SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.

965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

Analysis of Gas Turbine Performance Based on Variation of Operating

Load at PLTGU Panaran 1 Unit 1 PT.Mitra Energi Batam
Jhon Hericson Purba1, Muhammad Syafei Gozali2, Ferri Fernando Sitohang3, Arif
Febriansyah Juwito4, Adlian Jefiza5
1.2,3.4,5
Department of Electrical Engineering, Politeknik Negeri Batam
Jl. Ahmad Yani, Batam Center, Batam, 29461
Email: jhonhericson@polibatam.ac.id, ferry.at199@gmail.com, adlianjefiza@polibatam.ac.id,
syafei@polibatam.ac.id

ABSTRACT

Gas and steam power generation units often experience changes in load according to the requested
electricity needs. Changes in generator workload will also affect the efficiency of the generator. The different
efficiency in each workload will have an effect on the amount of heat rate production produced when
compared. By calculating the efficiency at each load, it will be useful to find out the workload with the best
performance. From the results of the enthalpy calculation process based on the temperature of each gas
turbine process, in this study the gas turbine performance is calculated, and then it compares the turbine
performance with variations in operating load. The turbine performance that will be calculated includes
compressor power, turbine power, net power, thermal efficiency, compressor efficiency, combustion chamber
efficiency, turbine efficiency, heat input, and heat rate. The results of the calculation of the highest average
thermal efficiency at 27 MW load were 35.18%; the average compressor efficiency experienced the highest
increase at 25 MW load of 83.24%, followed by an average increase in combustion chamber efficiency and
an average decrease in turbine efficiency at each increase in load, as well as experiencing the lowest
decrease in heat rate at 27 MW load conditions of 2,842 kJ/kWh.

Keywords: Load Variation, Gas turbine, Efficiency, Performance.

Introduction

Electrical Energy is the main source of energy that is widely used and needed in the development of
a country. This can be seen from the increasing growth in industry, education and the economy which has
resulted in an increase in the rate of electricity consumption [1]. Therefore, increasing efficiency in the
operation of generating units is very important as a provider of electrical energy in the present and in the
future.
Gas and Steam Power Plant (PLTGU) is a type of power plant in Indonesia that is chosen to meet
the demand for electricity which in operation experiences load changes every time, depending on consumer
demand. The PLTGU load that changes every time will affect the gas turbine which is a constituent
component of gas and steam power plants [2].
Gas turbine is an internal combustion engine that utilizes air and gas as the fluid. Gas turbines that
experience variations in loading will affect the performance of each of its components such as the
compressor, combustion chamber and gas turbine [3]. When a load change occurs, the combustion air, fuel
supply, and exhaust gas that will be processed into the HRSG will also change[4].
Research conducted by Budiono,Lukman (2013) analysis of the efficiency of the gas turbine against
the operating load of PLTGU Muara Tawar Block 1. The results obtained for unit 1 are efficiency values
with variations in load of 90 MW, 100 MW, 110 MW, 125 MW, and 136 MW in gas turbines with Maximum
Capacity Rate or installed capacity of 145 MW. The resulting thermal efficiency values are 34.25%, 34.79%,
35.21%, 36.09% and 36.35%. In this study it is known that the greater the loading process, the greater the
efficiency. If the efficiency decreases as the load increases, the gas turbine components that are damaged and
fail must be maintained or even overhauled [5].
Research conducted by Muhammad Nafi Annur (2017) The Effect of Load Variation on Gas
Turbine Performance in PLTGU Block GT 1.3 PT. Indonesia Power Grati, Pasuruan. In this study it was
concluded that there was an increase in temperature from the start of the compressor discharge temperature to

965
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

the end of each process which determines the enthalpy for each load and affects the performance of each gas
turbine component [6].
PT Mitra Energi Batam's Panaran 1 gas and steam power plant (PLTGU) has 2 power units with a 2-
2-1 configuration, including MEB 1 and MEB 2 with a capacity of 82.1 MW. In the PLTGU MEB 1 unit, the
gas turbine operates at a fairly high temperature and works for a long time at variations in operating load.
Under these conditions, over time the performance of the gas turbine will decrease[7] . To monitor the
performance of the gas turbine, it is necessary to analyze the performance of the gas turbine related to the
factors of safety, efficiency and reliability as a determinant of maintenance and overhaul of gas turbines [8]

