Energy and Exergy Analysis of a Combined Cycle Power Plant

By

Md. Mezba Uddin

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Department of Mechanical Engineering

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

October, 2020
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

It is hereby declared that this thesis or any part of this thesis has not been submitted
elsewhere for any award or any degree or any diploma.

October,2020
MD. MEZBA UDDIN

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

At the very beginning, I would like to express my profound regards and gratitude towards
almighty and omniscient Allah for giving me the strength to complete this work.

I express my heartfelt gratitude and thanks to my reverend and learned supervisor,

Professor Dr. A. K. M. Monjur Morshed, for his continuous support, guidance, and
intelligible advice for solving many problems encountered during the accomplishment of
this work. He shared his enlightened knowledge and information about the paper itself,
which prompted and infused me with courage as well as inspirational learning. All
efforts with my supervisor’s indispensable help emerged as a fruitful outcome of the
thesis. Without his persistent guidance and support, this thesis would not be possible. It
has been a great privilege and honor for me to work with him.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Dr. Md. Zahurul Haq for his
precious advice and recommendations, which have helped me tremendously to improve
this research work.

I would like to thank the members of my thesis evaluation committee, Former Professor
Dr. A.K.M. Sadrul Islam, Professor Dr. Sheikh Reaz Ahmed, and Professor Dr.
Mohammad Nasim Hasan for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and my beloved wife for their continued support
in every aspect of my life, without which this thesis and research would not have been
possible.

iv
 ABSTRACT

In Bangladesh, the primary fuel is natural gas, predicted to be exhausted by 2025, and the
availability of other fuels is also limited. Therefore, it is important to ensure proper
utilization of available natural resources, which can be achieved by performing energy
analysis and the exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. A detailed energetic, exergetic and
exergoeconomic analysis of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant has been
carried out in this thesis to investigate the possible scope of improvement of plant’s
performance. Basic thermodynamic properties of the systems have been determined by
energy analysis utilizing main operating conditions. Exergy destructions within the
system and exergy losses to the environment were investigated to determine
thermodynamic inefficiencies in the design and guide future plant improvements.
Exergoeconomic analysis was carried out to assess the cost-effectiveness of individual
components. Among the different approaches for thermoeconomic analysis in literature,
Specific Exergy Costing (SPECO) method was applied to calculate each product, Per unit
fuel cost and unit total generation cost. This thesis has determined the comparison of the
configurations in terms of performance assessment parameters and costs per unit of
exergy. The average range of thermal efficiency of the gas turbine is found 30.23%, the
overall efficiency of the plant in simple cycle operation is 30.46%, and the plant's
combined cycle efficiency is 43.21%. The average Heat Rate in simple cycle operation is
11,641.32 kJ/kWh, and the average Heat Rate in combined cycle operation is 8,369.55
kJ/kWh. The exergoeconomic analysis results indicated that the combustion chamber was
the most cost-effective component, which a low cost of capital investment can improve.
Comparing the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant with other plants also
represents that the combustion chamber is the plant's highest exergy destruction
component. The heat energy loss in the combustion chamber decreases with an increase
in air mass flow rate. This implies that a high mass flow rate of air can minimize the
combustion chamber's energy losses as this would introduce more air for combustion.
The component with the highest exergy improvement potential is the combustion
chamber.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Description Page No

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF FIGURES ix
LIST OF TABLES xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Power Sector Scenario in Bangladesh 3
1.2.1 Present Power Generation Scenario in Bangladesh 4
1.2.2 Fuel based Power Plant Scenario of Bangladesh 5
1.2.3 Technology based Power Plant Scenario of Bangladesh 7
1.3 Background and the present state of Energy and Exergy Analysis 8
1.4 Definitions 8
1.5 Motivation for the Study 11
1.6 Objectives & Possible Outcomes 13
1.7 Organization of the thesis 13

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 15

2.1 Conventional Energy Analysis 15

2.2 Conventional Exergy Analysis 25
2.3 Advanced Exergy Analysis 29
2.4 Exergy Economics 35
2.5 Conclusion 43

Chapter 3: BACKGROUND 45

3.1 Combined Cycle Power Plant 45

3.2 Working of Combined Cycle Power Plant 47
3.3 Description of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant 48
3.3.1 Gas Turbine 50

vi
 3.3.2 Heat Recovery Steam Generator 53
3.3.3 Steam turbine (ST) 57
3.3.4 Cooling Tower 58
3.3.5 Closed Cycle Circulating Water Pump 61
3.3.6 Water Treatment Tanks 62
3.3.7 Service Air Unit (Screw type air Compressor) 63
3.3.8 Condenser 64
3.3.9 Gas Supply Unit 64
3.3.10 Substation & National Grid 65
3.4 Flow Diagram of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant 66

Chapter 4: METHODOLOGY 69

4.1 Energy Analysis 69

4.1.1 Qualitative Assessment 70
4.1.2 Quantitative Assessment 71
4.2 Exergy Analysis 74
4.3 Exergoeconomic Analysis 75
4.3.1 SPECO Method 76

CHAPTER 5: ENERGY ANALYSIS 79

5.1 Energy Analysis 80

5.2 Result and Discussion 85
5.2.1 Effect of Power Output of Gas Turbine with change in Inlet Air 86
Temperature
5.2.2 Effect of thermal efficiency of Gas turbine with change in Inlet Air 87
Temperature
5.2.3 Effect of thermal efficiency of Gas turbine with Specific fuel 87
consumption
5.2.4 Effect of Heat Rate (HR) in simple cycle with Inlet Air 88
Temperature
5.2.5 Effect of Overall efficiency in simple cycle with Inlet Air 89
Temperature
5.2.6 Effect of steam turbine net-work output with varying load 89
5.2.7 Effect of steam flow rate with steam turbine work output 90
5.2.8 Effect of Steam consumption/rating with steam flow rate 91
5.2.9 Effect of steam consumption/rating with varying load 91
5.2.10 Effect of combined cycle efficiency with varying load 92
5.2.11 Effect of Heat rate with Total work output 92
5.2.12 Heat balance of Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) 93

vii
 5.2.13 Service Air Unit (Screw type air Compressor) 97
5.2.14 Condenser 98
5.2.15 Cooling Tower 99
5.3 Comparing with other research works 103

CHAPTER 6: EXERGY ANALYSIS 106

6.1 Exergy Analysis 106

6.2 Exergy Components and Exergy Balances 109
6.3 Exergetic efficiency 110
6.4 Result and Discussion 111
6.5 Comparing with other research works 114

CHAPTER 7: EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS 121

7.1 Exergoeconomic Analysis 121

7.1.1 Non-exergy cost parameter 121
7.1.2 Exergy cost parameter and cost balance equation 122
7.2 Monthly economic analysis 123
7.2.1 Capacity and Energy Payments 125
7.3 Result and Discussion 129
7.3.1 Monthly performance indicator parameter 129
7.3.2 Exergoeconomic parameter 132
7.4 Comparing with other research works 137
7.5 Economic dispatch order according to economic evaluation 139

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION 142

8.1 Conclusions 142

8.2 Recommendations For Future Works 144

CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES 146

ANNEXURE 1: NOMENCLATURE 155

ANNEXURE 2: TARIFF 158

ANNEXURE 3: POWER PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA 160

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

SL Description Page no
No.
1 Figure 1.1 Net Energy Generation based on fuel use on February 2020 6
2 Figure 1.2 Net Energy Generation based on Technology based on February 2020 7
3 Figure 3.1 Flow diagram of a combined cycle power plant 46
4 Figure 3.2 Schematic & T-S Diagram of Combined Cycle Power Plant 48
5 Figure 3.3 Administration building of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power 50
Plant
6 Figure 3.4 Gas Turbine Unit 51
7 Figure 3.5 Gas Turbine Unit side view 52
8 Figure 3.6 Heat recovery steam generator 55
9 Figure 3.7 Steam Turbine Hall 58
10 Figure 3.8 Cooling Tower 60
11 Figure 3.9 Flow diagram of Cooling System 61
12 Figure 3.10 Closed cycle circulating water pump house 61
13 Figure 3.11 Water treatment Tanks 62
14 Figure 3.12 Gas booster Unit 64
15 Figure 3.13 132 kV substation yard 66
16 Figure 3.14 Flow diagram of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant 67
17 Figure 4.1 Flow Diagram of Energy Audit Methodology 73
18 Figure 4.2 Schematic diagram of the SPECO Method Description 78
19 Figure 5.1 Effect of Gas Turbine Power Output with the change in Inlet Air 86
Temperature
20 Figure 5.2 Effect of Gas Turbine thermal efficiency with the change in Inlet Air 87
Temperature
21 Figure 5.3 Effect of Gas Turbine thermal efficiency with SFC. 88
22 Figure 5.4 Effect of Heat rate of the plant in simple Cycle operation with the 88
change in Inlet Air Temperature
23 Figure 5.5 Effect of Heat rate of plant in simple Cycle operation with change in 89

ix
 Inlet Air Temperature
24 Figure 5.6 Effect of steam turbine net-work output with varying load 90
25 Figure 5.7 Effect of steam turbine net-work output with the mass flow rate of 90
steam
26 Figure 5.8 Effect of Steam consumption/rating with the steam flow rate 91
27 Figure 5.9 Effect of steam consumption/rating with varying load 91
28 Figure 5.10 Effect of combined cycle efficiency with varying load 92
29 Figure 5.11 Effect of Heat rate with Total work output 92
30 Figure 5.12 Heat balance diagram of HRSG 96
31 Figure 5.13 Compressed air heat flow diagram 98
32 Figure 6.1 Exergy destruction in various components 113
33 Figure 6.2 Exergetic efficiency of various components 113
34 Figure 6.3 Percentage of exergetic destruction rate of power plant 114
35 Figure 7.1 Exergy destruction Cost of each component of FCCP 135
36 Figure 7.2 Capital Investment Cost of each component of FCCP 136
37 Figure 7.3 Exergoeconomic Factor of each component of FCCP 136

x
 LIST OF TABLES

SL Description Page no
No.
1 Table 1.1 Power Generation at a Glance (2019-2020) 5
2 Table 1.2 Fuel based Energy Generation Capacity (On February 2020) 6
3 Table 1.3 Technology based Energy Generation Capacity (On February 2020) 7
4 Table 5.1 Energy Performance Parameter Equations 81
5 Table 5.2 Performance Indicator Parameter of the Combined Cycle Power Plant 85
6 Table 5.3 HRSG performance indicator parameter 95
7 Table 5.4 Key indicators of Condenser performance 99
8 Table 5.5 Various kinds of losses of Cooling tower in summer season 100
9 Table 5.6 Various kinds of losses of Cooling tower in winter season 101
10 Table 5.7 Cost of chemical dosing for water treatment 102
11 Table 5.8 Cost of energy usage of cooling tower system 102
12 Table 5.9 Average Operating Data for Selected Gas Turbine Power Plants and 103
Energy Performance Analysis
13 Table 6.1 Exergy equations of major component of the plant 109
14 Table 6.2 Exergy rate at different point of Gas cycle 111
15 Table 6.3 Exergy rate at different point of steam cycle 111
16 Table 6.4 Exergetic performance parameter of combined cycle power plant 112
17 Table 6.5 Exergy Destruction Rate in different power plants in simple cycle 115
operation
18 Table 6.6 Exergetic efficiency in different power plants in simple cycle 116
operation
19 Table 6.7 Percentage of exergy destruction in different power plants in simple 117
cycle operation
20 Table 6.8 Exergy Destruction Rate in different power plants in Combined cycle 117
operation
21 Table 6.9 Percentage of exergy destruction in different power plants in 118

xi
 Combined cycle operation
22 Table 6.10 Exergetic Efficiency in different power plants in Combined cycle 119
operation
23 Table 7.1 The equations of the non-exergy cost parameters 122
24 Table 7.2 The equations of the exergy cost parameters 122
25 Table 7.3 Monthly Energy generation report from July, 2018 to December, 129
2018
26 Table 7.4 Capacity payment in Simple Cycle Operation Mode 129
27 Table 7.5 Variable Operation and Maintenance payment in Simple Cycle 130
Operation Mode
28 Table 7.6 Performance Indicator in Simple Cycle Operation Mode 130
29 Table 7.7 Monthly Energy generation report from January, 2019 to June, 2019 131
30 Table 7.8 Capacity payment in Combined Cycle Operation Mode 131
31 Table 7.9 Variable Operation & Maintenance payment in Combined Cycle 132
Operation Mode
32 Table 7.10 Performance Indicator parameter in Combined Operation Mode 132
33 Table 7.11 Non-exergoeconomic parameter 133
34 Table 7.12 Cost formation of different component of the plant 134
35 Table 7.13 Exergoeconomic parameter of each components of the plant 135
36 Table 7.14 Cost of Exergy Destruction Rate in different power plants in simple 138
cycle operation
37 Table 7.15 Capital investment cost in different power plants in simple cycle 139
operation
38 Table 7.16 Exergoeconomic factor in different power plants in simple cycle 139
operation

xii
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Electricity plays an essential role in the economic growth through the sustainable structure
and poverty eradication and security of any country. A reliable electricity supply is a vital
issue for the world today. Future economic growth crucially depends on long-term electricity
availability, affordable, available, and environmentally friendly. Security, climate change,
and public health are closely interrelated with electricity.

Nowadays, efficient usage of current energy resources is pretty significant because, with the
continuously increasing population and intense industrialization rates demanding too much
energy, our resources will be insufficient to meet this demand in a near-future. Thus, finding
new energy resources and using present resources more efficiently are the critical concepts of
the new century.

To achieve overall economic development and upgrade the socio-economic condition and
alleviate the poverty of Bangladesh, the pace of power sector development has to be
accelerated. The government needs to confirm a sustainable and quality supply of power to
the country to maintain this growth rate in the power sector.

In line with this aspect, the Bangladesh Government designed an extensive power generation
plan to create sustainable growth in the power sector and its economy's overall development.
The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (GOB) has taken a goal to provide
affordable and reliable electricity to all Bangladesh citizens by 2020. GOB is currently
working to provide sustainable electricity for the population by 2021, and the installed
capacity of generation will be 24000 MW.

Power plants, much like other businesses, are first and foremost driven by economics.
Electricity need is increasing, whereas the available generation also increases against
demand. In the public sector, many generation units have become very old and have been
operating at a reduced capacity.

Other issues are that the world is not energy-efficient, so we need to ensure optimum usage
and savings of energy. Its impact daily is high. One way to use energy resources more
efficient is to produce electrical energy from combined cycle power plants, which is one of

1
the most popular energy conversion systems used around the world today. Using the
Combined Cycle, it’s possible to directly reduce fuel consumption to the other electricity
generation method.

In Bangladesh, the primary fuel is natural gas, predicted to be exhausted by 2025, and the
availability of other fuels is also limited. For those reasons, the continued advancement and
optimization of power plants is necessary. The power plant's performance can be enhanced
by improving the overall system design, individual component performance, and plant
operation management.

A comprehensive analysis should conduct to identify the areas with the most potential for
improvement. Improving the methods of analysis can translate to further optimization of the
systems. To maintain the efficient operating conditions of the plants, performing performance
analysis is a requirement. Conservation of energy is a key to saving excessive bills and
building up needless domestic and industrial use, and these analyses are focused mainly on
the first thermodynamics rule. More recently, power plant performance examines from
thermodynamics' second law, where exergy use as a performance parameter.

The energy demand is growing; optimization of energy conversion systems is indispensable.

Exergy analysis usually predicts the thermodynamic performance of an energy system and
the efficiency of the system's components. The exergy analysis of a system is closely related
to its economic indices. It is an exergy that is paid for and not the energy that is thought to be.

Exergoeconomics is a branch of engineering science that combines exergy analysis and

economic principles. This analysis enables the determination of exergy loss and destruction
cost with these two concepts. In the last few decades, extensive studies have shown the
importance of exergy analysis and its economic value.

For proper utilization of natural resources, it's crucial to perform energy analysis and the
exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a plant. Not only for the improvement of the plant's
performance but also to reduce the excessive consumption of natural resources and keep the
environment balanced.

In this thesis, a detailed study based on the energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic analyses of a
combined cycle power plant of Bangladesh Power Development Board located at
Fenchuganj, Bangladesh, has been carried out.

2
1.2 Power Sector Scenario in Bangladesh

Bangladesh's power sector is a proud sector of the country, with an installed power
generation capacity of 23,548 MW as of July 2020 (including captive and renewable energy).
The power sector of Bangladesh is one of the booming sectors of the country. Now 99% of
the total population has access to electricity. The largest energy consumers in Bangladesh are
the residential sector, followed by industries, commercial and agricultural sectors.

A few years back, high system loss, low plant efficiency, erratic power supply, shortages of
funds for power plant maintenance, and absence of a new power generation plan were the big
problems in Bangladesh's power sector, but now the scenario is entirely different.

The government has given top priority to power sector development and has committed to
providing electricity to all citizens across the country by 2021. To achieve this goal
Government has undertaken several reform measures; some of them have already been
implemented.

The Electricity Directorate was established in 1948 to plan and improve the power supply
situation of the country. Considering the increasing demand for electricity and its importance
in agriculture & industry, “Water & Power Development Authority” (WAPDA) was created
in 1959. Later the “WAPDA” was divided into two parts, namely “Bangladesh Power
Development Board” & “Bangladesh Water Development Board” by the Presidential Order
59 (PO-59) of 31st May 1972. As a result, Bangladesh Power Development Board was
entrusted with the Operation, Maintenance, and Development of Generation, Transmission &
Distribution facilities of electricity throughout the country.

As part of reform and restructuring, the transmission was vertically separated. A subsidiary of
BPDB and distribution was horizontally split to create new distribution entities in the capital
city (DPDC & DESCO) and rural areas (REB). Further, some generation and urban
distribution companies were created as a subsidiary of BPDB. The subsidiaries of BPDB are:
 Ashuganj Power Station Company Ltd. (APSCL)
 Electricity Generation Company of Bangladesh Ltd. (EGCB)

3
  North West Power Generation Company Ltd. (NWPGCL)
 Power Grid Company of Bangladesh Ltd. (PGCB)
 West Zone Power Distribution Company Ltd. (WZPDCL)
 Northern Electricity Supply company Ltd. (NESCO)

BPDB is under the Power Division of the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources,
Government of Bangladesh. Key responsibilities of the Board are:

 Generation of electricity from its Power Plants.

 Power purchase from Public & Private Generation companies as a single buyer.
 Bulk sales of electricity to Utilities as a single buyer.
 Retail sales of electricity within its Four Distribution Zones.
 Preparation of Generation and Distribution Expansion Plan.
 Implementation of Generation & Distribution Projects as approved by the
Government.

1.2.1 Present Power Generation Scenario in Bangladesh

Now Bangladesh has shown implausible achievement in the power sector. The
Government's target has been implemented successfully and has even achieved a higher
level of economic growth.

Electricity Demand is growing day by day. To mitigate the demand-supply gap, an

aggressive plan is prepared by the Government for new generation addition. The highest
peak generation till now was 12,893 MW on the date of 29 May 2019. The total energy
generation was 70,533 GWh, 17.66%, and 12.53% in 2019 to 2020 fiscal year, which is
higher than the previous year.

Distribution system loss is reduced gradually, and continuous improvement in the

distribution sector is going on.

4
 The Present Power Generation Scenario in Bangladesh shown in table 1.1 below:
Table 1.1: Power Generation at a Glance (2019-2020)
Total Power Generation Facility : 138 Nos.
Generation Capacity : 23,548 MW
Deaerated Capacity : 19107 MW
Maximum Generation : 12893 MW (29 May, 2019)
Total Consumers : 34.3 Million
Transmission Line : 11,650 Circuit Kilomiter (Ckt. Km)
Distribution Line : 5,32,000 km
Power Import : 1160 MW
Per Capita Generation : 510 KWh
Access to Electricity : 99%
(ref: Annual report of 2019-2020 of Power Division)
Power Division and Bangladesh Power Development Board are on the right track to
achieve the goal of providing uninterrupted, quality, and reliable power to all citizens of
the country by 2021 through integrated development of power generation, transmission
and distribution system.

Our Prime minister's aim is to give 100% power accessibility to all the people of our
country. And we have a slogan for that- "Sheikh Hasinar uddog ghore ghore biddut."

1.2.2 Fuel based Power Plant Scenario of Bangladesh

Natural gas is currently the primary fuel for power generation in Bangladesh, but this
finite resource won’t last forever. Recognizing the importance of primary fuel for power
generation, the government is diversifying the fuel mix by gradually shifting to coal,
LNG, and other available fuel besides gas. To ensure energy security, the government has
prepared Power Sector Master Plan-2016 considering gas, coal, LNG, liquid fuel, dual-
fuel, nuclear, and renewable energy resources. The government has also taken initiatives
to import power from neighboring countries. The present energy generation scenario with
various types of fuels is presented in table 1.2 below:

5
 Table 1.2: Fuel based Energy Generation Capacity (On February 2020)

Fuel Type Capacity(Unit) Total(%)

Coal 444 2.32
Gas 10261 53.70
HFO 5206 27.25
HSD 1771 9.27
Hydro 230 1.20
Imported 1160 6.07
Solar 35 0.18
Total 19107 100

(ref: Annual report of 2019-2020 of Bangladesh Power Development Board)

Solar Coal
Imported
Hydro 0.18% 3%
1% 6%
HSD
9%

Gas
HFO
54%
27%

Figure 1.1: Net Energy Generation based on fuel use on February 2020.

6
1.2.3 Technology based Power Plant Scenario of Bangladesh
The present energy generation scenario with the basis of Technology based is
presented below:

Table 1.3: Technology based Energy Generation Capacity (On February

2020)

Technology Installed Capacity (MW)

Gas Turbine 1607
Reciprocating Engine 7372
Steam Turbine 2344
Combined Cycle 6364
Hydro 230
Solar 30
Power Import 1160
Total 19107
(ref: Annual report of 2019-2020 of Bangladesh Power Development Board)

Power Import
Solar
6%
Hydro 0.18%
1% Gas Turbine
9%

Combined Cycle
33% Reciprocating
Engine
39%

Steam Turbine
12%

Gas Turbine Reciprocating Engine Steam Turbine Combined Cycle

Hydro Solar Power Import

Figure 1.2: Net Energy Generation based on Technology based on February 2020.

7
1.3 Background and the present state of Energy and Exergy Analysis

The present situation in terms of energy efficiency is not very encouraging. There are serious
shortcomings in energy utilization which are posing great concerns to the economic and
environmental situation of the country. A systematic approach for decision-making in the
area of energy management, energy audit is the key. It tries to balance the total energy inputs
with its use, and serves to identify all other energy sources in a facility. It quantifies energy
usage according to its separate quantity. Industrially energy audit is most important and
feasible tool in defining and pursuing comprehensive energy management program.

A Combined Cycle Power Plant couples two power cycles such that the energy discharged by
heat from one cycle is used partly or wholly as the input to the power cycle. This is how a
combined cycle power plant works to produce electricity and captures waste heat from the
gas turbine to increase efficiency and electrical output. The specific objective of energy audit
of a thermal power plant is to improve the heat rate and reduce auxiliary power consumption
of the power plant. Traditional energy audits are broad in scope and usually examine all
energy utilizing systems based on the energy quantity. Energy has both quantity and quality.
Quality aspect of energy is examined by the Exergy analysis which determines the magnitude
and direction of irreversible processes in a system and thereby provides an indicator that
points the direction in which engineers should concentrate their efforts to improve the
performance of the considered system. Such a detailed energy analysis has not been
conducted before for a combined cycle power plant in Bangladesh.

1.4 Definitions

Whenever the following terms appear in this thesis, they shall have the meanings given to
such terms below:

Approach temperature: Approach temperature is defined as the difference between the

saturation temperature and water temperature entering evaporator.

Circuit kilometer: means one kilometer of electrical transmission or distribution circuitry

including all necessary conductors, insulators and supporting structures required to provide a
complete circuit or double circuit.
8
Cooling tower effectiveness (in percentage) is the ratio of CTrange, to the ideal range, i.e.,
difference between cooling water inlet temperature and ambient wet bulb temperature, or in
other words it is = Range / (Range + Approach).

Cooling tower bleed-off/blowdown: is the flushing of a portion of high mineral

concentration cooling tower system water down the drain, while simultaneously replacing it
with fresh water. This process dilutes the system water mineral concentrations that steadily
increase due to water evaporation.

Condenser Effectiveness: ratio of actual heat transferred to maximum possible heat that can
be transferred.

Condenser Efficiency: The ratio of temperature rises of cooling water to the maximum
possible temperature rise (i.e. the vacuum temp. minus inlet cooling water temperature).

Cycles of Concentration: is the number of times the concentration of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in cooling tower water is multiplied relative to the TDS in the makeup water. Because
evaporation of pure water leaves dissolved solids behind in the system water, TDS increases
over time as the tower operates.

Density: Mass per unit volume is called density. Density of a material changes with the
change in temperature and pressures. The unit of density is kg/m3.

Dependable Capacity: means at any given time the net amount of capacity of the facility
(adjusted to Reference Site Conditions in accordance with Section 13.1 and Power Factor
Adjustment), expressed in kW, as determined by the most recent Dependable Capacity Test.

Drift losses: Drift losses refer to the amount of total tower water flow escaping the cooling
tower as droplets of water, in some towers it like being rained on, unlike evaporated water
that leaves the tower with the discharged air, when water evaporates it drops out all minerals
and dissolved solids that are left behind causing the TDS, (total dissolved solids) of the
remaining water to increase.
9
Energy: bears the meaning ascribed thereto in Chapter 5.1.

Evaporation Loss: The loss of a stored volatile liquid component or mixture by evaporation;
controlled by temperature, pressure, and the presence or absence of vapor-recovery systems.

Exergy: bears the meaning ascribed thereto in Chapter 6.1.

FAD: is the amount of free air drawn into the compressor that is actually delivered by the air
compressor at its compressed air outlet.

Heat rate: The amount of heat input in kJ/hr for each kWh of electricity produced. used to
indicate the power plant efficiency. The heat rate is the inverse of the efficiency: a lower heat
rate is better.

Isothermal power: is the least power required to compress air assuming isothermal (constant
temperature) compression conditions.

Log- Mean Temperature Differences: The log mean temperature difference (LMTD) is
used to determine the temperature driving force for heat transfer in flow systems, most
notably in heat exchangers. The LMTD is a logarithmic average of the temperature difference
between the hot and cold streams at each end of the exchanger. The larger the LMTD, the
more heat is transferred.

Pinch point: Pinch point is defined as the difference between the temperature of exhaust
gas exiting the evaporator and saturation temperature of the steam corresponding to the
related pressure level.

Specific Heat: The specific heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the
temperature by one degree Celsius. The fluid having higher specific heat ensures higher rate
of heat transfer. The unit of specific heat is J/kg.K.

10
 Steam Purity: Steam purity can be maintained by using a correct feed water treatment
operation and an adequate blowdown procedure.

Steam Rate (S.R): The capacity of a steam plant is often expressed in terms of steam rate or
specific steam consumption. It is defined as the steam flow rate (kg.s) required to produce
unit shat output.
𝑚
Steam Rate (S.R) = 𝑊 𝑠
𝑛𝑒𝑡

Where;
𝑚𝑠 = rate of steam flow (kg/s);
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = power developed (kW).

Volume rate of flow: is the actual volume of gas, compressed and delivered at the standard
discharge point, referred to conditions of total temperature, total pressure and composition
prevailing at the standard inlet point.

Windage loss: is the reduction in efficiency due to windage forces.

1.5 Motivation for the Study

The role of electricity in modern society is so inherent that we do not even think about it. It
is self-evident that all the appliances at home and the office, all the communications, heating,
air-conditioning, lighting, many modes of transportation, etc. But they would not if there was
no electricity.

Another critical issue is the reserves for fossil fuels are limited, and, what is more important,
it is impossible to make use of all of those reserves. They will not be exhausted for a few
decades at the current rate, but they will become a more and more marginal source of energy.
Even before that, they were using fossil fuels to increase substantially because of the higher
costs for acquiring them and the carbon taxes levied on burning them.

There is a limit for the available amount of many non-combustion and renewable energy
sources, too. The solution can't be just increasing the production of electricity with a
potential increase in the severity of the problems. Whatever the method, there is no
possibility for exponential growth. There are limits set by technology, economics, and
resources.
11
An obvious solution is to use energy more efficiently. The energy efficiency of electric
appliances has vastly improved. With the same amount of energy- or electricity – their
output is much larger. Because of the rising standard of living, the total number of
appliances in the world will inevitably and continuously increases, which would also help
decrease the need for expanded production of electricity.

Energy efficiency and energy conservation are also helping us to lessen the use of electricity.
With the efficient use of electricity, it is also possible to make modern society less dependent
on fossil fuels. The efficient use of electricity would have an enormous impact on the
diminishing of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is essential in slowing down climate change
and global warming.

Presently in Bangladesh, 138 nos. Power plants are under operation to produce electricity
continuously. And the Installed generation capacity is 23,548 MW, and the recent deaerated
Capacity is 19,107 MW. But till now, the maximum generation capacity is 12,893 MW. The
gap between the maximum generation and deaerated Capacity is enormous. Most of the
time, some plants shut down due to a lack of fuel (gaseous fuel), machine problems in plants,
low dispatch requirements, etc.

Reducing the gap between the installed capacity and maximum generating capacity requires
high time to focus on power plants' energy and exergy efficiency. And make the plant
available efficiently and ensure sustainable electricity for all.

Therefore, in this study, a detailed study based on the energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic
analyses of a combined cycle power plant is carried out. Basic thermodynamic properties of
the systems determined by energy analysis utilizing main operation conditions. Exergy
destructions within the system and exergy losses to the environment investigated to
determine thermodynamic inefficiencies in the design and to assist in guiding future
improvements in the plant. Exergoeconomic analysis was done to determine the cost-
effectiveness of improving individual components. Among the different approaches for
thermoeconomic analysis in literature, SPECO method is applied. Hence, cost of each
product is calculated. And, also find out the Per Unit Fuel cost and per unit total generation
cost is also calculated. Comparison of the configurations in terms of performance
assessment parameters and costs per unit of exergy are also given in this thesis.

12
1.6 Objectives & Possible Outcomes

The main objectives of this thesis are as follows:

a. To study the operational procedure and characteristics of the combined cycle thermal
power plant (CCPP) and develop a mathematical formulation for mass and energy
flow rates at steady-state conditions to match with plant operational data.
b. To measure the loss of energy to the environment from a combined cycle power plant.
c. To carry out the energy and exergy analyses of the plant and draw the energy and
exergy flow diagram.
d. To compare the plant performance based on the energy and exergy viewpoint.
e. Further, a thermodynamic analysis of the components of the plant will be carried out
to understand the methodology of thermoeconomic evaluation and to identify the
scopes for the energy and exergy performance improvement of these components to
utilize the waste energy and its applicability in designing a cost-effective thermal
system.

1.7 Organization of the thesis

The study presented in this dissertation has addressed the Energy, Exergy, and
Exergoeconomic analysis of a combined cycle power plant. The dissertation has organized
as follows:

Chapter 1 presents a general discussion on Energy, Exergy, and Exergoeconomics, the Power
sector scenario in Bangladesh. Background and the present state of Energy and Exergy
Analysis have been discussed. The motivation for this work and the objective of this
dissertation have also been discussed.

Chapter 2 presents a detailed literature review for a better conception in previous studies and
energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis method of combined cycle power plants that have
carried out by different researchers across the world. The applications of this analysis in other
sectors are also discussed.

13
In chapter 3, a small description of the background of a combined cycle power plant and the
Configuration of all the main equipment’s has been presented here. I also discussed in that
chapter how this main equipment’s are worked in combined cycle power plant & their
effectiveness.

In chapter 4, the analysis methodology of this work has been discussed. The purpose
of using this process in this work have been discussed here.

In chapter 5, discuss the energy analysis of the fenchuganj combined cycle power plant in detail
and its application to case studies. Here, Performance assessment parameters related to energy
concepts are described and analyzed for their change with steam demand, the pressure of high-
pressure steam drum, and pinch point. The results of the energy analysis of this plant are also
discussed in this section along with some recommendations.

In chapter 6, discuss the exergy analysis. For exergy analysis includes the formulation of exergy
terms, exergy destructions within the plant, exergy losses to the environment, exergetic
efficiency of the plants, and ratios related to exergy destruction and exergy loss.

In chapter 7, discuss with exergoeconomic/thermoeconomic analysis methodology of the plant

and its application to case studies. Engineering economics analysis is studied. The general
methodology used in such analysis is given. The results of these analyses are discussed in this
chapter.

Finally, conclusions of this work and recommendation for future work have been discussed in
chapter 8.

14
 Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The following literature review focuses on the energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analyses.
A representative collection of works and their related findings are presented, with greater
emphasis on papers from the past decade.

2.1 Conventional Energy Analysis

To reduce energy costs, lead to higher performance and save energy, Energy Audit is a
powerful tool for exposure operational and equipment improvements. Sometimes, the energy
audit is also called an “energy assessment” or “energy study”.

Energy audits can be done as a stand-alone effort but may be conducted as part of a larger
analysis across an owner’s entire group. The purpose of an energy audit is to find out how,
when, where and why energy is used.

The energy audit is also used to identify opportunities to improve efficiency. Energy auditing
services are offered by engineering firms, energy services companies and energy consultants.
The energy auditors do the audit process. The first thing energy auditor needs to be aware of
end user expectations and then audit starts with an analysis of historical and current utility data.
This sets the stage for an onsite inspection. The most important outcome of an energy audit is
a list of recommended energy efficiency measures (EEMs). Energy audit serves the purpose of
identifying energy usage within a facility, process or equipment, and then identifies
opportunities for conservation, called energy conservation measures (ECMs). Audit provides
the most accurate picture of energy savings opportunities.

Many researchers have done Energy analysis in past decade. Few energy analysis of thermal
power plant is discussed below:

Cropper Paul A. et al. (1991) [1] discussed the audit's objective was to make a comprehensive
study of the power plant operations and programs relating to the performance of the generating
units and to identify areas of potential improvement. The results indicated that Heat rate
improvements had been achieved, and an already high level of reliability had even further
improved.

15
Bhansali V.K. et al. (1995) [2] presented the energy conservation was cost effective with a
short payback period and modest investment. The results indicated that the energy conservation
should be developed as a mass movement like family planning, literacy drive etc.

Khan Atif Zaman (1996) [3] discussed the application of the ECON techniques by which
electrical energy could be saved and made cost efficient from the industrial perspective were
presented for a sheet-glass industry in a developing country. The results indicated that
recommendations if applied to any similar industry in other developing countries may also lead
to very reasonable cost savings.

Babu N. Sundar et al. (1999) [4] described the Government has given higher priority for the
power development projects, the Indian Power sector was struggling with formidable
difficulties of meeting the heavy demands of electricity due to higher amount of power losses
and energy thefts. The results indicated that their main functions for economic and emission
controlled operation of the Power sector had been elaborately analyzed energy. This is achieved
by raising the steam in the boilers, expanding it through turbine.

Hogg B. W. et al. (1999) [5] presented reviewing the performance monitoring practice of a
typical 200 MW oil/gas-fired thermal power plant at Ballylumford, N. Ireland, results indicated
that The possible best efficiency values of plant components, needed for comparative
performance evaluation, were more reliably and accurately obtainable through neural network
performance models.

Bathaee [Link] et al. (2000) [6] described the NEKA steam power plant's auxiliary service
system in the North of Iran as analyzed from the reliability point of view. The results indicated
that the applied indexes in the auxiliary service system of power plants reliability calculations.
Theoretically, some of these systems could model, and the reliability calculation could be done
in a simple form by the cut-set method.

Bose Bimal K. et al. (2000) [7] discussed global energy generation scenarios and the related
environmental pollution problem. The results indicated that Electric/hybrid vehicle technology
that played an essential role in fuel-saving and pollution control had been reviewed in this
context.

16
Sabooh Dr. Y. (2000) [8] presented the model validated by experimenting with an EAF
transformer in Ahvaz Steel Making Plant. The analysis results indicated that the simulation
model could control the transformer's hot spot temperature. It provides an appropriate means
of increasing the EAF transformer's reliability and preventing further damages to copper
windings.

Najjar (2001) [9] described that a gas turbine engine's efficiency is relatively low at the design
point, and it deteriorates further at part load and off-design high ambient temperatures. His
work comprises of the study of adding an inlet air pre-cooler driven by the tail-end heat
recovered from the engine exhaust gases. A heat recovery boiler was used to recover the
exhaust heat partly. This combined system's performance, namely power, efficiency, and
specific fuel consumption, was studied and compared with the simple cycle. This parametric
study's variables were mainly compressor pressure ratio, turbine inlet temperature, and ambient
temperature. Results show that the combined system achieves gains in power. The performance
of the combined system showed less sensitivity to variations in operating variables.
Thermoeconomic evaluation shows that the combined system is viable.

Lee Wei-Jen et al. (2002) [10] discussed energy management and energy conservation for
motors, systems, and electrical equipment. The results indicated that electric motors constitute
about 70% of energy consumption. Special attention was given to their types, design,
characteristics, applications, sizing, and utilization.

Han Pu et al. (2003) [11] discussed the PFC algorithm for first-order plus dead time system
was provided, another novel PFC algorithm based on Finite Impulse Response (FIR) model
was also presented. The results indicated that the algorithm had no difference due to the variety
of set points and output disturbances.

Changliang Liu et al. (2004) [12] presented a genetic algorithm introduced to identify the
transfer functions and parameters non-linear dynamic model of the thermal process. The results
indicated that the genetic algorithm-based identification method was reasonable, and
satisfactory results could be obtained with it.

Ameri and Hejazi (2004) [13] observed that the ambient temperature variation causes a loss
of 20% of the 170 gas turbine units' rated capacity in Iran. They studied five gas turbines, where

17
the difference between the ambient temperature and the ISO conditions was 11.8 °C. They
found that for each 1 °C increase in ambient temperature, the power output was decreased by
0.74%, and they suggested cooling the compressor's intake-air temperature to improve the gas
turbine cycle efficiency.

Kim Hoyol et al. (2006) [14] discussed the control strategy for the new thermal power plant
having the steam condition of 3769psi and 1130F, and the rated utility output of 1000MW was
developed. This paper showed the system structure and information flow scheme. This paper
also showed the control strategy strictly following the hierarchical structure of the integrated
control and management system.

