heat transferred [ kW ]
R correction factor for componets cost [-]
T Temperature [ K or o C ]
U Overall heat transfer coefficient [ kW/m2 K ]
W Power [MW]
 Efficiency [–]
Subscripts
CCGT Combined cycle power plant
Cond Condenser
E Economizer
GT Gas turbine
HP High pressure
HRSG Heat recovery steam generator

13
 IP Intermediate pressure
LP Low pressure
out Outlet from the gas turbine
RE Reheat
ST Steam turbine
SH Superheater
V Evaporator

References

[1] Casarosa, C., Donatini, F., Franco, A., Thermoeconomic optimization of heat recovery steam
generators operating parameters for combined plants, Energy, 29 (2004), pp. 389–414.
[2] Valdes, M., Duran, M.D., Rovira, A., Thermoeconomic optimization of combined cycle gas
turbine power plants using genetic algorithms. Applied Thermal Engineering, 23 (2003), pp.
2169–2182.
[3] Attala, L., Facchini, B., Ferrara, G., Thermoeconomic optimization method as design tool in gas–
steam combined plant realization, Energy Conversion and Management, 42 (2001), pp. 2163–
2172.
[4] Ravi Kumar, N., Rama Krishna, K., Sita Rama Raju, A. V., Thermodynamic Analysis of Heat
Recovery Steam Generator in Combined Cycle Power Plant, Thermal Science, 11 (2007), pp.
143-156.
[5] Behbahani-nia, A., Sayadi, S., Soleymani, M., Thermoeconomic optimization of the pinch point
and gas-side velocity in heat recovery steam generators, Journal of Power and Energy,
224(2010), pp. 761-771.
[6] Ahmadi, P., Dincer, I., Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic optimization of a dual
pressure combined cycle power plant with a supplementary firing unit. Energy Conversion and
Management, 52 (2011), pp. 2296–2308.
[7] Valdes, M., Rapun, J., Optimization of heat recovery steam generators for combined cycle gas
turbine power plants. Applied Thermal Engineering, 21 (2001), pp. 1149-1159.
[8] Franco, A., Russo, A., Combined cycle plant efficiency increase based on the optimization of the
heat recovery steam generator operating parameters, International Journal of Thermal Science,
41 (2002), pp. 843–859.
[9] Bassily, A.M., Numerical cost optimization and irreversibility analysis of the triple-pressure
reheat steam–air cooled GT commercial combined cycle power plants, Applied Thermal
Engineering, 40 (2012), pp. 145-160.
[10] Chiesa, P., Macchi, E., A Thermodynamic analysis of different options to break 60% electric
efficiency in combined cycle power plants, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power,
126 (2004), pp. 770–785.
[11] Wagner, W., Kruse, A., Properties of Water and Steam, IAPWS-IF97, Springer, Berlin, 1998.
[12] Baehr, H.D., Diederichsen, C., Equations for calculation of enthalpy and entropy of the
components of air and combustion gases, 40 (1988), pp. 30–33.
[13] Rovira, A., Valdes, M., Duran, M., A model to predict the behavior at part load operation of
once-through heat recovery steam generators working with water at supercritical pressure.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 30 (2010), pp. 1652-1658.
[14] Li, K.W., Priddy, A.P., Power plant system design, John Wiley & Sons, Canada (1985).
[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, International Journal of
Thermal Sciences, 42 (2003), pp. 553-560.
[16] Silveira, J., Tuna, C., Thermoeconomic analysis method for optimization of combined heat and
power systems, Part I, Progress in Energy and combustion Science, 29 (2003), pp. 479-485.
[17] Valdes, M., Rovira, A.,V., Duran, M.D., Influence of the heat recovery steam generator design
parameters on the thermoeconomic performance of combined cycle gas turbine power plants.
International Journal of Energy Research, 28 (2004), pp. 1243–1254.

14