Research Methods

The data collection used for this study was obtained from several related sections, namely the CCR
(Central Control Room) PLTGU and the Engineering Team. In addition, data and information were obtained
from literature studies obtained from manual books, scientific journals [9]. The theory of gas turbine
performance calculations uses a thermodynamic formula that works with the Brayton cycle [10][11]. This
cycle is an ideal cycle for a simple gas turbine system with an open cycle. The ideal cycle is a cycle that is
built based on the following assumptions [12][13].

Figure 1. Siklus Ideal brayton

Cycle process as follows

a. The process of compression and expansion takes place reversibly adiabatic (isentropic).
b. The change in kinetic energy of the working fluid between the inlet and outlet sides of each compressor is
ignored.
c. There is no pressure loss at the inlet and outlet of the gas.
d. The working fluid is considered an ideal gas with a constant specific heat[14].

The data processing technique was carried out to find out the comparison of changes in the load
variations of the PLTGU MEB 1 gas turbine which describes the data processing as follows.
1. Process gas turbine performance data, such as temperature and pressure for each load variation. The
processed data will be used to determine the enthalpy in each work cycle of the gas turbine which is then
used to calculate the efficiency of the Panaran 1 Unit 1 PLTGU MEB 1 gas turbine.
2. The pressure data obtained will be processed to determine the pressure ratio which is specifically used to
determine the ideal gas turbine cycle work and is also used to assist actual calculations.
3. Process data related to load variations carried out on the compressor, combustion chamber and turbine
sides at Panaran 1 Unit 1 PLTGU MEB 1
4. Quantitative methods are used in calculating existing data and parameters at PLTGU MEB unit 1, then
using formulas related to gas turbine efficiency.

Results and Discussion

Panaran Operation Performance Test Data 1 Unit 1

After observing at PT Mitra Energi Batam, obtained data from the Panaran 1 Unit 1 PLTGU gas
turbine for each load variation that has been converted, as follows.

966
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

Table 1. Operation Performance Test Data 1 Unit 1

Load T1 P1 T2 P2 T4 Wgen mf LHV
(MW) (K) (bar) (K) (bar) (K) (MW) (kg/s) (kJ/kg)
22,21 299,28 1 728,25 16,6 1011,35 22,21 1,505 44193,85
22,84 299,23 1 729,75 16,7 1016,45 22,84 1,547 44193,85
23,17 299,3 1 730,55 16,8 1018,75 23,17 1,555 44193,85
23,77 299,39 1 736,95 17,2 1028,65 23,77 1,609 44193,85
24,1 299,43 1 737,25 17,3 1030,85 24,1 1,615 44193,85
24,7 299,87 1 739,05 17,4 1035,65 24,7 1,637 44193,85
25,02 299,26 1 738,55 17,5 1035,35 25,02 1,648 44193,85
25,35 299,56 1 743,35 17,9 1044,95 25,35 1,691 44193,85
26,01 299,54 1 743,95 17,9 1047,15 26,01 1,713 44193,85
26,6 299,42 1 748,95 18,3 1056,05 26,6 1,749 44193,85
27,55 299,67 1 752,65 18,6 1064,05 27,55 1,779 44193,85
27,75 299,98 1 754,75 18,8 1068,65 27,75 1,815 44193,85

Performance Calculation of PLTGU Panaran 1 Unit 1 Gas Turbine PT Mitra Energi Batam with
different load variations
This sub-chapter will describe how to calculate the performance of the Panaran 1 Unit 1 gas turbine
PLTGU PT Mitra Energi Batam. The data used in the calculation example is PLTGU Panaran 1 Unit 1
operational data, in October 2022 at a load variation of 22.21 MW.