Boonnasa et al. (2006) [15] studied the performance improvement of an existing combined
cycle power plant located in Bangkok that consisted of two gas turbines (110.76MW each) and
115.14MW steam turbines in ISO conditions. The plant used an absorption chiller to cool one
of the two gas turbine's intake-air to 15°C, in addition to having a thermal energy storage tank
that stored the sensible heat of the chilled water to meet the varying daily cooling load. Low-
pressure steam from a heat recovery steam generator was used to drive the absorption chiller
needed to meet a maximum load of 7049.58kW with thermal heat storage. As a result, the
cooled gas turbine's power output increased by 10%, improving the CCPP total power output
by 6.24%. Economically, the study found that due to the low initial investment cost of
retrofitting the absorption chiller, the internal rate of return was 40%, and the payback period
was just 3.81 years. However, the authors also reported a reduction of 2.85% in the steam
turbine power output, which was due to powering the absorption chiller directly from the
HRSG unit steam that was powering the steam turbine. This reduction in the steam turbine
power output could have been avoided if they had used a boiler that utilized the waste heat
energy from the stack after the HRSG unit.

Gupta J.B. (2006-07) [16] discussed that thermal energy is the primary source of power
generation itself, showing the importance of thermal power generation in India.

Rajput R.K. (2006-07) [17] presented a steam power plant that converts fossil fuel's chemical
energy into mechanical.

Guo Ying et al. (2007) [18] proposed a multi-objective optimizing control method, including
two optimization procedures. The results had demonstrated the satisfactory performance of this
18
novel multi-objective optimizing control strategy. One future research topic was to develop a
more efficient multiple fuzzy objectives optimizing predictive controller for real-time
implementation.

Hosseini et al. (2007) [19] indicated that the gas turbine compressor is designed for constant
air volume flow, making the electric power output depending on the ambient temperature
through the specific mass flow rate. They added that the ambient temperature increase also
decreases the compressor's output pressure, which reduces the gas turbine cycle efficiency,
while the increase in the air density reduces the gas turbine's heat rate and increases its specific
fuel consumption. They stated that for each 1°C increase in the ambient air temperature, the
gas turbine's electric power output decreases by 0.5% to 0.9%, and by 0.27% for a combined
cycle.

Xiang and Chen (2007) [20] discussed the combined cycle with three-pressure HRSG,
equipped with the GE PG9351FA gas turbine. They maximized the combined cycle efficiency
through the optimization of the HRSG operating parameters by minimizing exergy losses.
Moreover, they highlighted the influence of the HRSG inlet gas temperature on the bottoming
cycle efficiency. They studied the influence of HRSG inlet gas temperature on the steam
bottoming cycle efficiency. Their result shows that increasing the HRSG inlet temperature has
less improvement to steam cycle efficiency when it is over 590ºC.

P.S.P.C.L. manual (2007) [21] presented thermodynamics as the essential subject of thermal
Engineering. It deals with gases and water vapors' behavior when subjected to varying
temperatures pressure. In the thermal plant, heat energy is converted into mechanical energy,
further converted into electrical energy.

Guo Tieqiao et al. (2008) [22] described continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS)
permanently installed for selected processes require initial and periodic quality assurance audit
tests to ensure that they were functioning correctly and reporting emissions accurately. Results
indicated that facility would perform continuing quality assurance (Q.A.) on the CEMS.

Bera S. C. et al. (2008) [23] presented the typical I.D. fans' performances in the steam
generation unit of naphtha, and natural gas-based captive power plant had been studied. It had
been a considerable part of the losses in the I.D. fan was due to the over design than the current
19
requirement, and the older design was another cause of low efficiency. So from this
performance calculation of an I.D. fan a better design of a fan had been proposed to improve
the plant efficiency and save the energy for global interest.

Kamalapur G D et al. (2009) [24] presented the achievements and further challenges of
electrical energy conservation in the Indian context. The results indicated that the Energy
Conservation Act- 2001 by the Government of India was the first step in this direction and had
given encouraging results.

Jiang Tie-Liu et al. (2009) [25] discussed the energy audit concept, and the purpose was
analyzed. The significance of energy audit in coal-fired power plant to energy-saving and
emission-reducing was introduced by analyzing the current utilization situation of energy in
China's coal-fired power plant. Energy audit contents such as energy management audit, energy
utilization audit, and energy-saving potential analysis showed.

Qingsheng Bi et al. (2009) [26] presented two modes of heat pump heat regenerative of the
system and established mathematical models for energy saving critical points. Through
comparative study and analysis in the actual case, the results demonstrated that only when the
Coefficient of heat pump performance (C.O.P.) was larger than the Coefficient of performance
of heat pump of energy-saving critical points, the thermal system was energy saving.

Khaliq (2009) [27] reported in their detailed analyses that the combustion chamber's exergy
destruction increases with the cycle temperature ratio, and the second-law efficiency of the
primary combustor behaves in reverse from the second-law analysis. Increasing the maximum
cycle temperature gives a significant improvement in both efficiency and specific work-output.
The study also concludes that the efficiency reduces rapidly with a reduction in the TIT.

Evonik Industries (2009) [28] Energy efficiency is vital for sustainable development. Energy
conservation Act of 2001 provides a legal framework.

Mohagheghi and Shayegan (2009) [29] performed the thermodynamic optimization of design
variables and heat exchangers layout in a heat recovery steam generator HRSG for combined
cycle gas turbine CCGT using a genetic algorithm. Their method was introduced for modeling
the steam cycle in advanced combined cycles by organizing the non-linear equations and their
20
simultaneous used solutions with numerical methods. In addition to the optimization of the
recovery boiler's design variables, they performed the distribution of heat exchangers among
different sections and optimized their layouts in HRSGs. A standard gas turbine was assumed,
and then outlet gas stream conditions (mass flow rate, temperature, and chemical composition
of gas stream) were considered the inlet parameters for the recovery boiler model. From the
optimization process, maximum output power from a steam cycle for different HRSGs was
then analyzed.

Tyagi and Khan (2010) [30] studied the effects of gas turbine exhaust temperature, stack
temperature, and ambient temperature on the combined cycle power plant's overall efficiency,
keeping the gas turbine efficiency and steam turbine efficiency constant. They concluded that
the stack temperature should be minimum and gas turbine exhaust temperature should be
maximum. Out of these three variables, i.e., turbine exhaust temperature, stack temperature,
and ambient temperature, the dominating factor of increasing the combined cycle power plant's
overall efficiency is the stack temperature.

Cao Lihua et al. (2010) [31] discussed how to analyze the reasons and sites that cause the
standard coal consumption rate for generating increase, and provided the basis to power plants
for their overhauling exploiting energy savings potential. The results indicated that the plant
had tremendous energy-saving potential by reducing the condenser pressure and improving the
condenser vacuum.

Gao Han et al. (2010) [32] presented the main factors of fly ash carbon content was analyzed
to utilized B.P. neural networks for dynamic fitting fly ash carbon content value. Besides, the
new method was checked up according to some coal-fired boiler's online data, which indicated
the method could satisfy the request of practical application.

Chai Yuman et al. (2010) [33] described the calculation and analysis of energy destruction
and energy efficiency was carried on for the specific working conditions based on the
calculation of thermodynamic parameters and the energy destruction of the components was
also conducted. The results indicated that the boiler's energy destruction was the largest in the
system, which accounted for more than 90% of the system's energy destruction, so the boiler
was the primary source of the irreversible loss of the power plant.

21
Woudstra et al. (2010) [34] performed the thermodynamic evaluation of combined cycle
plants with the same gas turbine and different steam bottoming cycles. The evaluation showed
that the increasing number of steam generation pressure levels would reduce the losses due to
heat transfer in the HRSG and the exergy loss due to the exhaust of flue gas to the stack. Among
the investigated configurations for the bottoming cycle, triple pressure reheat was the best
option from an exergy point of view.

Bentarzi H. et al. (2011) [35] presented a new approach to controlling the steam turbine of a
thermal power plant using a distributed controlled system with fuzzy logic technique. The
results indicated that it was not generally suitable for non-linear, time delay, high order, and
complex systems.

Ding Jinliang et al. (2011) [36] discussed the research results of modeling and simulation of
thermal power units were reviewed. Several standard models for the research of thermal power
control systems were analyzed, including simplified turbine and furnace models for the unit
coordinated control system (C.C.S.) and local equipment models. The challenges of modeling
and simulation of thermal power plant researches in the future were discussed.

Sanjay (2011) [37] stated that most of the parameter that affects cycle performance is the
turbine inlet temperature TIT. The TIT should be kept on the higher side because the exergy
destruction is higher at lower values.

T.E.R.I. (2011) [38] discussed the structure of the energy audit report is governed basically by
the directives issued. The energy audit reports are details of energy consumption, their costs,
and specific energy consumption institutional arrangement for promotion of energy efficiency.

Jankes Goran et al. (2012) [39] presented characteristics of energy consumption in the
industrial sector of Serbia, the methodology and results of energy audits (E.A.) performed in
industrial sites, and potentials for energy efficiency (E.E.) improvements. The results indicated
that the present state of energy systems in the Serbian industry could be characterized by
significant technological out-of- date, low E.E., and low level of environmental protection.

Ibrahim and Rahman (2012) [40] performed a parametric thermodynamic analysis of a

combined cycle gas turbine. They investigated the effect of operating parameters, compression

22
ratio, gas-turbine peak temperature ratio, isentropic compressor, and efficiency and air-fuel
ratio on the overall plant performance. Their results show that the compression ratios, air to
fuel ratio, and isentropic efficiencies are strongly influenced by the overall thermal efficiency
of the combined cycle gas turbine power plant. The overall thermal efficiency increases with
compression ratio as well as isentropic compressor and turbine efficiency. However, the
variation of overall thermal efficiency is minor at the lower compression ratio, while it is very
significant at the higher compression ratio for both the isentropic compressor and turbine
efficiency. The combined cycle gas turbine's overall efficiencies are much higher than the
efficiencies of gas turbine plants. The efficiency quoted range is about 61%. The overall
thermal efficiency increases and total power output decreases linearly with the compression
ratio's increase with constant turbine inlet temperature. The overall peak efficiency occurs at
the higher compression ratio with the higher cycle peak temperature ratio and higher isentropic
compressor and turbine efficiencies.

Mansouri et al. (2012) [41] investigated the effect of pressure levels of steam generation at
heat recovery steam generator HRSG on the energetic and exergetic efficiency of HRSG,
bottoming cycle and combined cycle power plants, as well as the effect of HRSG (heat recovery
steam generator) pressure levels on exergy destruction at HRSG and other main components
of the bottoming cycle. Their result shows that an increase in steam generation pressure levels
at HRSG leads to an increase in the exergy efficiency of HRSG and CCPP increase
respectively. Besides, an increase in pressure levels at HRSG decreases the exergy destruction
due to heat transfer in HRSG: the exergetic efficiency of HRSG increases with an increase in
pressure levels of steam generation and adding reheat to the cycle.

Abdul Rahman Almutairi et al. (2015) [42] presented the Energetic and exergetic analyses
using operational data for Sabiya, a combined cycle power plant (CCPP) with an advanced
triple pressure reheat heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). A detailed energetic and
exergetic analysis of a 2000 MW CCPP has been carried out, based on a very advanced HRSG.
The thermodynamic data were extracted from the CCPP model, developed by the IPSEpro
software, and validated with the manufacturer’s published data, and it presented a high level of
compatibility. The results confirmed that 60.9% of the total exergy destruction occurs in the
combustion chamber, which constitutes the primary source of irreversibilities within a system,
with high exergy destruction attributable to three reasons: (i.) combined diffusion/fuel
oxidation; (ii.) internal energy exchange–heat transfer; and (iii.) the mixing process.
23
Inefficiency in the combustor can be reduced by improving the combustion process, adding an
air preheater, and reducing the air-to-fuel ratio. The steam turbine constitutes the lowest source
of irreversibility due to the reheating system and the working fluid. The variation in ambient
temperature significantly affects the CCPP’s exergetic efficiency and net power output. Also,
recommend using a cooling system at the point of intake of the gas turbine engine to achieve
high power output and exergetic efficiency. The reheat gas turbine engine, with a high-pressure
ratio, will achieve substantial improvement in the CCPP due to a reduction in the fuel
consumption, producing more power and maintaining the exhaust temperature at a high level,
which is compatible with the triple pressure reheat HRSG. Adjusting the steam pressure at a
high value and the condenser pressure at a low value can be proposed to improve the CCPP’s
efficiency. Regulating the HP pinch temperature at a low level will augment the CCPP’s
efficiency, while a high approach temperature is always preferable to recover more energy from
the exhaust gases from the gas turbine.

H. Sreedharan et al. (2016) [43] presented the Energy and Exergy Analysis on 350MW
Combined Cycle Power Plant. This paper discussed the variation of exergetic efficiency of the
gas turbine for different operating parameters. The efficiency varies from 33.8 to 28.7, and
combined cycle thermal efficiency varies between 42 and 55 as various parameters vary.

Abdallah Haouam et al. (2019) [44] presented the calculation and the analysis of the thermal
performance of the components of an MS 7001 type gas turbine with a nominal power of 87
MW using the concept of exergy. The exergy analysis is carried out by applying the equilibrium
equations obtained from the general definitions of the thermodynamic processes' irreversibility
and the data provided by the manufacturer. The results show that the combustion chamber's
efficiency is the lowest compared to that of the compressor and the expansion in the turbine
because it is where the highest exergy destruction occurs. The total exergy destruction of the
84.55MW gas turbine is 53.51 MW, and its efficiency is 32.44% in the operating conditions.
The change in ambient temperature has a direct impact on the exergy performance of the gas
turbine. Exergy destruction increases with air increase in temperature while the exergy
efficiency decreases.

24
2.2 Conventional Exergy Analysis

A basic definition of exergy, also referred to as work potential and available work, is the
potential of a substance to do work. While in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings,
a substance has no potential to do work, and therefore its exergy is zero.

Fiasch and Giampaolo (1998) [45] investigated an exergy analysis of the semi-closed gas
turbine combined cycle. They concluded that combustion, heat recovery steam generator, water
injection/mixing, and water recovery system are the primary sources of the losses, representing
globally more than 80% of the overall exergy destruction.

Song et al. (2002) [46] studied the exergetic performance of a CT and had several interesting
results. They found the largest exergy destruction was due to chemical reactions in the
combustor. The variable inlet guide vanes (IGV), despite being used to enhance part load
performance, caused a significant increase in exergy destruction at the first compressor row,
and a decrease in overall compressor efficiency. Also, turbine blade cooling air accounted for
over half the total exergy destruction in cooled stages, significantly affecting overall turbine
efficiency.

Exergy Analysis is the job of the power plant to extract as much of the inlet substances’ work
potential, and convert it to useable energy.

Giannantoni et al. (2005) [47] proposed the upgrade of a steam power plant to CCPP using a
five-part approach: energy analysis, conventional exergy analysis, thermoeconomic analysis,
environmental evaluation, and economic evaluation. They found the energy analysis to be the
most helpful, however that is likely no longer the case, as exergy and thermoeconomic analysis
methods have improved in the years since.

Cihan et al. (2006) [48] carried out energy and exergy analyses for a combined cycle in
Turkey and suggested modifications to decrease the exergy destruction in CCPPs. Their
results showed that combustion chambers, gas turbines, and HRSGs are the primary sources
of irreversibilities, representing over 85% of the overall exergy losses.

25
Sciubba and Wall (2007) [49] defined exergy as the maximum theoretical useful work
obtained if a system S is brought into thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment by
means of processes in which S interacts only with this environment. Unlike an energy based
analysis, an exergy analysis allows one to identify the location, magnitude, and origin of
thermodynamic inefficiencies. This additional information is useful for improving the
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a system, and providing means of comparing multiple
systems.

The idea of available work can be traced back almost two hundred years. According to Sciubba
and Wall (2007), Carnot (1824) first stated that the work that can be extracted from a heat
engine is proportional to the temperature difference between the hot and the cold reservoir.
However, Clapeyron (1832, 1834), Rankine (1851), Thomson (1852), and Clausius (1850,
1867) all contributed to the establishment of the principle.

The earliest mention of the term available work was by Gibbs in 1873. Gibbs modeled an
arbitrary substance as a triangular surface. He said that the surface is made up of three points,
the properties of the substance: volume, energy, and entropy. The surface is acted upon by the
two other properties, temperature and pressure. When the substance is in thermodynamic
equilibrium with its surroundings, the triangular surface is tangent to the plane; if it is not, then
it is shifted, and its coordinates change. The movement is parallel to the respective axis of each
property. The coordinates for which the surface is tangent to the plane, and the substance is in
thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings, will be referred to as at the dead state.
Exergy is basically a measure of the distance between the coordinates of the old and new
vertices of the triangular surface. Therefore, the work potential equals the sum of these three
distances, with the sign of the entropy term being negative.

Butcher and Reddy (2007) [50] carried out an exergy analysis for waste heat recovery based
power generation system. The waste heat recovery power generation systems' performance
based on second law analysis was investigated for various operating conditions. The
temperature profiles across the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), network output, second
law efficiency, and entropy generation number was simulated for various operating conditions.
The variation in specific heat with exhaust gas composition and the temperature was accounted
for in the analysis and results. The effect of pinch point on the performance of HRSG, entropy
generation rate, and second law efficiency investigated. The researchers found that the HRSG
26
and power generation system's second law efficiency decreases with increasing pinch points.
The first and second law efficiency of the power generation system varies with exhaust gas
composition and oxygen content in the gas. The results contribute further information about
the role of gas composition, specific heat, and pinch point influence on the performance of a
waste heat recovery based power generation system (based on the first and second law of
thermodynamics).

Abusoglu and Kanoglu (2008) [51] applied the exergy destruction method to the diesel engine
powered cogeneration systems generating electricity and steam. They defined the fuel and
product in terms of exergy flow for each component of the system and then calculated the
exergetic efficiency. It was observed that the total exergy destruction in the engine was mostly
due to the highly irreversible combustion process in the engine, heat losses from the engine,
and friction.

Kamate and Gangavati (2009) [52] analyzed cogeneration power plants in sugar industries
through the exergy destruction method for various steam inlet conditions. The result shows that,
at optimal steam inlet conditions of 61 bar and 475C, the backpressure steam turbine
cogeneration plant performs with energy and exergy efficiency of 0.863 and 0.307, while the
condensing steam turbine plant performs with energy and exergy efficiency of 0.682 and 0.26,
respectively. The boiler is the least efficient component, and the turbine is the most efficient
component of the plant.

Aljundi (2009) [53] studied energy and exergy analysis of a steam power plant in Jordan using
the exergy destruction method. A component-wise modeling and a detailed break-up of energy
and exergy losses estimated the performance of the plant. The modeling shows that the thermal
efficiency (26%) is low compared to modern power plants because this efficiency not based on
the specific heat input to the steam; instead, it was based on the lower heating value of the fuel
to incorporate the losses occurring in the furnace-boiler system due to energy lost with hot
gases, incomplete combustion, Etc. The maximum exergy destruction is in the boiler and
maximum exergy loss in the condenser.

Gulen and Smith (2010) [54] derived a simple method for estimating the Rankine bottoming
cycle output directly from the CT exhaust exergy. In a separate paper, Gulen and Joseph said
that a combined cycle plant will run under boundary conditions significantly different from
27
those under which individual components are designed. They also presented a simple,
generalized, physics-based calculation method to estimate off- design performance.

Aklilu and Gilani (2010) [55] performed a conventional exergy analysis on a cogeneration
plant running at varying part loads. They found the exergy destruction rate of the CC to be
50.6% to 63.7% of the overall system destruction rate, making it the largest source of
destruction. They attributed the majority of destruction the chemical reaction and mixing of
dissimilar fluid streams.

Bracco and Silvia (2010) [56] studied a combined cycle power plant with a single level heat
recovery steam generator HRSG. They developed a mathematical model to determine the
optimal steam pressure values in the HRSG according to different objective functions (in the
HRSG for a given gas turbine). Their work reports numerical results for the combined cycle
power plant considering four different gas turbines. The optimization approach focused on
studying the heat transfer between the steam and the exhaust gas in the HRSG, based on an
exergetic analysis. They present the comparison among different objective functions that refer
to the HRSG specifically or the whole bottoming cycle. In their mathematical model, they
considered the presence of specific constraints for the power plant's operating parameters, the
most important constraints that were considered refer to the steam quality at the turbine outlet,
the HRSG outlet exhaust gas temperature, and the steam turbine blade height. In their work, a
parametric analysis was also performed to evaluate the gas temperature's influence at the HRSG
inlet and the pinch point temperature difference on the considered objective functions.

Çoplan (2011) [57] applied a conventional exergy and thermoeconomic analysis to a

combined-cycle cogeneration plant, using the SPECO method and CGAM problem. De Sa and
Al Zubaidy investigated the effect of ambient temperatures on the energetic performance of a
gas turbine. They found that for every degree Kelvin rise in compressor inlet temperature, there
was a 0.07% drop in combustion turbine (CT) thermal efficiency.

Kaushik et al. (2011) [58] conducted an in-depth review of the energy and conventional exergy
analysis as applied to coal and gas power plants, noting the method of splitting the exergy
destruction into endogenous and exogenous components as a potential improvement.

28
 Acir et al. (2012) [59] looked at the effect of varying dead state temperatures on energetic and
exergetic efficiencies in a thermal power plant. They found the exergy efficiency to decrease
by ~8% for an ~8% increase in dead state temperature (278K to 303K).

Kaviri et al. (2012) [60] show that an increase in the compressor pressure ratio decreases the
cost of exergy destruction. The reason is that by increasing the compressor ratio, the outlet
temperature increases as well. Therefore, the temperature difference decreases. Because the
cost of exergy destruction is a direct function of exergy destruction, it leads to a decrease in the
cost of exergy destruction. As the compression ratio increases, the air exiting the compressors
is hotter; therefore, less fuel is required (lowering the air-fuel ratio) to reach the desired turbine
inlet temperature in a fixed gas flow to the gas turbine. The work required in the compressor
and the gas turbine's power output steadily increases with compression ratio and then causes
decreases in the exhaust gases temperature. This lower gas temperature causes less steam to be
produced in the HRSG, therefore lowering the steam cycle's outputs. It is noticed that the total
power output increases with the compression ratio. However, the total power output variation
is minor at the lower compression ratio, while it is significant at the higher compression ratio
for all gas turbine configurations.

2.3 Advanced Exergy Analysis

Petrakopoulou et al. (2012) [61] used conventional and advanced exergy methods to conduct
an environmental evaluation of a power plant. They found that as result of being the largest
source of exergy destruction, the combustion chamber has the most environmental impact, and
68% of the exergy destruction is unavoidable. Petrakopoulou et al. applied conventional and
advanced exergy methods to a combined cycle power plant and found the combustion chamber
to be the largest source of irreversibility in the system. They determined the combustion
chamber should be improved first, followed by the expander and air compressor.

Wang et al. (2012) [62] applied conventional and advanced exergy methods to a supercritical
power plant. From their results of splitting the exergy destruction, they suggested the generator
and steam turbines should be the first components to be improved.

29
Wadhah Hussein Abdul Razzaq Al- Doori (2012) [63] presented the exergy analysis of a
Baiji plant with a gas-turbine of capacity 159-MW with effect cycle temperatures. Each
component of the system is tested by the laws of mass and energy conversion. The aspects
under consideration were the quantitative exergy balance for the entire system and each
component, respectively. At different temperatures, the rate of the irreversibility of system
components, efficiency of exergy, and efficiency flaws were highlighted for each component
and the whole plant. The exergy flow of material is classified into thermal, mechanical, and
chemical exergy in this study and a stream of entropy-production. Fuel oil of a low heating
value of 42.9 MJ/kg was used as the fuel. The rate of exergy destruction in the turbine was
around 5.4%, whereas that in the combustion chamber was about 36.4%. When a 14°C rise in
the temperature, then the combustion chamber's exergy efficiency is 45.43%, and the turbine
is 68.4%. According to the study results, the combustion chamber and turbine are the chief
means of irreversibilities in the plant. It was also identified that the exergetic efficiency and the
exergy destruction are considerably dependent on the alterations in the turbine inlet
temperature.

V. Tara Chand et al. (2013) [64] presented the gas turbine power plant's exergy analysis. The
exergy analysis conducts the mass, energy, and exergy balance of each component in the gas
turbine plant. Parametric analysis of the influence of various factors, namely compression ratio,
compressor inlet air temperature (AT), and turbine inlet temperature (TIT), on each component
of gas turbine plant's irreversibility out. Due to the combustion chamber and gas turbine plant's
irreversibilities finely increases and then decreases with pressure ratio. Compressor inlet
temperature has an insignificant effect on gas turbine plant components. Irreversibilities of
combustion chamber and gas turbine plant decreases with turbine inlet temperature increases.

Mousafarash and Ameri's (2013) [65] study consists of exergy analysis of a typical GT power
plant, analysis of system performance at different ambient temperatures and partial loads, and
exergo-economic analysis of the gas turbine power plant. Their study results reveal that the
highest exergy destruction occurs in the combustion chamber, where the large temperature
difference is the primary source of irreversibility. The effects of the gas turbine load variations
and ambient temperature were investigated to see how system performance changes: the gas
turbine was significantly affected by the ambient temperature, which led to a decrease in net
power output. The load variation of the gas turbine showed that a reduction in gas turbine load
resulted in a decrease in the cycle's exergy efficiency and all the components. They conducted
30
an exergo-economic analysis to determine the cost of exergy destruction in each component
and determine fuel cost. The results show that the combustion chamber has the highest cost of
exergy destruction.

Morosuk and Tsatsaronis (2013) [66] outlined the strengths and limitations of the advanced
exergy analysis. They presented three important questions that should be answered in order to
thermodynamically improve an energy conversion system:

1. What is the maximum possible decrease of the exergy destruction within each system
component?
2. How will reducing the exergy destruction of the k-th component affect the exergy
destruction of the other components in the system?
3. Are there any other ways to restructure the system so that the exergy destruction of the
k-th component, or more importantly, within the overall system can be reduced?

These questions are not addressed in a conventional exergy analysis, however, they are
addressed in certain advanced exergy analyses that split the exergy destruction term. The
limitations of advanced exergy analysis include arbitrariness of some values, a need to simulate
unique processes, and the requirement of many simulations.

Sayed A. Abdel-Moneim and Khaled M. Hossin (2013) [67] discussed the Exergy Analysis
of a combined gas/ steam turbine cycle with a supercharged boiler. A combination of a primary
gas turbine and steam cycle with both a supercharged boiler (SB) and a heat recovery boiler
(HRB) investigated. The effects of the inlet temperature of the gas turbine, the excess air factor,
and the compressor pressure ratio on the supercharged boiler combined cycle (SBCC)
performance were performed. The results indicated that the SBCC gives output power up to
2.1 times that of the conventional combined cycle compared to the same values of the operating
parameters. However, the SBCC efficiency was found to be lower than the conventional
combined cycle. The exergy analysis showed an advantage of SBCC over the conventional
combined cycle. The largest values of the output power for the SBCC are predicted at a
minimum excess air factor and a maximum turbine inlet temperature. For a turbine inlet
temperature of 1300oC, optimum compressor pressure ratios that give maximum efficiencies
are predicted for the SBCC. While, for the conventional cycle, the efficiency is continuously
increased with the compressor pressure ratio. Higher values for the second-law efficiency were
31
found for SBCC compared with that for the conventional combined cycle. An enhancement
ranging from 9.5% to 18.5% in the second-law efficiency for SBCC was found compared with
that for a conventional cycle.

Padma Dhar Garg et al. (2013) [68] presented the Exergy and Efficiency Analysis of
Combined Cycle Power Plant of NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation) Dadri India.
The performance of a combined cycle cogeneration configuration based on energy and exergy
analysis approaches. Here demonstrated that a combined cycle cogeneration unit operates more
efficiently and produces less carbon dioxide than two separate power production and process
heat systems. The exergy analysis identifies the sources of irreversibility in the system and aids
in evaluating losses and outputs by examining their quality. The results pinpoint that more
exergy losses occurred in the gas turbine combustion chamber reaching 35% of the total exergy
losses, while the exergy losses in the other plant components are between 7% and 21% of the
total exergy losses at 1400°C turbine inlet temperature and pressure ratio 10. The first law
efficiency is around 45%, and that associated with second law is 24%. NTPC Dadri can use
45% of its energy source to convert to real work. System losses and irreversibility consume the
rest. Heat recovery steam generators are the primary equipment for a combined cycle power
plant. More exergy losses occur in the combustion chamber due to combustion irreversibility
and this must be reduced with the aid of new advances in the technology. At higher turbine
inlet temperature and lower pressure ratio, the combustion chamber's exergy losses, heat
recovery steam generator, and the steam turbine are higher. At lower turbine inlet temperature
and higher pressure ratio the gas turbine's exergy losses are higher.

G. MEMON et al. (2013) [69] discussed the exergy analysis 144 MW combined cycle power
plant kotri Pakistan. This research states that the exergy analysis is a more useful
thermodynamic tool than energy analysis for the power plant's performance assessment. The
exergy destruction models are used to assess the losses that occurred in the power plant's main
components. The results indicate that the total exergy destruction of the power plant is around
288.5 MW; combustion chambers contribute a significant share of 168 MW (58.2%), followed
by heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) with 43 M.W. (14.8%), gas turbines (10%), air
compressors (5%), and stack gas (4%). The power plant's energy efficiency and exergy
efficiency are calculated as 34.41 and 33.40%, respectively. Arrangements proposed to reduce
the exergy destruction rates in combustion chambers and HRSGs are higher gas turbine inlet
temperature and optimizing the HRSGs operating parameters.
32
Mukesh Gupta and Raj Kumar (2015) [70] presented the Exergy Based Analysis of an Open
Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plant, and a 25 MW open cycle GTPP has considered. Exergy
destruction and the effect of thermodynamic variables on the exergy destruction in various
components have been analyzed. Finally, equations have developed, which correlate the exergy
destruction in different components as a function of the thermodynamic variables under
consideration. The combustion chamber has the maximum exergy destruction, followed by the
gas turbine and compressor. The combustion chamber is the least efficient among the three
components from an exergetic viewpoint. Further, the effect of two thermodynamic variables,
(1) Compressor pressure ratio and (2) Inlet air temperature, on the exergy destruction in
different components have been studied in detail. The maximum effect of variation in
compressor pressure ratio is felt in the gas turbine and is felt least in the compressor. The
maximum effect of inlet air temperature felt in the combustion chamber and least in the gas
turbine.

Siddig Abuelgasim Abbas Mohieldein (2016) [71] presented the Exergy Analysis of
Combined-cycle Power Plant (GARRI”2” 180 MW). Exergy analysis has been carried out
analytically for Garri”2” to evaluate exergetic efficiency and exergy destruction of each part;
exergy balance and entropy generation calculated to achieve it. The results show that the
combustion chamber's exergy efficiency is much lower than the efficiency of other combined
cycle components due to its high irreversibility; it represents 63% of destruction for the whole
Garri”2”. The second significant exergy losses are in the gas and steam turbines, respectively.
Optimization of these equipment has an essential role in reducing the exergy losses of the total
combined cycle. This plant achieved thermal and exergetic efficiencies (38%, 49%)
respectively; that means 51% from entered exergy destroyed due to irreversibilities and escape
exergy to an ambient and cooling tower.

B.V. Reddy and K. Mohamed (2016) [72] discussed the exergy analysis of natural gas-fired
combined cycle power generation unit to investigate the effect of gas turbine inlet temperature
and pressure ratio on exergetic efficiency for the plant and exergy destruction/losses for the
components. For a fixed gas turbine inlet temperature, an optimum pressure ratio exists where
the exergy destruction is minimum. The exergy analysis provides the details on exergetic
efficiency, exergy loss, and destruction for individual components in the plant and the overall
plant and their variation with operating parameters. The gas turbine main component
33
combustion chamber (CC1) is the primary source of exergy destruction rate. In the main
combustion chamber, the exergy destruction rate in the HRSG and steam cycle components
(SET2) drops with increasing pressure ratio. Simultaneously, the higher pressure ratio results
in an increase in the exergy destruction rate in the gas turbine cycle components and the reheat
combustion chamber (CC2). The combined cycle network output increases with higher gas
turbine inlet temperatures for the same pressure ratio. The exergy destruction rate in the
combustion chambers and the gas turbine cycle components (SET1) reduces with higher gas
turbine inlet temperature. For the bottoming steam cycle components (SET2) and the HRSG,
the increase in GTTI results in a higher rate of exergy destruction/loss. Using the exergy
destruction rate plots, the main combustion chamber's minimum exergy destruction rate (CC1)
occurs at the highest pressure ratio and gas turbine inlet temperature. In the reheat combustion
chamber (CC2) case, the exergy destruction rate drops with lowering the pressure ratio and
increasing the gas turbine inlet temperature. The exergy destruction rate in the main
combustion chamber (CC1) is significant, and setting the conditions to lower the exergy
destruction rate in the main combustion chamber, results in an overall drop in the combustion
chambers total exergy destruction rate. In the HRSG, the maximum total exergy destruction
rate and losses occur at the lowest pressure and highest gas turbine inlet temperature. At low
gas turbine inlet temperatures (<900°C), they increase the pressure ratio, resulting in a
significant increase in the combined cycle thermal efficiency, with higher supplementary firing
fuel rates.

Divya Prakash and Onkar Singh (2020) [73] presented the Exergy analysis of a combined
cycle power plant with carbon capture utilization. This paper considers retrofitting an existing
combined cycle power plant arrangement to get carbon dioxide from gas turbine exhaust and
convert it into methane to run additional gas turbine for power augmentation. Here exergy
analysis of the considered combined cycle estimates the exergy efficiency and exergy
destruction of significant components. The study shows the comparative results for different
power plants with and without carbon capture arrangement. The highest exergy destruction
occurs in the combustion chamber at 12.7 cycle pressure ratio, 1400 K turbine inlet temperature
while it is minimum at 8.7 cycle pressure and 1475 K turbine inlet temperatures. The highest
exergy efficiency of 96.66% was obtained for the gas turbine at 12.7 cycle pressure and 1475
K turbine inlet temperatures. These exergy estimations help in knowing the relative
performance of different components of the cycle under consideration, which can be used for
the future development of such systems.
34
2.4 Exergy Economics

According to Sciubba, the earliest idea of combining thermodynamics and economics was by
Lotka in 1921, and the application of exergy analysis and engineering economics was proposed
in the early 1960’s. In Europe it was called exergo-economics (Rabek 1964, Szargut & Petela
1964, Baehr et al. 1965, Brodyanski 1965, Fratzscher 1965, Elsner 1965, Nitsch 1965,
Bergmann & Schmidt 1967) and in the US it was called thermos-economics (Evans 1961,
Tribus 1961, Tribus & Evans 1962, Evans & Tribus 1965, El-Sayed 1970).

With respect to the modern exergoeconomic analysis, Tsatsaronis, Lazzaretto, Diner, and
Rosen are some of the main researchers. In 1984, Tsatsaronis first defined the term
exergoeconomics as a more specific term for an exergy based thermoeconomic analysis. In
1985, Tsatsaronis and Winhold described a new method of exergy based thermoeconomic
analysis, or exergoeconomic analysis, for power plants. This method is broken down into seven
steps:

1. Conduct detailed mass, energy, and exergy balances of the plant.

2. Calculate the investment and operating costs for each plant component.

3. Calculate the cost of the exergy unit of each process flow stream.

4. Calculate the average exergy unit cost of fuel and products of each component.

5. Calculate the cost of the exergy losses in each component.

6. Interpret the results.

7. Conduct a sensitivity analysis and make recommendations.

This method of exergoeconomic analysis is useful for illustrating the sources of costs,
providing a means of comparison between them, and calculating the optimum capital cost to
exergy loss ratio for a given design. This method can be used to improve decisions concerning
selection and optimization of process design, plant maintenance, and replacement of certain
plant components.

35
Valero et al. (1994) [74] presented the application of four methods of thermoeconomic
analysis and optimization, called the CGAM problem, an acronym for the principle
researchers’ first names. The CGAM problem consists of a physical model, thermodynamic
model, and economic model, applied to a small cogeneration plant.

Decision variables are chosen to be the pressure ratio, the air compressor efficiency, the gas
turbine efficiency, the air temperature at the preheater exit, and the combustion gas
temperatures at the turbine inlet. The aim of the CGAM problem is to unify the four
thermoeconomic methodologies as each has specific fields of applications for which it provides
proven and efficient solutions.

Kim et al. (1998) [75] introduced a modified productive structure analysis (MOPSA) method,
where an exergy costing method is used without flow-stream cost calculations. For the entire
system, a set of equations for the unit exergy costs obtained by assigning a unit exergy cost
for each component's cost balance equation.

Kwon et al. (2001) [76] compared specific exergy cost methods and modified productive
structure analysis methods by applying them to the CGAM problem.

Valdes et al. (2003) [77] showed a possible way to achieve a thermoeconomic optimization of
combined cycle gas turbine power plants. The optimization was done using a genetic algorithm,
tuned by applying it to a single pressure CCGT power plant. Once tuned, the optimization
algorithm was used to evaluate more complex plants, with two and three pressure levels in the
heat recovery steam generator. The variables considered for the optimization were the
thermodynamic parameters that established the configuration of the HRSG. Two different
objective functions were proposed: one minimizes the production cost per unit of output, and
the other maximizes the annual cash flow. The results obtained with both functions were
compared in order to find a better optimization strategy. The results show that it is possible to
find an optimum for each design parameter. This optimum depends on the selected
optimization strategy.

Casarosa et al. (2004) [78] minimized the total cost of the exergy losses of the HRSG for a
combined cycle using the Simplex method. The objective function was the total installed cost

36
of the HRSG and reduced the cost of the increased fuel consumption when the area of the
HRSG.

Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis (2006) [79] proposed defining and calculating exergetic
efficiencies and exergy related costs in thermal systems. It was based on the SPECO. Separate
forms of exergy and costs associated with these exergy streams were used to define exergetic
efficiencies in a detailed manner. It was concluded that the SPECO was a powerful approach
to express the validation of the calculated cost values.

Cziesla et al. (2006) [80] determined the avoidable thermodynamic inefficiencies and costs in
an externally fired combined cycle power plant. They found that the largest avoidable cost of
exergy destruction occurs in the combustion chamber, but that the component had a low
potential for improvement.