Calculation of Gas Turbine Performance at a Load of 22.21 MW

In calculating the thermal efficiency of a gas turbine at a load of 22.1 MW, before using the formula with
the Brayton cycle in determining thermal efficiency, first find the heat entering the turbine which is obtained
as follows:
Defined for Heat Entering the Turbine
Finding the amount of heat that enters the turbine can be obtained in the following way:
Qin = ṁf × LHV (1)
Qin = 1,659 Kg/s × 44193,85 kJ/kg
= 66511,744 kJ/s

Determining the Air Flow Rate

Determine the air flow rate, while for this calculation the Air Fuel Ratio value is needed, then the
calculation A/F is obtained by the equation:
ẇ𝑔𝑒𝑛
𝐴 − 𝑚̇𝑓 (ℎ3 − ℎ4)
𝜂𝑔𝑒𝑛
( )= (2)
𝐹 𝑚̇𝑓 (ℎ3 − ℎ4) − 𝑚̇𝑓 (ℎ2 − ℎ1)

22210 𝐾𝑊 𝐾𝑔 𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
– 1,505 (2226,950 – 1059,007 )
𝐴 0,9876 𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔
( )= 𝐾𝑔 𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽 𝐾𝑔 𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
𝐹 1,505 (2226,950 – 1059,007 ) – 1,505 (743,73 – 299,467 )
𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔 𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔

𝐴
( ) = 19,034
𝐹
After obtaining the results of the calculation of the Air Fuel Ratio, it is possible to find the air flow rate
with the following equation:
ṁ a = × ṁ f
𝐴
(3)
𝐹
ṁ a = 19,034 × 1,505 Kg/s
ṁ a = 28,646 Kg/s

Determine Compressor Working Value

The value of the air flow rate has been obtained, then to find the compressor work with the equation:
ẇcompressor = ṁa × (h2 - h1) (4)
ẇcompressor = 28,646 Kg/s × (743,73 kJ/kg - 299,467 kJ/kg )

967
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

ẇcompressor = 12726,654 kJ/s

Determine Turbine Working Value

Then to find the turbine working value with the equation,
ẇturbin = (ṁa + ṁ f) × (h3 - h4) (5)
ẇturbin = ( 28,646 Kg/s + 1,505 Kg/s) × (2226,950 kJ/kg - 1059,007 kJ/kg)
ẇturbin = 35215,516 kJ/s

Calculating the heat leaving the turbine (Qout)

Qout = (ṁa + ṁ f) × (h4 - h1) (6)
Qout = ( 28,646 Kg/s + 1,505 Kg/s) × (1059,007 kJ/kg - 299,467 kJ/kg)
Qout = 22901,41 kJ/s

To find Wnetto (Wnett)

From the calculation above, the work value of the compressor and turbine work has been obtained, so the
difference in work used in calculating efficiency can be found.
ẇnett = ẇ𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛 − ẇ𝑘𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑟 (7)
ẇnett = 35215,516 kJ/s - 12726,654 kJ/s
ẇnett = 22488,862 kJ/s

To find Back Ratio Work Value

From the work value of the compressor and turbine work that has been obtained, it can be found the specific
work value of the turbine used to drive the compressor, namely the Back Work Ratio (Bwr) as:
ẇ𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟
Bwr = (8)
ẇ𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛
12726,654 kJ/s
Bwr =
35214,516 kJ/s
Bwr = 0,361

To find Heat Rate Gas Turbine (𝐻𝑅𝐺𝑇 )

𝑄𝑖𝑛
𝐻𝑅𝐺𝑇 = (9)
ẇ𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛 − ẇ𝑘𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑢 ẇ𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑡
66511,744 kJ/s
𝐻𝑅𝐺𝑇 =
22488,861 kJ/s
𝐻𝑅𝐺𝑇 = 2,958 kJ/kWh

From the calculations that have been obtained above, to find the efficiency value for each component with
the following equation:
Determine Compressor Efficiency Value (ηca)
h2’ − h1
ηca = × 100 % (10)
h2−h1
667,860 kJ/kg − 299,467 kJ/kg
ηca = × 100 %
743,730 kJ/kg − 299,467 kJ/kg
ηca = 82,92 %