Kelly (2008) [81] used the advanced exergy method to improve upon existing exergoeconomic
analysis methods. Most notably, by calculating cost rates from the avoidable endogenous and
exogenous exergy destruction rates of the major component, a realistically attainable potential
savings can be found, as well as the source of the destruction. By having the avoidable costs
associated with each component, and knowing whether they are due to the plant configuration
or inefficiencies in the component itself, a more informed decision can be made with regard to
system improvements.

Orhan and Dincer (2010) [82] studied the minimization cost of a copper–chlorine (Cu- Cl)
thermo-chemical cycle for hydrogen production. The specific exergy costing method was
used to determine changes in the cycle's design parameters, improving the overall system's
cost-effectiveness. It was found that the cost rate of the exergy destruction took the values
between $1 and $15 per kg hydrogen. The exergoeconomic factors were calculated between
0.5 and 0.02.

Behbahani-nia et al. (2010) [83] presented an exergy-based thermoeconomic method applied

to find the optimum values of design parameters for a single pressure HRSG in combined cycle
power plants. The design variables optimized in this work were pinch point and gas side
velocity. Optimization was performed by being based on two different objective functions. The
first function was the thermodynamic(the summation of exergy loss due to an outflow of hot
37
gas escaping from the HRSG through stack and exergy destruction due to internal irreversibility
inside the HRSG). The second function was a thermoeconomic objective function (the
summation of exergy loss and destruction in terms of expenses, including the cost of fuel and
electricity and the capital cost of HRSG). They investigated the effects of pinch point and gas-
side velocity on the components of objective functions. The study concluded that a
considerable amount of exergy is destroyed due to gas pressure drop, especially when the pinch
point is very close to zero.

Ahmadi and Dincer (2011) [84] performed the thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic
optimization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with a supplemental firing unit.
They conducted exergy and exergoeconomic analyses for the power plant. The design
parameters of this study were compressor pressure ratio, isentropic compressor efficiency, gas
turbine isentropic efficiency, gas turbine inlet temperature, duct burner mass flow rate, high-
pressure stream, low-pressure stream, high-pressure central steam temperature, low-pressure
steam temperature, high-pressure pinch point temperature difference, low-pressure pinch point
temperature difference, condenser pressure, steam turbine isentropic efficiency, and pump
isentropic efficiency. They introduced an objective function, a new objective function,
representing the plant's total cost (in terms of dollar per second), defined as the sum of the
operating cost related to the fuel consumption and the capital investment for equipment
purchase and maintenance costs. The optimum key variables were obtained by minimizing the
objective function using a genetic algorithm. The optimum design parameters obtained for the
plant showed a trade-off between the thermodynamic and economic optimal designs. Two
factors were considered: the unit cost of fuel and the combined cycle power plant's net output
power. They concluded that by increasing the fuel price, the optimized decision variables in the
thermoeconomic design tends to reach those of the optimum thermodynamic design.

Ahmadi et al. (2011) [85] performed a comprehensive conventional exergy, exergoeconomic,

and environmental impact analysis comparing several combined cycle power plants (CCPP).
They found the combustion chamber to have the most significant exergy destruction and cost,
and the amount of supplementary firing to be proportional to the CCPP exergy efficiency.

Kanoglu et al. (2011) [86] developed a methodology for calculating exergy flows, cost
formation, and allocation within the high-temperature steam electrolysis system. They used
specific exergy costing methodology while applying exergetic fuel and product approaches to
38
obtain the cost balance equations. They examined exergy efficiency, exergy destruction rates,
exergy loss–exergy destruction ratio, capital investment, operating, maintenance costs, and
exergoeconomic factor. The capital investment cost, operating and maintenance costs, and the
system's total cost were calculated as 422.2, 2.04, and 424.3 €/kWh, respectively. The cost
distribution among the components was also determined. The exergetic costs of the steam were
0.000509, 0.000544, and 0.000574 €/kWh at the outdoor temperatures of 25 °C, 11°C, and
−1°C, respectively.

Alus and Petrović (2012) [87] performed the optimization of a triple pressure CCGT. Their
work's objective was to develop a new system for optimization of parameters for CCGT with
a triple-pressure heat recovery steam generator. The thermodynamic optimization objective is
to enhance the efficiency of the CCGT and maximize the power production in the steam cycle
(steam turbine gross power). Improvement of the CCGT plants' efficiency was achieved
through optimization of the operating parameters: the temperature difference between the gas
and steam pinch point (PP) and the steam pressure in the HRSG. The thermoeconomic
optimization aimed to minimize the production costs per unit of the generated electricity;
optimization was to minimize the production cost of electricity in the CCGT power plant based
on energetic and economic analysis.

Ghazi et al. (2012) [88] carried out a thermo-economic modeling and optimization method to
obtain the optimum values of design parameters (high and low drum pressures, steam mass
flow rates, high pressure and low-pressure pinch point temperature differences, and the duct
burner fuel consumption flow rate) for a dual pressure HRSG. They performed the complete
sensitivity analysis of changes in inlet gas temperature entering the HRSG and exergy unit cost.
Total cost per unit of produced steam exergy was defined as the objective function. They found
that the required heat transfer surface area (capital cost) increases at higher inlet gas enthalpy.

Naomi et al. (2013) [89] developed the thermodynamic model of a dual pressure HRSG
coupled with a heavy-duty gas turbine. They investigated thermodynamic and thermoeconomic
analyses to achieve the optimum operating parameters of a dual pressure heat recovery steam
generator and computed exergy waste and exergy destruction for different pinch points. They
discussed the effects of non-dimensional parameters on the HRSG performance. They also
investigated optimum design of HRSG regarding financial considerations, and performed a
sensitivity analysis.
39
Dincer and Rosen (2013) [90] presented the necessary equations for conducting a
conventional exergy analysis of several systems, including combined cycle. They also
explained two methods of exergoeconomic analysis: exergy, cost, energy, and mass analysis
(EXCEM) and specific exergy cost analysis (SPECO).

D. I. Igbong and D.O. Fakorede (2014) [91] presented the exergoeconomic analysis of a 100
MW unit GE frame-9 gas turbine plant in ughelli, Nigeria. These optimizations were performed
on engineering equation solver (EES) software to estimate the cost rate associated with all the
exergy streams at cycle state points and the cost of the plant's final product, which is electricity.
Two parameters were chosen as decision variables: turbine inlet temperature and compressor
pressure ratio. The product's unit cost decreases to a minimum point as the decision variables
increase, beyond which it increases with further increase in the parameters' value. The effect
of the turbine inlet temperature and the pressure ratio on the product's unit cost was
investigated. The result shows that the unit cost of production decreases to a minimum point
as the decision variables increase, increasing with further increase in the parameters' value. The
plant thermal efficiency is 31.05%, and overall exergy efficiency of 30.81%, identified the
combustion chamber with the lowest exergetic efficiency of 54.05%, accounting for the
component with the most immense total inlet exergy destruction value of 238.681 MW.

Oyedepo et al., Cogent Engineering (2015) [92] discussed the exergy analysis and exergy
costing analysis and performance evaluation of selected gas turbine power plants in Nigeria.
Exergy costing analysis and performance assessment from a thermodynamics point of view
performed for 11 selected gas turbine power plants in Nigeria. The exergy analysis results show
that the combustion chamber is the most significant exergy destructor in the selected power
plants, which is due to the chemical reaction and the large temperature difference between the
burners and working fluid. Moreover, the results show that an increase in GTIT leads to an
increase in gas turbine exergy efficiency due to a rise in the turbine's output power and a
decrease in the combustion chamber losses. Besides, by increasing GTIT, the gas turbine cost
of exergy destruction can be decreased. The finding solidifies the concept that the combustion
chamber's exergy loss is associated with the large temperature difference between the flame
and the working fluid. Reducing this temperature difference reduces the exergy loss.
Furthermore, cooling compressor inlet air allows the compression of more air per cycle,
effectively increasing the gas turbine capacity. This study found that an increase in the GTIT
of about 200 K could lead to a reduction of about 29% in the cost of exergy destruction.
40
Therefore, GTIT is the best option to improve cycle losses. From exergy costing analysis, the
unit cost of electricity produced in the selected power plants varies from cents 1.99/kWh
(N3.16/kWh) to cents 5.65/kWh (N8.98/kWh).

Shoaib Khan Mohammadi and Ahmad Reza Azimian (2015) [93] This paper deals with
exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a combined-cycle power plant with supplementary
firing. A process simulation program, IPSE Pro, is used to model the combined-cycle power
plant. Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis is performed by developing a Matlab code. Three
configurations of the combined-cycle power plant are investigated. The effect of the
configurations of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and performance parameters such
as fuel mass flow rate of duct burner and pressure ratio of the compressor on combined-cycle
performance have been studied. Finally, the cost of generated power for the three
configurations of the combined-cycle power plant is the duct burner in HRSG.

Karaali and Oztürk (2015) [94] introduced a simple method of thermoeconomic optimization
and applied it to four cogeneration cycles with constant power output. They found that there is
an optimum excess air flow rate for each cycle that gives the minimum electricity cost.

Edgar Vicente Torres Gonzalez et al. (2016) [95] presented an exergoeconomic analysis of
the combined cycle power plant of three levels of pressure Tuxpan II located in Mexico. The
plant comprises two identical modules confirmed by two gas turbines generating the required
work and releasing the hot exhaust gases in two heat recovery steam generators. These
components generate steam at three different pressure levels and produce additional work in
one steam turbine. The productive structure of the considered system is used to visualize the
cost formation process and the productive interaction between their components. The
exergoeconomic analysis is pursued by 1) carrying out a systematic approach, based on
the Fuel-Product methodology, in each component of the system; and 2) generating a set of
equations, which allows computing the exergetic and exergoeconomic costs of each flow. The
two gas turbines' thermal and exergetic efficiency delivering 278.4 MW is 35.16% and 41.90%,
respectively. The computed thermal efficiency of the steam cycle, providing 80.96 MW, is
43.79%. The combined cycle power plant generates 359.36 MW with a thermal and exergetic
efficiency of 47.27% and 54.10%, respectively. Moreover, there is no improvement in the gas
turbine's performance when the current operating conditions are changed to the conditions of

41
maximum output work because the costs of exergy destruction of the gas turbine increase by
2.20%, and its exergetic efficiency decreases by 0.49%.

Paul Otujevwe Ogbe et al. (2016) [96] presented the exergoeconomic evaluation of transcorp
power plant ughelli. In this study, an exergoeconomic evaluation of two 100MW gas turbine
units at Transcorp power plant Ughelli, Nigeria, to determine the location and magnitude of
exergy destruction and the cost of exergy destruction associated with each component for the
two GE frame-9 engines (GT16 and GT19 units) in the plant. The results obtained from
exergoeconmic analysis show that the combustion chamber has the highest energy destruction
cost of 2351.81$/h GT16, 2315.93$/h GT19 compared to the turbine with 277.36$/h GT16 and
274.46$/h GT19, also compressor with 556.31$/h GT16, 547.60$/h GT19. It shows the high
level of irreversibility and degradation in the combustion chamber. The exergoeconomic
analysis results from two plant units show that the combustion chamber has the highest exergy
destruction compared to other components. The cost of exergy destruction of turbine and
compressor is lower than the combustion chamber with the highest cost of exergy destruction.
The exergonomic factor of turbine and compressor is far better than the combustion chamber
with the lowest exergoeconomic factor's lowest value. To reduce the exergy destruction cost
of the combustion chamber and efficiency is by increasing the capital investment costs, which
will increase the exergoeconomic factor.

Awaludin Martin et al. (2016) [97] presented the exergy analysis of a 20 MW gas turbine
power plant Pekanbaru-Indonesia. The first and second thermodynamics laws and the mass and
energy conservation law are applied in each component. The results show that more exergy
destruction occurred in the combustion chamber up to 71.03% or 21.98 MW. Meanwhile, the
lowest exergy occurred in the compressor at 12.33% or 3.15 MW. According to the first law,
the thermal efficiency of the gas turbine power plant was 33.77%, and exergy efficiency was
32.25%. The irreversibility occurred since there are large temperature differences between the
combustion chamber and the working fluid.

M I Riady, D Santoso, and M D Bustan (2018) [98] presented the thermodynamic and
thermoeconomic performance evaluation in 326 MW combined cycle power plant at Tanjung
Priok using combined pinch and exergy analysis. The exergy analysis results on the gas turbine
cycle indicated that the combustion chamber had the highest irreversibility and the exergy
destruction on the combustion chamber is 191.55 MW. Combined cycle net power is directly
42
 dependent on the heat recovery potential in the HRSG. Pinch and exergy analysis was used to
improve the combined cycle's overall exergetic efficiency by decreasing the temperature
difference in the HRSG. Besides, the HP and LP drum pressure also had a significant impact
on the power plant's performance, and it was evident by the increase of the whole plant
exergetic efficiency as a result of optimization on the drum pressure. Overall, the exergetic
efficiency and the network produced by the CCPP were increased by 1.23 percent and 2.67
percent, respectively. This result also shows that the investment for the HRSG stays constant
for a given gas turbine system while the net power output for the combined cycle power plant
increases with increasing the heat exchanger effectiveness. Thermoeconomic analysis
generally involves more uncertainties than a thermodynamic analysis.

2.5 Conclusion

Energy auditing, exergy analysis, and exergoeconomic analysis of a plant are done previously
in many countries in the world. As a developing country, Bangladesh, only energy auditing is
done to evaluate the performance of a power plant previously. It is also used to improve
efficiency. However, only energy auditing can improve a plant's performance properly without
using the exergy and exergoeconomic tools. Natural gas is the primary fuel to produce energy
by both using the turbine machine and reciprocating engine. The turbine engine is only 21% of
the whole power generation. The reciprocating engine is 39% of total power generation, and it
is possible to improve the plant efficiency by doing exergy and exergoeconomic analysis and
energy auditing.

Exergy measures quantity and quality. Whereas energy a measure of quantity only. Exergy
destruction is a measure of the work potential lost due to irreversibilities in the system. Various
exergy, or exergetic, analysis methods provide engineers a way to determine the location,
magnitude, and sources of irreversibilities. Another thing is that, for the analysis, design, and
improvement of energy systems, exergy analysis is a method that uses the conservation of mass
and conservation of energy principles together with the second law of thermodynamics. Exergy
analysis is based on both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Exergy analysis can
indicate the location of energy degradation in a process. An exergy method is a useful tool for
furthering the goal of more efficient energy resource use, for it enables the locations, types,
and magnitudes of wastes and losses to be determined. The primary purpose of exergy analysis
is to identify the causes, types, and locations and calculate the magnitude of thermal losses.

43
With this information, plant layout can improve, capital and operational costs can decrease,
and more efficient operating schedules can establish. So, it can be easy to say that if exergy
analysis is happening in our country and energy analysis of a power plant, we can improve our
plant efficiency and reduce the overall costing of the power plant.

44
 Chapter 3: BACKGROUND

3.1 Combined Cycle Power Plant

A combined-cycle power plant uses both gas turbine and steam turbine to produce up to 50
percent more electricity from the same fuel than simple-cycle plant. Gas turbine's waste heat
is routed to the nearby steam turbine, which generates extra power.

Combined Cycle's idea has grown out of the need to improve the simple Brayton –Cycle
efficiency by utilizing the waste heat in the turbine exhaust gases. The large quantity of
energy leaving with the turbine exhaust generates steam for a steam turbine power plant. The
gas turbine is a relatively high-temperature machine (2000 to 3000°F, 1100 to 1650°C),
whereas the steam turbine is a relatively low-temperature machine (1000 to 1200°F, 540 to
650°C). This joint operation of the gas turbine at the "hot end" and the steam turbine at the
"clod end" is called a combined cycle power plant.

Besides high efficiency and high power outputs, combined cycles characterize flexibility,
quick part-load starting, suitability for both base-load and cyclic operation, and high
efficiency over a wide range of loads.

It was not, however, until 1950 that the first plant was installed. This was followed by a rapid
rise in the number of installations, especially in the 1970s. Estimated 100 plants, with a total
of 1,50,000 MW output, had been installed by the end of the 1970s throughout the world.

In the years since, power generation has played a vital role in everyday life. With rising
energy costs, increased plant efficiency has become increasingly necessary and desirable.
Even with the most efficient components, simple cycle power plants are still wasting about
half of their energy.

For many years, engineers have researched many ways to reduce wasted energy and harness
the most work potential possible. Of these methods, cogeneration and combined cycle power
plants have emerged as two of the top contenders.

45
Combined cycle power plants utilize waste heat from a prime mover to produce steam to
power a steam turbine to generate electricity. In the case of Combined cycle power plants, the
prime mover was a combustion gas turbine.

A typical simple-cycle gas turbine will convert 30% to 40% of the fuel input into shaft
output. All but 1% to 2% of the remainder is in the form of exhaust heat. The combined cycle
is generally defined as one or more gas turbines with heat-recovery steam generators in the
exhaust, producing steam for a steam turbine generator, heat-to-process, or a combination.

The figure shows a combined cycle in its simplest form. High utilization of the fuel input to
the gas turbine can be achieved with some of the more complex heat-recovery cycles,
involving multiple-pressure boilers, extraction or topping steam turbines, and avoidance of
steam flow to a condenser to preserve the latent heat content. Attaining more than 80%
utilization of the fuel input by combining electrical power generation and process heat is not
unusual.

Figure 3.1: Flow diagram of a combined cycle power plant.

Combined cycles producing only electrical power are in the 50% to 60% thermal efficiency
range using the more advanced gas turbines.

A combined-cycle power plant is more efficient than a conventional power plant because it
uses a higher proportion of the fuel's energy when it burns. Increasing the overall efficiency
of power plants, recover and utilize the residual heat energy in hot exhaust gases. In

46
 combined cycle mode, power plants can achieve electrical efficiencies up to 60 percent. The
term "combined cycle" refers to the combining of multiple thermodynamic cycles to generate
power. Combined cycle operation employs a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) that
captures heat from high-temperature exhaust gases to produce steam, which is then supplied
to a steam turbine to generate additional electric power. The process for creating steam to
produce work using a steam turbine is based on the Rankine cycle.

The most common type of combined cycle power plant utilizes gas turbines and is called a
combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant. Because gas turbines have low efficiency in
simple cycle operation, the steam turbine output accounts for about half of the CCGT plant
output. There are many different configurations for CCGT power plants, but each GT has its
own associated HRSG, and multiple HRSGs supply steam to one or more steam turbines. For
example, at a plant in a 2x1 configuration, two GT/HRSG trains supply one steam turbine;
likewise, there can be 1x1, 3x1, or 4x1 arrangements. The steam turbine is sized to the
number and capacity of supplying GTs/HRSGs.

3.2 Working Principle of Combined Cycle Power Plant

The HRSG is a heat exchanger, or rather a series of heat exchangers. It is also called a boiler,
as it creates steam for the steam turbine bypassing the hot exhaust gas flow from a gas turbine
or combustion engine through banks of heat exchanger tubes. The HRSG can rely on natural
circulation or utilize forced circulation using pumps. As the hot exhaust gases flow past the
heat exchanger tubes in which hot water circulates, heat is absorbed, causing steam in the
tubes. The tubes are arranged in sections or modules, each serving a different function in the
production of dry superheated steam. These modules are referred to as economizers,
evaporators, superheaters/reheaters, and preheaters.

The economizer is a heat exchanger that preheats the water to approach the saturation
temperature (boiling point), supplied to a thick-walled steam drum. The drum is located
adjacent to finned evaporator tubes that circulate heated water. As the hot exhaust gases flow
past the evaporator tubes, heat is absorbed, causing steam in the tubes. The steam-water
mixture in the tubes enters the steam drum, where steam is separated from the hot water using
moisture separators and cyclones—the separated water recirculated to the evaporator tubes.
Steam drums also serve storage and water treatment functions. An alternative design to steam

47
 drums is a once-through HRSG, which replaces the steam drum with thin-walled components
that are better suited to handle changes in exhaust gas temperatures and steam pressures
during frequent starts and stops. In some designs, duct burners add heat to the exhaust gas
stream and boost steam production; they can produce steam even if there is insufficient
exhaust gas flow.

Figure 3.2: Schematic & T-S Diagram of Combined Cycle Power Plant (from Moran
Sopherie) [99].

Saturated steam from the steam drums or once-through system is sent to the superheater to
produce dry steam required for the steam turbine. Preheaters are located at the coolest end of
the HRSG gas path and absorb energy to preheat heat exchanger liquids, such as water/glycol
mixtures, thus extracting the most economically viable amount of heat from exhaust gases.

The superheated steam produced by the HRSG is supply to the steam turbine, where it
expands through the turbine blades, imparting rotation to the turbine shaft. The energy
delivered to the generator drive shaft converts it into electricity. After exiting the steam
turbine, the steam sends to a condenser, which routes the condensed water back to the HRSG.

3.3 Description of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant

In this thesis, energy, exergy, and exgergoeconomic analysis of the Fenchuganj Combined
Cycle Power Plant has been carried out. This plant is located in Fenchuganj, Sylhet Division,
Bangladesh. The plant work was started on 23.02.2006. The total area of the plant is 38.05

48
acres. Another essential and significant thing is that the plant is installed near the Kushiara
river. As we know that, in the Combined cycle plant, water supply is one of the vital
components of this type of plant.

The facility of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant means the Gas-fired combined
cycle power station comprising of the gas turbine generator and steam turbine generator,
capable of 45 MW of capacity (net, without supplemental firing, at Reference Site Conditions
and Power Factor Adjustments) to be owned and constructed by the FCCPP within
Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant (FCCPP) complex area, Fenchuganj, Sylhet,
Bangladesh, whether completed or at any stage of its construction, including without
limitation or regard to the level of development, all energy-producing equipment, and its
auxiliary equipment and all transmission facilities, water intake and discharge facilities (if
any), water treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, fuel (Gas) receiving facilities
and equipment on the FCCPP’s side of the Point of Delivery, the Metering System, together
with the residential facilities made available to individual employees of the FCCPP, the
Contractor(s) and any subcontractors.

The Plant is a combined cycle power generating facility with a net capacity of 45 MW at
Reference Site Conditions. It has 1 x 1 x 1 (1 GT x 1 HRSG x 1 ST) configuration together
with all associated auxiliary equipment and systems including gas booster compressors
(GBC), pumps, water treatment plant, cooling tower and circulating water system, unit step-
up transformer(s), and high voltage (HV) underground cable for power evacuation.
Other plant buildings and structures outside of the main power block include

 water and waste-water treatment facility,

 solid waste facilities,
 river water intake structures (or alternative makeup water ground wells),
 cooling towers,
 control room,
 storeroom,
 maintenance facility,
 Electrical Interconnection Facilities,

49
  chemical and oil storage facility, and
 other associated buildings and structures that may be required for the balance of
the facility.

The total project cost of this plant is approximately 717.23 Crore. The facility shall be
designed for a life of 25 years. This plant is installed, developed, and operated by the
Bangladesh Power Development Board since 2006. At present, a total of 25 employees work
on this plant. The fuel is supplied by Jalalabad Gas Transmission and Distribution Company
Ltd. Sylhet. This plant is one of the oldest combined cycle power plants in the public sector.

Figure 3.3: Administration building of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant.

3.3.1 Gas Turbine

A heavy-duty gas turbine unit is a mechanical power engine installed to drive a generator to
supply an electrical network. Typically, a simple-cycle gas turbine will convert 30% to 40%
of the fuel input into shaft output. All but 1% to 2% of the remainder is in the form of exhaust
heat. The combined cycle is generally gas turbines with heat-recovery steam generators in the
exhaust, producing steam for a steam turbine generator, heat-to-process, or a combination.
The gas turbine is the prime mover of a Combined Cycle Power Plant.

50
High utilization of the fuel input to the gas turbine can be achieved with some of the more
complex heat-recovery cycles, involving multiple-pressure boilers, extraction or topping
steam turbines, and avoidance of steam flow to a condenser to preserve the latent heat
content. Attaining more than 80% utilization of the fuel input by combining electrical power
generation and process heat is not unusual. Combined cycles producing only electrical power
are in the 50% to 60% thermal efficiency range using the more advanced gas turbines.

In Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant, one gas turbine of a heavy-duty directly
coupled to the generator equipped with 50 Hz hydrogen or air-cooled generators. The
Specification of the Gas Turbine are:
 Name of the Manufacturer: GE, USA.
 Model: Frame 06
 Generation Capacity: 35 MW
 Generation Voltage: 11 kV
 Cooling System: Closed cycle cooling system.

Figure 3.4: Gas Turbine Unit

The gas turbine power engine includes an axial airflow compressor, a multi-chamber
combustion system, and a three-stage turbine. The main components of the gas turbine are
listed here below.
The axial airflow compressor is a 17 stages compressor with:

51
  Adjustable inlet guide vanes (IGV) to control the airflow during starting and loading
sequences.
 Bleed valves to bypass part of the airflow for starting and shut down to escape from
surging.

The combustion system comprises:

 Fuel nozzles fitted on the combustion chamber’s cover.
 Ten combustion chambers where the fuel burns permanently from firing speed to full
load.
 Ten crossfire tubes connecting the combustion chamber.
 Ten transition pieces downstream the combustion chamber connected to the first
turbine stage nozzle.
 Two spark plugs for the fuel ignition.

The three stages turbine includes the first, second, and third stage nozzle and the second and
third wheels.
The turbine and the axial flow compressor belong to the same shaft connected to:
 The auxiliary gearbox and the starting mean at the front end.
 The generator at the rear end through a load gearbox.

Figure 3.5: Gas Turbine Unit side view.

The gas turbine was:
 installed with a standard acoustic, ventilated enclosure incorporating fire detection
and protection facilities;
 provided with all associated ancillary and auxiliary equipment and systems for the
safe, efficient, and reliable operation of these units in combined cycle mode. A simple
cycle bypass stack provided, the height of which determined to ensure adequate
exhaust gas dispersions following the required standards.

52
 While the gas turbine is running, filtered ambient air is drawn through the inlet plenum
assembly, then compressed in the 17th-stage axial flow compressor. Compressed air from the
compressor flows into the annular space surrounding the ten combustion chambers, from
which it flows into the spaces between the outer combustion casings and the combustion
liners and enters the combustion zone through metering holes in each of the combustion
liners.

The fuel nozzles introduce the fuel into each of the ten combustion chambers, where it mixes
with the combustion air and burns.

The hot gases from the combustion chambers expand into the ten separate transition pieces
attached to the downstream end of the combustion chamber liners and flow from there to the
machine's three-stage turbine section. Each stage consists of a row of fixed nozzles followed
by a row of turbine buckets. In each nozzle row, the jet's kinetic energy is increased, with an
associated pressure drop, and in each following row of moving buckets, a portion of the jet's
kinetic energy is absorbed as useful work on the turbine rotor.

After passing through the 3rd-stage buckets, the exhaust gases are directed into the exhaust
casing and diffuser, which contains a series of turning vanes to turn the gases from an axial
direction to a radial direction, thereby minimizing exhaust hood losses. Then, the gases pass
into the exhaust plenum and are introduced to the atmosphere through the exhaust stack.
Resultant shaft rotation turns the generator rotor to generate electrical power and drives the
auxiliaries through the accessory gearbox.

3.3.2 Heat Recovery Steam Generator

A heat recovery steam generator or HRSG is an energy recovery heat exchanger that recovers
heat from a hot gas stream. The HRSG uses the gas turbine exhaust to produce high
temperature, high-pressure steam for use in the steam turbine.

The gas turbine exhaust gas flows through the HRSG exhaust gas inlet ducting and the HRSG
before being routed to the atmosphere via the HRSG exhaust gas stack. The HRSG heating
surfaces are divided into the following sections in the direction of the exhaust flow;
 HP superheater
 HP evaporator
53
  HP economizer 2
 LP evaporator
 HP economizer 1
The heating surface primarily consists of horizontal finned tubes joined together to form
heating surface packages. After it leaves the last heating surface, the cooled exhaust gas flows
through the HRSG exhaust gas stack. Diverter damper to be opened with 10%, 50% & 100%
sequentially exhaust flow.

There are three main types of HRSGs: unfired, supplementary fired, and fully fired. Unfired
models use only the exhaust energy to produce steam. Supplementary and fully fired models
use additional fuel to increase the production of steam.

Here, in this plant unfired model is used. Unfired model HRSG only uses the exhaust energy
of the Gas Turbine to produce steam. The steam output from the HRSG is combined in a
header system and directed to a steam turbine. Exhaust gas diverter dampers can divert flow
to either the bypass stack for simple cycle operation or the HRSG for combined cycle
operation.

The Specification of the HRSG are:

Name of the Manufacturer:
Doosan heavy Industry and Construction Co. Ltd.
Type: Unfired (only use the exhaust energy of
Gas Turbine to produce steam).
Shape: Vertical.
Steam Generation Capacity: 78 t/hr.

The HRSG has two pressure levels (HP) and low pressure (LP), forced circulation, and
vertical gas flow design. The High Pressure (HP) system steam generation system generates
HP steam of specific quality, which means correct pressure and temperature, from the
thermal energy contained in the GT exhaust gas. The steam is produced in the HRSG and fed
to the HP primary steam system. Besides, it fulfills the following object:
 Delivers feed water to the HP drum during start-up, shutdown, and power operation of
the combined-cycle unit.

54
  Shuts of feed water supply during feedwater control malfunction in order to prevent
overfeeding of the HRSG.
 Supplies HP steam produced by the HRSG to the HP main steam system during
regular operation.
 Supplies HP feed water to the HRSG HP desuperheating system.
 Maintains and safeguards the HP superheated steam temperature within the allowable
main steam system limit during part-load operation at high ambient temperatures.

Figure 3.6: Heat recovery steam generator.

The HP Steam Generation system is located downstream of the exhaust gas inlet of the
HRSG. The heating surface is fabricated mainly from finned tubes. The HP system is
subdivided into the following sections, listed in the order in which exhaust gas flows through
them;
 HP Superheater
 HP Evaporator
 HP Economizer

The HP economizer recovers the remaining heat contained in the exhaust gas at the HP
evaporator outlet. The HP evaporator generates steam through a forced circulation loop from
and to the HP drum. The HP superheater heats the saturated steam from HP drum temperature
up to the required conditions.

55
The HP superheater and the HP economizer are cross counter flow heat exchangers, and the
HP evaporator flow is cross to the exhaust gas flow.

The feedwater is supplied by HP feedwater pumps from the feed water tank to the HP
economizers, where it is heated up to economizer outlet temperature and then delivered to the
HP Drum, an HP feedwater control station is located downstream of the HP economizer. The
location downstream of the economizer is chosen to avoid steaming in economizer.

Water is supplied by the HP evaporator circulation pump from the HP drum through
downcomers to the HP evaporator's inlet header. Water partly evaporates in the HP
evaporator, and the water/steam mixture is fed in tube risers from the outlet header back to
the HP drum driven by the forced circulation. The HP drum has the following functions:
• ensure adequate mixing of feed water and boiler water.
• constitute a water reserve required for the circulation system
• allow water expansion during start-up
• ensure a thorough water and steam separation

The HP drum is installed outside of the casing thus is not heated by exhaust gas. The
separation of water and steam is achieved using a water/steam separation system, which
restricts the carryover of water to the superheater within limits. Saturated steam flows from
the HP drum through connecting piping to the HP superheater. The HP main steam piping
system receives HP steam from the HRSG and transfers it to the steam turbine.

The Low Pressure (LP) steam generation system generates LP steam of specific quality,
which means correct pressure and temperature, from the thermal energy contained in the GT
exhaust gas. The steam is produced in the HRSG and fed to the LP main steam system.
Besides, it fulfills the following object:
• Delivers feed water to the LP drum during start-up, shutdown, and power operation
of the combined-cycle unit.
• Shuts of feed water supply during feedwater control malfunction in order to prevent
overfeeding of the HRSG.
• Supplies LP saturated steam produced by the HRSG to the LP main steam system
during regular operation.

56
 The LP Steam Generation system is located downstream of the exhaust gas inlet of the HRSG
behind HP economizer 2. The heating surface is fabricated mainly from finned tubes. The LP
system consists of an evaporator system only without an economizer and superheater suitable
for producing saturated steam. The LP evaporator generates steam through a forced
circulation loop from and to the LP drum.

The LP evaporator flow is cross to the exhaust gas flow. The feedwater is supplied by
feedwater pumps from the feed water tank, then delivered to the LP drum; water is supplied
by an LP evaporator circulation pump from the LP drum through downcomers to the inlet
header of the LP evaporator.

The LP drum has the following functions:

• ensure adequate mixing of feed water and boiler water
• constitute a water reserve required for the circulation system
• allow water expansion during start-up
• ensure a thorough water and steam separation

The LP drum is installed outside of the casing thus is not heated by exhaust gas. Saturated
steam flows from the LP drum through connecting piping to the LP steam system.

The HRSG exhaust gas system comprises the exhaust gas path's gas-tight component with
HRSG exhaust gas inlet ducting, HRSG casing, and HRSG exhaust gas stack.

HRSG shall exhaust through a separate or a standard multi-flue exhaust stack, the height of
which and the exhaust gas's exit temperature is determined to ensure adequate dispersion of
the exhaust gases following the requirements of the Laws of Bangladesh and the
Environmental Guidelines, as applicable.

3.3.3 Steam turbine (ST)

A steam turbine is a device that extracts thermal energy from pressurized steam and uses it to
do mechanical work on a rotating output shaft. Here, the L17.5-6.7 17.5MW model is used
for CCPP, which collaborated with a gas turbine, heat recovery steam boiler, generator, and
auxiliaries to form a power generation equipment set. L17.5-6.7 17.5MW steam turbine is a

57
 sub-high pressure, single-cylinder, impulse, condensing steam turbine used to improve the
whole CCPP efficiency and reduce power generation cost.
The Specification of steam turbine are:

Name of the manufacturer : NANJING TURBINE & ELECTRIC

MACHINERY(GROUP) CO., LTD.
Model : L17.5-6.70
Generation Capacity : 17.5 MW
Generation Voltage : 11 kV
Pressure : 6.9 MPa
Temperature : 465ᴼC
Designed Speed : 3000 rpm

Figure 3.7: Steam Turbine Hall.

The designed speed of ST is 3000rpm; it cannot drive the machine of different or variable
speed. The ST unit has the performance of 100% main stream flow rate by-pass to the
condenser. The ST unit is of high auto, and the governing system adopts electronic-hydraulic
control.

The steam turbine was a proven design, directly coupled to a 50 Hz generator. Design
criteria were applied for a long creep life, cyclic duty, and fast start-up. Last stage, blade
materials, and exhaust steam wetness were selected to minimize blade erosion.

3.3.4 Cooling Tower

A cooling tower is a heat rejection device that rejects waste heat to the atmosphere through
the cooling of a water stream to a lower temperature. Cooling towers have used the
evaporation of water to remove process heat and cool the working fluid to near the wet-bulb

58
air temperature or, in the case of closed circuit dry cooling towers, rely solely on air to cool
the working fluid to near the dry-bulb air temperature.

Cooling towers are a type of heat exchanger that allows water and air to contact each other to
lower the hot water temperature. During this process, small volumes of water evaporate,
lowering the water temperature that’s being circulated throughout the cooling tower. The
cooling tower cools down water that gets over heated by power plant equipment and
processes.

The water is pumped through pipes directly into the cooling tower. Cooling tower nozzles are
used to spray the water onto the ―
fill media,‖ which slows the water flow down and exposes
the maximum amount of water surface area possible for the best air-water contact. The water
is exposed to air as it flows throughout the cooling tower. The air is being pulled by a motor-
driven electric ―
cooling tower fan.‖

When the air and water come together, a small water volume evaporates, creating an action of
cooling. The colder water gets pumped back to the process/equipment that absorbs heat or the
condenser. It repeats the loop over and over again to cool down the heated equipment or
condensers continuously. A crossflow type cooling tower is used for cooling this plant.

In crossflow cooling tower systems, the water vertically flows through the fill media while
the air horizontally flows across the falling water. That is why it calls it "crossflow" because
of the air and water cross paths or flows. Because of the crossing of flows, the air does not
need to pass through the distribution system. It permits hot water flow via gravity and
distribution basins on the top of the tower right above the fill media. The basins are a
standard of crossflow cooling towers and are applied to all units.

The Specification of cooling tower:

Name of the manufacturer : Tianjin Latino Environmental Technology
Co., Ltd.
Type of Cooling Tower : Cross Flow
System Volume : Basin & Pipe 2900
Recirculation rate : 10500 /hr
Heat Exchange Type : Tube & Shell
Metalurgy : Cu – Alloy & MS
: 7.5-8.5*
59
Cooling Tower Fan
Number 1B263
Type LF854A
Flow 213x10
Total Pressure 115 Pa
Blade Angle 4⁰
Speed 149 r/min
Motor Power 110 Kw
Date of Production 2006.9

Cooling Water Controlling

Parameter
7.5-8.5*
RSI 4-7
Conductivity Maximum 6 Times of makeup water
TDS Maximum 6 Times of makeup water
Ca. Hardness Up to 400 ppm
―M‖ Alkalinity As Per C.O.C
Silica <150 Ppm
Iron < 2 Ppm Fe
T. Phosphate 3.0 – 6.0 Ppm
Free Chlorine 0.3 – 0.5 ppm As
Suspended Solids 20 Max. Ppm

Figure 3.8: Cooling Tower.

60
3.3.5 Closed Cycle Circulating Water Pump

Closed Cycle Circulating water pump is used to circulate the hot water from the hot well and
passes it to the Cooling tower and passes through the cool water to the condenser wall for the
cooling process of the plant. The cooling method is one of the vital processes of a combined
cycle power plant. Without proper cooling, higher efficiency cannot be achieved.

Figure 3.9: Flow diagram of Cooling System.

The Specification of Closed Cycle Circulating Water Pump:

Name of the manufacturer : Chaina Shanghai Kaiquan Pump Co. Ltd.

TYPE : KOSN 300-N9/392 (T)
Capacity : 710 m3/hr

Figure 3.10: Closed cycle circulating water pump house.

61
3.3.6 Water Treatment Tanks

For power generation, water is used in high-pressure boilers, turbines, and cooling towers.
Water treatment for power generation is a vital process that requires dependable technology.
High purity water ensures proper steam generation system operation and reduces blowdown
frequency and use of boiler chemicals. High purity water is also able to better protect against
erosion and damage to equipment.

Cooling water quality also affects power plant performance. Water sources need to evaluate
for each constituent, or constituent pair should be analyzed individually to determine the
maximum allowable concentration. The concentration limit is typically defined by the
solubility thresholds of one or more constituents. The first three criteria apply to power
plants.

Figure 3.11: Water treatment Tanks.

ZLD systems aim for complete recovery of cooling water, where no wastewater should leave
the site, and all waste should be converted to dry form for ultimate disposal. ZLD systems
offer the potential for sustainable cooling and a viable waste treatment option for areas where
evaporation ponds are infeasible or prohibited. Though ZLD is ideal, not all power plants can
achieve these systems, but waste minimization technologies are desirable.

These systems are currently limited by high costs but can be alleviated by developing higher
recovery technologies, such as advanced RO membranes. Increased recovery with increased
pre-treatments can reduce water volume and, thereby, lower evaporative costs. However,

62
 higher solid waste disposal and chemical costs will offset any cost benefits of reduced
wastewater volume. With power plant water treatment systems, recovery benefits are often
difficult to balance with costs.

3.3.7 Service Air Unit (Screw type air Compressor)

The screw air compressor has been widely used due to its safe operation and convenience in
the industrial field. Compressed-air generation is energy-intensive, and for most industrial
operations, the energy cost fraction of compressed air is significant compared with overall
energy costs. Compressed air is different from the primary energy, and it is converted from
the primary energy or secondary energy by an air compressor.

Nevertheless, delivering compressed air to a manufacturing facility is an expensive operation.

Delivery requires costly equipment that consumes significant amounts of electricity and
requires frequent maintenance.

Rotary screw compressors are also positive displacement compressors. They consist of two
rotors inside a casing that compress the air internally. Since there are no valves, maintenance
is less intensive. The rotors are oil-cooled, and this oil also seals the internal clearances. The
oil is, in its, turn cooled by air or by water. The efficiency of this type of compressor is
approximately 71%.

Oil-free screw compressors utilize specially designed air ends to compress air without oil in
the compression chamber yielding proper oil-free air. Their efficiency is around 73%.
Compressed air is used widely throughout the industry and is often considered the ―
fourth
utility‖ at many facilities.

Compressed air systems consist of a supply-side, including compressors and air treatment,
and a demand side, which includes distribution and storage systems and end-use equipment.
An adequately managed supply side will result in clean, dry, stable air delivered at the
appropriate pressure in a dependable, cost-effective manner. For service air unit supply screw
type air compressor is used to supply air in the plant.

63
3.3.8 Condenser

The condenser performance is another parameter that holds much importance in the overall
power plant performance, which depends on condenser arrangement, condenser operating
pressure optimization, cleanliness factor, number of passes for the condenser, and make up
material properties. There are many factors apart from the ones mentioned, but these serve to
influence the overall operation considerably.

The Specification of condenser:

Condenser Parameters Value

Type N-3000-2
Model 2-phase, surface type
Cooling area 3000 m2
Cooling & circulating water temperature 38 ℃
Cooling & circulating water pressure 0.196 Mpa
Flow speed of Cooling & circulating water 1.85 m/s
Condensing pipe nameplate HSn70-1
Condensing pipe specification Φ25 x 1 x 7174 mm
Quantity of condensing pipe 5440 pieces (2720 Pieces in Per chamber)
Process of cooling & circulating water 2 Chambers

3.3.9 Gas Supply Unit

Natural gas is not sufficient in our country, and gradually the volume of natural gas is
reduced day by day. Jalalabad gas transmission and distribution company supply only 6 bar
pressure gas to the plant. But, for the gas turbine operation, it required 20 to 22 bar gas
pressure. A gas booster is used to boost the gas pressure from 6 bar to 22 bar.

Figure 3.12: Gas booster Unit.

64
3.3.10 Substation & National Grid

The main electrical equipment (isolators and circuit breakers) of 132kV substation yard
the specification is:
Main parameter of Circuit Breaker:

Type of circuit breaker LW6-145(TH) 1250A,40kA,100kA

Type of mechanism Oil pressure-charged spring
Medium pressure SF6, 0.7Mpa at 20℃
Phase number 3
Normal operating cycle O-0.3s-CO-3min-CO (IEC)

Main Parameter of Isolators:

Description Parameter
Output moment ≥600 N.m
Output angle 90±4°(adjustable)
Time of one opening 9±2 seconds
Time of one closing 9±2 seconds
Motor’s power 450W

Control circuit voltage DC 110V

Auxiliary circuit voltage AC 220V

Parameter of potential transformer:

1PT Ratio (11/√3 ⁄⁄ 0.11√3), Single phase, Accuracy 0.5.
2PT Ratio (11/√3 ⁄⁄ 0.11√3 ⁄⁄ 0.11/3), V, Accuracy 0.5.

Main parameter of Current Transformer:

Type LB-145THW2 132kV,500-600/5A
Ratio 500-600/5
Accuracy 0.5

Parameter of main transformer:

Type SFZ9-55000/132TH
Rated voltage 132±8x1.25%/11 kV
Vector group YND1
Rated power 55000 KVA
Number of phase 3
Frequency 50 HZ
Cooling method: ONAN/ONAF 75/100%
Rated current 240.6 / 2887 A
Winding 55 ℃
Top oil 45℃
Surface of tank 70℃

65
 Figure 3.13: 132 kV substation yard.

3.4 Flow Diagram of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant

At first, the air enters into the gas turbine's air compressor at ambient temperature (25ᴼC) and
ambient pressure (1.013 bar). Here, the air is compressed approximately at 9 bar and
increases the temperature of the air 344ᴼC. Then, it goes to the Combustion chamber. Fuel is
also injected in the combustion chamber, which comes from the gas supply unit by JGTDCL,
and the inlet pressure is 22.8 bar & temperature is 42ᴼC. In the combustion chamber, air &
fuel mixing is burnt & temperature rises to 1091ᴼC & pressure is 8.9bar. After combustion,
the flue gas passes through the Turbine section. Here, the flue is expanded by turbine blade
and produced electricity 28-30 MW.

After expansion the exhaust gas of the GT passes to the bypass damper section & enters the
HRSG inlet section. Diverter damper to be opened with 10%, 50% & 100% sequentially
exhaust flow. The exhaust gas temperature is 584ᴼC, and the mass flow of flue gas is 482
kg/hr.

In HRSG two types of flow are done, one is liquid & another is flue gas line. The shape of the
HRSG is Vertical type. Here, exhaust flue gas passes to the HRSG in a vertical direction &
the tubes are fined in a horizontal position. The exhaust flue gas from GT at 565ᴼC first
passed through the HP superheater and heated the last produced steam, which temp is around
484.3ᴼC & this superheated steam is the final product of HRSG & this steam will go to the
main stream line of the steam turbine.

66
67
After passing through the heat to the HP S/H, it passes through HP EVAP, HP2ECO, LP
EVAP, & HP1ECO. Here, the LP drum is used to balance HP drum Level & Dearator level.
In the HP drum, steam was produced at a pressure of approximately 5.5 MPa, where the LP
drum produced a 0.61 MPa pressure supplied to the deaerator & feed water pump to heat the
feed water & raise the temp of the feed water at 101.7ᴼC & 10.2 MPa approximately. A
boiler feed pump is used to supply feed water to the HP drum & Gland steam tank. Here,
Dearator is used to reduce the dissolved oxygen from water & increase the quality of water.

In the waterline, raw water comes from the nearest river called kushiara river & goes to the
water treatment section for proper treatment. Then it comes to the Demi tank. The treated
water then passes to the condensate makeup tank, where a make-up water pump is used to
supply the water into the condensate wall. The cooling tower is used to cool the hot water
from the HRSG & exhaust steam. Here, 4 Cooling tower fan is used.

The produced steam from the HP drum passes through the HP superheater & increase the
steam temp & then it goes to the main stream line of the Steam turbine. The steam turbine's
inlet pressure is 450ᴼC and 5.2 MPa & the exit steam temp of steam turbine is passed through
in two ways. One is going to the steam re-superheater or the Gland steam tank & the other is
to the Condenser; then, after cooling by a closed-cycle loop by using the Cooling tower and
circulating pump, the condensate water is feed to Dearator & LP drum by Condensate Pump
again.

In condenser water is reduced their heat by closed cycle loop by using the cooling tower.
Raw water from river is the first to come to the water treatment plant. After treating the raw
water, the treated water passes to the system by circulating the water pump to condenser
section to cool the hot water.

68
 Chapter 4: METHODOLOGY

This section presents the basic methodology for the energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic
analysis present for the major components of the Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant
located at Fenchuganj, Sylhet, Bangladesh.

4.1 Energy Analysis

Energy analysis based on the First Law of Thermodynamics is the most commonly used
power plant performance diagnostic method. Efficiencies and work interactions were
calculated for all major components, i.e., compressors, expanders, combustors, HRSG, and
steam turbines.

The steps for performing the study will be

 studying the power plant operational characteristics and historical data,

 onsite data collection,
 analyzing the data,
 benchmarking, and
 thermoeconomic analysis of the scope of improvement.

At first, the assessment will be done qualitatively by setting up an interview with the power
plant management, engineers, and operators. In the qualitative assessment, easy-to-answer
questionnaires will be prepared with due consideration of power plant domain knowledge.
This assessment identifies both the best and more inadequate practices found in the power
plant and recommend solutions that would help adopt some of the plant's best practices. The
qualitative assessment also identifies the weak subareas in the plant where more detailed
quantitative analysis is needed to arrive at detailed cost-benefit calculations.

For the quantitative assessment, the overall plant will be sub-divided into sub-systems, i.e.,
Gas Turbine, HRSG, Steam Turbine, Condenser system, Compressed air system, Deaerator
system, Gas Booster system, Nitrogen Plant system, Water treatment system, River water
Supply system, Pumps, and fan systems, Transformers, Etc. Relevant data will be collected,
and the performance of these systems and the overall plant will be evaluated.

69
 Conventionally, energy assessment for industrial processes is performed by domain
experts/engineers, based on their experience, by performing steps like recording, analysis,
comparing/benchmarking, targeting, and finally reporting and control. This onsite energy
assessment exercise is quite tedious, costly, and prone to human errors and often lacks
thorough analysis. This paper proposes an automated energy assessment tool for user-friendly
power plants, involves thorough energy analysis through qualitative and quantitative
assessment, and can use by less experienced domain experts.

The qualitative assessment is done through easy-to-answer questionnaires prepared with due
consideration of power plant domain knowledge. In the qualitative assessment, an interview
is a setup with power plant management, engineers, and operators, and answers are obtained.
Based on these answers, the tool automatically identifies the plant's improvement areas and
possible solutions needed to improve the plant's performance.

The quantitative energy assessment simplified to the following key steps, which are also the
functions of this energy assessment tool:

(i) Data preparation

(ii) Data Pre-processor
(iii) Energy Assessment
(iv) KPI Analysis
(v) Benchmarking and gap analysis
(vi) Cost Savings and reporting.

4.1.1 Qualitative Assessment

In the qualitative assessment, the overall plant is sub-divided into sub-systems:

1. HRSG,
2. Steam turbine
3. Condenser system,
4. Compressed air system,
5. Dearator System,
6. Gas Booster System,

70
 7. Nitrogen Plant System,
8. Water Treatment System,
9. Chlorination Plant System,
10. River Water Supply System,
11. Pumps and fan systems,
12. Transformers etc.

The assessment will be done in three aspects of these sub-systems, namely:

1. Monitoring and Benchmarking practices
2. Maintenance and Operation practices and
3. Control and Optimization practices.

The tool asks questions related to each of these subsystems, and then based on the answers,
the tool automatically profiles the plant practices against the best in class practices found in
the industry. This assessment identifies both the best and more deficient practices found in
the power plant and recommends solutions that would help adopt some of the industry's best
practices. The qualitative assessment also identifies the weak subareas in the plant where
more detailed quantitative analysis is needed to arrive at detailed cost-benefit calculations.

4.1.2 Quantitative Assessment

The details of the various steps involved in quantitative analysis highlighted below:

Data Preparation

This step involves identifying the right tags, collecting and storing historical data from plant
historian. The historical data, covering the full operating range of critical variables, are stored
in an excel spreadsheet, importing into the tool.

Data Preprocessor

Typically, the historical data is noisy, abundant with missing data, and outliers. So, this
function aims to filter out noisy and missing data; perform outlier-detection and replacement.
The tool also allows the user to crop data into subsets based on its range filter.

71
Energy Assessment

A power plant would typically have boilers, air preheaters, coal grinding mills, fans, pumps,
and heat exchangers associated with the ‘Boiler Island,’ and steam turbines, gas turbines, heat
recovery steam generators (HRSG), condensers, water heaters, pumps, etc. in ‘Turbine
Island’ and power transformers, generators in the ‘Power Island.’ The tool allows
configuration and calculation of energy losses and various KPIs such as plant hourly profit,
heat rate, equipment efficiency, boiler blow-down rates, Etc.

KPI Analysis

The main objective of key performance indicators (KPIs) evaluation and monitoring consists
of detecting low performance in power plant operation, investigating issues, and setting up
maintenance plans to minimize the operational costs. Another objective is to point out the
commissioning and inspection of power plants after significant repairs so that the results
recorded during at least six months will be compared with the expected results from the
climatic conditions, design and exposure point of view, Etc. The objective entails identifying
errors related to layout, incorrect installation, equipment failure, damage, premature aging,
Etc. The outputs of KPI will be shown by using trend plots, charts, histograms, pie charts,
Etc., for ease of analysis.

Benchmarking and Gap Analysis

Benchmarking is the process of comparing the current project, methods, or processes with the
best practices and using this information to drive improvement. The objective of
benchmarking is to set the product's appropriate reliability and quality metrics based on
similar products in the industry. The gap analysis naturally flows from the Benchmarking
Analysis. A gap analysis aims to measure the gap between where they currently are and
where they want to be (or where you have set your reliability goals, often based on
Benchmarking results). The power plant's current operating performance is compared against
a benchmark established based on historical/design data and standards. Various proposals,
such as steam blowdown heat recovery, flue gas heat recovery, reduction in variation of
critical variables such as excess oxygen in flue gas, superheated steam temperatures, increase
72
in inlet temperature of the steam turbine, augmenting pumps and fans with variable frequency
drives (VFDs), Etc., are then evaluated from cost-benefit viewpoints.

Benchmarking against a designed condition can give us valuable information because this
helps define the reliability and quality metrics. The gap analysis becomes the basis for
identifying implementation actions and priorities. Knowing the size of the gap for each
particular reliability and quality metric is valuable because it will tell us how much resources
we will dedicate to meeting these metrics.

Figure 4.1: Flow Diagram of Energy Audit Methodology.

Cost Savings and Reporting:

Strategic cost-cutting helps lower the cost structure, but it is not about getting cheaper.
Instead, strategic cost-cutting helps ensure an organization is ready for growth. It focuses on
the aspects of the business that are controllable while freeing up resources to fund the
transformation and future growth.

73
4.2 Exergy Analysis

Exergy analyses of a power plant are based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
According to Kotas, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is required to establish the
difference in quality between thermal and mechanical energy and indicate the directions of
spontaneous processes.

A general exergy-balance equation applicable to any thermal system component will be

formulated using the first and second thermodynamics laws. The total exergy of a system E
will be divided into four components: physical exergy, kinetic exergy, potential exergy, and
chemical exergy:

E = 𝐸 𝑃𝐻 +𝐸 𝐶𝐻 +𝐸 𝑃𝑇 +𝐸 𝐾𝑁 4.1

Above equation can be expressed on unit-of-mass basis:

e = 𝑒 𝑃𝐻 +𝑒 𝐶𝐻 +𝑒 𝑃𝑇 +𝑒 𝐾𝑁 4.2

Kinetic exergy and potential exergy are as follows:

1
𝑒 𝐾𝑁 = 2 𝑉 2 4.3

𝑒 𝑃𝑇 = g.z 4.4

In a steady process, when the system is at rest relative to the environment, there is no change
in the height and speed. Therefore, kinetic and potential exergies are negligible. In this case,
physical exergy, also known as thermodynamic exergy, would be defined as the maximum
theoretical useful work. The maximum theoretical useful work is the amount of work
obtained from the interaction between a system and its environment until it reaches the dead
state.

The chemical exergy is associated with the departure of a system's chemical composition
from its chemical equilibrium. The chemical exergy is an important part of exergy in the
combustion process. The exergy change of a system during a process is equal to the

74
 difference between the net exergy transfer through the system boundary and the exergy
destroyed within the system boundaries resulting from irreversibilities.

For Exergy analysis, the plant is separated into eight subsystems. Exergy inflows and
outflows to these subsystems, exergy destruction in these subsystems, and exergy losses to
the environment are calculated. Schematic of these subsystems and exergy balances for them
may be found in the following equations of air compressor, combustion chamber, gas turbine,
steam turbine, HRSG, Condenser, condensate pump and related junction, Boiler Feed Water
Pump.

The exergy-balance equations and the exergy destroyed during the process occur in each
component of the power plant and calculate the exergetic efficiency and overall exergetic
efficiency of the system accordingly.

4.3 Exergoeconomic Analysis

Exergoeconomics is a combination of exergy analysis and economic principles, which helps

us understand how costs flow in a system and optimize system performance. The term
exergoeconomics is to characterize a combination of exergy analysis with economic analysis
when, in this combination, the exergy-costing principle will be used. In this way, a distinction
can be made between exergoeconomic methods and applications on one side, and other
numerous applications on the other side, in which results from a thermodynamic analysis
(sometimes including an exergy analysis) and an economic analysis are presented (under the
term thermoeconomic analysis) but without applying the exergy-costing principle.

Existing methods of exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems operate

with single average or marginal cost values per exergy unit for each material stream in the
system being considered. These costs do not contain detailed information on (a) how much
exergy and (b) at what cost each exergy unit was supplied to the stream in the upstream
processes. The cost of supplying exergy, however, might vary significantly from one process
step to the other. Knowledge of the exergy addition and the corresponding cost at each
previous step can be used to improve the costing process. This paper presents a new approach
to exergy costing in exergoeconomics. The monetary flow rate associated with the thermal,
mechanical, and chemical exergy of a material stream at a given state is calculated by

75
 considering the complete previous history of supplying and removing the corresponding
exergy form units to and from the stream being considered. When exergy is supplied to a
stream, the cost of adding each exergy unit to the stream is calculated using the cost of the
product exergy unit for the processor device in which the exergy addition occurs. When the
stream being considered supplies exergy to another exergy carrier, the last-in-first-out (LIFO)
principle of accounting is used for the spent exergy units to calculate the cost of exergy
supply to the carrier. The new approach eliminates the need for auxiliary assumptions in the
exergoeconomic analysis of energy systems and improves the costing process's fairness by
taking a closer look at both the cost-formation and the monetary-value-use processes. This
closer look mainly includes the simultaneous consideration of the exergy and the
corresponding monetary values added to or removed from a material stream in each process
step. In general, the analysis becomes more complicated when the new approach is used
instead of the previous exergoeconomic methods. The benefits of using the new approach,
however, significantly outweigh the increased efforts. The new approach, combined with
some other recent developments, makes exergoeconomics an objective methodology for
analyzing and optimizing energy systems.

The objective of a thermoeconomic analysis shall be

1. to calculate separately the cost of each product generated by a system having more
than one product,
2. to understand the cost formation process and the flow of costs in the system,
3. to optimize specific variables in a single component, or
4. to optimize the overall system.

For the evaluation of exergoeconomic analysis, here SPECO method will be used.

4.3.1 SPECO Method

The Specific exergy costing method (SPECO) consists of the following three steps. The first
step is the identification of exergy streams. All material and energy streams cross the
boundaries of the components being considered, which should be identified first. This is
accomplished by inspection of the process flow diagram. The exergy streams associated with
the entering and exiting material and energy streams are known from the exergy analysis. At
this point, a decision must be made concerning whether the analysis of the components

76
should be conducted using total exergy or separate forms of the total exergy of a material
stream. Considering separate exergy forms usually improves the accuracy of the results.
However, this improvement is often marginal and unnecessary for extracting the main
conclusions from the thermoeconomic evaluation.

The second step is the definition of fuel and product. In evaluating the performance of a
component, it is, in general, meaningful and appropriate to operate with exergy differences
associated with each material stream between inlet and outlet. Exergy differences (exergy
additions to or removals from a stream) should be applied to all exergy streams associated
with a change of physical exergy and some exergy streams associated with converting
chemical exergy. In many cases involving conversion of chemical exergy (e.g., conversion of
the chemical exergy of solid fuel into chemical and thermal exergy through a gasification
process), the purpose of owning and operating the component dictates that the chemical
exergy at the outlet is considered on the product side and the chemical exergy at the inlet on
the fuel side.

The third step is writing the cost balances and auxiliary equations. Exergy costing usually
involves cost balances formulated for each system component separately.

The steady-state form of control volume cost balance is:

̇ ̇ + 𝑍̇𝑘 = ∑𝑚
∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝐶𝑗,𝑘,𝑖𝑛 ̇ 4.5
𝑗=1 𝐶𝑗,𝑘,𝑜𝑢𝑡

The above equation states that the exiting exergy streams' total cost equals the total
expenditure to obtain them: the cost of the entering exergy streams plus the capital and other
costs. The total cost of a stream will be defined as:

𝐶𝑗̇ = cj 𝐸𝑗 4.6

The term cj in the above equation is the Levelized cost per unit of exergy. In analyzing a
component, we may assume that the costs per exergy unit are known for all entering streams.
These costs are known from the components they exit or if a stream enters the overall system

77
consisting of all components under consideration, from this stream's purchase cost.
Consequently, the unknown variables that need to be calculated with the aid of the cost
balance for the kth component are the costs per unit exergy of the exiting streams. This is
shown in the following Figure:

Figure 4.2: Schematic diagram of the SPECO Method Description.

In general, if Ne exergy streams are exiting the component being considered, we have Ne
unknowns and only one equation, the cost balance. Therefore, we need to formulate Ne-1
auxiliary equations. This is accomplished with the aid of the F and P rules.

F- rules

The total cost associated with removing exergy must be equal to how the removed exergy
supplied to the same stream in upstream components.

P- rules

Each exergy unit is supplied to any stream associated with the product at the same average
cost.

78
 Chapter 5: Energy Analysis
Bangladesh is a developing country. For the development of a country, the first essential
requirement that is needed is energy. Energy is the prime mover for developing a country
both socially and economically, but nowadays energy resources overview of the world is not
in pleasurable condition, and for Bangladesh, the condition is worse. Though the quantity of
natural resources decreases day by day, wastage of natural resources in a different field is not
controlled due to lack of proper management. Energy Auditing will be a possible strategy in
Energy management cases to control such waste in industries, power plants, houses, different
types of shops, and Hospitals.

An energy audit is a technique for identifying energy losses, quantifying them, estimating
conservation potential, evolving technological options for conservation, and evaluating
techno-economics for the measures suggested. Assist industries in reducing their energy
consumption, promote energy-efficient technologies among industry sectors, disseminate
information on energy efficiency through training programs and workshops, promote the
transfer of energy-efficient and environmentally sound technologies to the industrial sectors
in the context of climate change.

A perfect energy audit will always help to understand more about the ways energy and fuel
are used in their industry and identify areas where waste can occur and where the scope for
improvement is needed. The energy audit would positively orient the energy cost reduction,
preventive maintenance, and quality control programs, which are vital for production and
utility activities. Such an audit program will help keep the focus on variations in the energy
costs, availability, and reliability of supply of energy, help decide on the appropriate energy
mix, identify energy conservation technologies, and retrofit for energy conservation
equipment. The energy audit's primary objective is to determine ways to reduce energy
consumption per unit of product output or to lower operating costs. The energy audit
provides a benchmark, or reference point, for managing and accessing energy use across the
organization and provides the basis for ensuring more effective energy use.

The fundamental goal of energy management is to produce goods and provide services with
the least cost and least environmental effect. The term Energy Management means adjusting
and optimizing energy, using systems and procedures to reduce energy requirements per unit

79
 of output while holding constant or reducing total costs of producing the output from these
systems. The objective of Energy Management is to achieve and maintain optimum energy
procurement and utilization throughout the organization and:

• To minimize energy costs and waste without affecting production and quality.
• To minimize environmental effects.
• Improving energy efficiency and reducing energy use, thereby reducing costs.

Power systems diagnosis is conducted, using thermal analysis tools, to determine the
locations, magnitudes, and types of waste and losses within these systems. Identifying the
sizes and locations of the deficiencies will assist in making modifications to improve the
system. The primary analysis and assessment tools used to optimize thermal energy systems
are energy analyses and have long been analyzed and evaluated using energy tools.

The basic methodology for the energy analysis of the Fenchuganj combined cycle power
plant's major components is described in this section.

5.1 Energy Analysis

Energy analysis was carried out using the First Law of Thermodynamics is the most
commonly used method for power plant performance diagnostics. The steps for performing
the study will be
 studying the power plant operational characteristics and historical data,
 onsite data collection,
 analyzing the data,
 benchmarking, and
 thermo-economic analysis of the scope of improvement.

It is possible to calculate the cycle thermal efficiency, which is the work output ratio to the
heat input. Also, the energy loss in each component and the entire plant will compute by
using energy balance. For any control volume at steady state with negligible potential and
kinetic energy changes, energy balance reduces to [Avval et al., 2011]:

Q-W = ∑ 𝑚𝑒 ℎ𝑒 + ∑ 𝑚𝑖 ℎ𝑖 5.1

80
Energy analysis of an active CCPP (Combined Cycle Power Plant) is performed with the help
of the actual operating data taken from the plant's computer control unit. For the plant's
thermodynamical performance assessment, energy analysis related to thermodynamics' first
law is performed.

Performance analysis methods are explained in the following clauses. The equations,
thermophysical properties of the working fluids, and the thermodynamical analysis of the
power plant components are given in the following parts. Given equations are used for
parametric analysis of the system, and results are compared with actual operating results.

The energy balance equations and performance indicator equations for various components,
and all the parameters are presented in below table as per the flow diagram power plant
shown in Figure 3.14 are as follows:

Table 5.1: Energy Performance Parameter Equations.

SL
Particulars Equations
No
𝑃 𝑃
Pressure ratio, r = 𝑃2 = 𝑃4
1 3
where, 𝑃2 and 𝑃1 are the compressor inlet and outlet air 5.2
Air pressures, respectively.
1
Compressor
Compressor work done: 𝑊𝐴𝐶 = 𝑚𝑎 𝐶𝑝𝑎 (𝑇2 - 𝑇1 )
5.3
Heat supplied in the system: 𝑄𝑖𝑛,𝐶𝐶 = 𝑚𝑓 x LHV
5.4
Combustion efficiency:
Combustion
2 𝑚𝑔 𝐶𝑝𝑔 (𝑇3 − 𝑇2 ) = ƞ𝑐𝑐 𝑄𝑖𝑛,𝑐𝑐 5.5
Chamber
𝑚𝑔 = 𝑚𝑓 + 𝑚𝑎
5.6
Turbine Work: 𝑊𝐺𝑇 = 𝑚𝑔 𝐶𝑝𝑔 (𝑇3 - 𝑇4 )
5.7
Friction Loss = 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝐶𝑝,𝑜𝑖𝑙 (𝑇𝑖 − 𝑇𝑜 )

3 Gas Turbine Where; 𝑇𝑖 = Inlet oil temperature 5.8

𝑇𝑜 = Outlet oil temperature

Net Work: 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑊𝐺𝑇 − 𝑊𝐴𝐶

5.9
Steam Work done on Steam turbine: 𝑊𝑆𝑇 = 𝑚𝑠 (ℎ8 - ℎ9 )
4 5.10
Turbine

81
SL
Particulars Equations
No
Mass flow rate of the steam generated at the HP steam drum:
𝑚𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 = 𝑚𝑔 [(1 − 𝐻𝐿)(ℎ𝑎1 − ℎ𝑎4 )/(ℎ𝑏8 − ℎ𝑏4 )] 5.11

𝑄𝐻𝑃 = 𝑚𝐻𝑃 𝑥 ℎ𝐻𝑃

5.12
𝑄𝐿𝑃 = 𝑚𝐿𝑃 𝑥 ℎ𝐿𝑃
5.13
Heat
Recovery Where;
5 Steam 𝑄𝐻𝑃 = HP steam heat output (kW)
generator 𝑚𝐻𝑃 = HP steam heat output (kg/s)
(HRSG) ℎ𝐻𝑃 = HP steam enthalpy (kJ/kg)
5.14
𝑄𝐿𝑃 = LP steam heat output (kW)
𝑚𝐿𝑃 = LP steam heat output (kg/s)
ℎ𝐿𝑃 = LP steam enthalpy (kJ/kg)

𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡
HRSG efficiency = x 100%
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 5.15

The heat rejection in condensing system:

6 Condenser m𝒔 ℎ14 = 𝑄𝑟𝑒𝑗,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟 + 𝑚𝑠 ℎ15 5.16
𝑄𝑟𝑒𝑗,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟 = m𝒔 ( ℎ14 − ℎ15 )

𝑊𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑,𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 = 𝑚𝑤 (ℎ15 - ℎ16 )

5.17
𝑊𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 = 𝑚𝑤 (ℎ20 - ℎ19 )
5.18
7 Pump
𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 = 𝑊𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 + 𝑊𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑,𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 +
𝑊𝑀𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑢𝑝 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 + 𝑊𝐶𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 5.19

Net Work output of steam cycle: 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑆𝑇 = 𝑊𝑆𝑇 - 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 5.20

𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐷 𝑃𝑁
Volume rate of flow: 𝑞𝐹𝐴𝐷 = 𝑞𝑁 𝑥 𝑥𝑃
𝑇𝑁 𝐹𝐴𝐷
5.21
Or, 𝑞𝑁 = (𝑞𝐹𝐴𝐷 x 𝑇𝑁 x 𝑃𝐹𝐴𝐷 ) / (𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐷 𝑥 𝑃𝑁 )
Where,
𝑞𝐹𝐴𝐷 = Free air delivery (𝑚3 /min)
𝑞𝑁 = Normal volume rate of flow (𝑚3 /min)
Service Air 𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐷 = Standard inlet temp ℃
Unit (Screw 𝑇𝑁 = Normal reference temp ℃
8 𝑃𝐹𝐴𝐷 = Standard inlet pressure bar
type air
Compressor) 𝑃𝑁 = Normal reference pressure bar
Mass Flow, 𝑚̇(kg/min) = 𝑞𝑁 (𝑚3 /min) x 𝜌 (kg/𝑚3 ) 5.22
𝑃1 𝑄𝑓 log 𝑟
Isothermal Power, (kw) = 5.23
36.7

Where, P1=Absolute inlet pressure (kg/cm2)

r=compression ratio
Qf= Free air delivered (m3/hr)

82
SL
Particulars Equations
No
𝑉𝑅 (𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
Compressor Idle Time, 𝑡𝐼 = 𝑞
5.24

𝑉𝑅 (𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
Compressor Running Time, 𝑡𝑅 = 𝑉̇ −𝐿𝐵 5.25
60
Motor Cycle Speed, A= 𝑡 +𝑡
𝐼 𝑅 5.26
𝑇
% leakage = x 100
𝑇+𝑡 5.27
𝑇
System leakage quantity, q (m3/min) = 𝑇+𝑡 x Q
5.28

Leakage quantity per day = q x 24 x 60

5.29
Energy lost due to leakage/day = 0.11 x Leakage quantity per
day 5.30

Annual electricity cost:

𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑥 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥
𝑇𝐾
𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑥%𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑𝑥%𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
𝑘𝑊ℎ 5.31
𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦

Ventilation requirement in the compressor room: P = 𝑚̇𝐶𝑃 ∆𝑇

5.32
Where,
P = Roughly 94% of the supplied shaft power to the
compressor + the difference between the supplied total power
to the compressor package & the supplied shaft power to the
compressor + the stated heat flow from the refrigerant dryer.

𝑞𝑐1.85 𝑥𝑙
Pressure drop in the piping: ∆𝑃 = 450 5.33
𝑑5 𝑥 𝑃

𝑇𝑥𝐶𝑥𝑃𝑎
Air receiver volume: V = 5.34
𝑃1 −𝑃2

Where,
V= receiver volume, m3
T=Time allowed for pressure drop to occur
C= Air demand
Pa= Absolute atm. Pressure, bar
𝑃1 = Initial receiver pressure, bar
𝑃2 = Final receiver pressure, bar

Cost savings = [(Energy Savings in kw/yr)/(Kw/unit of

fuel)x(Tk/unit of fuel)]/Primary heater efficiency 5.35

83
SL
Particulars Equations
No
∆𝑇
Condenser Effectiveness: 𝜀 = 𝑇
𝑠𝑎𝑡 −𝑇𝑖𝑛 5.36
∆𝑇
Log- Mean Temperature Differences: LMTD = 𝑇 𝑇
𝑙𝑛 𝑠𝑎𝑡− 𝑖𝑛 5.37
9 Condenser 𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡− 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡

Condenser Efficiency:
Actual Cooling Water Temperature rise
𝜂𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑 = Maxsimum possible Temperature rise x 100% 5.38

Cooling Tower Approach: CTApproach = Tw1 -WBT

5.39
Cooling Tower Range: CTRange = Tw1 − Tw2
5.40
Mass Flow Rate of Water,
Mw = 11005 m3 /hr x 1000 = 11005 x103 Kg/hr 5.41

Heat Loss By Water, HL = Mw x Cpw x(Tw1 − Tw2 ) Kj/hr

5.42
Volume of Air Required,
V = (HL x VS1 )/ [(Ha2 − Ha1 ) – (W2 − W1 ) x Cpw x Ta2 5.43

Mass of Air required = Volume of Air Required / VS1

5.44
V x (Ha2 − Ha1 ) – (W2 − W1 ) x Cpw x Ta2
Heat gain by Air =
VS1 5.45

Cooling
10 Effectiveness,ε=
Tw1 − Tw2
Tower Tw1 − Ta1 5.46
T −T CTRange
Efficiency,η = T w1−WBT
w2
= CT
w1 Approach 5.47

Various Loses:
Drift Losses, DL = (0.2 x Mw ) / 100
5.48
Wind age Losses, WL = 0.005 x Mw
5.49
Evaporation Losses, EL = 0.00085 x Mw x Tw1 − Tw2
5.50
Dissolved Solids in Circulating Water
Cycles of Concentration, COC =
Dissolved Solids in Make Up Water 5.51
Evaporation Loss
Blow Down Losses, BL = (C.O.C−1) 5.52

Total Loss Of Cooling Tower = DL+WL+EL+BL

5.53

84
 Table 5.2: Performance Indicator Parameter of the Combined Cycle Power Plant.
Performance Indicator Parameter
𝑊
Thermal efficiency of the plant:𝐺𝑇 = 𝑄𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐺𝑇 5.54
𝑖𝑛,𝐶𝐶

Work ratio = 𝑊
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 5.55
𝑔𝑡,𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙

For Simple Cycle

Specific Fuel Consumption = 𝑊 𝑓
𝑚 𝑥 3600 5.56
𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑥 1000

Heat rate =
3600 5.57
𝑡ℎ

Total net power o/p in combined cycle 5.58

= 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐺𝑇 + 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑆𝑇

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 =
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐺𝑇 +𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑆𝑇 5.59
𝑄𝑖𝑛,𝐶𝐶

For Combined cycle

Work ratio =
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐺𝑇 +𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑆𝑇 5.60
𝑊𝐺𝑇 + 𝑊𝑆𝑇

Heat rate in combined cycle = 

3600 5.61
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒

5.2 Result and Discussion

For Energy analysis, at first, the Fenchuganj Combined cycle power plant's operating data
were collected. Data were taken between 2018 to 2019, both in the summer and winter
seasons. Every day 24 hours of data were taken for this analysis. The majority percentage of
the data was collected directly through the distributive control system (DCS) & the rest of the
data was collected manually using a fire gun, anemometer, multimeter, tachometer, Etc. For
calculation purposes, here, consider the temperature parameter is the main factor. The
temperature parameter is the reference parameter, and the overall calculation was done
accordingly.

The power plant's operating data were collected in the winter season & summer season
(2018-2019)-the collected data from the power plant attached in annexure-1 for details.

For the energy analysis of the Fenchuganj Combined cycle power plant, the equations are
shown in table 5.1 & 5.2, and the operating parameter collected from the plant, use to analyze
the energy performance.

85
5.2.1 Effect of Power Output of Gas Turbine with change in Inlet Air
Temperature

A survey through the result showed that the power output of the GT within the range of 26.98
MW to 29.19 MW. Figure 5.3 shows that:
1. The power output of the GT decreased as the ambient Temperature Increases.

2. The plant's power output did not reach the plant-designed specification, i.e., 35 MW,
because it is based on ISO specification of 15˚C.

3. The GT's power output is more decreased in between the temperature range is 30ᴼC to
35ᴼC.

4. An inlet air cooler can increase the gas turbine's power output by decreasing the inlet
air temperature. To install an air cooling process in the plant to initially reduce the
inlet air temperature, it needs to invest approximately $240,000.00 initially. After
installing, the power output will be increased by 2 MW more than the previous
system.

5. Increase in work ratio & mass flow rate of the working fluid increase the Power
Output. Another way to increase the gas turbine work output is to install an additional
air compressor to supply more air to the combustion chamber. It will help to burn the
fuel more. To install an air compressor, spend approximately $380,000.00, and the
power output will be increased more than 3 to 4 MW more.

Gas Turbine Power Output vs Inlet Air Temperature

30.00
29.50
Gas Turbine Output, MW

29.00
28.50
28.00
27.50
27.00
26.50
26.00
25.50
25.00
25 28 30 33 34 34 35
Inlet air temperature ˚C

Figure 5.1: Effect of Gas Turbine Power Output with the change in Inlet Air
Temperature.

86
5.2.2 Effect of thermal efficiency of Gas turbine with change in Inlet Air
Temperature

It was discovered that the thermal efficiency of the Gas Turbine is within the range of
28.93% to 32.80%.

Thermal Efficiency of GT Vs Inlet Air Temperature

34.00
Thermal efficiency of GT (%)

33.00
32.00
31.00
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Inlet air temperature ˚C

Figure 5.2: Effect of Gas Turbine thermal efficiency with the change in Inlet Air
Temperature.

Figure 5.4 shows that:

1. Thermal efficiency of the GT decreased as the inlet air temperature (ambient
Temperature) Increases.
2. The GT's power output is more decreased in between the temperature range is 31ᴼC to
35ᴼC. From 26ᴼC to 30ᴼC, the thermal efficiency of the plant is moreover the same.
3. Using an inlet air cooling system or additional air compressor will increase the gas
turbine's thermal efficiency.