Determining Combustion Room Efficiency Value

T2 − T3
ηruang bakar = × 100 % (11)
T2’−T3
728,25 K − 1979,850 K
ηruang bakar = × 100 %
667,851 K − 1979,850 K
ηruang bakar = 95,40 %

Determining Turbine Efficiency Value

h3 − h4
ηTurbin = × 100 % (12)
h3 − h4’
2226,953 kJ/kg − 1059,007 kJ/kg
ηTurbin = × 100 %
2226,953 kJ/kg − 918,632 kJ/kg
ηTurbin = 89,27 %

Determining Thermal Efficiency Value

968
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

In the calculation above, the calorific value entering the turbine (Qin) and thes value of the difference
between the work of the compressor and the work of the turbine (Ẇnett) have been obtained, so the thermal
efficiency at a load of 22.21 MW is obtained by the following equation:
ẇnett
η𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = × 100 % (13)
Qin
22488,292 kJ/s
η𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = × 100 %
66511,744 kJ/s
η𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = 33,81 %

The results of property calculations at each point and performance calculations for different load
variations can be simplified in tabular form to make it easier to read the calculation results and compare.
Calculation of gas turbine properties and performance with different load variations can be seen in the
following table.
Table 2.a. Operational Data and Calculation of Properties for each Point on Load Variations

Temperature (K) Pressure (bar)

Load
Process Process
(MW)
1 2 2s 3 4 4s 1 2 3 4
22,21 299,28 728,25 667,852 1979,850 1011,35 887,217 1 16,6 16,6 1
23,77 299,39 736,95 669,341 2027,261 1028,65 899,294 1 17,2 17,2 1
24,7 299,87 739,05 673,659 2045,522 1035,65 904,402 1 17,4 17,4 1
25,02 299,26 738,55 675,488 2047,759 1035,35 903,910 1 17,5 17,5 1
25,35 299,99 742,25 682,920 2069,057 1042,95 908,886 1 17,8 17,8 1
25,35 299,56 743,35 680,616 2075,397 1044,95 910,213 1 17,9 17,9 1
26,01 299,54 743,95 682,121 2079,473 1047,15 912,001 1 17,9 17,9 1
26,6 299,42 748,95 687,796 2106,485 1056,05 918,033 1 18,3 18,3 1
27,55 299,67 752,65 693,189 2128,795 1064,05 923,455 1 18,6 18,6 1
27,75 299,98 754,75 693,645 2142,842 1068,65 926,712 1 18,8 18,8 1

Tabel 2.b. Operational Data and Calculation of Properties for each Point on Load Variations

Beban Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

(MW)
1 2 2s 3 4 4s
22,21 299,467 743,73 667,861 2226,953 1059,007 918,633
23,77 299,578 753,140 674,826 2286,176 1078,82 932,140
24,7 300,059 755,412 678,096 2309,003 1086,856 937,871
25,35 299,748 760,075 682,866 2346,498 1097,545 944,394
26,6 299,608 766,151 686,793 2385,559 1110,316 953,172
27,75 300,170 772,463 693,312 2431,295 1124,82 962,945
From table 2. is the operating data for each point at various loads showing the actual and ideal
temperature, pressure for each process, and actual and ideal enthalpy which is affected by temperature in
each gas turbine process.
Table 3 (a). Performance Calculation at Load Variation
Load Wnett AFR 𝐦̇𝐟 𝐦̇𝐚 𝐦̇𝐚 + ẇ𝒌𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒐𝒓ẇ𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒏
(MW) (MW) (Kg/s) (Kg/s) 𝐦̇𝐟 (kJ/s) (kJ/s)
(Kg/s)
22,21 22,49 19,034 1,505 28,647 30,152 12726,654 35215,516
22,84 23,13 18,835 1,547 29,138 30,685 12993,671 36120,443
23,17 23,46 18,878 1,555 29,355 30,910 13113,615 36574,530
23,77 24,07 18,243 1,609 29,353 30,962 13313,242 37381,690
24,1 24,40 18,300 1,615 29,554 31,169 13413,111 37815,704
24,7 25,01 18,331 1,637 30,007 31,644 13663,940 38674,066
25,02 25,33 18,376 1,648 30,284 31,932 13792,255 39126,398
25,35 25,67 17,664 1,691 29,870 31,561 13749,970 39418,256

969
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

26,01 26,34 17,865 1,713 30,603 32,316 14107,704 40444,278

26,6 26,93 17,466 1,749 30,547 32,296 14251,618 41185,600
27,55 27,90 17,464 1,779 31,068 32,847 14612,039 42507,948
27,75 28,11 16,999 1,815 30,853 32,668 14571,814 42680,360
Table 3 (b). Performance Calculation at Load Variation

Efisiensi (%) Qout

Qin (kJ/s)
Load Heat rate (kJ/s)
Thermal Comp Combutio Turbi Bwr
(MW) n
(kJ/kWh)
ress n
Chamber
22,21 33,81 82,92 95,40 89,27 0,361 2,958 22901,41 66511,744
22,84 33,83 82,86 94,88 89,24 0,360 2,956 23486,95 68367,886
23,17 34,14 82,99 94,98 89,24 0,359 2,929 23737,96 68721,437
23,77 33,85 82,73 95,02 89,17 0,356 2,954 24126,61 71107,905
24,1 34,19 82,94 95,15 89,16 0,355 2,925 24365,9 71373,068
24,7 34,57 83,02 95,23 89,13 0,353 2,893 24897,7 72345,332
25,02 34,78 83,09 95,40 89,15 0,353 2,875 25132,88 72831,465
25,35 34,35 83,23 95,50 89,08 0,349 2,911 25179,29 74731,800
26,01 34,79 83,10 95,58 89,06 0,349 2,874 25863,69 75704,065
26,6 34,85 82,99 95,69 89,03 0,346 2,870 26182,84 77295,044
27,55 35,48 83,07 95,86 88,98 0,344 2,818 26923,92 78620,859
27,75 35,04 83,24 95,78 88,98 0,341 2,854 26939,97 80211,838

From table 3. is the result of calculating the performance of the gas turbine at various loads, showing net
work, air fuel ratio, mass flow rate of fuel, air flow rate, compressor work, and gas turbine work needed in
calculating thermal efficiency, compressor, combustion chamber , turbine, back work ratio, heat rate, work
out and work into the gas turbine at each load variation.
Table 4. Calculation of Average Performance for each Load Variation

Efisiensi (%)
Heat
Load Load Combution Qin (kJ/s)
Thermal Comp Turbin rate(kJ/kWh)
(MW) Chamber
22,21
22 MW 33,82 82,89 95,14 89,26 2,957 67,439,815
22,84
23,17
23MW 33,95 82,98 95,13 89,20 2,946 69,994,220
23,77
24,1
24 MW 24,7
34,25 83,08 95,31 89,15 2,919 72,356,381
25,02
25 MW 34,57 83,24 95,54 89,10 2,893 73,936,311
25,35
26,01
26 MW 35,06 83,16 95,65 89,06 2,853 75,760,886
26,6
27,55
27 MW 35,18 83,08 95,88 88,98 2,842 79,931,943
27,75

Table 4 shows the results of calculating the average gas turbine performance for each load variation
classified into 22 MW, 23 MW, 24 MW, 25 MW, 26 MW and 27 MW loads, with the aim of facilitating the
analysis and discussion of thermal efficiency, compressors, space fuel, turbine, heat rate, and work entering
the gas turbine.