5.2.3 Effect of thermal efficiency of Gas turbine with Specific fuel consumption

From figure 5.5, the thermal efficiency of the GT is within the range of 29.96% to 32.32%
when SFC is 0.22 to 0.24. So, it is clear that, When the plant is operating in full load, and the
ambient temperature is also near about 25ᴼC, then the SFC in that machine is also low. SFC
increases with increasing the ambient air temperature & decreases with the load.

87
 Specific Fuel Consumption Vs Thermal efficiency of GT
0.25

Specific Fuel Consumption

0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
28.93 29.41 29.90 30.38 30.87 31.35 31.84 32.32 32.80
Thermal efficiency of GT (%)

Figure 5.3: Effect of Gas Turbine thermal efficiency with SFC.

5.2.4 Effect of Heat Rate (HR) in simple cycle with Inlet Air Temperature

From figure 5.6, the Heat rate of the Plant in Simple Cycle is within the range of 11,138
kJ/kWhr to 12,017.06 kJ/kW-hr. The Heat Rate of the plant in simple cycle operation is
increased with the increasing of Inlet air (ambient) Temperature. When the plant's Heat Rate
increased, then the plant's SFC also increased, increasing the Operation cost of the plant and
decreasing the machine efficiency.

Heat Rate in Simple cycle vs Inlet air Temperature

12,200
Heat Rate in Simple cycle (kJ/kW-hr)

12,000
11,800
11,600
11,400
11,200
11,000
10,800
10,600
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Inlet air Temperature ᴼC

Figure 5.4: Effect of Heat rate of the plant in simple Cycle operation with the change in
Inlet Air Temperature.

88
5.2.5 Effect of Overall efficiency in simple cycle with Inlet Air Temperature

It was discovered that the gas turbine's overall efficiency is within the range of 29.81% to
31.84%.

From figure 5.8, it is being seen that:

1. Overall efficiency of the plant in simple cycle decreased as the Inlet air (ambient
Temperature) Increases.
2. The plant's overall efficiency did not reach the plant specification of 35 MW because it
is based on an ISO specification of 15˚C.
3. Using an inlet air cooling system or additional air compressor will increase the gas
turbine's overall efficiency.

overall in SC vs Inlet Air temperature

32
31.5
overall in SC (%)

31
30.5
30
29.5
29
28.5
25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35
Inlet Air temperature (˚C)

Figure 5.5: Effect of Heat rate of plant in simple Cycle operation with change in Inlet
Air Temperature.

5.2.6 Effect of steam turbine net-work output with varying load

Figure 5.9 shows that the maximum network done by steam Turbine is 14.56 MW at 100%
load, and the minimum net-work done by steam Turbine is 6.7 MW at 50% load. If needed to
decrease the load more, we need to shut down the steam cycle from the plant. The minimum
steam load in that plant is 50%, the net-work output of the steam cycle increase with
increasing the load in that plant.

89
 Load (%) vs Wnet(st)
16.00
14.00

Wnet (st) (kW)

12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
-
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Load (%)

Figure 5.6: Effect of steam turbine net-work output with varying load.

5.2.7 Effect of steam flow rate with steam turbine work output

In the following figure 5.10, the steam turbine's net-work decreased with the decrease in
steam's mass flow rate. The mass flow rate of steam can be governed by operating the main
guide valve & decrease the percentage of inlet guide vane of GT exhaust. Here, the minimum
steam flow rate is 7.65 kg/s, and the maximum steam flow rate is 15.5 kg/s.

Initial steam flow rate with steam turbine work

output
18.00
steam turbine work output (MW)

16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
-
7.75 8.53 9.30 10.08 10.85 11.63 12.40 13.18 13.95 14.73 15.50
Initial steam flow rate (kg/s)

Figure 5.7: Effect of steam turbine net-work output with the mass flow rate of steam.

90
5.2.8 Effect of Steam consumption/rating with steam flow rate

Steam consumption/rating with initial steam flow rate

3.64

Steam Consumption/rating (kg/kW-hr)

3.63
3.62
3.61
3.60
3.59
3.58
3.57
3.56
3.55
3.54
3.53
7.75 8.53 9.30 10.08 10.85 11.63 12.40 13.18 13.95 14.73 15.50
Initial steam flow rate (kg/s)

Figure 5.8: Effect of Steam consumption/rating with the steam flow rate.

In the above figure 5.11, the steam consumption/rating of the steam cycle increases with
decreasing the steam's mass flow rate. The maximum steam consumption rating is 3.63
kg/kW.h, when the mass flow rate is 7.65 kg/s & the minimum steam consumption rating is
3.57 kg/kW-h when the mass flow rate is 15.5 kg/s.

5.2.9 Effect of steam consumption/rating with varying load

From the following figure 5.12, steam consumption/rating is increasing with decreasing the
load. The maximum steam consumption/rating at 50% load and minimum steam
consumption/rating at 100% load, i.e., 3.57 kg/kW-hr.

Load Vs Steam consumption/rating

3.64
Steam Consumption/rating (kg/kW-h)

3.63
3.62
3.61
3.60
3.59
3.58
3.57
3.56
3.55
3.54
3.53
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Load (%)

Figure 5.9: Effect of steam consumption/rating with varying load.

91
5.2.10 Effect of combined cycle efficiency with varying load

From figure 5.13, the combined cycle efficiency decreased with a decreased load. The
combined cycle efficiency maximum at 48.45% at 100% load & minimum is 38.74 % at 50%
load.

Load (%) vs Combined cycle efficiency

60
Combined cycle efficiency (%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Load (%)

Figure 5.10: Effect of combined cycle efficiency with varying load.

Also, the combined cycle efficiency decreases with the decreased mass flow rate of steam.
The mass flow rate of steam can be governed by operating the main guide valve & decrease
the percentage of inlet guide vane of GT exhaust.

5.2.11 Effect of Heat rate with Total work output

From the above result and following figure 5.15, the combined cycle's HR decreased in
increasing load and total power output in the combined cycle. The minimum Heat Rate is
7429.94 kJ/kWhr at maximum output (43.76MW), and the maximum Heat Rate is 9293.56
kJ/kWhr at the minimum output (34.82 MW).

Heat rate Vs Total work output

10000
Heat Rate in CC (kJ/kW-hr)

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
34.83 35.72 36.49 37.29 38.07 38.84 39.66 40.46 41.43 42.40 43.76
Net work output in CC (Wnet,cc), KWh

Figure 5.11: Effect of Heat rate with Total work output.

92
5.2.12 Heat balance of Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG)

The heat balance diagram of HRSG, the feed-water flow measurements, water/steam
temperature measurements, water/steam gauge, and differential pressure measurements,
exhaust gas temperature measurements, ambient air measurements, exhaust gas pressure
measurements, fuel constituent measurements, drum level measurements, exhaust gas oxygen
measurements, Etc. is needed.

Feed water mass flow will be measured using a long-radius flow nozzle or orifice under ISO
5167 and ASME-MFC-3M for "zero additional uncertainty." For the calculation of
performance test results, water mass flows will be used. The steam mass flow will be used
only as secondary data.

Superheated steam temperature measurement points will be less than 2 meters from the test
boundary and more than 6m downstream of the stations. For water/steam gauge and
differential pressure measurements the devices will be located to minimize vibration to the
instruments. The devices will be not being located in areas of extreme temperature.

For exhaust gas temperature measurements, it is necessary to measure each point in the
temperature measurement grids. Exhaust gas temperature at stack will be measured using
station measurement that is collected from DCS. The absolute pressure transmitter will
measure ambient pressure. A psychrometer will measure ambient temperature and relative
humidity.

For exhaust gas pressure measurements one measurement port on HRSG inlet duct will be
installed to measure exhaust gas pressure drop. The analysis of fuel gas will be measured by
on-line chromatograph.

In the event of drum level changes between the start and end of a performance, then the steam
mass flow will be calculated from the measured feed water flow and the amount of water
added to or removed from the drum, as measured by the drum level change. The drum level
of the HP drum & LP drum is taken from the DCS system. Exhaust gas oxygen will be
obtained from CEMS at the stack.

93
Using the above process for taking HRSG operating data at different conditions and states are
attached at annexure 1, Where it describes the HRSG operating parameter at a specific load.
Those data are chosen here to calculate the performance indicator parameter of HRSG at a
different state. Those data are also used to locate the defective state or abnormal condition of
HRSG.

With the help of the design condition of the HRSG shown in Annexure 1, it is easy to find out
the difference between the design parameter and the HRSG parameter of HRSG. It is also
helpful to develop the defective portion of HRSG by identifying the defective point on
HRSG.

Using the data shown in annexure 1, the performance indicator parameter of HRSG, i.e., Heat
absorption, steam flow rate of HRSG, is calculated. The gas turbine's heat input is 79,612.22
kJ/s, and the heat output to the exhaust of HRSG to the environment is 13.7 kJ/s. There has
some heat loss due to some problems in HRSG. The major problem is the leakage of heat
pipes into the HRSG. In that case, the water consumption rate of HRSG is high, so the drum
level maintenance is costly. Because the treated water is used in the HRSG is costly.
Produced steam is also broken out to the environment after HP superheater output because of
pipe leakage. The loss of produced steam also harms running the steam turbine at design
condition, which is caused to the reduction of load.

The heat absorption and steam flow rate at different conditions and different points are shown
in table 5.3.

94
 Table 5.3: HRSG performance indicator parameter.

Content Parameter Value Unit

HRSG heat input by GT exhaust gas, Qf 79,612.22 kJ/s
Heat absorption, Qb 11,041.11 kJ/s
Heat transfer rate, K 204.60 Kj/m^2.h.C
HPSH Steam flow rate, msteam 19.72 kg/s
Steam Temperature outlet temp, To 468.00 °C
Steam Temperature inlet temp, Ti 286.80 °C
Steam Outlet Pressure, Pout 69 bar
Heat absorption, Qb 29,869.11 kJ/s
Heat transfer rate, K 174.05 Kj/m^2.h.C
Steam flow rate, msteam 5.48 kg/s
HPEVAP Steam Temperature outlet temp, To 286.80 °C
Steam Temperature inlet temp, Ti 284.60 °C
Steam Outlet Pressure, Pout 71 bar
Gas Temp Tg 299.40 °C
Heat absorption, Qb 10798.33 kJ/s
Heat transfer rate, K 162.18 Kj/m^2.h.C
Steam flow rate, msteam 5.48 kg/s
HPITECON Steam Temperature outlet temp, To 284.6 °C
Steam Temperature inlet temp, Ti 167.2 °C
Steam Outlet Pressure, Pout 74.5 bar
Gas Temp Tg 227 °C
Heat absorption, Qb 6386.11 kJ/s
Heat transfer rate, K 163.44 Kj/m^2.h.C
Steam flow rate, msteam 2.81 kg/s
LPEVAP
Steam Outlet Pressure, Pout 4 bar
Steam Outlet Pressure, Pin 9.5
Gas Temp Tg 183.1 °C
Heat absorption, Qb 5341.11 kJ/s
Heat transfer rate, K 157.17 Kj/m^2.h.C
Steam flow rate, msteam 5.48 kg/s
Steam Outlet Pressure, Pout 76.5 bar
HPLTECON
Steam Outlet Pressure, Pin 80
Gas Temp Tg 146.7 °C
Steam Temperature outlet temp, To 167.2 °C
Steam Temperature inlet temp, Ti 104 °C

Heat Balance Diagram for Thermal Power Station is the schematic representation of the
whole steam cycle from Boiler to High Pressure (HP) Turbines Intermediate Pressure (IP)
Turbines and Low Pressure (LP) Turbines to the condenser to pumps to re-heaters and again
to the boiler. By using table 5.3, the heat balance diagram of HRSG is drawn.

95
Figure 5.12: Heat balance diagram of HRSG

96
5.2.13 Service Air Unit (Screw type air Compressor)

The calculated performance parameter of service air unit of the plant at different condition is
given below:

Particulars For Compressor 1 For Compressor 2

% leakage 21% 23%
System leakage quantity, m3/min 2.53 2.82
Leakage quantity per day, m3/day 3650 4057
Energy lost due to leakage/day, kwh/day 401 446
Average Energy lost due to leakage/day, kwh/day 424

Annually energy use of CAS:

Conditions For Compressor 1 For Compressor 2

Loading (Kwh) 212463 211,302
Unloading (Kwh) 70821 70434
Sub-Total 283,284 281,736
Total (Compressor 1+ Compressor 2) 565,020

Annual electricity cost:

Conditions For Compressor 1 For Compressor 2

Loading (Tk) 359345.45 268036.3
Unloading (Tk) 15,904 11863.19
Sub-Total 375249.95 279899.49
Total (Compressor 1+ Compressor 2) 655,149.44

Volume of air produced annually:

Particulars Cost
Cost
Volume of Total volume Cost Cost for store for
per 10
air of air Per, 𝑚3 3 sotage tank 1000
𝑚3
produced, produced (Tk/
(Tk/
(10m3/tank) 𝑚3
m3 annually, m3 𝑚3 ) (Tk/ 𝑚3 ) (Tk/
𝑚3 )
𝑚3 )
For Compressor 1 1902823
1986312 0.33 3 9.9 330
For Compressor 2 83489

97
 Energy Balance:

Generated heat to produce compressed air Kwh/day 2256

Leakage Kwh/day 423.86
Waste Heat Kwh/day 361.01
Losses
Actuation Kwh/day 92
Conveying & Others Kwh/day 1369.13

Service air unit (compressed air) heat flow diagram is given below:

Figure 5.13: Compressed air heat flow diagram.

From the figure 5.26 shows that, the generated heat to produce compressed air is 2256
kWh/day. The percentage of waste heat to the environment is 361.008 kWh/day, for leakage
423.8675 kWh/day, actuation is 92 kWh/day and conveying & others is 1369.125 kWh/day.

5.2.14 Condenser

The key indicators for the condenser performance include the condenser effectiveness (ε),
log-mean temperature difference (LMTD) is given in table 5.12.

98
 Table 5.4: Key indicators of Condenser performance

Tin Tout Tsat ∆T Condenser Condenser

LMTD
ᴼC ᴼC ᴼC ᴼC Effictiveness, ε efficiency (%)
29 41 43 12 0.86 6 86
28 42 43.5 14 0.90 6 90
28.5 40 42 11.5 0.85 6 85
30 41 43 11 0.85 6 85
30.5 39.8 42.5 9.3 0.77 6 78
31 42 43.2 11 0.90 5 90
31.5 41.5 42.6 10 0.90 4 90
31.4 42.58 44 11.18 0.88 5 89
30.6 41.6 42.6 11 0.92 4 92
30.4 39 44 8.6 0.63 9 63
31 39.5 43 8.5 0.71 7 71

5.2.15 Cooling Tower

The operating parameters in the summer and winter seasons are taken from the fenchuganj
combined cycle power plant in the summer and winter seasons. By analyzing both the season
data, the cost & other performance indicator parameters will also find out.

To evaluate the performance indicator of cooling tower system, its need to calculate the
Cooling Tower Approach, Cooling Tower Range, Mass Flow Rate of Water, Heat Loss by
Water, Volume of Air Required, Mass of Air required, Heat gain by Air, Effectiveness (ε),
Efficiency (η).

The circulating water (CW) Common HDR Temperature (Tw2⁰C), Heat Exchanger water
temp (Tw1⁰C), ambient air temperature (Ta⁰C), Closed Cycle Circulating Water (CCCW)
Outlet Pressure, CCCW Exchanger Outlet pressure, Wet bulb temperature is taken from DCS
system & manual method. The Circulating water pump's operating parameter, cooling tower
fan, and Closed Cycle Circulating water pump in the summer season are given in Annexure
1.

99
 Drift Losses (DL), Windage Losses (WL), Evaporation Losses (EL), and Blow Down Losses
(BL) of the cooling tower system is also needed for evaluation of the cooling tower
performance.

The various kinds of losses of a cooling tower in the summer season and winter season are
given in table 5.5 and table 5.6.

Table 5.5: Various kinds of losses of Cooling tower in summer season

TD TD Mw Total
Time Tw1 Tw2 C.O. DL, WL, EL, BL,
S Of S Of Kj/hr Loss,
Hrs ⁰C ⁰C C Kg/hr Kg/hr Kg/hr Kg/hr
CW MU (x106) Kg/hr
0 38.5 30.1 118 61.3 1.92 10.32 20658.02 51645.04 73749.12 79732.29 225784.5
1 38.2 29.8 128 61 2.09 10.25 20518.43 51296.09 73250.81 66691.04 211756.4
2 38.6 29.5 120 62 1.93 10.06 20122.95 50307.39 77825.53 83192.8 231448.7
3 37.9 29.1 122 62 1.96 10.13 20262.54 50656.34 75781.88 78307.95 225008.7
4 38.1 29.2 114 64 1.78 10.14 20285.8 50714.5 76731.04 98215.73 245947.1
5 38.1 28.5 170 63 2.69 10.03 20076.43 50191.07 81911.82 48228.46 200407.8
6 38.1 28.3 175 62 2.82 99.91 19983.37 49958.43 83230.75 45666.43 198839
7 36.5 28.3 135 64 2.10 99.45 19890.32 49725.8 69064.16 62255.02 200935.3
8 37.8 28.1 145 64 2.26 10.09 20192.75 50481.86 83244.59 65773.5 219692.7
9 38.4 29.2 155 63 2.46 10.13 20262.54 50656.34 79226.51 54252.94 204398.3
10 37.9 29.5 160 63 2.53 10.21 20425.38 51063.45 72918.61 47359.51 191766.9
11 37.8 29.5 148 64 2.31 10.16 20332.33 50830.82 71722.28 54645.55 197531
12 37.3 29.3 150 65 2.30 10.25 20518.43 51296.09 69762.68 53347.93 194925.1
13 37.1 28.1 114 64 1.78 10.36 20727.81 51819.52 79283.86 101483.3 253314.5
14 37.5 27.5 170 63 2.69 10.29 20588.23 51470.56 87499.96 51518.67 211077.4
15 37.8 27.5 175 62 2.82 10.22 20448.64 51121.61 89513.94 49113.84 210198
16 37.8 29.8 135 64 2.10 10.06 20122.95 50307.39 68418.05 61672.6 200521
17 37.3 29.5 145 64 2.26 10.10 20216.01 50540.02 67016.07 52950.97 190723.1
18 38.1 29.1 155 63 2.46 10.29 20588.23 51470.56 78749.96 53926.6 204735.4
19 38.1 29.2 160 63 2.53 10.30 20611.49 51528.72 77962.96 50635.73 200738.9
20 36.9 28.5 175 62 2.82 10.17 20355.59 50888.97 72669.46 39871.74 183785.8
21 36.8 28.3 135 64 2.10 10.29 20588.23 51470.56 74374.96 67042.22 213476
22 37.5 28.3 145 64 2.26 10.24 20495.17 51237.93 79874.81 63110.96 214718.9
23 36.2 28.1 155 63 2.46 10.14 20285.8 50714.5 69833.86 47821.02 188655.2
24 37.8 29.2 120 62 1.93 10.09 20192.75 50481.86 73804.48 78894.45 223373.5
Total in one day = 508750.2 1271875 1907422 1555711 5243759

100
 Table 5.6: Various kinds of losses of Cooling tower in winter season

TDS TDS Mw, Total

Time, Tw1,⁰ Tw2,⁰ DL, BL,
Of Of C.O.C Kj/hr WL, Kg/hr EL, Kg/hr Loss,
Hrs C C Kg/hr Kg/hr
CW MU (x106) Kg/hr
0 37.1 28 300 61.3 4.89 10.02 20053.16 50132.91 77555.61 19916.88 167658.6
1 37.5 28 128 61 2.09 98.75 19750.74 49376.84 79743.6 72602.39 221473.6
2 37.8 27 120 62 1.93 98.28 19657.68 49144.21 90228.77 96451.44 255482.1
3 37.9 27 122 62 1.96 96.54 19308.73 48271.83 89447.7 92429.29 249457.5
4 38.1 26.8 114 64 1.78 96.77 19355.26 48388.14 92953.63 118980.6 279677.7
5 38.1 26 170 63 2.69 96.65 19331.99 48329.99 99414.78 58533.94 225610.7
6 38.1 26.5 175 62 2.82 96.54 19308.73 48271.83 95192.04 52229.26 215001.9
7 36.5 25.8 135 64 2.10 96.77 19355.26 48388.14 88018.04 79340.2 235101.6
8 36.9 25.2 145 64 2.26 96.65 19331.99 48329.99 96128.34 75953.26 239743.6
9 38.4 26.5 155 63 2.46 95.96 19192.41 47981.03 97065.63 66468.86 230707.9
10 36.2 26.8 160 63 2.53 97.70 19541.37 48853.42 78067.76 50703.8 197166.3
11 37.8 27.3 175 62 2.82 96.54 19308.73 48271.83 86165.21 47276.49 201022.3
12 37.3 27.8 135 64 2.10 98.75 19750.74 49376.84 79743.6 71881.56 220752.7
13 37.1 28.5 145 64 2.26 98.28 19657.68 49144.21 71848.83 56769.45 197420.2
14 37.5 29 155 63 2.46 93.63 18727.14 46817.86 67651.8 46326.78 179523.6
15 37.8 29.1 120 62 1.93 93.05 18610.82 46527.06 68813.53 73559.29 207510.7
16 37.8 29.2 122 62 1.96 91.90 18378.19 45945.47 67172.28 69411.36 200907.3
17 37.3 28.5 114 64 1.78 90.72 18145.55 45363.89 67864.37 86866.4 218240.2
18 38.1 28.2 170 63 2.69 96.77 19355.26 48388.14 81437.25 47949.03 197129.7
19 38.1 27.6 175 62 2.82 96.65 19331.99 48329.99 86269.03 47333.45 201264.5
20 36.5 27.1 135 64 2.10 95.96 19192.41 47981.03 76673.69 69114.31 212961.5
21 36.9 26.5 145 64 2.26 96.07 19215.68 48039.19 84933.29 67107.79 219295.9
22 38.4 26.3 155 63 2.46 94.79 18959.78 47399.44 97500.66 66766.75 230626.6
23 36.2 26.5 160 63 2.53 94.21 18843.46 47108.65 77682.16 50453.36 194087.6
24 37.8 26.4 148 64 2.31 94.91 18983.04 47457.6 91972.84 70074.54 228488
Total in one day= 480647.8 1201620 2089544 1654501 5426312

Remove corrosion and scale inhibitor in power plant equipment; chemical dosing is essential.
To keep the water parameter with designed parameter dosing is also very important.
Chemical dosing treated the raw water taken from the river to designed parameter water. The
treatment water keeps the plant equipment more efficient and less corrosive. For chemical
dosing, the following products are used in this plant. The following table 5.22 shows the total
cost of chemical dosing of the plant in a year.

101
 Table 5.7: Cost of chemical dosing for water treatment.

Total Tk
Product & Scale or Buckman Dose Kg/year(3 Price
Unit in one
Used as in CWT Product amount 65 days) Tk/Kg
year
Corrosion & Scale
Inhibitor BULAB-9181 10 Kg/day 3650 600 2190000
Dispersant BULAB-8012 25 Kg/week 1300 620 806000
Non Oxidizing Biocide BULAB-6057 150 Kg/month 1800 560 1008000
HYPO 300 Kg/week 15600 20 312000
Total: 22350 1800 4316000

For the cooling tower system's operation, some electrical component is also used to keep the
plant's cooling system's operation. Circulating water pumps, cooling tower fans, closed cycle
circulating water pumps are used to operate the cooling tower system. The rate of electricity
that is used for pumps & fans running is 1.2 Tk/Kw. The cost of energy usage of the cooling
tower system in table 5.23 below:

Table 5.8: Cost of energy usage of cooling tower system.

Summer Season Winter Season

Energy Usage Electricity Cost Electricity Cost
Pumps & Energy Usage for
for 9 months in for 9 months for 3 months
Fan 3 months in Kwh
Kwh inTk inTk
CW Pumps 5283174 6339810 1756213 2107456
Cooling
673233 807880 223860 268632
Tower Fans
CCCW
674898 809878 235845 283014
Pumps
Total: 6631306 7957567 2215918 2659102

So, The annually Energy Usage of cooling tower system = 8847224 kWh
Annually Electricity Cost of cooling tower system = 10616669 Tk
= USD 126,388
Annually Chemical using Cost = 4316000 Tk = USD 51,381
Total Operating Cost of cooling tower system = 14932669 Tk
= USD 177,770

102
5.3 Comparing with other research works
The Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant's Energetic performance data is used to compare with
other power plant data by using other research work. Here several studies on energy and exergy
analyses of thermal power plants have been carried out by several researchers (Ameri, Ahmadi, &
Hamidi, 2009; Aras & Balli, 2008; Can, Celik, & Dagtekin, 2009; Gorji-Bandpy & Ebrahimian,
2006; Gorji-Bandpy & Goodarzian, 2011; Igbong & Fakorede, 2014; Marzouk & Hanafib, 2013;
Mousafarash & Ahmadi, 2014; Mousafarash & Ameri, 2013; Kaviri, Mohd Jafar, Tholudin, &
Barzegar Avval, 2011; Sahoo, 2008; Singh & Kaushik, 2014). Once another excellent research
works done by S.O. Oyedepo, R.O. Fagbenle, S.S. Adefila, and Md. Mahbub Alam, 2015 on
Performance evaluation of selected gas turbine power plants in Nigeria using energy and exergy
methods. This study presents a thermodynamic analysis of eleven selected gas turbine power plants'
design and performance using the first and second laws of thermodynamics concepts. Here, Energy
analysis showed that the combustion chamber and the turbine have the highest energy loss in the
plants. Increasing gas turbine inlet temperature (GTIT), the exergy destruction of this component
can be reduced. The Energy Performance data of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant &
selected gas turbine power plants in Nigeria in the simple cycle are given in Table 5.9:

Table 5.9: Average Operating Data for Selected Gas Turbine Power Plants and Energy
Performance Analysis
FCCP DEL1 DEL2 AES1 AES2 AES3 AF1 AF2 Algeria DEL3 DEL4 AF3 AF4
Plant
(35 (25 (25 (33 (33 (33 (75 (75 (87 (100 (100 (138 (138
Name
MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW)
Installed
Rated 35 25 25 33.5 33.5 33.5 75 75 87 100 100 138 138
Power
Pressure
8.9 10.91 10.84 9 9.14 9.48 9.38 9.67 10.175 10.68 10.7 9.48 9.48
ratio
Mass
flow rate
1.8 3.08 3.1 2.58 2.54 2.81 5.5 6.4 7.275 8.15 8.13 8.1 8.4
of fuel
(kg/s)
Inlet mass
flow rate
108 140 140 122 122 122 359 359 367 375 375 470 470
of air
(kg/s)
Energy
input 90 365 367 298 312 315 558 595 641 691 690 714 704
(MW)
Power
output 29 19 20 30 29 32 50 58 82 92 93 132 135
(MW)
Thermal
Efficiency 32 24 22 22 20 21 36 40 40 41 41 31 30
in SC(%)

103
Where,
FCCP means the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant and its installed capacity of 35
MW, located in Fenchuganj, Sylhet, Bangladesh.
AES 1 means AES barges station 1 and its installed capacity of 33 MW, located in Nigeria.
AES 2 means AES barges station 1 and its installed capacity of 33 MW, located in Nigeria.
AF 1 means Afam gas turbine station 1 and its installed capacity of 75 MW, located in
Nigeria.
AF 2 means Afam gas turbine station 2 and its installed capacity of 75 MW, located in
Nigeria.
AF 3 means Afam gas turbine station 3 and its installed capacity of 138 MW, located in
Nigeria.
AF 4 means Afam gas turbine station 4 and its installed capacity of 138 MW, located in
Nigeria.
DEL 1 means Delta gas turbine station 1 and its installed capacity of 25 MW, located in
Nigeria.
DEL 2 means Delta gas turbine station 2 and its installed capacity of 25 MW, located in
Nigeria.
DEL 3 means Delta gas turbine station 3 and its installed capacity of 100 MW, located in
Nigeria.
DEL 4 means Delta gas turbine station 4 and its installed capacity of 100 MW, located in
Nigeria.

From Table 5.9, The thermal efficiencies of the selected gas turbine plants vary between 20%
and 41%. AES 2 unit has the least thermal efficiency (20%), and DEL3, DEL4 unit has the
highest efficiency (41%). The results show that over 50% of the selected plants have thermal
efficiency below 30% in a simple cycle. This is attributed to the high-energy degradation
experienced in different components of the plants. The results also show that about 1.44 to
3.83 MW of thermal energy is continuously discharged from the gas turbine engine to the
environment at various stations for each MW of electrical energy produced. The thermal
discharge index (TDI) should be as low as possible to improve the plant's efficiency and keep
the pollution level low.

The energy losses in air compressors increase at high ambient temperatures. The air
compressor work increases as inlet air temperature increases, leading to a decrease in the gas
turbine's net-work. Air compressor work can be minimized when the air inlet temperature and
mass flow rate are reduced. This shows that the compressor inlet air temperature can manage
compressor work.

104
Another parameter besides the compressor inlet air temperature is the compression ratio-the
effect of pressure ratio on air compressor energy loss. An increase in pressure ratio brings
about a decrease in energy loss in the air compressor. Moreover, compressor work can be
reduced by decreasing the compression ratio.

The heat energy loss in the combustion chamber decrease with an increase in air mass flow
rate. This implies that a high mass flow rate of air can minimize the combustion chamber's
energy losses as this would introduce more air for combustion. The unburnt air in the
combustion chamber serves as a coolant. Therefore, the energy losses decrease as the
temperature of the hot gases' mass flow rate is decreased. This is due to the high quantity of
air mass flow, which lowers the hot gases' temperature.

For the Combined Cycle Comparison, Garri 2 Combined cycle power plant and Guddu 747
MW Combined cycle power plant located in Pakistan is also considered to compare with
Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant. The present deaerated capacity of the Fenchugangj
combined cycle is 45 MW; the Overall Energy efficiency in the combined cycle is 48.45%.

The 90 MW Garri 2 Combined cycle power plant, located in Pakistan, and it is a present
capacity of 85 MW. The Overall Energy efficiency in the combined cycle is 56.16%, wherein
Brayton cycle efficiency is 60.21%, and Rankine cycle efficiency is 52.14%
Another one is, Guddu 747 MW power plant located in Pakistan. The net power output of the
combined cycle of Guddu 747 MW power plant is 737.8 MW; overall Energy efficiency in
the combined cycle is 59.12%, wherein Brayton cycle efficiency is 62.01%, and Rankine
cycle efficiency is 56.38%.

Deciding for plant performance improvement based on energetic performance results may not
be sufficient. For complex systems like gas turbine combined cycle plant with multiple
components, this may be misleading as quantifying actual losses in the different system
control volumes might not be accurately achieved. Only energetic analysis for decision
making is lopsided since it does not reveal a detailed plant performance presentation.
Therefore, the results obtained from energetic performance analysis should be considered
with exergetic analysis, allowing an improved understanding by quantifying the effect of
irreversibility occurring in the plant and the locations.

105
 Chapter 6: Exergy Analysis

Thermal energy systems have long been analyzed and evaluated using energy tools; however,
in the last two decades, exergy analysis has been increasingly used to evaluate and optimize
the thermal system designs for more efficient usage of energy resources. Many researchers
currently perform exergy and energy analysis simultaneously to increase the value of the
research and provide a complete illustration of energy system characteristics.

Based on the first law of thermodynamics, energy analysis cannot provide sufficient
information about the degradation of energy during a process or the quality of the various
forms of energy. These limitations can overcome by exergetic analysis.

Exergy analysis allows the identification of irreversibility sources or the inefficiencies in a

thermal power system-exergy within a thermal process is consumed due to irreversibilities.

As energy analysis cannot determine the irreversibilities within a thermal system, this
successfully demonstrates the importance of exergy analysis, which allows for, and increases
the possibility of enhancing thermal systems by using different modifications to reduce the
irreversibilities resulting from entropy generation.

This section presents the basic methodology of exergy analysis for the major components of
the Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant located at Fenchuganj, Sylhet, Bangladesh.

6.1 Exergy Analysis

Exergy analyses are based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to Kotas, the
Second Law of Thermodynamics is required to establish the difference in quality between
thermal and mechanical energy and indicate the directions of spontaneous processes.

A general exergy-balance equation applicable to any thermal system component may be

formulated using the first and second thermodynamics laws [Oh et al., 1996; Ebadi and Gorji-
Bandpy, 2005].

106
The total exergy of a system E divided into four components: physical exergy, kinetic exergy,
potential exergy and chemical exergy:

E = 𝐸 𝑃𝐻 +𝐸 𝐶𝐻 +𝐸 𝑃𝑇 +𝐸 𝐾𝑁 6.1

Above equation expressed on the unit-of-mass basis:

e = 𝑒 𝑃𝐻 +𝑒 𝐶𝐻 +𝑒 𝑃𝑇 +𝑒 𝐾𝑁 6.2

Kinetic exergy and potential exergy are as follows:

1
𝑒 𝐾𝑁 = 2 𝑉 2 6.3

𝑒 𝑃𝑇 = g.z 6.4

In a steady process, when the system is at rest relative to the environment, there is no change
in the height and speed. Therefore, kinetic and potential exergies are negligible. In this case,
physical exergy, also known as thermodynamic exergy, would be defined as the maximum
theoretical useful work. The maximum theoretical useful work is the amount of work
obtained from the interaction between a system and its environment until it reaches the dead
state.

The physical exergy for ideal gas stream is defined by the following:

𝑒 𝑇 = 𝐶𝑃 [(T- 𝑇𝑜 ) - 𝑇𝑜 ln )]
𝑇 6.5
𝑇𝑜

𝑒 𝑃 = R𝑇𝑜 ln 𝑃
𝑃 6.6
𝑜

𝑒 𝑃𝐻 = 𝑒 𝑇 + 𝑒 𝑃 6.7
and for the simple compressible pure substances the physical exergy is given by:

𝑒 𝑃𝐻 = (h-ℎ𝑜 ) - 𝑇𝑜 (S - 𝑆𝑜 ) 6.8
Where;
𝑃𝑜 and 𝑇𝑜 = The pressure and temperature, respectively, at standard state;
R = The gas constant
𝐶𝑃 = The specific heat at constant pressure
107
The chemical exergy is associated with the departure of a system's chemical composition
from its chemical equilibrium. The chemical exergy is an essential part of exergy in the
combustion process.

For a hydrocarbon fuel, 𝐶𝑎 𝐻𝑎 standard chemical exergy tables may be used. The most
accurate relation for chemical exergy of that fuel can be defined as below:

𝐶𝐻 𝑏 𝑏 𝑏
𝑒𝐹 = [ℎ𝑓 + (a+4). ℎ𝑜2 – a. ℎ𝑐𝑜2 - 2 . ℎ𝐻2𝑜(𝑔) ] (To,Po) - To [𝑆𝐹 + (a+4). 𝑆𝑜2 –
6.9
𝑏 (𝑋𝑜,𝑂2 )𝑎+𝑏/4
a. 𝑆𝑐𝑜2 - 2 . 𝑆𝐻2𝑜(𝑔) ] (To,Po) + R . To. ln [(𝑋 𝑎 ]
𝑜,𝐶𝑂2 ) (𝑋𝑜,𝐻2𝑂 )𝑏/2

An approximate formulation for chemical exergy of gaseous hydrocarbon fuels is given as:

𝑒𝐹𝐶𝐻
= 1.033 + 0.0169 (b/a) – 0.0698/a 6.10
𝐿𝐻𝑉

For methane CH4, a = 1 and b = 4.

The exergy rate is defined as by following:

Ex = ṁ.ex 6.11

Where, ṁ is the mass flow rate of the working fluid.

In steady state, exergy balance for control volume is given as [Bejan et al., 1996; Kotas,
1995]:

𝑇
Ex = ∑𝑗(1 − 𝑇𝑜 ) 𝑄𝑗 + 𝑊𝐶𝑉 + ∑𝑖 𝑚𝑖 𝑒𝑖 - ∑𝑒 𝑚𝑒 𝑒𝑒 6.12
𝑗

The subscripts i, e, j and 0 refer to conditions at inlet and exits of control volume boundaries
and reference state. Above equation can be written as:

𝐸𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑡 - 𝐸𝑒𝑡𝑜𝑡 - ED = 0 6.13

108
 The above equation implies that the exergy change of a system during a process is equal to
the difference between the net exergy transfer through the system boundary and the exergy
destroyed within the system boundaries resulting from irreversibilities.

6.2 Exergy Components and Exergy Balances

The plant is separated into eight subsystems. Exergy inflows and outflows to these
subsystems, exergy destruction in these subsystems and exergy losses to the
environment is calculated. Schematic of these subsystems and exergy balances for them may
be found in following equations of air compressor, combustion chamber, gas turbine, steam
turbine, HRSG, Condenser, condensate pump and related junction, Boiler Feed Water Pump.
Every state of the power plant and the following equations are written below with respect to
the figure 5.1. Where; T mentioned as Temperature, P means pressure, S means entropy, E
means the exergy rate, Ed means exergy destruction rate and ԑ means exergetic efficiency.

The exergy-balance equations and the exergy destroyed during the process taking place in
each component of the power plant are expressed in following tables:

Table 6.1: Exergy equations of major component of the plant.