Analysis and Discussion of Gas Turbine Performance Calculation of PLTGU Panaran 1 Unit 1 with
different Load Variations
The calculation of the average gas turbine performance in Panaran 1 Unit 1 can be seen in table 5. in the
previous sub-chapter. In this sub-chapter, you can see the difference in efficiency, heat rate, and heat input
for each variation of the generator load. If we present these differences in graphical form the results will be as
:

970
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

Efisiensi Thermal
35.50
35.06 %
35.00 35.18 %

34.50 34.25 %
34.57 %

Efisiensi (%)
33.82 %
34.00
33.95 %
33.50

33.00

32.50
22 MW 23 MW 24 MW 25 MW 26 MW 27 MW
Beban (MW)

Figure 2. Thermal Efficiency Comparison Chart at Each Load Variation

The results of the gas turbine thermal efficiency show an increase in efficiency as the load increases, the
highest average thermal efficiency is at 27 MW load of 35.18% and the lowest is at 22 MW load of 33.82%.
From the calculation results, the thermal efficiency is obtained from the compressor work (Ẇc), turbine work
(Ẇt) and incoming heat (Qin). Net work is the result of the reduction between turbine work and compressor
work, because the turbine produces work while the compressor is given work by the turbine. The turbine
work (Ẇt) is influenced by the size of the flue gas mass flow rate. The flue gas mass flow rate is the sum of
the mass flow rates of air and fuel. Another thing that can affect it is that the turbine inlet temperature must
be high and the exhaust gas temperature must be low. With a decrease in exhaust gas temperature, the
enthalpy will decrease so that the turbine work will increase. Meanwhile, heat input (Qin) is influenced by
the size of the low heating value (LHV) and the mass flow rate of the fuel. Low heating value (LHV) is the
heating value of fuel. The higher the low heating value and the mass flow rate of the fuel, the heat input will
increase. Meanwhile, based on the book "Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook 2nd" by Meherwan P. Boyce,
ideally the system efficiency value on a GTG with an aeroderivative type ranges from 35% -45% with a
resulting load capacity of 2.5 MW to 50 MW. From the calculation results that have been obtained, it can be
seen that the efficiency value of the Panaran 1 Unit 1 unit can be categorized as normal at a load of 26 MW
and 27 MW because it does not exceed the minimum limit for the ideal range of efficiency values [15].
Efisiensi Compressor
83.30
83.24 %
83.20 83.16 %

83.10 83.08 %
83.08 %
Efisiensi (%)

83.00 82.98 %

82.90
82.89 %
82.80

82.70
22 MW 23 MW 24 MW 25 MW 26 MW 27 MW
Beban (MW)

Figure 3. Compressor Efficiency Comparison Chart for each Load

On the compressor side, the load variation shows the highest average efficiency increase at 25 MW load with
an increase from 83.08% to 83.24% with an increase of 0.16%. Based on the graph above it can be seen that
the compressor efficiency at each load, changes in compressor efficiency are affected by ideal and actual
compressor work. The ideal compressor work can be determined from the ideal enthalpy temperature in and
out of the compressor. Meanwhile, for the compressor output pressure ratio, each value also increases with
each increase in operating load.

971
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

Efisiensi Ruang Bakar

96.00 95.88 %

95.80
95.54 %
95.60 95.65 %
95.31 %

Efisiensi (%)
95.40

95.20 95.14 %
95.13 %
95.00

94.80

94.60
22 MW 23 MW 24 MW 25 MW 26 MW 27 MW
Beban (MW)

Figure 4. Graph Comparison of Combustion Room Efficiency for each Load

According to the description of the chart above, the results of the average efficiency of the gas turbine
combustion chamber show a tendency to increase with changes in each load. Combustion chamber efficiency
can be affected by the compressor outlet temperature and turbine inlet temperature. Under load conditions of
22.21 MW, the temperature at the exit of the compressor is 728.25 K, while the temperature entering the
turbine is 1979.850 K and there is an increase in temperature leaving the compressor and entering the turbine
at 754.75 K and 2142.842 K at a load of 27.75 MW. . Compressor outlet temperature affects the combustion
process in the combustion chamber. Then the combustion process in the combustion chamber affects the size
of the temperature that will enter the turbine.
Efisiensi Turbin

89.30 89.26 %
89.25
89.20
89.15 %
89.15 89.20 %
89.06 %
Efisiensi (%)

89.10
89.05 89.10 %
89.00
88.95 88.98 %
88.90
88.85
88.80
22 MW 23 MW 24 MW 25 MW 26 MW 27 MW
Beban (MW)