SL
Component Equations
No
𝐸𝑊𝐴𝐶 = (𝐸̇1𝑇 - 𝐸̇2𝑇 ) + (𝐸̇1𝑃 - 𝐸̇2𝑃 ) + 𝑇𝑜 (𝑆2̇ - 𝑆1̇ )
6.14
Air Compressor
1
Edest = 𝑇𝑜 (𝑆2̇ - 𝑆1̇ )
6.15
ECHE + (𝐸̇2𝑇 + 𝐸̇5𝑇 -𝐸̇3𝑇 ) + (𝐸̇2𝑃 + 𝐸̇5𝑃 - 𝐸̇3𝑃 ) + 𝑇𝑜
𝑄
(𝑆3̇ + 𝑆5̇ - 𝑆2̇ + 𝑇𝑐𝑐) 6.16
𝑜
2 Combustion Chamber
𝑄
Edest = (𝑆3̇ − 𝑆2̇ + 𝑆5̇ + 𝑇𝑐𝑐)
𝑜 6.17

𝐸𝑊𝐺𝑇 = (𝐸̇3𝑇 - 𝐸̇4𝑇 ) + (𝐸̇3𝑃 - 𝐸̇4𝑃 ) + 𝑇𝑜 (𝑆3̇ - 𝑆4̇ )

6.18
3 Gas Turbine
Edest =𝑇𝑜 (𝑆3̇ - 𝑆4̇ )
6.19
Edest = (E4 – E8) + (E23 – E9) + (E18 – E19)
6.20
HRSG: (including
4 (E9 – E23) + (E19 – E18)
dearator) ԑ= (E4 – E8) 6.21

109
 SL
Component Equations
No
Edest = (E9 – E10) – Ew4
6.22
5 Steam Turbine 𝐸4
ԑ = (𝐸
9 – 𝐸10 ) 6.23

Edest = E14 – E16 + Ew3 + Ew4 + Ew5 + E25 –

Condenser, E24 + EI - EJ 6.24
6 condensate pump and
𝐸𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡
related junction ԑ = 1 - (𝐸
19 – 𝐸15 ) 6.25

In = Out + Destruction
E19 = E20 + Ew6 + Edest
6.26
Boiler Feed Water Edest = E19 - E20 + Ew6
7
Pump (BFW)
𝐸
ԑ = 1 – ( 𝐸𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡 )
𝑤4 6.27

6.3 Exergetic efficiency

In defining the exergetic efficiency, it is necessary to identify both a product and a fuel for
the thermodynamic system being analyzed. The product represents the desired result
produced by the system. Accordingly, the definition of the product must be consistent with
the purpose of purchasing and using the system. The fuel represents the resources expended
to generate the product, and is not necessarily restricted to being an actual fuel such as natural
gas, oil or coal. Both the product and fuels are expressed in terms of exergy.

The exergy efficiency of the plant and its component is

𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐸𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑑

ԑ = 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = 1 - 𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 6.28

Overall Plant efficiency:

𝐸𝑑,𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡
`ԑoverall = 1 - 6.29
𝐸 𝐶𝐻𝐸

Overall exergetic efficiency of the system can be defined in terms of exergy destruction ratio.
ԑoverall = 1 - ∑ 𝐸𝑑 6.30
Exergetic destruction efficiency:

ԑd =
𝐸𝐷,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 6.31
𝐸 𝐶𝐻𝐸

110
6.4 Result and Discussion

For exergy analysis of the Fenchuganj Combined cycle power plant, data were taken at a
different time to measure the performance in different conditions attached in annexure 1 in
detail.

For analyzing the plant's exergy, the equations are shown in table 6.1, and the operating
parameter collected from the plant is used. The following operating parameters are shown at
every stage of the power plant schematic diagram shown in Figure 3.14.

Following table 6.1 and 6.2 shows the Exergy rate of the Gas cycle and steam cycle, which is
used to evaluate the exergetic performance indicator calculation:

Table 6.2: Exergy rate at different point of Gas cycle.

mass
P T Cp R ex E
State Substance flow rate
(bar) ᴼC (kg/s) kJ/kg.k kJ/kg.k kJ/kg kW
Ref Air 1.013 25 1.005 0.287
1 Air 1.013 28 108.22 1.005 0.287 0.0000 -
2 Air 9 350 108.22 1.005 0.287 292.58 31,663.05
3 Comb. Gas 8.8 1105 109.999 1.148 0.29 902.80 99,307.50
4 Comb. Gas 1.039 578 109.999 1.148 0.29 278.05 30,586.10
5 Natural Gas 22.8 42 1.779 2.34 0.5 52,331.65 93,098.01
8 Comb. Gas 1.039 131 109.998 1.148 0.29 19.67 2,164.57

Table 6.3: Exergy rate at different point of steam cycle.

State Substance P T h s m ex E
(bar) ᴼC (kj/kg) (kJ/kg.k) (kg/s) kJ/kg kW
9 Water 69 468 3,329.00 6.96 15.30 1,260.61 19,287.31
10 Water 0.145 53 2,597.07 8.02 0.27 212.08 57.45
11 Water 0.145 53 2,597.07 8.02 0.27 212.08 57.45
12 Water 0.145 53 2,597.07 8.02 0.27 212.08 57.45
13 Water 13 192 2,787.60 6.50 4.17 856.50 3,571.59
14 Water 0.145 53 2,597.07 8.02 0.07 212.08 15.04
15 Water 0.145 53 2,597.07 8.02 0.07 212.08 15.04
16 Water 6.5 54 684.21 1.96 0.07 104.03 7.38
17 Water 6.5 32 134.83 0.47 4.17 0.28 1.17
18 Water 6 37 153.26 0.53 11.26 0.86 9.65

111
State Substance P T h s m ex E
(bar) ᴼC (kj/kg) (kJ/kg.k) (kg/s) kJ/kg kW
19 Water 1.7 115 483.01 1.47 11.26 48.08 541.33
20 Water 46 104 439.38 1.35 9.53 42.13 401.49
21 Water 16 104 437.06 1.35 0.35 38.56 13.49
22 Water 16 98 411.93 1.28 0.35 34.65 12.13
23 Water 46 104 439.38 1.35 9.53 42.13 401.49
24 Water 3.9 31 130.27 0.45 6.02 0.55 3.29
25 Water 3.9 38 159.52 0.55 6.02 1.46 8.78
26 Water 1.7 101 423.33 1.32 1.68 34.81 58.49

The exergetic rate of the gas cycle and steam cycle are used to calculate the exergy
destruction, exergetic efficiency, exergetic destruction efficiency of air compressor,
combustion chamber, gas turbine, steam turbine, HRSG, Condenser, condensate pump and
related junction, Boiler Feed Water Pump which is shown in table 6.3.

Table 6.4: Exergetic performance parameter of combined cycle power plant.

Component Ed (kW) ε% εd% % of Ed

Air Compressor 3,359.66 90.41 3.61 6.85
Combustion Chamber 25,453.56 79.60 27.34 51.93
Gas Turbine 2,172.45 96.84 2.33 4.43
HRSG 9,004.04 68.32 11.31 21.48
Steam turbine 4,009.42 79.15 5.04 9.56
Condenser 492.13 6.49 0.62 1.17
BFWP 63.90 2.99 0.08 0.15
Exhaust Loss 2164.57 0.00 2.33 4.42

The maximum exergy destruction occurs in the combustion chamber of, and, i.e., 25,453.56
kW and the lowest exergy destruction happens in BFWP and, i.e., is 63.90 kW shown in table
6.4. The maximum exergetic efficiency occurs in gas turbine and, i.e., is 96.84%.

The maximum exergy destruction rate and percentage of exergy destruction in the
combustion chamber can be reduced by installing a high-quality combustion chamber or
changing the spare parts (spark plug, fusible plug, connecting pipe, Etc.) of the combustion
chamber to increase the efficiency of the combustion chamber.

From the above table 6.4, the following figures show here to represent the exergetic
performance of the different components in different conditions graphically.

112
 Exergy destruction
30.00
25.45
EXERGY DESTRUCTION (MW)

25.00

20.00

15.00
9.00
10.00

3.36 4.01
5.00 2.17 2.16
0.49 0.06
-
Air Combustion Gas Turbine HRSG Steam Condenser BFWP Exhaust
Compressor Chamber turbine Loss
COMPONENT NAME

Figure 6.1: Exergy destruction in various components.

From the figure 6.1 the maximum exergy destruction occurs in combustion chamber. and i.e.
25.45 MW and the lowest exergy destruction happens in BFWP and i.e. is 0.063 MW.

Exergetic Efficiency (%)

120.00
96.84
100.00 90.41
Exergetic Efficiency (%)

79.60 79.15
80.00 68.32

60.00

40.00

20.00
6.49 2.99
-
Air Combustion Gas Turbine HRSG Steam Condenser BFWP
Compressor Chamber turbine
Component Name

Figure 6.2: Exergetic efficiency of various components.

From the figure 6.2 the maximum exergetic efficiency occur in gas turbine, i.e. 96.84%.

113
 Percentage (%) of exergy destruction
0.15
1.17
4.42 6.85

9.56

21.48

51.93

4.43

Air Compressor Combustion Chamber Gas Turbine HRSG

Steam turbine Condenser BFWP Exhaust Loss
.

Figure 6.3: Percentage of exergetic destruction rate of power plant.

From the figure 6.4 the percentage of exergy destruction of the power plant shown
graphically. In which the maximum exergy destruction is 51.93% in combustion chamber all
over the system of the plant.

Total Plant Overall exergetic efficiency = 0.4734 = 47.35%.

6.5 Comparing with other research works

For comparing the Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant data with other power plants by using
other research work, here several studies on energy, exergy, and exergy costing analyses of thermal
power plants have been carried out by several researchers (Ameri, Ahmadi, & Hamidi, 2009; Aras
& Balli, 2008; Can, Celik, & Dagtekin, 2009; Gorji-Bandpy & Ebrahimian, 2006; Gorji-Bandpy &
Goodarzian, 2011; Igbong & Fakorede, 2014; Marzouk & Hanafib, 2013; Mousafarash & Ahmadi,
2014; Mousafarash & Ameri, 2013; Kaviri, Mohd Jafar, Tholudin, & Barzegar Avval, 2011;
Sahoo, 2008; Singh & Kaushik, 2014).

114
Once another excellent research works done by S.O. Oyedepo, R.O. Fagbenle, S.S. Adefila, and
Md. Mahbub Alam, 2015 on Performance evaluation of selected gas turbine power plants in
Nigeria using energy and exergy methods. This study presents a thermodynamic analysis of eleven
selected gas turbine power plants' design and performance using the first and second laws of
thermodynamics concepts. Here, Energy analysis showed that the combustion chamber and the
turbine have the highest proportion of energy loss in the plants. Increasing gas turbine inlet
temperature (GTIT), the exergy destruction of this component can be reduced.

An exergy balance for the components of the gas turbine plants and of the overall plants is at
this point performed and the net exergy flow rates crossing the boundary of each component
of the plants, together with the exergy destruction, exergy defect and exergy efficiency in
each component are calculated and are presented in Table 6.5 to Table 6.7 for simple cycle
operation. The two most important performance criteria are exergy efficiency and exergy
destruction rate.

The exergy Performance data of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant & selected gas
turbine power plants in Nigeria and Algeria in the simple cycle are given in Table 6.5:

Table 6.5 Exergy Destruction Rate in different power plants in simple cycle operation.

FCCP DEL1 DEL2 AES1 AES2 AES3 AF1 AF2 Algeria DEL3 DEL4 AF3 AF4
Plant
(35 (25 (25 (33 (33 (33 (75 (75 (87 (100 (100 (138 (138
Name
MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW)
Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed
Component
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
AC 3.36 3.14 3.63 4.69 4.98 5.64 8.62 8.09 6.94 13.36 12.48 13.14 14.8
CC 25.45 62.52 61.76 56.55 56.58 55.35 139.42 159.84 39.73 171.84 173.33 176.78 180.83
GT 2.17 0.39 0.14 0.29 0.52 0.23 5.99 1.47 6.84 0.7 1.8 9.39 14.5
Total 30.98 66.05 65.53 61.53 62.08 61.22 154.03 169.4 53.51 185.9 187.61 199.31 210.13

Where,
FCCP means the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant and its installed capacity of 35
MW, located in Fenchuganj, Sylhet, Bangladesh.
AES 1 means AES barges station 1 and its installed capacity of 33 MW, located in Nigeria.
AES 2 means AES barges station 1 and its installed capacity of 33 MW, located in Nigeria.
AF 1 means Afam gas turbine station 1 and its installed capacity of 75 MW, located in
Nigeria.
AF 2 means Afam gas turbine station 2 and its installed capacity of 75 MW, located in
Nigeria.
AF 3 means Afam gas turbine station 3 and its installed capacity of 138 MW, located in Nigeria.
AF 4 means Afam gas turbine station 4 and its installed capacity of 138 MW, located in Nigeria.

115
DEL 1 means Delta gas turbine station 1 and its installed capacity of 25 MW, located in Nigeria.
DEL 2 means Delta gas turbine station 2 and its installed capacity of 25 MW, located in Nigeria.
DEL 3 means Delta gas turbine station 3 and its installed capacity of 100 MW, located in Nigeria.
DEL 4 means Delta gas turbine station 4 and its installed capacity of 100 MW, located in Nigeria.
Algeria means Algeria 87 MW gas turbine power station and its installed capacity 87 MW,
Located in Algeria.

Table 6.5 shows the different plant exergy destruction rate in simple cycle operation only.
The total exergy destruction rate of the selected gas turbine plants varies between 30.98 MW
to 210.13 MW. FCCP unit has the least total exergy destruction rate (30.98 MW), and AF4
unit has the highest total exergy destruction rate (210.13 MW). But, the component-wise
exergy destruction is different in different plants. Table 6.5 also showed that the lowest
exergy destruction rate in the air compressor happens in the DEL1 unit and the highest
exergy destruction rate in the AF4 unit. The least exergy destruction rate in the combustion
chamber happens in the FCCP unit and the highest exergy destruction rate in the AF4 unit.
The least exergy destruction rate in gas turbine happens in DEL2 unit and highest exergy
destruction rate in AF4 unit. Table 6.2 represents that, above three components of simple
cycle operation, the maximum exergy destruction in a simple cycle occurs in the combustion
chamber.

Table 6.6 Exergetic efficiency in different power plants in simple cycle operation.

FCCP DEL1 DEL2 AES1 AES2 AES3 AF1 AF2 Algeria DEL3 DEL4 AF3 AF4
Plant
(35 (25 (25 (33 (33 (33 (75 (75 (87 (100 (100 (138 (138
Name
MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW)
Component ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε% ε%
AC 90.41 95.21 90.95 85.99 85.17 83.17 90.85 91.57 84.19 87.48 88.31 87.54 85.97
CC 79.6 77.25 77.69 74.36 75.95 76.71 57.49 56 75.91 61.05 60.63 61.5 59.73
GT 96.84 99.57 99.85 99.62 99.32 99.67 96.86 99.32 92.58 99.71 99.25 95.75 93.09

Table 6.6 shows the different plant exergetic efficiency in simple cycle operation only. In
component-wise exergetic efficiency is different in different plants. Table 6.6 also showed
that the lowest exergetic efficiency in the air compressor happens in the AES3 unit and the
highest exergetic efficiency in the DEL1 unit. The least exergetic efficiency in the
combustion chamber happens in the AF2 unit and the highest exergetic efficiency in the
FCCP unit. The least exergetic efficiency in gas turbine happens in Algeria unit and highest
exergy destruction rate in DEL2 unit. Table 6.6 also represents the maximum exergetic
efficiency found in a gas turbine in a simple cycle and the minimum exergetic efficiency

116
found in the combustion chamber. A higher temperature difference occurs in the combustion
chamber, which causes maximum thermal efficiency losses in the combustion chamber.

Table 6.7 Percentage of exergy destruction in different power plants in simple cycle
operation.

FCCP DEL1 DEL2 AES1 AES2 AES3 AF1 AF2 Algeria DEL3 DEL4 AF3 AF4
Plant
(35 (25 (25 (33 (33 (33 (75 (75 (87 (100 (100 (138 (138
Name
MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW)
% of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of
Component
Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed
AC 10.84 4.75 5.54 7.62 8.03 9.21 5.59 4.78 12.96 7.19 6.65 6.6 7.04
CC 82.15 94.67 94.25 91.9 91.13 90.39 90.51 94.36 75.24 92.43 92.39 88.7 86.05
GT 7.01 0.58 0.21 0.48 0.84 0.41 3.89 0.87 12.8 0.38 0.96 4.71 6.9

Table 6.7 represents the Percentage of exergy destruction is maximum in simple cycle
operation is found in the combustion chamber. A higher temperature difference occurs in the
combustion chamber, which causes maximum thermal efficiency losses in the combustion
chamber. The heat energy loss in the combustion chamber decreases with an increase in air
mass flow rate. This implies that a high mass flow rate of air can minimize the combustion
chamber's energy losses as this would introduce more air for combustion. The unburnt air in
the combustion chamber serves as a coolant. For this purpose, an additional air compressor
booster unit can be introduced for additional mass flow of air into the combustion chamber.
Therefore, the energy losses decrease as the temperature of the hot gases' mass flow rate
decreases.

Table 6.8 Exergy Destruction Rate in different power plants in Combined cycle
operation.

FCCP Ataer PP Guddu Garri 2

(35 MW) (50 MW) (747 MW) (90 MW)
Component
Ed (MW) Ed (MW) Ed (MW) Ed (MW)
Air Compressor 3.4 3.93 60.5 9.29
Combustion Chamber 25.45 69.9 683.12 154.27
Gas Turbine 2.2 13.1 68.87 33.34
HRSG 9.01 7.9 89.75 15.1
Steam turbine 4.01 6.01 18.65 11.58
Condenser 0.51 1.3 13 5.67
BFWP 0.10 0.7 Non Non
Stacks 2.20 2.1 Non 15.27

117
Where,
FCCP means the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant and its installed capacity of 35
MW, located in Fenchuganj, Sylhet, Bangladesh.
Ataer PP means Ataer Power station and its installed capacity of 50 MW, located in Nigeria.
Guddu means Guddu 747 MW combined cycle power station and its installed capacity of 747
MW, located in Pakistan.
Garri 2 means Garri 90 MW combined cycle power station 2 and its installed capacity of 90
MW, located in Pakistan.

Table 6.8 shows the different plant exergy destruction rate in combined cycle operation only.
The component-wise exergy destruction is different in different plants. Table 6.8 also showed
that the highest exergy destruction occurs in combustion chamber in Brayton cycle, then
second highest exergy destruction occurs in HRSG in Rankine cycle.

Table 6.9 Percentage of exergy destruction in different power plants in Combined cycle
operation.

FCCP Ataer PP Guddu Garri 2

Component (35 MW) (50 MW) (747MW) (90MW)
% of Ed % of Ed % of Ed % of Ed
Air Compressor 7 4 6 4
Combustion Chamber 52 70 73 63
Gas Turbine 4 13 7 14
HRSG 22 10 10 6
Steam turbine 10 6 2 6
Condenser 1 1 1 5
BFWP 0.15 0.0 Non Non
Stacks 4 2 Non 2

Table 6.9 shows that the maximum Percentage of exergy destruction occurs in the
combustion chamber, and its values vary from 52% to 73%. The maximum exergy
destruction in the combustion chamber found in the Guddu unit, and the second-highest
exergy destruction found in the FCCP unit is 22%.

Table 6.10 shows the maximum exergetic efficiency found in the gas turbine of the FCCP
unit and the second-highest exergy destruction found in the Air compressor unit of the Ataer
PP unit. The exergetic efficiency values varied from 96.84% to 81.7% and 1.32–2.01,
respectively, for the considered plants.

118
Table 6.10 Exergetic Efficiency in different power plants in Combined cycle operation.
FCCP Ataer PP Guddu Garri 2
Component (35 MW) (50 MW) (747MW) (90MW)
ε% ε% ε% ε%
Air Compressor 90.41 94.9 92.1 95
Combustion Chamber 79.6 64 73 76
Gas Turbine 96.84 81.7 89.48 90
HRSG 68.32 71 82.6 89.8
Steam turbine 79.15 81.1 91.19 79.9
Condenser 6.49 85 93.04 Non
BFWP 2.99 0 Non Non
Stacks 0 Non Non Non

For both simple and combined cycle operational modes, the combustion chamber is the
primary source of thermodynamic inefficiency in the plants considered due to the
irreversibility of combustion and the large temperature difference between the air entering the
combustion chamber and the flame temperature. These immense losses mean that a large
amount of energy present in the fuel can be wasted with the remarkable capacity to generate
useful work. The variations in the plants' performance may be ascribed to inadequate
maintenance procedures, faulty components, and discrepancies in operating data.

By comparing the above table's information, in combined cycle operation, the overall
exergetic efficiency in combined cycle varies from 47% to 65%, where overall energetic
analysis showed previously on 48 to 62%. Using only energetic analysis for decision making
is lopsided as it does not reveal the detailed presentation of plant performance. Therefore, the
result obtained from energy considerations should be considered along with those from
exergy analysis. This allows an improved understanding by quantifying the effect of
irreversibility occurring in the plant and its locations.

The component with the highest exergy improvement potential is the combustion chamber.
This high improvement potential in the combustion chamber is due to the irreversibility of
combustion and the large temperature difference between the air entering the combustion
chamber and the flame temperature. These immense losses mean that a large amount of
energy present in the fuel to generate useful work is wasted. Exergy improvement potential
can be afforded in the combustion chamber by preheating the reactants and reducing the heat
loss and the excess air entering the combustion chamber. The lower improvement potential in
the air compressor, compared with the combustion chamber, is due to relatively heat loss
119
from the air compressor through friction compared to the large temperature difference
between the air entering the combustion chamber and the flame temperature. These results
have made it possible to determine the critical points of the gas turbine system stating
hierarchy on its components so that the measure is applied in the places where they will be
most effective.

Also, the turbine component's exergy efficiency and the plant's overall exergetic efficiency
decreased with increased ambient temperature, whereas the compressor and turbine's exergy
efficiencies increased with increased ambient temperature. The overall exergetic efficiency
decreased from 18.53 to 17.26% for the ambient temperature range of 294 – 310K. It was
found that a 5 K rise in ambient temperature resulted in a 1.03% decrease in the overall
exergetic efficiency of the plant. The low overall exergetic efficiency is due to extensive
exergy destruction in the combustion chamber

The exergetic efficiency (or second law efficiency) of the plant was also found to depend
significantly on a change in turbine inlet temperature. The above table shows that the plant's
second-law efficiency increases steadily as the turbine inlet temperature increases. The
turbine material temperature limits the increase in exergetic efficiency with an increase in
turbine inlet temperature. This can be seen from the plant efficiency defect curve. As the
turbine inlet temperature increases, the plant efficiency defect decreases to a minimum value
at a particular TIT, after which it increases with TIT.

120
 Chapter 7: Exergoeconomic Analysis

Thermoeconomics combines exergy analysis and economic principles to provide the system
designer or operator with information not available through conventional energy analysis and
economic evaluations but crucial to the design and operation of a cost-effective system.
Thermoeconomics can be considered as exergy-aided cost minimization.

The objective of a thermoeconomic analysis shall be

1. to calculate separately the cost of each product generated by a system having more than
one product,
2. to understand the cost formation process and the flow of costs in the system,
3. to optimize specific variables in a single component, or
4. to optimize the overall system.

7.1 Exergoeconomic Analysis

The exergoeconomic analysis is a method that combines exergy analysis with economic
analysis. Exergoeconomic analysis aims to predict the cost of exergy streams at different points
in the plant, determine the cost of exergy destroyed, and predict the cost of the final product.

In analyzing the cost implications of the exergy flow and losses, the non- exergy cost of the
components and the cost associated with the flow (stream) is calculated. This cost comprises
the cost associated with the investment, operation, maintenance, and fuel costs of gas turbine
power plants [Ahmadi & Dincer, 2011; Siahaya, 2009]. These monetary values are used in the
cost balances to determine cost flow rates [Bejan et al., 1996].

7.1.1 Non-exergy cost parameter

The non-exergy cost parameters are to be determined by following equations given in table 7.1
below:

121
 Table 7.1: The equations of the non-exergy cost parameters.

SL
Particulars Equations
No
𝐶̇ = PW X CRF
Where; PW = Present worth 7.1
Anualization cost of the
1
equipment (𝐶)̇ ($/hr) PW = PEC – (SV x PWF)
Where; SV = Salvage value. 7.2

1
PWF = (1+𝑖)𝑁
The present worth factor Where, N = time period,
2 7.3
(PWF) i= interest.

𝑖
Capital recovery factor CRF = 1−(1+𝑖)−𝑁
3 7.4
(CRF)
𝜑 𝑥 𝐶̇
𝑍𝑘 = 3600
𝑘
Capital Cost of the 𝑥𝑛
4 Component/Capital cost Where; 𝜑𝑘 = Operation & Maintenance 7.5
rate factor;
n = operating hour.

7.1.2 Exergy cost parameter and cost balance equation

The plant is separated into seven subsystems to calculate the exergy cost parameter, i.e., Exergy
inflows and outflows to these subsystems, exergy destruction in these subsystems, and exergy
losses to the environment. In analyzing the Combined cycle power plant's exergy cost having
air compressor, combustion chamber, gas turbine, HRSG, Steam turbine, Condenser & BFW
pump, the code/numberings in every state of the power plant are taken to the figure 3.14.

Table 7.2: The equations of the exergy cost parameters.

SL
Particulars Equations
No
𝐶2̇ =𝐶1̇ +𝐶6̇ +𝑍𝐴𝐶
7.6
1 Air Compressor
𝐶1̇ = 0
7.7
𝐶3̇ =𝐶2̇ +𝐶5̇ +𝑍𝐶𝐶
2 Combustion Chamber 7.8
𝐶4̇ +𝐶6̇ +𝐶7̇ =𝐶3̇ +𝑍𝐺𝑇
3 Gas Turbine 7.9

122
 SL
Particulars Equations
No
𝐶3̇ 𝐶̇
= 𝐸4 (F-rule)
𝐸̇3 4 7.10

𝐶6̇ 𝐶7̇
=𝑊 (P-rule)
𝑊̇𝐴𝐶 𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐺𝑇 7.11

i.e; 𝐶3̇ = 𝐶4̇ or 𝐸̇3 = 𝐸4 7.12

i.e; 𝐶6̇ = 𝐶7̇ 7.13
𝐶4̇ -𝐶8̇ +𝐶23
̇ -𝐶9̇ +𝐶18
̇ -𝐶19
̇ +𝑍𝐻𝑅𝑆𝐺 =0
7.14
𝐶8̇ 𝐶̇
HRSG: (Including = 𝐸4 (F-rule) 7.15
4 𝐸̇8 4
deaerator)
𝐶9̇ − 𝐶23
̇ 𝐶̇ − 𝐶̇
= 𝐸19− 𝐸18 (P-rule) 7.16
𝐸9 − 𝐸23 19 18

5 Steam turbine 𝐶9̇ -𝐶10

̇ + 𝑍𝑆𝑇 = 𝐶𝑤2
̇
7.17
𝐶10̇ -𝐶16
̇ +𝐶25
̇ -𝐶24
̇ +𝐶𝐼̇ -
𝐶𝐽̇ +𝐶𝑤3
̇ +𝐶𝑤4
̇ +𝐶𝑤5̇ +𝑍𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = 0 7.18
Condenser, Condensate
6
Pump & related Junction
Assuming that 𝐶𝐼̇ = 𝐶𝐽̇ = 𝐶25
̇ -𝐶24
̇ =0
7.19
̇ = 𝐶𝑤6
𝐶20 ̇ + 𝐶19
̇ +𝑍𝐵𝐹𝑊,𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝
7.20
7 BFW Pump ̇
𝐶20 𝐶̇ 𝐶̇
= 𝐸21 = 𝐸̇23 7.21
𝐸̇20 21 23

The cost of fuel for power is taken as $4.45 SCF.

In evaluating the cost of the component, we need to calculate:

𝐶̇𝐹
Average Cost per unit fuel of exergy, CF = 7.22
𝐸𝐹

𝐶̇ 7.23
Average Cost of product, CP = 𝐸𝑃
𝑃

7.24
Cost rate of exergy destruction, CD= 𝐶𝐹̇ x ED
𝑍𝑘 7.25
Exergoeconomic factor, fk = 𝑍
𝑘 + 𝐶𝐷

7.2 Monthly economic analysis

Economic analysis of the Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant is done every month. For
the economic analysis, reference tariffs are used which is specified for each Contract Year in

123
 the Term as set forth in levelized tariff table on Annexure 2. For each Contract Year and for
each fuel, the Reference Tariff is composed of two components:
(A) Reference Capacity Price; and
(B) Reference Energy Price.
From and after the Commercial Operations Date, the Capacity Payment and Energy Payment
payable of the plant for Dependable Capacity and Net Energy Output, respectively, in any
period, during the Term shall be calculated based on the Reference Capacity Price and the
Reference Energy Price.

(A) Reference Capacity Price:

The Reference Capacity Price for each Contract Year is made up of two components:
(i) the reference non-escalable component (the “Reference Non-Escalable Capacity
Price”); and
(ii) the reference escalable component consisting of the reference foreign escalable
capacity price (the “Reference Foreign Escalable Capacity Price”) and the
reference local escalable capacity price (the “Reference Local Escalable Capacity
Price”).

(B) Reference Energy Price:

The Reference Energy Price is made up of two components:
(i) the reference variable operation and maintenance component consisting of the
reference foreign variable operation and maintenance component (the
“Reference Foreign Variable Operation and Maintenance Price”) and the local
variable operation and maintenance component (the “Reference Local Foreign
Variable Operation and Maintenance Price”) (together defined as the
“Reference Variable Operation and Maintenance Price”); and
(ii) the price payable for 1 (one) kWh of Net Energy Output for the Gas consumed
at the net heat rate for various average plant factors (PFh), which plant factors
are set out in annexure 2 (such heat rates are herein referred to as the “Reference
Heat Rates”) (such prices are herein referred to as the “Reference Gas Price”).
The Reference Non-Escalable Capacity Price, the Reference Foreign Escalable Capacity Price,
the Reference Local Escalable Capacity Price, and the Reference Foreign Variable Operation
and Maintenance Price, the Reference Local Variable Operation and Maintenance Price for
each Contract Year are provided in annexure 2.
124
7.2.1 Capacity and Energy Payments
For the economic analysis of every month need to calculate two components of this plant. One
is Capacity payment and another is Energy payment. These two components are described
briefly below:

(i) Capacity Payment

(A) From and after the Commercial Operations Date, for each month, a Capacity Payment, for
making available the Dependable Capacity in such month, which shall be calculated as
follows:
CPmn = CPNEmn + CPEmn 7.26
where:
CPmn = Capacity Payment payable for Month “m” of
Contract Year “n” in Taka.
CPNEmn = Non-Escalable Capacity Payment payable for
Month “m” of Contract Year “n” in Taka.
CPEmn = Escalable Capacity Payment payable for Month
“m” of Contract Year “n” in Taka.
Calculation of CPNE

CPNEmn = RNECPn x CEm x DCm 7.27

Where:
RNECPn = Reference Non-Escalable Capacity Price as set forth in annexure 2, as
applicable, for Contract Year “n” denominated in Dollars per kW-Month.
CEm = the rate at which Sonali Bank sells one Dollar in exchange for Taka, as
published in the Exchange Rates Bulletin or any latest official letter or
circular to the “Authorised Dealers” (as that expression is used by Sonali
Bank) or defined in any publication of Sonali Bank) in Bangladesh, on the
first Day of the Month immediately following the Month “m” (each such
date shall be defined as the “Indexation Date”).
DCm = the quotient of which the numerator is (a) sum of (i) each Dependable
Capacity in effect during the Month “m” multiplied by (ii) the number of
hours that each such Dependable Capacity was in effect during such

125
 Month “m”, and the denominator is (b) the total number of hours in such
Month “m”;

Calculation of CPE:

CPEmn = CPE(US) mn + CPE(Tk) mn 7.28

where:
CPE(US)mn = Foreign Escalable Capacity Payment denominated in Dollars
and payable in Taka for Month “m” of Contract Year “n” and
calculated as follows:
CPE(US)mn = RECP(US)n x CEm x FIIFm x DCm 7.29

CPE(Tk)mn = Local Escalable Capacity Payment denominated in Taka and

payable in Taka for Month “m” of Contract Year “n” and
calculated as follows:

CPE(Tk)mn = RECP(Tk)n x LIIFqm x DCm 7.30

where:
RECP(US)n = Reference Foreign Escalable Capacity Price denominated in
Dollars per kW-Month for Contract Year “n”.
FIIFm = Foreign Inflation Indexation Factor applicable to the Month “m”
which shall be equal to:
PI(US)q / PI(US)b 7.31
where:
PI(US)q = the value of the United States Consumer Price Index as published
in the publication of the International Monetary Fund entitled
“International Financial Statistics” for the first month of the
quarter “q” (i.e. January, April, July and October) in which the
Month “m” appears:
PI(US)b = the value of the United States Consumer Price Index, as
published in the publication of the International Monetary Fund
entitled “International Financial Statistics”, for the month in
which the Reference Date falls.

126
 RECP(Tk) n = Reference Local Escalable Capacity Price denominated in Taka
per kW-Month for Contract Year “n”.
LIIFm = Local Inflation Indexation Factor applicable to the Month “m”
and shall be calculated as follows:
LIIFm = PI(Tk)q / PI(Tk)b 7.32
where:
PI(Tk)q = the value of the Bangladesh Consumer Price Index as published
in the publication of the International Monetary Fund entitled
“International Financial Statistics” for the first month of the
quarter “q” (i.e. January, April, July and October) in which the
Month “m” appears;
PI(Tk)b = the value of the Bangladesh Consumer Price Index as published
in the publication of the International Monetary Fund entitled
“International Financial Statistics”, for the month in which the
Reference Date falls.

(ii) Energy Payment

From and after the Commercial Operations Date, for each month, the Energy Payment in
accordance for Net Energy Output generated and supplied to national grid during such
month which shall be calculated as follows:

EPmn =VOMPmn + FPmn 7.33

where:
EPmn = Energy Payment payable in Taka for Month “m” of Contract
Year “n”.
VOMPmn = Variable Operation and Maintenance Payment payable in Taka
for Month “m” of Contract Year “n”.
FPmn = Fuel Payment payable in Taka in Month “m” of Contract Year
“n”.

(A) Calculation of VOMP

VOMPmn = VOMP(US)mn + VOMP(Tk)mn 7.34

127
 where:
VOMP(US)mn = Foreign Variable Operation and Maintenance Payment
denominated in Dollars and payable in Taka for Month “m” of
Contract Year “n” and calculated as follows:

VOMP(US)mn = ((RVOMP(US)nx CEm x FIIFm ) x NEOh x PFadj 7.35

where:
RVOMP(US)n = Reference Foreign Variable Operation and Maintenance Price
denominated in Dollars per kWh for the Contract Year “n”.
NEOh = Net Energy Output measured in kWh during interval “h” in
Month “m” in kWh.
h = each 30 minute interval ending on an hour or half-hour during
which the Net Energy Output was made available by the
Company for sale to BPDB and purchased by BPDB pursuant to
this Agreement.
H = Total number of intervals “h” in Month “m”.
PFadj = Power Factor Adjustment = 0.85/average power factor (lagging) of
the Month ‘m’ at Delivery Point and shall be applicable if
PFadj<1.
0.85 = the required power factor (lagging) at the Delivery Point.
VOMP(Tk)mn = Local Variable Operation and Maintenance Payment (in Taka) for
Month “m” of Contract Year “n” and calculated as follows:

VOMP(Tk)mn = ((RVOMP(Tk)nx LIIFm ) x NEOh x PFadj 7.36

where:
RVOMP(Tk)n = Reference Local Variable Operation and Maintenance Price (in
Taka per kWh) for the Contract Year “n”.

(2) Calculation of Fuel Payment for Operation on Gas

FPmn(Gas) = Fuel Payment for Gas payable in Taka in Month "m" of Contract Year "n"
is provided by the gas supplier, and it's calculated by the actual gas consumption on
that month. The actual consumption of gas is measured to Net Energy Output in that
month.
128
7.3 Result and Discussion

7.3.1 Monthly performance indicator parameter

The monthly costing of Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant data was taken from July
2018 to June 2019. In that period, July 2018 to December 2018 plant was running in simple
cycle mode operation, and from January 2019 to June 2019 plant was running in combined
cycle mode. That period is chosen for showing the costing of combined cycle and simple cycle.

The monthly gross power produced, and auxiliary power consumption of the plant from July
2018 to December 2018 are shown in table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Monthly Energy generation report from July, 2018 to December, 2018.
Gross Energy Auxiliary Consumption Net energy output,
Month
(kWh) (kWh) NEO (kWh)
Jul-18 21,388,760 535,273 20,853,487
Aug-18 21,151,354 508,509 20,642,845
Sep-18 20,037,082 467,828 19,569,254
Oct-18 20,230,682 430,402 19,800,280
Nov-18 19,761,378 395,970 19,365,408
Dec-18 19,783,576 404,578 19,378,998

The plant's monthly operating cost in simple cycle mode showing in table 7.4, table 7.5, and
table 7.6. Table 7.4 shows the capacity payment of the plant in simple cycle operation mode.

Table 7.4: Capacity payment in Simple Cycle Operation Mode.

Non Escalable Foreign Local Escalable

Net
Capacity Escalable Escalable Capacity
Electrical Capacity
Payment Capacity Capacity Payment
Month Output (Taka) Payment Payment (Tk) Payment
RNECPn X CPE(US)mn +
(KWh) CPE(US)mn CPE(TK)mn
CEm X DCm CPE(TK)mn
Jul-18 20,853,487 44,375,836 5,412,596 1,782,313 7,194,910 51,570,746
Aug-18 20,642,845 44,375,836 5,412,596 1,782,313 7,194,910 51,570,746
Sep-18 19,569,254 44,402,345 5,415,830 1,782,313 7,198,143 51,600,488
Oct-18 19,800,280 44,455,363 5,422,296 1,782,313 7,204,610 51,659,972
Nov-18 19,365,408 44,481,871 5,425,530 1,782,313 7,207,843 51,689,715
Dec-18 19,378,998 44,481,871 5,425,530 1,782,313 7,207,843 51,689,715

129
The variable operation and maintenance payment of the plant from July 2018 to December
2018 show in table 7.5 as below:

Table 7.5: Variable Operation and Maintenance payment in Simple Cycle Operation
Mode.

Variable
Fuel Total
O&M Energy
Month VOMP(US)mn VOMP(TK)mn Payment Payment
Payment Payment
(Taka) (Tk)
(Tk)
Jul-18 870,973 520,691 1,391,664 31,525,989 32,917,653 84,488,398
Aug-18 862,175 515,431 1,377,606 32,823,792 34,201,398 85,772,144
Sep-18 817,824 488,625 1,306,448 32,693,760 34,000,208 85,600,696
Oct-18 828,466 494,393 1,322,860 33,380,453 34,703,312 86,363,285
Nov-18 810,754 483,535 1,294,289 33,235,560 34,529,849 86,219,564
Dec-18 811,323 483,874 1,295,197 34,141,862 35,437,060 87,126,774

The performance indicator parameter such as Total payment, per unit fuel cost, per unit
generation cost, per unit VOMP cost, is calculated using the data from Tables 7.2 and 7.3 for
that month. This per unit generation cost is helpful to identify the plant is cost-efficient on that
month or not. Table 7.4 shows the performance indicator parameter in the simple cycle as
below:
Table 7.6: Performance Indicator in Simple Cycle Operation Mode

Net Per Unit

Total Per Unit
Electrical Capacity Energy Generation
Month Payment Fuel Price
Output Payment Payment Cost
(Tk) (Tk/kWh)
(KWh) (Tk/kWh)
Jul-18 20,853,487 51,570,746 32,917,653 84,488,398 1.51 4.05

Aug-18 20,642,845 51,570,746 34,201,398 85,772,144 1.59 4.16

Sep-18 19,569,254 51,600,488 34,000,208 85,600,696 1.67 4.37

Oct-18 19,800,280 51,659,972 34,703,312 86,363,285 1.69 4.36

Nov-18 19,365,408 51,689,715 34,529,849 86,219,564 1.72 4.45

Dec-18 19,378,998 51,689,715 35,437,060 87,126,774 1.76 4.50

130
January 2019 to June 2019 of the Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant data is used to
calculate the plant's performance indicator parameter during that period. Table 7.7 shows the
monthly gross power produced and auxiliary power consumption of the plant from January
2019 to June 2019 below:

Table 7.7: Monthly Energy generation report from January, 2019 to June, 2019.

Auxiliary Consumption Net Energy Output,

Month Gross Energy (kWh)
(kWh) NEO (kWh)

Jan-19 29,968,451 634986 29,333,465

Feb-19 28,783,187 609587 28,173,600

Mar-19 30,861,124 622286 30,238,838

Apr-19 29,328,275 597395 28,730,880

May-19 31,468,924 628636 30,840,288

Jun-19 30,387,011 603491 29,783,520

The plant's monthly operating cost in combined cycle mode is shown in table 7.8, table 7.9,
and table 7.10 using data from table 7.7. Table 7.8 shows the capacity payment of the plant in
simple cycle operation mode.

Table 7.8: Capacity payment in Combined Cycle Operation Mode.

Non Foreign Local

Escalable
Net Electrical Escalable Escalable Escalable Capacity
Month Capacity
Output(KWh) Capacity Capacity Capacity Payment
Payment (Tk)
Payment Payment Payment
Jan-19 29,333,465 44,481,871 5,425,530 1,782,313 7,207,843 51,689,715
Feb-19 28,173,600 44,614,416 5,441,696 1,782,313 7,224,010 51,838,426
Mar-19 30,238,838 44,667,433 5,448,163 1,782,313 7,230,476 51,897,910
Apr-19 28,730,880 44,773,469 5,461,096 1,782,313 7,243,410 52,016,879
May-19 30,840,288 44,773,469 5,461,096 1,782,313 7,243,410 52,016,879
Jun-19 29,783,520 44,773,469 5,461,096 1,782,313 7,243,410 52,016,879

Table 7.9 shows the variable operation and maintenance payment of the plant from January
2019 to June 2019 as below:

131
 Table 7.9: Variable Operation & Maintenance payment in Combined Cycle Operation
Mode.

Variable
Fuel Total
O&M Energy
Month VOMP(US)mn VOMP(TK)mn Payment Payment
Payment Payment
(Taka) (Tk)
(Taka)
Jan-19 1,228,078 732,427 1,960,505 34,613,488 36,573,994 88,263,708
Feb-19 1,183,033 703,467 1,886,500 34,653,528 36,540,028 88,378,454
Mar-19 1,271,263 755,034 2,026,297 36,286,606 38,312,903 90,210,813
Apr-19 1,210,735 717,381 1,928,116 35,913,600 37,841,716 89,858,595
May-19 1,299,627 770,051 2,069,678 39,475,569 41,545,246 93,562,125
Jun-19 1,255,094 743,665 1,998,759 38,718,576 40,717,335 92,734,213

The performance indicator parameter such as Total payment, per unit fuel cost, per unit
generation cost, per unit VOMP cost, is calculated using the data from table 7.8 and 7.9 for that
month. This per unit generation cost is helpful to identify the plant is cost-efficient on that
month or not. Table 7.10 shows the performance indicator parameter in the combined cycle as
below:

Table 7.10: Performance Indicator parameter in Combined Operation Mode.

Per Unit
Net Electrical Total Per Unit
Capacity Energy Generation
Month Output Payment Fuel Price
Payment Payment Cost
(KWh) (Tk) (Tk/kWh)
(Tk/kWh)
Jan-19 29,333,465 51,689,715 36,573,994 88,263,708 1.18 3.01
Feb-19 28,173,600 51,838,426 36,540,028 88,378,454 1.23 3.14
Mar-19 30,238,838 51,897,910 38,312,903 90,210,813 1.20 2.98
Apr-19 28,730,880 52,016,879 37,841,716 89,858,595 1.25 3.13
May-19 30,840,288 52,016,879 41,545,246 93,562,125 1.28 3.03
Jun-19 29,783,520 52,016,879 40,717,335 92,734,213 1.30 3.11

In simple cycle operation, the average costing of per unit generation cost from July 2018 to
December 2018 is 4.32 Tk/kWh and per unit fuel cost is 1.66 Tk/kWh. In combined cycle
operation, the average costing of per unit generation cost from January 2019 to June 2019 is
3.07 Tk/kWh and per unit fuel cost is 1.24 Tk/kWh.

7.3.2 Exergoeconomic parameter

The exergoeconomic parameter analysis is described below by calculating both the non-
exergoeconomic and exergy cost parameter and cost balance equation.

132
(A) The non-exergoeconomic parameter:

Non-exergoeconomic parameters are capital recovery factor, present worth factor,

annualization cost of the equipment, purchase equipment cost, and capital cost. For calculating
those parameters described above, assume the interest value is 17%, N is the number of years
for a return on Capital investment is 10 years, the Operating plant hours is 7884 hours, and is
the factor of operating and maintenance cost which value is 1.06. The rate of gas price is taken
as 4.45 TK/SCM. Table 7.11 shows the non-exergoeconomic parameter of the plant below:

Table 7.11: Non-exergoeconomic parameter.

Annualization
Salvage Capital
Cost of the
PEC Value (SV) PW CRF PWF Equipment Cost Zk
Component
$ $ C (S/yr) ($/S)
AC 19,590,000 1,959,000 19,182,455 0.2147 0.2080 4,117,640 0.1538
CC 348,249 34,825 341,004 0.2147 0.2080 73,199 0.0027
GT 12,695,000 1,269,500 12,430,897 0.2147 0.2080 2,668,374 0.0997
HRSG 15,300,000 1,530,000 14,981,703 0.2147 0.2080 3,215,921 0.1201
ST 26,590,000 2,659,000 26,036,829 0.2147 0.2080 5,588,977 0.2087
COND 500,000 50,000 489,598 0.2147 0.2080 105,095 0.0039
PUMP 200,000 20,000 195,839 0.2147 0.2080 42,038 0.0016

(B) Exergy cost parameter and cost balance equation

The whole plant is separated into seven subsystems to calculate the exergy cost parameter.
Exergy inflows and outflows to these subsystems, exergy destruction in these subsystems and
exergy losses to the environment are calculated. In analyzing the exergy cost of the Combined
gas power plant having air compressor, combustion chamber, gas turbine, HRSG, Steam
turbine, Condenser & BFW pump, the code/numberings in every state of the power plant are
taken to the figure 3.14. Table 7.10 shows the Cost formation of different component of the
plant below:

133
 Table 7.12: Cost formation of different component of the plant.

E C C C
State Substance
kW $/HR $/Gj $/kWhr
Ref Air 0 0 0 0
1 Air 1.63 0 0 0
2 Air 31,663.05 1,574.83 13.82 0.05
3 Comb. Gas 99,307.50 3,076.10 8.60 0.03
4 Comb. Gas 30,586.10 1,360.85 12.36 0.04
5 Natural Gas 93,098.01 1,491.43 4.45 0.02
6 WAC 35,021.07 1,021.21 8.10 0.03
7 WGT 31,527.88 1,052.80 9.28 0.03
8 Comb. Gas 2,164.57 108.783 13.96 0.05
9 Water 19287.31 1,552.55 22.36 0.08
10 Water 1802.71 145.111 22.36 0.08
11 Water 1781.50 0 0 0
12 Water 1760.29 0 0 0
13 Water 3571.59 287.499 22.36 0.08
14 Water 15.04 0 0 0
15 Water 15.04 0 0 0
16 Water 1171.38 94.292 22.36 0.08
17 Water 1.17 0 0 0
18 Water 520.82 125.256 66.81 0.24
19 Water 541.33 164.000 84.15 0.30
20 Water 401.49 173.652 120.14 0.43
21 Water 13.49 3.560 73.28 0.26
22 Water 12.13 3.160 72.39 0.26
23 Water 401.49 93.151 64.45 0.23
24 Water 3.29 0 0 0
25 Water 8.78 0 0 0
26 Water 58.49 0 0 0

Since the costs change year by year, costs should be levelized, used as inputs in
thermoeconomic analysis. Average Cost per unit fuel of exergy (CF), Average Cost of the
product (CP), Cost rate of exergy destruction (CD), and exergoeconomic factor (fk) for each
of the components need to calculate for exergoeconomic evaluation. Table 7.13 shows the
exergoeconomic parameter of each component of the combined cycle power plant bellow:

134
 Table 7.13: Exergoeconomic parameter of each components of the plant.

Cp Cf Ed Cd
Component Ed (kW) Z ($/h) f (%)
($/Gj) ($/Gj) (MW) ($/hr)
Air Compressor 13.82 8.10 3,359.66 3.36 27.21 553.61 95.31
Combustion
12.36 4.45 25,453.56 25.45 113.27 9.84 7.99
Chamber
Gas Turbine 9.28 8.60 2,172.45 2.17 18.69 358.76 95.05
HRSG 22.36 12.36 9,004.04 9.00 111.28 432.38 79.53
Steam turbine 24.87 22.36 4,009.42 4.01 89.65 751.44 89.34
Condenser 22.36 22.36 492.13 0.49 11.00 14.13 56.22
BFWP 120.14 84.15 63.90 0.06 5.38 5.65 51.24

From above table 7.13, the maximum exergy destruction cost is in the combustion chamber &
the minimum exergy cost has occurred in the BFW pump. The following figures, 7.1, 7.2, and
7.3, show the graphical representation of exergy destruction cost, capital investment cost, and
exergoeconomic factor (fk) of each plant component.

Exergy destruction Cost

5.38
11.00

27.21

89.65

113.27

111.28

18.69

Air Compressor Combustion Chamber Gas Turbine HRSG Steam turbine Condenser BFWP

Figure 7.1: Exergy destruction Cost of each component of FCCP.

135
 Capital Investment Cost, Zk ($/h)
Capital Investment Cost, Zk
800.00 751.44
700.00
600.00 553.61
500.00 432.38
400.00 358.76

300.00
200.00
100.00 14.13
9.84 5.65
0.00
Combustion

Condenser
Gas Turbine

HRSG

BFWP
Air Compressor

Steam turbine
Chamber

Component Name

Figure 7.2: Capital Investment Cost of each component of FCCP.

Exergoeconomic factor (fk)

100.00
90.00
Exergoeconomic factor f(%)

80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
-
Air Combustion Gas Turbine HRSG Steam Condenser BFWP
Compressor Chamber turbine
Component Name

Figure 7.3: Exergoeconomic Factor of each component of FCCP.

The exergoeconomic factor showing in figure 7.3 varies with the capital investment cost & cost
rate of exergy destruction. The lower cost rate of exergy destruction in the component is the
higher exergoeconomic factor. That shows that if the component's destruction cost is low, then
the component exergoeconomic factor is higher.

136
7.4 Comparing with other research works

Presently in Bangladesh Power Development Board’s power plant, only energy analysis is
done every month to achieve the KPI. However, doing exergy analysis can identify the exergy
destruction of every component of the plants. Furthermore, exergoeconomic analysis aims to
predict the cost of exergy streams at different points in the plant, determine the cost of exergy
destroyed, and predict the cost of the final product. It will also help identify every component's
exergoeconomic factor, improving the low exergoeconomic factor component. If we do exergy
and exergo economic analysis, we can make better improvement of our plants.

As far as I know, exergy and exergo economic analysis are not occurring in our country. For
that reason, for comparing the exergoeconomic component of Fenchuganj combined cycle
power plant data with other power plants by using other research work, several studies on
exergy costing analyses of thermal power plants have been carried out several researchers.
Those research works were done by the power plants located outside Bangladesh.

For comparing the Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant data with other power plants using other
research work, several studies on exergy costing analyses of thermal power plants have been carried
out by several researchers.

An exergy balance for the components of the gas turbine plants and also the overall plants is
at this point performed and the net exergy flow rates crossing the boundary of each component
of the plants, together with the exergy destruction, cost of exergy destruction, Capital
investment cost, exergoeconomic factor of each component are calculated and are presented in
Table 7.14 to Table 7.16 for simple cycle operation. The two most important performance
criteria are exergy efficiency and exergy destruction rate. The exergoeconomic performance
data of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant & selected gas turbine power plants in Nigeria
in the simple cycle are given in Table 7.14:

137
 Table 7.14 Cost of Exergy Destruction Rate in different power plants in simple cycle
operation.

FCCP DEL1 DEL2 AES1 AES2 AES3 AF1 AF2 DEL3 DEL4 AF3 AF4
Plant (35 (25 (25 (33 (33 (33 (75 (75 (100 (100 (138 (138
Name MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW)
Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd
Component ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr)
AC 27 31 41 124 171 214 190 138 498 424 210 606
CC 1132 1272 1339 2762 3493 3575 3193 2849 5642 5353 3638 4615
GT 19 61 67 11 25 111 206 208 730 445 604 1045
Total 1178 1364 1447 2897 3689 3900 3589 3195 6870 6222 4452 6266

Where,
FCCP means the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant and its installed capacity of 35 MW, located
in Fenchuganj, Sylhet, Bangladesh.
AES 1 means AES barges station 1 and its installed capacity of 33 MW, located in Nigeria.
AES 2 means AES barges station 1 and its installed capacity of 33 MW, located in Nigeria.
AF 1 means Afam gas turbine station 1 and its installed capacity of 75 MW, located in Nigeria.
AF 2 means Afam gas turbine station 2 and its installed capacity of 75 MW, located in Nigeria.
AF 3 means Afam gas turbine station 3 and its installed capacity of 138 MW, located in Nigeria.
AF 4 means Afam gas turbine station 4 and its installed capacity of 138 MW, located in Nigeria.
DEL 1 means Delta gas turbine station 1 and its installed capacity of 25 MW, located in Nigeria.
DEL 2 means Delta gas turbine station 2 and its installed capacity of 25 MW, located in Nigeria.
DEL 3 means Delta gas turbine station 3 and its installed capacity of 100 MW, located in Nigeria.
DEL 4 means Delta gas turbine station 4 and its installed capacity of 100 MW, located in Nigeria.

Table 7.14 shows the cost of exergy destruction in different plants in simple cycle operation.
The total cost of exergy destruction of the selected gas turbine plants varies between 1178 $/hr
to 6870 $/hr. FCCP unit has the least total cost of exergy destruction and DEL3 unit has the
highest total cost of exergy destruction. But, the component-wise exergy destruction is
different in different plants. Table 7.14 also showed that the lowest cost of exergy destruction
in the air compressor happens in the FCCP unit and the highest cost of exergy destruction in
the AF4 unit. The least cost of exergy destruction in the combustion chamber happens in the
FCCP unit and the highest one is the DEL3 unit. The least cost of exergy destruction in gas
turbine happens in AES1 unit and highest in DEL3 unit. Table 7.14 represents that, above three
components of simple cycle operation, the maximum cost of exergy destruction in a simple
cycle occurs in the combustion chamber.

138
 Table 7.15 Capital investment cost in different power plants in simple cycle operation.
FCCP DEL1 DEL2 AES1 AES2 AES3 AF1 AF2 DEL3 DEL4 AF3 AF4
Plant
(35 (25 (25 (33 (33 (33 (75 (75 (100 (100 (138 (138
Name
MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW)
Component Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h) Z ($/h)
AC 553 168 217 126 145 123 403 520 509 511 674 777
CC 10 14 18 13 14 13 46 51 44 44 69 79
GT 359 105 136 87 100 87 292 365 324 325 482 556
Total 922 287 371 226 259 223 741 936 877 880 1225 1412

Table 7.15 shows the Capital investment cost in different plants in simple cycle operation. The
selected gas turbine plants' total capital investment cost varies between 223 $/hr to 1412 $/hr.
The maximum total Capital investment cost is AF4 unit. It was found that the minimum capital
investment was made in combustion chamber investment for all the plants.

Table 7.16 Exergoeconomic factor in different power plants in simple cycle operation.

FCCP DEL1 DEL2 AES1 AES2 AES3 AF1 AF2 DEL3 DEL4 AF3 AF4
Plant (35 (25 (25 (33 (33 (33 (75 (75 (100 (100 (138 (138
Name MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW) MW)
Component f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%)
AC 95 84 83 50 46 36 68 79 51 55 76 56
CC 8 1 1 0.45 0.41 0.36 1 2 0.77 0.81 2 1
GT 95 63 67 88 80 44 58 64 31 42 44 35

Table 7.16 shows the maximum exergoeconomic factor found in gas turbine and the lowest
exergoeconomic factor found in the combustion chamber.

For the Combined Cycle Comparison, Garri 2 Combined cycle power plant and Guddu 747
MW Combined cycle power plant located in Pakistan is also considered to compare with
Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power plant.

The cost of exergy destruction is maximum found in Guddu 747 MW power plant located in
Pakistan and minimum cost of exergy destruction is found in FCCP. The maximum
exergoeconomic factor found in gas turbine and the lowest exergoeconomic factor found in the
combustion chamber.

7.5 Economic dispatch order according to economic evaluation

Power Division, Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources, Bangladesh Power
Development Board, Power Grid Company of Bangladesh, and many other power generation
companies are working together for reliable and uninterrupted operation of national grid in

139
Bangladesh 24-hour basis. For doing the smooth operation of the national grid system, dispatch
instruction is one of the significant factors. Dispatch instruction means that an instruction is
issued directly by the Control Center to the power generating station in accordance with the
dispatch principles and guidelines established for the Grid System.

The concerned Government authorities make an economic list for dispatch instruction
purposes; sometimes, it is called the economic dispatch to maintain the proper dispatch
instruction method every month. Economic dispatch means the distribution of the country's
total energy needs among available sources of generation based upon the variable cost where
plants will be dispatched by the grid from the lowest cost to the highest cost, considering
capabilities of the Grid System at the time of dispatch. An economic dispatch list is made for
both the base load and Peak load power plants. Upto October 2020 in Bangladesh has 47 base
load power plants, and rest are peak load power plants. The Directorate makes the economic
dispatch list of System Operation of Bangladesh Power Development Board and the concerned
authorities of GOB. This economic dispatch list is maintained carefully every month for the
plants' economic operation in Bangladesh and to reduce the operating cost of power plants.

From January 2020 to October 2020 in Bangladesh have a total of 45 nos. Baseload power
plants. Among their economic dispatch merit order Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant
holds on 25th position all over the year. The average fuel consumption is 1.19 Tk/kWh all over
the year. Where the plant which is holding position no 1 has the Fuel consumption is 0.86
Tk/kWh. In the year 2019 all over the year, the Fuel consumption is higher than in 2020. In
2019, the Fuel consumption was 1.61 Tk/kWh, and the position in the economic dispatch list
is 31st all over the year.

Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant is a baseload gas-based power plants. In Bangladesh,
gas is the primary fuel. In that sense, the economic dispatch order list its position needs to be
in a higher position, but due to degradation of efficiency of gas turbine and the exergy
destruction rate is high the Fuel Consumption and the variable operation and maintenance cost
is higher than the other power plants. One another thing is that the plant is already running for
15 years. According to a gas turbine's standard economic life cycle, its efficiency needs to well
till 22 years. Because of poor maintenance and lower capitalization cost of combustion
chamber plant efficiency also decrease.

140
For the combined cycle, HRSG is the second component for the whole plant for the lower
economic performance. Some of the heat pipes of HRSG are leaked, and the heat transfer
process is disturbed in that cause heat loss occurred and lower steam production causes high
rate steam production for the operation of the steam turbine.

Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant is a Government power plant, and it is running
continuously. Significant change or troubleshooting cannot be done on the machine to avoid
load shedding. However, if any fault occurs in any machine, it is removed rapidly, and the
machine is online on time: scheduled outage and Maintenance outage took for the regular
maintenance of the plant. There will be a major overhauling will be carried out on 17 contract
year of the plant. During the significant overhauling period of 17 years of the life cycle, it is
possible to overcome the leakage problem in HRSG and the plant's other equipment. Gas
turbine also has some major overhauling provision on that period. Hopefully, the efficiency
will increase more than present, but it is not possible to reach 35 MW of the gas turbine's
installed capacity, but it can maintain the present derated capacity of 28 MW to 29 MW.

141
 Chapter 8: Conclusion

Fired thermal power plant is one of the major power generations in Bangladesh. A detailed
energetic, exergetic and exergoeconomic analysis of the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power
Plant has been carried out in this thesis. The thermodynamic data were extracted from the
power station. The preset study leads to the following conclusions:

8.1 Conclusions

The Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Gas power plant's performance was analyzed based on the
first and second laws of thermodynamics in between the temperature range of 25ᴼC to 35ᴼC.
The effects of the gas turbine's inlet temperature, the excess air factor, and the compressor
pressure ratio on both simple and combined cycle performance were investigated.

Information about net electrical output, enthalpy difference of process, stack temperature,
fuel utilization efficiency, and the power-to-heat ratio is obtained from energy analysis. The
average range of thermal efficiency of the gas turbine is 30.23%, the overall efficiency of the
plant in simple cycle operation is 30.46%, and the plant's combined cycle efficiency is
43.21%. The average Heat Rate in simple cycle operation is 11641.32 kJ/kWh, and the
average Heat Rate in combined cycle operation is 8369.55 kJ/kWh.

The plant's efficiency and power output reduce with an increase in temperature, while the
Heat Rate increases with temperature. The plant showed a better behavior when the ambient
temperature is 25ᴼC; it’s power output & efficiency increases.

An inlet air cooler can increase the gas turbine's power output by decreasing the inlet air
temperature. To install an air cooling process in the plant for reducing the inlet air
temperature, an investment of approximately $240,000.00 is needed initially. After
installation, the plant's capacity will increase by 2 MW, which will earn approximately USD
18,950.00 additionally.

Increasing the work ratio and mass flow rate of the working fluid increase the Power Output.
Installing an additional air compressor booster to supply more air to the combustion chamber

142
may increase the work output of the simple cycle. It will help to burn the fuel more. To install
an air compressor, spend approximately $380,000.00 investment is required, and which
increases 3 to 4 MW more output.

In the air compressor (air compressor), the generated heat to produce compressed air is 2256
kWh/day. The percentage of waste heat to the environment is 361.01 kWh/day, for leakage
423.87 kWh/day, actuation is 92 kWh/day, and conveying & others is 1369.13 kWh/day.

The total Operating Cost of the cooling tower system is USD 177,769.87. It can be reduced
by proper utilization of chemical dosing, changing the water treatment pipeline which is
already damaged, reduce the excess use of raw water.

The Exergy balance of a thermodynamic system allows the determination of the Exergy
destruction or the estimate of the energy losses due to actual transformations' irreversibility.
It leads to the quantitative measurement of the Exergy efficiency. The results show that the
combustion chamber's efficiency is the lowest compared to that of the compressor and the
expansion in the turbine because it is where the highest exergy destruction takes place in the
simple cycle. For the combined cycle, the highest exergy destruction occurs in the
combustion chamber, and the second-highest component is the HRSG. The combustion
chamber's exergy destruction is 25MW and in HRSG is 9 MW, and the total exergetic
efficiency in the combined cycle is 47.35% in the operating conditions. The change in
ambient temperature has a direct impact on the exergy performance of the gas turbine.
Exergy destruction increases with air temperature increase, while the exergy efficiency
decreases, and the plant's exergy efficiency and its units increase when the temperature
decreases.

The exergetic analysis results identify the combustion chamber as the largest magnitude of
overall exergy destruction, avoidable exergy destruction. By reducing the air-fuel ratio, and
further preheating the combustion air, exergy destruction could be reduced in the combustion
chamber. These results are helpful for future improvements for the plant. Additionally, the
cost of products and cost formation is discussed. The plant owner may develop an opinion
from these results and check the company’s economic policy. Exergy analysis of each of the
component work can be done more briefly and using the exergy analysis tool to improve the
plant's performance in our country.
143
 The plant's exergoeconomic analysis showed a lower cost of power compared to that of
energy costing, which is due to the non-consideration of other cost factors involved in power
production. It performs in terms of exergy cost and unit exergy cost. The exergoeconomic
analysis results indicated that the combustion chamber was also the most cost-effective
component to be improved due to a low cost of capital investment and high cost of exergy
destruction.

Comparing the Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant with other plants also represents
that the combustion chamber is the plant's highest exergy destruction component. The heat
energy loss in the combustion chamber decreases with an increase in air mass flow rate. This
implies that a high mass flow rate of air can minimize the combustion chamber's energy
losses as this would introduce more air for combustion. The component with the highest
exergy improvement potential is the combustion chamber.

This high improvement potential in the combustion chamber is due to the irreversibility of
combustion and the large temperature difference between the air entering the combustion
chamber and the flame temperature. These immense losses mean that a large amount of
energy present in the fuel to generate useful work is wasted. Exergy improvement potential
can be afforded in the combustion chamber by preheating the reactants and reducing the heat
loss and the excess air entering the combustion chamber. The lower improvement potential in
the air compressor, compared with the combustion chamber, is due to relatively heat loss
from the air compressor through friction compared to the large temperature difference
between the air entering the combustion chamber and the flame temperature. These results
have made it possible to determine the critical points of the gas turbine system stating
hierarchy on its components so that the measure is applied in the places where they will be
most effective.

8.2 Recommendations for Future Works

Fenchuganj Combined Cycle Power Plant is a baseload gas-based power plant and running
continuously. Plant’s standard economic life cycle is 20 years, and it is almost past 15 years.
Significant changes on that machine may not be economical and user friendly. However,
some future works can be taken to maintain the plant efficiency with life cycle degradation

144
and keep the plant available in desired capacity with the grid. Some recommendations to
improve the plant performance are given below:

i. An Inlet air cooling system, designed with specific inlet air temperature can be
installed to balance the inlet air temperature in the gas turbine. It will increase
power production and reduce the cost of production.

ii. Installing an additional air compressor before the gas turbine air compressor will
increase the airflow to the combustion chamber and reduce the Air compressor work
in the gas turbine. By installing an additional air compressor, 2 to 4 MW capacity
can be increased.

iii. A pre-heater could be introduced before the combustion chamber to reduce the rate
of exergy destruction in the combustion chamber.

iv. the Exergy analysis of a combined cycle power plant with carbon capture
utilization. This paper considers retrofitting an existing combined cycle power plant
arrangement to get carbon dioxide from gas turbine exhaust and convert it into
methane to run additional gas turbine for power augmentation. Here exergy analysis
of the considered combined cycle estimates the exergy efficiency and exergy
destruction of significant components. The study shows the comparative results for
different power plants with and without carbon capture arrangement.

145
 Chapter 9: References

[1] Cropper P. A., Wilkinson J. R, “Comprehensive Performance Audit of Utility”, IEEE

International Conference on Energy Conversion, vol-6, pp. 243-250, 1991.
[2] Bhansali V. K., “Energy Conservation in India - Challenges and Achievements”,
Proceedings of IEEE/IAS International Conference on Industrial Automation and
Control, vol-1, pp. 975-983, 1995.
[3] Khan A. Z., “Electrical Energy Conversation and Its Application to a Sheet Glass
Industry, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversation, vol-11, pp. 666-671, 1996.
[4] Babu N. S., Chelvan R. K., Nadarajan R., “Restructuring the Indian Power Sector
with Energy Conservation as the Motive for Economic and Environmental Benefits”,
IEEE Transaction on Energy Conversion, vol-14, pp. 1589-1596, 1999.
[5] Hogg B. W., Prasad G., Swidenbank E., “A Novel Performance Monitoring Strategy
for Economical Thermal Power Plant Operation”, IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, vol-14, pp. 802-808, 1999.
[6] Bathaee [Link], Sorooshian S, “Reliability Analysis of Auxiliary Service System of
Steam Power Plant in IRAN”, IEEE Niroo Research Institute, vol-1, pp. 40-46, 2000.
[7] Bose B. K., Energy, “Environment and Advances in Power Electronics”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol-15, pp. 688-701, 2000.
[8] Sabooh Dr. Y., “Thermal Model for Operation of Arc Furnace Transformer in Steel
Making Plant in a Climate of High Humidity”, IEEE Sharif Energy Research Institute
(SERI) Sharif University of Technology - Tehran, I.R. Iran, vol-1, pp. 2559-2565,
2000.
[9] Najjar, Y. S., “Efficient Use of Energy by Utilizing Gas Turbine Combined Systems”,
Applied Thermal Engineering, vol - 21, pp. 407-438, 2001.
[10] Lee W.J., Kenarangui R., “Energy Management for Motors, Systems and Electrical
Equipment”, IEEE Transaction on Industry Applications, vol-38, pp. 602-607, 2002.
[11] Gao H., Li Y., “On-line Calculation for Thermal Efficiency of Boiler”, Supported by
the Science and Technology Development Plans of Jilin Province of China, 2003.
[12] Liu C., Su J., Liang W., Sun W., “Model Identification of Thermal Process in Power
Plant”, IEEE North China Electric Power University, Boarding 071003, China, vol-1,
pp. 303-306, 2004.

146
[13] Ameri M., Hejazi H. S., “The Study of Capacity Enhancement of the Chabahar Gas
Turbine Installation Using an Absorption Chiller”, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol-
24, pp. 59–68, 2004.
[14] Kim H., Park D., Shin Y., “Control Strategy for the Ultra-Supercritical Coal-Firing
Thermal Power Plant”, IEEE International Joint Conference 2006 in Bexo, Busan,
Korea, Oct. 18-21, pp. 1719-1721, 2006.
[15] Boonnasa S., Namprakai P., Muangnapoh T., “Performance Improvement of the
Combined Cycle Power Plant by Intake Air Cooling Using an Absorption Chiller”,
Energy, vol-31, pp. 2036–2046, 2006.
[16] Gupta J.B., “A Course in Power System”, S.K. Kataria & Sons, 4424/6 Guru Nanak
Market Nai Sarak Delhi-110006, pp. 46-93, 2006.
[17] Rajput R.K., “Power Plant Engineering”, Laxmi Publications (P) Ltd 113, Golden
House Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002, pp. 91-348, 2006.
[18] Guo Y., Lu J., Wu K., Zhang T., “A Multi-Objective Optimizing Control Method for
Boiler-Turbine Coordinated Control”,IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics
and Automation, China, August 5 - 8, pp. 3700-3705, 2007.
[19] Hosseini R., BeshkanI. A., Soltani M., “Performance Improvement of Gas Turbines of
Fars (Iran) Combined Cycle Power Plant by Intake Air Cooling Using a Media
Evaporative Cooler”, Energy Conversion and Management, vol-48, pp. 1055–1064,
2007.
[20] Xiang W., Chen Y., “Performance Improvement of Combined Cycle Power Plant
Based on the Optimization of the Bottom Cycle and Heat, Recuperation”, Thermal
Science,vol-16, pp. 84-89, 2007.
[21] PSPCL, “Operation Manual for 2x210 MW G.H.T.P. Stage-1 Lehra Mohabbat”,
in Bathinda, Library G.H.T.P., Lehra Mohabbat. pp. 1-277, 2007.
[22] Gao H., Li Y., “On-line Calculation for Thermal Efficiency of Boiler”, in Asia-Pacific
Power and Energy Engineering Conference, pp. 1-4, 2010.
[23] Bera S. C., Bhowmick M. S., “Study the Performances of Induced Fans and Design of
New Induced Fan for the Efficiency Improvement of a Thermal Power Plant”, IEEE
Region 10 Colloquium and the Third ICIIS, Kharagpur, India December 8-10, pp.
479-483, 2008.
[24] Kamalpur G. D., Udaykumar R. Y., “Electrical Energy Conservation in India-
Challenges and Achievements”, IEEE International Conference on Control,
Automation, Communication and Energy Conservation, pp. 1-5, 2009.
147
[25] Jiang T.L., Li Y., Wang J.J., Zhang B.W., “Energy Audit and its Application in Coal
Fired Power Plant”, IEEE, School of Energy Resources and Mechanical Engineering
Northeast Dianli University Jilin City, China, pp. 1-4, 2009.
[26] Qingsheng B., Yanliang M., Zhifu Y., “Study on the Mode of Power Plant Circulating
Water Waste Heat Regenerative Thermal System”, IEEE International Conference on
Energy and Environmental Technology, pp. 857-860, 2009.
[27] Khaliq A., “Exergy Analysis of Gas Turbine Trigeneration System for Combined
Production of Power Heat and Refrigeration”, International Journal of Refrigeration,
vol-32, pp. 534-545, 2009.
[28] Evonik Industries, “Guidelines for Energy Auditing of Pulverized Coal / Lignite
FIRED Thermal Power Plant”, Indo-German Energy Programmed, 2009.
[29] Mohagheghi M., Shayegan J., “Thermodynamic Optimization of Design Variables
and Heat Exchangers Layout in HRSGs for CCGT, Using Genetic Algorithm”,
Applied Thermal Engineering, vol-29, pp. 290–299, 2009.
[30] Tyagi K. P., Khan M. N., “Effect of Gas Turbine Exhaust Temperature, Stack
Temperature and Ambient Temperature on Overall Efficiency of Combine Cycle
Power Plant”, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol-26, pp.427-
429, 2010.
[31] Cao L., Chen X., Jiang T., Li Y., “Diagnosis on Thermal Economical Performance
and Analysis on Energy Saving Potential for a Fossil-Thermal Power Plant”, IEEE
Supported by the Science and Technology Development Plans of Jilin Province of
China, pp. 1-4, 2010.
[32] Gao H., Li Y., “On-line Calculation for Thermal Efficiency of Boiler”, Supported by
the Science and Technology Development Plans of Jilin Province of China, pp. 1-4,
2010.
[33] Chai Y., Zhao H., “Exergy Analysis of Power Cycle System with 300 MW Capacity”,
IEEE International Conference on Advances in Engineering, pp. 247-250, 2010.
[34] Woudstra N., Woudstra T., Pirone A., Van D. S. T., “Thermodynamic Evaluation of
Combined Cycle Plants”, Energy Conversion and Management, vol-51, pp. 1099-
1110, 2010.
[35] Bentarzi H., Chentri R.A., Quadi A., “A New Approach Applied to Steam Turbine
Controller in Thermal Power Plant”, IEEE, 2nd International on Control
Instrumentation and Automation, pp. 236- 240, 2011.

148
[36] Ding J., Liu C., Wang H., Zhen C., “An Overview of Modelling and Simulation of
Thermal Power Plant”, Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on
Advanced Mechatronic Systems, Zhengzhou, China, August 11-13, pp. 86-91, 2011.
[37] Sanjay, “Investigation of Effect of Variation of Cycle Parameters on Thermodynamic
Performance of Gas-Steam Combined Cycle”, Energy, vol-36, pp. 157-167, 2011.
[38] T.E.R.I., “Energy Audit at Unit -1 of G.H.T.P.”, The Energy and Resources Institute,
78PP, New Delhi, Project report no. 2011 IE 10. pp. 1- 210, 2011.
[39] Jankes G., Stamenic M., Simonovic T., Trninic M., Tanasic N., “Energy Audit as a
Tool for Improving Overall Energy Efficiency in Serbian Industrial Sector”, IEEE 2nd
International Symposium on Environment-Friendly Energies and Applications, pp.
118-122, 2012.
[40] Ibrahim T. K., Rahman M. M., “Effect of Compression Ratio on Performance of
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine”, International Journal of Energy Engineering, vol-2,
pp. 9-14, 2012.
[41] Mansouri M. T., Ahmadi P., Kaviri A. G., “Exergetic and Economic Evaluation of the
Effect of HRSG Configurations on the Performance of Combined Cycle Power
Plants”, Energy Conversion and Management, vol.-58, pp. 47–58, 2012.
[42] Almutairi A.R., Pilidis P., and Al-Mutawa N., “Energetic and Exergetic Analysis of
Combined Cycle Power Plant: Part-1 Operation and Performance”, Energies, vol.-8,
pp. 14118–14135, 2015.
[43] Sreedharan H., Reshma J.R., Jacob J.K., and Sivakumar V.V., “Energy and Exergy
Analysis on 350MW Combined Cycle Power Plant”, European Journal of Technology
and Design, vol.-12, pp. 72-78, 2016.
[44] Haouam A., Derbal C., and Mzad H., “E3S Web of Conferences”, in ICCHMT, vol-
128, 2019.
[45] Fiasch D., ManfridaG., “Exergy Analysis of Semi-Closed Gas Turbine Combined
Cycle (SCG/CC)”, Energy Convers, vol-39, pp. 1643-1652, 1998.
[46] Song T. W., Sohn J. L., Kim J. H., Kim T. S., and Ro S. T., “Exergy-Based
Performance Analysis of the Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine in Part-Load Operating
Conditions”, Exergy, vol-2, pp. 105–112, 2002.
[47] Giannantoni C., Lazzaretto A., Macor A., Mirandola A., Stoppato A., Tonon S., and
Ulgiati S., “Multi Criteria Approach for the Improvement of Energy Systems Design”,
Energy, vol-30 (10), pp. 1989–2016, 2005.