Figure 5. Graph of Comparison of Turbine Efficiency for each Load

Based on the chart in Figure 19, it can be seen that the average turbine efficiency decreases with each
increase in load. the decrease in isentropic efficiency of the turbine is affected by the actual and ideal turbine
work. The ideal turbine work can be determined from the enthalpy temperature entering the turbine and the
ideal temperature leaving the turbine. The higher the actual turbine work compared to the ideal work, the
isentropic efficiency of the turbine will also increase. Conversely, if the ideal turbine work is higher than the
actual turbine work, the isentropic efficiency of the turbine will decrease. The parameters that affect the
turbine inlet temperature (T3) have increased due to the combustion process that occurs in the combustion
chamber where the turbine inlet temperature must be higher because the expansion process in the turbine will
increase the power produced. While the turbine exit temperature parameter (T4) has decreased in temperature
which is appropriate in the gas turbine cycle that the turbine exit temperature or exhaust gas temperature
must be as low as possible because so that the wasted gas will not be wasted during the exhaust process into
the atmosphere.

Kalor Masuk
82000.000 79931.943 kJ/s
80000.000
78000.000 75760.886 kJ/s
76000.000
Kalor Masuk (kJ/s)

74000.000 72356.381 kJ/s

72000.000 73936.311 kJ/s
70000.000 67439.815 kJ/s
68000.000 69994.220 kJ/s
66000.000
64000.000
62000.000
60000.000
22 MW 23 MW 24 MW 25 MW 26 MW 27 MW
Beban (MW)

Figure 6. Graph of Comparison of Calories Entered for each Load

972
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

In the chart above, heat input has increased which is influenced by the LHV (Low Heating Value) value
and Fuel Gas Mass Flow or the mass flow rate of fuel. In the input data, the LHV value is the same for each
load variation of 44193.85 kJ/kg and there is a change in the increase in Fuel Gas Mass Flow at each load of
1.505 kJ/s, 1.561, 1.659 kJ/s, 1.680, 1.684 and 1.815 kJ/ s and so on. Thus the value of Fuel Gas Mass Flow
affects the incoming calorific value, as shown in graphic 20. that the increase in average heat input has
increased at a load of 27 MW up to 79931.943 kJ/s.
Perbandingan Heat rate pada tiap Variasi Beban
Heat Rate
2.980 2.957 kJ/kWh
2.960 2.946 kJ/kWh
2.940
2.920 2.919 kJ/kWh
Heat Rate (kJ/kWh)
2.900 2.893 kJ/kWh
2.880
2.853 kJ/kWh
2.860
2.840
2.820 2.842 kJ/kWh
2.800
2.780
2.760
22 MW 23 MW 24 MW 25 MW 26 MW 27 MW
Beban (MW)

Figure 7. Graph of Comparison of Heat Rate for each Load

The results of the gas turbine heat rate show an average decrease in heat rate for each increase in load. The
decrease in heat rate at 27 MW load condition is 2.842 kJ/kWh. The heat rate value is the ratio between the
incoming heating value (Qin) and the net work (Ẇn). The smaller the heat rate value obtained, the higher the
thermal efficiency of the gas turbine and conversely the greater the heat rate value obtained, the value of the
gas turbine thermal efficiency will decrease. So with a small heat rate, the energy needed to produce 1 kWh
is smaller

Conclusion

Based on the research process and calculated data, it can be concluded that the highest average
thermal efficiency at 27 MW load is 35.18% and the lowest efficiency at 22 MW load is 33.82%. While the
average efficiency of the compressor experienced the highest increase of 83.24% at 25 MW load. So that the
average efficiency of the gas turbine combustion chamber shows a tendency to increase with changes in each
load. The average efficiency of the turbine decreases with every increase in load.
The average heat rate measurement experienced the smallest decrease at a 27 MW load of 2.842
kJ/kWh, where the smaller the heat rate value obtained, the higher the thermal efficiency of the gas turbine
and vice versa the greater the heat rate value obtained, the value of efficiency gas turbine thermal will
decrease.

References

[1] I. Z. Putra et al., “Preliminary Study of the Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) Prototype at Urban
Area,” J. Integr., vol. 13, no. 1, hal. 6–9, 2021, doi: 10.30871/ji.v13i1.2754.
[2] N. Gusnita dan K. S. Said, “Analisa Efisiensi dan Pemanfaatan Gas Buang Turbin Gas Alsthom Pada
Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Gas Kapasitas 20 Mw,” Sains, Teknol. dan Ind., vol. 14, no. 2, hal. 209–
218, 2017.
[3] J. H. Purba dan P. N. Batam, “Analisa Aplikasi Turbin Kobold Blade Kembar Sebagai Pembangkit,”
no. November 2019, 2020.
[4] T. Wang, Z. Yin, C. qing Tan, Y. sheng Tian, Q. Gao, dan H. liang Zhang, “High-power mode
control for triaxial gas turbines with variable power turbine guide vanes,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol.
86, hal. 132–142, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.01.023.
[5] L. B. Naryono, Ir., “Analisis Efisiensi Turbin Gas Terhadap Beban Operasi Pltgu Muara Tawar Blok
1,” Sintek, vol. 7, no. 2, hal. 78–94, 2013.
[6] M. N. Annur, “Pengaruh Variasi Beban Terhadap Performa Turbin Gas Di PLTGU Blok Gt 1.3 Pt.
Indonesia Power Grati,Pasuruan,” hal. 82, 2017, [Daring]. Tersedia pada:
http://repository.its.ac.id/48179/.
[7] M. Dubey, H. Chandra, dan A. Kumar, “Thermal modelling and optimisation of total useful energy

973
SITEKIN: Jurnal Sains, Teknologi dan Industri, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 20xx, pp.965 - 974
ISSN 2407-0939 print/ISSN 2721-2041 online

rate of Joule–Brayton reheat cogeneration cycle,” Int. J. Sustain. Energy, vol. 35, no. 2, hal. 103–114,
2016, doi: 10.1080/14786451.2013.866952.
[8] G. Shi, Z. Wu, T. He, D. Li, Y. Ding, dan S. Liu, “Shaft speed control of the gas turbine based on
active disturbance rejection control,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, hal. 12523–12529, 2020,
doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1795.
[9] Riduwan dan Sunarto, Pengantar Statistika untuk Penelitian: Pendidikan, Sosial, Komunikasi,
Ekonomi dan Bisnis. 2017.
[10] J. Hosseinpour, M. Messele, dan A. Engeda, “Analysis and design of centrifugal compressor for 10
MWe supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., vol. 37, no. 5, hal. 2607–2621,
2023, doi: 10.1007/s12206-023-0435-4.
[11] M. M. A. Al-Sood, K. K. Matrawy, dan Y. M. Abdel-Rahim, “Optimum parametric performance
characterization of an irreversible gas turbine Brayton cycle,” Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng., vol. 4, no.
1, hal. 1–13, 2013, doi: 10.1186/2251-6832-4-37.
[12] C. Dang, K. Cheng, J. Fan, Y. Wang, J. Qin, dan G. Liu, “Performance analysis of fuel vapor turbine
and closed-Brayton-cycle combined power generation system for hypersonic vehicles,” Energy, vol.
266, hal. 126426, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126426.
[13] H. S. Mann dan P. K. Singh, “Effect of number of blades in ducted turbine system on kinetic energy
extraction from chimney flue gases - benchmarking with wind energy system,” J. Mech. Sci.
Technol., vol. 32, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s12206-018-1042-7.
[14] X. Ma, P. Jiang, dan Y. Zhu, “Performance analysis and dynamic optimization of integrated cooling
and power generation system based on supercritical CO2 cycle for turbine-based combined cycle
engine,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 215, hal. 118867, 2022, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118867.
[15] N. T. T. Truong et al., “Production of Medium Chain Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester, Combustion, and Its
Gas emission using a Small-Scale Gas Turbine Jet Engine,” Int. J. Green Energy, vol. 16, no. 14, hal.
1304–1316, 2019, doi: 10.1080/15435075.2019.1671406.

974