149
[48] Cihan A., Oktay H., Kamil K., “Energy–Exergy Analysis and Modernization
Suggestions for a Combined-Cycle Power Plant”, International Journal of Energy
Research, vol-30, pp. 115–126, 2006.
[49] Sciubba E. and Wall G., “A Brief Commented History of Exergy from the Beginnings
to 2004”, International Journal of Thermodynamics, vol.-10, pp. 1–26, 2007.
[50] Butcher C., Reddy B., “Second Law Analysis of a Waste Heat Recovery Based Power
Generation System”, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol.-50, pp.
2355–2363, 2007.
[51] Abusoglu A., Kanoglu M., “First and Second Law Analysis of Diesel Engine Powered
Cogeneration Systems”, Energy Conversion and Management, vol.-49, pp. 2026-
2031, 2008.
[52] Kamate S., Gangavati P., “Exergy Analysis of Cogeneration Power Plants in Sugar
Industries”, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol.-29, pp. 1187–1194, 2009.
[53] Aljundi I. H., “Energy and Exergy Analysis of a Steam Power Plant in Jordan”,
Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 29, pp. 324–328, 2009.
[54] G. len S. C. and Smith R. W., “Second Law Efficiency of the Rankine Bottoming
Cycle of a Combined Cycle Power Plant”, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, vol.-132, no.
1, 2010.
[55] Aklilu B. T. and Gilani S. I., “Exergetic Performance Analysis of a Cogeneration
Plant at Part Load Operations”, vol.-4, no. 10, 2010.
[56] Bracco S., Silvia S., “Exergetic Optimization of Single Level Combined Gas Steam
Power Plants Considering Different Objective Functions”, Energy, vol.-35, pp. 5365-
5373, 2010.
[57] Coplan C. O., “Exergy Analysis of Combined Cycle Cogeneration Systems”, [Link]
Engineering Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Middle East Technical
University, 2005.
[58] Kaushik S. C., Reddy V. S., and Tyagi S. K., “Energy and Exergy Analyses of
Thermal Power Plants: A Review”, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol.-15, pp. 1857–
1872, 2011.
[59] Acir A., Bilginsoy A. K., and Coskun H., “Investigation of Varying Dead State
Temperatures on Energy and Exergy Efficiencies in Thermal Power Plant”, J. Energy
Inst., vol.-85, pp. 14–21, 2012.

150
[60] Kaviri A. G., Jaafar M. N., Lazim, T. M., “Modeling and Multi-Objective Exergy
Based Optimization of a Combined Cycle Power Plant Using a Genetic Algorithm”,
Energy Convers Manage, vol.-58, pp. 94-103, 2012.
[61] Petrakopoulou F., Tsatsaronis G., Morosuk T., and Paitazoglou C., “Environmental
Evaluation of a Power Plant Using Conventional and Advanced Exergy-Based
Methods”, Energy, vol.-45, pp. 23–30, 2012.
[62] L. Wang, Y. Yang, T. Morosuk, and G. Tsatsaronis, “Advanced Thermodynamic
Analysis and Evaluation of a Supercritical Power Plant”, Energies, vol. 5, pp. 1850-
1863, 2012.
[63] Hussein W., Razzaq A., Al- Doori F., “Exergy Analysis of a Gas Turbine
Performance with Effect Cycle Temperatures”, International Journal of Recent
Research and Applied Studies (IJRRAS), vol.-13, pp. 549-556, 2012.
[64] Chand V. T., Sankar B. R. and Chowdary J. R., “Exergy Analysis of Gas Turbine
Power Plant”, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT),
vol.-4, pp. 3991-3993, 2013.
[65] Mousafarash A., Ameri M., “Exergy and Exergo-Economic Based Analysis of a Gas
Turbine Power”, Journal of Power Technologies, vol.-93, pp. 44-51, 2013.
[66] T. Morosuk and G. Tsatsaronis, “Stengths and Limitations of Advanced Exergy
Analyses”, International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE),
vol.-6, pp. 11, 2013.
[67] Abdel-Moneim S. A. and Hossain K. M., “Exergy Analysis of a Combined Gas/
Steam Turbine Cycle with A Supercharged Boiler”, American Journal of Engineering
Research (AJER), vol.-02, pp. 321-333, 2013.
[68] Garg P. D., Dehiya S., Barasiya A., Rahangdale A., Kumawat V. S., “Exergy and
Efficiency Analysis of Combined Cycle Power Plant”, International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, vol.-4, pp. 1162-1169, 2013.
[69] Memon G., Harijan K., Shah S. F., Memon R.A., Uqaily M. A., “Exergy Analysis of
144 Mw Combined Cycle Power Plant Kotri Pakistan”, Sindh University Research
Journal (Science Series), vol.-45, pp. 107-112, 2013.
[70] Gupta M. and Kumar R., “Exergy Based Analysis of an Open Cycle Gas Turbine
Power Plant”, Canadian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (CJBAS), vol.-03, pp.
273-282, 2015.

151
[71] Abuelgasim S., “Exergy Analysis of Combined Cycle Power Plant (GARRI”2” 180
MW)”, [Link]. Engineering, Thesis, Department of Mechanical Power Engineering,
Sudan University of Science and Technology, 2016.
[72] Reddy B.V. and Mohamed K., “Exergy Analysis of a Natural Gas Fired Combined
Cycle Power Generation Unit”, International Journal of Exergy, vol.-4, pp. 180-196,
2016.
[73] Prakash D. and Singh O., “Exergy Analysis of Combined Cycle Power Plant with
Carbon Capture and Utilization”, Journal of Material Science and Mechanical
Engineering (JMSME), vol.-6, pp. 82-87, 2020.
[74] Valero A., Lozano M. A., Serra L., Tsatsaronis G., Pisa J., Frangopoulos C., and
Spakovsky M. R. V., “CGAM problem: Definition and conventional solution”,
Energy, vol. 19, pp. 279–286, 1994.
[75] Kim S.M., Oh S. D., Kwon Y. H., Kwak H.Y., “Exergoeconomic Analysis of
Thermal Systems”, Energy, vol-23, pp. 393-406, 1998.
[76] Kwon Y. H., Kwak H. Y., Oh S. D., “Exergoeconomic Analysis of Gas Turbine
Cogeneration Systems”, Exergy International Journal, vol-1, pp. 31–40, 2001.
[77] Valdés M., Durán D. M., Antonio R., “Thermoeconomic Optimization of Combined
Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants using Genetic Algorithms”, Applied Thermal
Engineering, vol-23, pp. 2169-2182, 2003.
[78] Casarosa C., Donatini F., Franco A., “Thermoeconomic Optimization of Heat
Recovery Steam Generators Operating Parameters for Combined Plants”, Energy,
vol-29, pp. 389-414, 2004.
[79] Lazzaretto A. and Tsatsaronis G., “SPECO: A Systematic and General Methodology
for Calculating Efficiencies and Costs in Thermal Systems”, Energy, vol.-31, pp.
1257–1289, 2006.
[80] Cziesla F., Tsatsaronis G., and Gao Z., “Avoidable Thermodynamic Inefficiencies and
Costs in an Externally Fired Combined Cycle Power Plant”, Energy, vol.-31, pp.
1472-1489, 2006.
[81] Kelly S., “Energy Systems Improvement Based on Endogenous and Exogenous
Exergy Destruction”, Ph.D, Thesis, Institute of Energy Engineering, Tech. Univ. of
Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
[82] Orhan F. M., Dincer I., “Exergoeconomic Analysis of a Thermochemical Copper–
Chlorine Cycle for Hydrogen Production using Specific Exergy Cost (SPECO)
Method”, Thermochimica Acta, vol.-497, pp. 60-66, 2010.
152
[83] 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, vol.-1, pp. 761-771, 2010.
[84] 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, vol.-52, pp. 2296–2308, 2011.
[85] Ahmadi P., Dincer I., and Rosen M., “Exergy, Exergoeconomic and Environmental
Analyses and Evolutionary Algorithm Based Multi-Objective Optimization of
Combined Cycle Power Plants”, Energy, vol.-36, pp. 5886– 5898, 2011.
[86] Kanoglu M., Ayanoglu A., Abusoglu A., “Exergoeconomic Assessment of A
Geothermal Assisted High Temperature Steam Electrolysis System”, Energy, Vol.-36,
pp. 4422-4433, 2011.
[87] Alus M., Petrovic M. V., “Optimization of the Triple Pressure Combined Cycle
Power Plant”, Thermal Science, vol.-16, pp. 901-914, 2012.
[88] Ghazi M., Ahmadi P., Sotoodeh A., Taherkhani A., “Modeling and Thermo Economic
Optimization of Heat Recovery Heat Exchangers Using a Multimodal Genetic
Algorithm”, Energy Conversion and Management, vol.-58, pp. 149-156, 2012.
[89] Naemi S., Saffar-Avval M., Kalhori S. B., Mansoori Z., “Optimum Design of Dual
Pressure Heat Recovery Steam Generator using Non-Dimensional Parameters Based
on Thermodynamic and Thermoeconomic Approaches”, Applied Thermal
Engineering, pp. 371-384, 2013.
[90] Dincer I. and Rosen M., “Exergy: Energy, Environment, and Sustainable
Development”, Oxford, UK, Elsevier, 2013.
[91] Igbong D. I. and Fakorede D.O., “Exergoeconomic Analysis of A 100MW Unit GE
Frame 9 Gas Turbine Plant in Ughelli, Nigeria”, International Journal of Engineering
and Technology, vol.-4, pp. 463-468, 2014.
[92] Oyedepo S.O., Fagbenle R.O., Adefila S.S. and Alam M.M., “Exergy Costing
Analysis and Performance Evaluation of Selected Gas Turbine Power Plants”, Article
in Cogent Engineering, 2015.
[93] Mohammadi S.K. and Azimian A.R., “Exergoeconomic Evaluation of a Two-Pressure
Level Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plant”, Journal of Energy Engineering, vol.-141,
2015.
[94] Karaali R., Oztürk I.T., “Thermoeconomic Optimization of Gas Turbine Cogeneration
Plants”, Energy, vol.-80, pp. 474-485, 2015.
153
[95] Gonzalez E.V.T., Lugo-Leyte R., Salazar-Pereyra M., Velazquez M. T., Lugo-
Méndez H. D. and Aldaco A. T., “Exergoeconomic Analysis of a Combined Cycle of
Three Levels of Pressure”, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016; Turbomachinery
Technical Conference and Exposition, 2016.
[96] Ogbe P.O., Anosike N.B., and Okonkwo U.C., “Exergoeconomic Evaluation of
Transcorp Power Plant Ughelli”, International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology (IRJET), vol.-03, pp. 36-44, 2016.
[97] Martin A., Miswandi, Prayitno A., Kurniawan1 I., and Romy, “Exergy Analysis of
Gas Turbine Power Plant 20 MW in Pekanbaru-Indonesia”, International Journal of
Technology, vol.-5, pp. 921-927, 2016.
[98] Riady M. I., Santoso D., and Bustan M. D., “Thermodynamics Performance
Evaluation in Combined Cycle Power Plant by Using Combined Pinch and Exergy
Analysis”, IOP Conf. Series; Journal of Physics Conference, vol.-1198, 2019.
[99] Moran J.M., Shapiro N.H., Boettner D.D., Bailey B.M., Fundamentals of Engineering
Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2015.
[100] Bejan A., Tsatsaronis G., and Moran M., “Thermal Design and Optimization”, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1996.
[101] Kotas T. J., “The Exergy Method of Thermal Power Analysis”, London,
Butterworths, 1985.
[101] Çengel Y. A., and Boles M. A., “Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach”,
Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
[102] Boyce M. P., “Handbook for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power Plants”, New
York, ASME, 2002.
[103] Davis D., Factors Which Affect Industrial Gas Turbine Air Mass Flow Rate, Real
Time Power, 2012.

154
 Annexure 1: Nomenclature

SYMBOLS NAME UNITS

$ DOLLAR
B BLOW DOWN RATE kg/sec
C ANNUALIZED COST
CH4 METHANE
C2H6 ETHANE
C3H8 PROPANE
C4H10 BUTANE
CO2 CARBON DI OXIDE
CP SPECIFIC HEAT CAPACITY kg/kJK
D DEPRECIATION
ɛ/Ex EXERGY MW
η EFFICIENCY
c COST PER UNIT OF EXERGY $/GJ
H2 HYDROGEN GAS
H2O WATER
H2S HYDROGEN SULPHIDE
I INTEREST
ISO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
STANDARDIZATION
𝑓 EXERGOECONOMIC FACTOR (%)
𝜀 EXERGETIC EFFICIENCY (%)
𝜂 EFFICIENCY (%)
m MASS FLOW RATE kg/s
N NUMBER OF YEARS yr
n HOURS hr
N2 NITROGEN GAS
Øk MAINTENANCE FACTOR
P PRESSURE Bar
PEC PURCHASING EQUIPMENT COST $
PW PRESENT WORTH
PWF PRESENT WORTH FACTOR
ρ DENSITY kg/m3
R GAS CONSTANT kJ/kgK
rp PRESSURE RATIO
S ENTROPY kJ/kgK
SV SALVAGE VALUE
T TEMPERATURE K
Zk CAPITAL COST $/sec

155
ABBREVIATIONS

AC AIR COMPRESSOR

CC COMBUSTION CHAMBER

CT COMBUSTION TURBINE

CCPP COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANT

GT GAS TURBINE

HPST HIGH PRESSURE STEAM TURBINE

HRSG HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR

IGV INLET GUIDE VANES

ST STEAM TURBINE

SPECO SPECIFIC EXERGY COST ANALYSIS

TIT TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE

TOT TURBINE OUTLET TEMPERATURE

156
 SUBSCRIPT AND SUPERSCRIPT

a AIR

GT GAS TURBINE

AC AIR COMRESSOR

CC COMBUSTION CHAMBER/COMBUSTION

CHE CHEMICAL

PH PHYSICAL

D/dest DESTRUCTION

f FUEL

g FLUE GAS/EXHAUST GAS/PRODUCT OF COMBUSTION

K COMPONENT

O OVERALL

P PRESSURE

Ref REFERENCE/AMBIENT CONDITION

T TEMPERATURE

th THERMAL

W WORK

157
 Annexure 2: Tariff

REFERENCE TARIFF

Reference Capacity Price Reference Energy Charge

Reference Non- Reference Reference Local Reference Reference Local
Escalable Foreign Escalable Foreign Variable Variable
Contract Capacity Price Escalable Capacity Price Operation and Operation and
Year (Dollar/kW- Capacity Price (Taka/kW- Maintenance Maintenance Price
Month) (Dollar/kW- Month) Price (Taka/kWh)
(RNECPn) Month) (RECP(Tk)n) (Dollar/kWh) (RVOMP(Tk)n)
(RECP(US)n) (RVOMP(US)n)
1 12.049483 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
2 12.051574 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
3 12.053791 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
4 12.056142 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
5 12.058637 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
6 12.061287 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
7 12.064104 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
8 12.067100 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
9 12.070287 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
10 12.073682 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
11 12.074333 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
12 12.242161 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
13 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
14 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
15 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
16 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
17 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
18 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
19 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962
20 7.904138 1.469696 40.507122 0.000728 0.024962

158
 Reference Heat Rates

Plant Factor (PFh) Reference Heat Rates (kJ/kWh) (HHV)

B. Facility Operating in
A. Facility Operating in
Combined Cycle Mode
(% of Dependable Simple Cycle Mode
(applicable following
Capacity) (applicable to Simple Cycle
Commercial Operations
Operation Period)
Date)
100% 10,780 7,175
95% 10,834 7,217
90% 10,962 7,271
85% 11,091 7,332
80% 11,213 7,412
75% 11,408 7,507
70% 11,660 7,603
65% 11,924 7,721
60% 12,341 7,861
55% 12,640 8,024
50% 13,111 8,253
45% 13,622 8,639
40% 14,270 9,190
35% 15,105 9,715
30% 16,172 10,370
25% 17,689 11,702

159
 Annexure 3: Power Plant Operational Data

The collected data from the Fenchuganj combined cycle power plant at different times and
seasons are shown in this section. Load factor is one of the major issues from taken this data from
the power plant. Majority percentage of the data was collected through the distributive control
system (DCS) & the rest of the data was collected manually by using a fire gun, anemometer,
multimeter, tachometer, Etc. The power plant's operating data are both collected in the winter
season & summer season (2018-2019). Data from DCS system is more accurate than the onsite
measuring data.

1. A Generator and exciter data

GENERATOR AND EXCITER

Name
Date time Re FLD
FLD RTD
Cold Hot
Active PF AMPS VOLTS VOLT (1-9)
active AMPS Gas Gas
S MAX
unit MW MVAr Cosφ KA KV A V ˚C
0 31 9 0.96 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 39 67
2 31 8 0.96 1.69 11.13 3 20 75 39 67
4 31 8 0.96 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 39 67
6 31 4 0.99 1.68 11.13 2.95 19.2 75 40 67
8 31 5 0.98 1.68 11.11 2.95 19.2 75 40 67
12.06.18 10 31 3 0.98 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 40 67
12 31 4 0.98 1.57 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
14 31 5 0.98 1.6 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
16 31 7 0.98 1.58 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
18 31 7 0.97 1.6 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
20 31 8 0.97 1.68 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
22 31 9 0.97 1.68 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
0 31 4 0.99 1.68 11.13 2.95 19.2 75 40 67
2 31 5 0.98 1.68 11.11 2.95 19.2 75 40 67
4 31 3 0.98 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 40 67
6 31 4 0.98 1.57 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
8 31 5 0.98 1.6 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
13.06.18 10 31 9 0.96 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 39 67
12 31 8 0.96 1.69 11.13 3 20 75 39 67
14 31 8 0.96 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 39 67
16 31 4 0.99 1.68 11.13 2.95 19.2 75 40 67
18 31 5 0.98 1.68 11.11 2.95 19.2 75 40 67
20 31 3 0.98 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 40 67
22 31 4 0.98 1.57 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
0 31 5 0.98 1.6 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
2 31 7 0.98 1.58 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
14.06.18 4 31 7 0.97 1.6 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
6 31 8 0.97 1.68 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
8 31 9 0.97 1.68 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
160
 GENERATOR AND EXCITER
Name FLD RTD
Re FLD Cold Hot
Date time Active
active
PF AMPS VOLTS
AMPS
VOLT (1-9)
Gas Gas
S MAX
unit MW MVAr Cosφ KA KV A V ˚C
10 31 9 0.96 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 39 67
12 31 8 0.96 1.69 11.13 3 20 75 39 67
14 31 8 0.96 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 39 67
14.06.18 16 31 7 0.98 1.58 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
18 31 3 0.98 1.68 11.11 3 20 75 40 67
20 31 4 0.98 1.57 11.13 3 20 76 40 68
22 31 5 0.98 1.6 11.13 3 20 76 40 68

1.B Combustion and gas turbine

COMBUSTION AND TURBINE

Spr Spr Spr
Date VSR VG VG TTX TTR Sprea FP FT FPG
Speed FSR ead ead ead FQG
-1 C-1 C-2 M XB d -1 -2 -3
G1 G 2
% rpm % ˚C bar ˚C bar kg/s
47 36 20 5225 61.5 578 578 180 27 20 18 23 57 20 2.7
48 36 20 5210 61.6 577 577 180 27 22 18 23 55 20 2.7
47 37 20 5215 61.5 577 577 180 25 22 20 23 55 20 2.7
43 35 19 5275 61 576 594 180 27 22 19 23 55 20.8 2.76
43 36 19 5270 61.8 576 594 180 27 22 19 23 55 20.8 2.7
12.06.1 48 36 20 5220 60 579 579 135 30 25 22 22 56 20 2.7
8 48 36 20 5210 60 578 579 135 30 25 20 22 56 20 2.7
50 36 20 5220 60 578 580 134 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
48 36 20 5189 60 578 579 180 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
48 37 20 5211 60 579 580 180 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
49 37 20 5189 60 578 580 180 31 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
50 37 20 5211 60 578 580 180 31 20 18 22 56 20 2.7
43 35 19 5275 61 576 594 180 27 22 19 23 55 20.8 2.76
43 36 19 5270 61.8 576 594 180 27 22 19 23 55 20.8 2.7
48 36 20 5220 60 579 579 135 30 25 22 22 56 20 2.7
48 36 20 5210 60 578 579 135 30 25 20 22 56 20 2.7
50 36 20 5220 60 578 580 134 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
13.06.1 47 36 20 5225 61.5 578 578 180 27 20 18 23 57 20 2.7
8 48 36 20 5210 61.6 577 577 180 27 22 18 23 55 20 2.7
47 37 20 5215 61.5 577 577 180 25 22 20 23 55 20 2.7
43 35 19 5275 61 576 594 180 27 22 19 23 55 20.8 2.76
43 36 19 5270 61.8 576 594 180 27 22 19 23 55 20.8 2.7
48 36 20 5220 60 579 579 135 30 25 22 22 56 20 2.7
48 36 20 5210 60 578 579 135 30 25 20 22 56 20 2.7
50 36 20 5220 60 578 580 134 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
48 36 20 5189 60 578 579 180 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
48 37 20 5211 60 579 580 180 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
49 37 20 5189 60 578 580 180 31 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
50 37 20 5211 60 578 580 180 31 20 18 22 56 20 2.7
14.06.1 47 36 20 5225 61.5 578 578 180 27 20 18 23 57 20 2.7
8 48 36 20 5210 61.6 577 577 180 27 22 18 23 55 20 2.7
47 37 20 5215 61.5 577 577 180 25 22 20 23 55 20 2.7
48 36 20 5189 60 578 579 180 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
48 36 20 5220 60 579 579 135 30 25 22 22 56 20 2.7
48 36 20 5210 60 578 579 135 30 25 20 22 56 20 2.7
50 36 20 5220 60 578 580 134 32 25 17 22 56 20 2.7
161
1.C Lube oil data on gas turbine

LUBE OIL
Name LT- LT-
Date Time LT-OT- 96QV- 96QA- Header LT- LT- LT-
RG G1
LT-
1.2A 1 2 Temp BT1D B1D B2D G2D
CD-1 D
unit ˚C bar bar ˚C
0 70 2.1 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 65 65
2 70 2.2 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 65 65
4 70 2.1 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 64 64
6 70 2.3 3.6 52 64 65 80 77 65 65
8 70 2.3 3.6 52 64 65 80 77 65 65
12.06.18

10 70 2.3 3.6 53 64 65 80 77 65 65
12 71 2.4 3.6 53 65 65 80 77 65 65
14 71 2.6 3.6 53 64 65 80 77 65 65
16 70 0 3.6 52 63 64 81 78 64 65
18 70 0 3.6 52 63 62 81 77 65 64
20 70 0 3.6 52 63 63 80 77 64 64
22 70 0 3.6 52 63 63 80 77 63 62
0 70 2.1 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 64 64
2 70 2.3 3.6 52 64 65 80 77 65 65
4 70 2.3 3.6 52 64 65 80 77 65 65
6 70 2.3 3.6 53 64 65 80 77 65 65
8 71 2.4 3.6 53 65 65 80 77 65 65
13.06.18

10 71 2.6 3.6 53 64 65 80 77 65 65
12 70 0 3.6 52 63 64 81 78 64 65
14 70 0 3.6 52 63 62 81 77 65 64
16 70 0 3.6 52 63 63 80 77 64 64
18 70 0 3.6 52 63 63 80 77 63 62
20 70 2.1 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 65 65
22 70 2.2 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 65 65
0 70 2.1 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 64 64
2 70 2.2 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 65 65
4 70 2.1 3.6 51 63 64 80 76 64 64
6 70 2.3 3.6 52 64 65 80 77 65 65
8 70 2.3 3.6 52 64 65 80 77 65 65
14.06.18

10 70 2.3 3.6 53 64 65 80 77 65 65
12 71 2.4 3.6 53 65 65 80 77 65 65
14 71 2.6 3.6 53 64 65 80 77 65 65
16 70 0 3.6 52 63 64 81 78 64 65
18 70 0 3.6 52 63 62 81 77 65 64
20 70 0 3.6 52 63 63 80 77 64 64
22 70 0 3.6 52 63 63 80 77 63 62

162
1.D Vibration, Air compressor and cooling water on gas turbine

COOLING
Date Nam VIBRATION COMPRESSOR WATER
e

INLET

TL-1

TL-2
CTD
Max

CPD

WT-

WT-
Air T
BB10

BB11

BB12

IGV
BB1

BB2

BB4

BB5

BB6

BB7

BB8

BB9
Time
Vib
unit m/sec bar ˚C ˚C Ang ˚C
0 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 357 30 70 41 41
2 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 359 30 70 41 41
4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 360 30 70 41 41
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 361 31 70 41 41
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 361 31 70 41 41
12.06.2018

10 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 363 32 80 42 42
12 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 364 32 85 42 42
14 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 365 33 85 42 42
16 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 358 32 88 42 42
18 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 357 31 85 42 41
20 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 358 30 85 41 41
22 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 356 29 85 41 41
0 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 360 30 70 41 41
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 361 31 70 41 41
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 361 31 70 41 41
6 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 363 32 80 42 42
8 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 364 32 85 42 42
13.06.2018

10 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 365 33 85 42 42
12 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 358 32 88 42 42
14 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 357 31 85 42 41
16 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 358 30 85 41 41
18 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 356 29 85 41 41
20 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 357 30 70 41 41
22 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 359 30 70 41 41
0 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 360 30 70 41 41
2 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 359 30 70 41 41
4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 360 30 70 41 41
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 361 31 70 41 41
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 361 31 70 41 41
14.06.2018

10 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 363 32 80 42 42
12 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 364 32 85 42 42
14 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 365 33 85 42 42
16 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 358 32 88 42 42
18 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 357 31 85 42 41
20 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 358 30 85 41 41
22 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 356 29 85 41 41

163
1.E Operating parameter of Gas turbine

The following data are taken from the plant as average data to temperature.

T1 T2 T3 T4 P1 P2 P3 P4 a g 𝐶𝑝𝑎 𝐶𝑝𝑔 𝑚𝑎 𝑚𝑓 𝑚𝑔
ba Kj/Kg Kj/Kg
˚C ˚C ˚C ˚C bar bar bar kg/s kg/s kg/s
r K K
25 344 1091 585 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 108.22 1.779 110.00

25 347 1091 585 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 106.20 1.779 107.98

26 348 1078 578 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 106.22 1.779 108.00

26 348 1091 585 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 105.66 1.779 107.44

27 348 1091 585 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 105.55 1.779 107.33

27 348 1091 585 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 104.59 1.779 106.37

28 350 1080 578 1.013 9 8.8 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 107.59 1.778 109.37

28 348 1091 585 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 105.58 1.779 107.36

29 350 1075 580 1.013 9 8.7 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 103.55 1.707 105.26

29 349 1089 576 1.013 9 9 1.004 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 101.50 1.771 103.27

30 359 1097 570 1.013 9 8.9 0.901 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 100.50 1.778 102.28

30 352 1093 584 1.013 9 9 1.004 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 104.15 1.776 105.93

31 361 1112 594 1.013 9 9 1.002 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 103.20 1.777 104.98

31 361 1105 594 1.013 9 8.8 1.001 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 102.50 1.779 104.28

32 346 1091 588 1.013 9 8.8 1.012 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 101.30 1.778 103.08

32 348 1078 579 1.013 9 8.7 1.013 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 103.50 1.778 105.28

33 352 1080 574 1.013 9 8.7 1.006 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 101.05 1.667 102.72

33 356 1083 578 1.013 9 9 1.001 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 102.95 1.778 104.73

34 358 1090 585 1.013 9 8.9 1.007 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 103.55 1.779 105.33

34 357 1089 584 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 102.11 1.770 103.88

35 354 1079 579 1.013 9 8.9 1.007 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 103.55 1.775 105.33

35 355 1082 580 1.013 9 8.9 1.005 1.4 1.33 1.005 1.148 102.11 1.774 103.88

164
1.F Performance Indicator calculated data of Gas Turbine

The following table shows the performance indicator parameter of gas turbine:

Work
LHV WAC WGT WGT,NET Qin GT SFC HRs/c
Ratio
Case
kJ/kg KW kW kW kW % kJ/kWHr
50768.57 34,694.79 63,886.48 29,191.69 0.46 90,317.28 32.32 0.22 11,138.18
50768.57 34,367.38 62,713.28 28,345.90 0.45 90,317.28 31.38 0.23 11,470.52
50768.57 34,373.85 61,974.34 27,600.49 0.45 90,317.28 30.56 0.23 11,780.31
50768.57 34,192.63 62,399.66 28,207.02 0.45 90,317.28 31.23 0.23 11,527.00
50768.57 34,050.96 62,335.77 28,284.81 0.45 90,317.28 31.32 0.23 11,495.29
50768.57 33,741.26 61,778.21 28,036.95 0.45 90,317.28 31.04 0.23 11,596.92
50768.57 34,817.20 63,028.23 28,211.03 0.45 90,256.36 31.26 0.23 11,517.59
50768.57 33,954.53 62,353.19 28,398.66 0.46 90,317.28 31.44 0.23 11,449.21
50768.57 33,405.75 59,763.92 26,358.17 0.44 86,661.95 30.41 0.23 11,836.29
50768.57 32,642.40 60,818.77 28,176.37 0.46 89,911.13 31.34 0.23 11,487.64
50768.57 33,229.82 61,835.76 28,605.94 0.46 90,266.51 31.69 0.22 11,359.86
Case
No. 1 50768.57 33,703.98 61,877.00 28,173.01 0.46 90,164.98 31.25 0.23 11,521.45
50768.57 34,226.28 62,449.02 28,222.74 0.45 90,215.75 31.28 0.23 11,507.62
50768.57 33,994.13 61,219.39 27,225.26 0.44 90,317.28 30.14 0.24 11,942.67
50768.57 31,967.24 59,499.37 27,532.13 0.46 90,266.51 30.50 0.23 11,802.92
50768.57 32,869.53 60,308.71 27,439.18 0.45 90,266.51 30.40 0.23 11,842.90
50768.57 32,396.12 59,667.07 27,270.95 0.46 84,631.20 32.22 0.22 11,172.05
50768.57 33,419.11 60,659.88 27,240.77 0.45 90,266.51 30.18 0.23 11,929.16
50768.57 33,717.95 61,099.28 27,381.33 0.45 90,317.28 30.32 0.23 11,874.60
50768.57 33,146.44 60,229.49 27,083.05 0.45 89,860.37 30.14 0.24 11,944.64
50768.57 33,197.61 60,470.32 27,272.71 0.45 90,114.21 30.26 0.23 11,895.08
50768.57 32,838.58 59,819.26 26,980.68 0.45 90,063.44 29.96 0.24 12,017.06

165
1.G Performance Indicator parameter of Gas Turbine

The following table shows the Overall efficiency of gas turbine in Simple Cycle:

Overall efficiency
Power output in GT
Case in Simple Cycle
kW %
28,753.82 31.84
27,920.71 30.91
27,186.48 30.10
27,783.92 30.76
27,860.54 30.85
27,616.40 30.58
27,787.86 30.79
27,972.68 30.97
25,962.80 29.96
27,753.72 30.87
28,176.85 31.22
Case No. 02
27,750.42 30.78
27,799.40 30.81
26,816.89 29.69
27,119.14 30.04
27,027.60 29.94
26,861.88 31.74
26,832.15 29.73
26,970.61 29.86
26,676.80 29.69
26,863.62 29.81
26,575.97 29.51

166
1.H HRSG Operating Data

LP Eco
HP HP HP feed Feed
Time, LP Pump Exhaust Feed Outlet
Date

Pump Curr water water

Hrs
Flow t/h Amps
Flow t/h Temp ⁰C water Temp
press temp ⁰C
Press ⁰C
0 218 66 114 559 10.5 4.2 100 279
1 219 66 114 559 10.5 4.2 100 279
2 219 66 113 558 10.3 4.2 100 278
3 218 66 113 558 10.4 4.2 100 278
4 218 66 113 558 10.4 4.2 100 278
5 218 66 113 558 10.3 4.2 100.9 278
6 218 66.4 112 559 10.3 4.2 100.9 278
7 218 66.4 113 559 10.3 4.2 100 278
8 218 66 113 559 10.3 4.2 100.9 278
9 208 66 113 560 10.3 4.2 100 279
10 209 66 112 560 10.3 4.2 100 279
12.06.2018

11 207 66 113 560 10.3 4.2 100 279

12 206 66 113 561 10.3 4.2 100 279
13 205 66 113 561 10.3 4.2 100 279
14 204 66 112 562 10.2 4.2 100 279
15 207 66 113 560 10.3 4.2 100 279
16 206 66 113 561 10.3 4.2 100 279
17 205 66 113 561 10.3 4.2 100 279
18 218 66.4 113 559 10.3 4.2 100 278
19 218 66 113 559 10.3 4.2 100.9 278
20 218 66 113 558 10.3 4.2 100.9 278
21 218 66.4 112 559 10.3 4.2 100.9 278
22 206 66 113 561 10.3 4.2 100 279
23 205 66 113 561 10.3 4.2 100 279
0 204 66 112 556 10.2 4.2 101 280
1 206 67 112 556 10 4.2 101 280
2 206 66 111 560 10 4.2 101 280
3 208 66 112 553 10 4.2 100 280
4 208 66 112 555 10 4.2 100 280
5 215 67 111 561 10 4.2 101 280
14.06.2018

6 215 67 112 561 9.9 4.2 101.4 280

7 215 66.7 111 561.5 9.9 4.2 101.4 280
8 215 66.7 111 561.5 9.9 4.2 101 281
9 200 65 111 560 10 4.2 101 280
10 206 66 112 558 10 4.2 101 280
11 205 66 110 558 10 4.2 101 280
12 200 65 110 560 10 4.2 101 280

167
 Eco
HP HP HP feed LP Feed Feed
Time, LP Pump Exhaust Outlet

Date
Pump Curr water water water
Hrs Flow t/h Temp ⁰C Temp
Flow t/h Amps press Press temp ⁰C
⁰C
13 200 65 110 555 10 4.2 101 279
14 202 65 111 556 10 4.2 101 279
15 202 66 111 556 10 4.2 101 279
16 202 66 111 555 10 4.2 101 279
17 203 66 111 556 10 4.2 100 279
14.06.2018

18 204 66 111 575 10 4.2 100 280

19 204 66 111 553 10 4.2 100 280
20 204 66 111 556 10 4.2 100 280
21 203 66 111 557 10 4.2 100 280
22 203 66 112 557 10.3 4.2 100 280
23 206 66 112 557 10.3 4.2 101 280
0 200 65 114 560 10 4.2 100 279
1 200 65 114 560 10 4.2 100 279
2 200 65 115 558 10 4.2 100 279
3 200 65 114 560 10 4.2 100 279
4 206 65 114 560 10 4.2 100 279
5 205 65 112 560 10 4.2 100 279
6 205 65 112 558 10 4.2 100 279
7 206 66 111 558 10 4.2 100 279
8 206 66 111 560 10 4.2 100 280
9 204 66 111 560 10 4.2 100 280
10 204 66 111 559 10 4.2 100 280
13.06.2018

11 204 66 111 559 10 4.2 100 280

12 204 66 110 560 10 4.2 100 280
13 200 66 110 560 10 4.2 100 280
14 200 66 110 563 10 4.2 100 280
15 218 65.3 111 563 10.1 4.2 100.3 278
16 218 65 111 559 10.1 4.2 100.3 278.2
17 221 66 113 559 10.4 4.2 101 279
18 221 66 113 559.6 10.4 4.2 101.1 279.5
19 221 66.3 113 560 10.4 4.2 101.1 279.5
20 221 66 113 560.5 10.4 4.2 100.8 279.2
21 222 66.1 113 559 10.4 4.2 100.8 279.2
22 222 66 113 559 10.4 4.2 100.8 279.3
23 200 65.4 114 559 10 4.2 100 279

168
1.I Operating parameter of HRSG at different operating load
Lean Gas Rich Gas
GT load
100% 75% 50% 25% 100% 75% 50% 25%
Exhaust Gas flow, kg/s 133.81 105.83 89.47 80.14 133.81 105.83 89.58 80.14
Exhaust gas temp 565.6 602.8 615.6 566.7 565.6 602.8 615.6 566.7
- Argon , % vol 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.85
- Nitogen , % vol 71.58 71.49 71.59 71.98 71.66 71.58 71.67 72
- Oxygen , % vol 13.04 12.79 13.09 14.23 13.09 12.85 13.14 14.25
- Carbon Dioxide , %
3.11 3.22 3.09 2.57 3.2 3.32 3.18 2.6
vol
- Water , % vol 11.42 11.64 11.38 10.37 11.2 11.41 11.15 10.3
HP Steam Output,
19.7 17.8 15.5 12.27 19.7 17.8 15.6 12.27
kg/sec
HP Superheater exit
69 58 51 39 69 58 51 39
pressure, bara
HP Superheater exit
468 468 468 468 468 468 468 468
temp., °C
HP Feed Water temp. @
104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104
Eco. Inlet, °C
LP Steam Output,
2.9 1.9 1.5 1.3 2.9 1.9 1.5 1.3
kg/sec
LP Superheater exit
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
pressure, bara
LP Superheater exit
Sat Sat Sat Sat Sat Sat Sat Sat
temp., °C
LP Feed Water temp. @
104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104
drum Inlet, °C

1.J Operating parameter of HRSG at different operating load at design condition

Design Gas
GT load
100% 75% 50% 25%
Exhaust Gas flow, kg/s 133.94 105.83 89.47 80.14
Exhaust gas temp. °C 565.60 602.80 615.60 567.20
- Argon , % vol 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.88
- Nitogen , % vol 71.60 71.52 71.62 71.99
- Oxygen , % vol 13.06 12.81 13.11 14.24
- Carbon Dioxide , % vol 3.15 3.26 3.12 2.60
- Water , % vol 11.34 11.55 11.30 10.30
HP Steam Output, kg/sec 19.7 17.8 15.5 12.3
HP Superheater exit pressure, bara 69 58 51 39
HP Superheater exit temp., °C 468 468 468 468
HP Feed Water temp. @ Eco. Inlet, °C 104 104 104 104
LP Steam Output, kg/sec 2.8 1.9 1.5 1.3
LP Superheater exit pressure, bara 4 4 4 4
LP Superheater exit temp., °C Sat Sat Sat Sat
LP Feed Water temp. @ drum Inlet, °C 104 104 104 104

169
1.K Steam Turbine Operational Data

Main Stream Lube EH Lube

Vacc Cond DA

Load
Time, oil oil oil
Date P T m Press Pres Temp Press
Hrs Press temp
MW MPa C Kg/s MPa C MPa
0 13.5 5.2 452 15 0.141 3.5 -0.09 36 42 0.06
1 13.5 5.2 453 15 0.141 3.5 -0.09 36 42 0.06
2 13.5 5.2 451 14.72 0.141 3.5 -0.09 36 42 0.06
3 13.5 5.1 453 14.72 0.142 3.5 -0.09 36.5 42.3 0.06
4 13.5 5.1 452 14.72 0.142 3.5 -0.09 36.5 42.3 0.06
5 13.5 5.1 452 14.72 0.142 3.5 -0.09 36 42.9 0.059
6 13.3 5.1 452 14.72 0.141 3.5 -0.09 6.8 42.9 0.06
7 13.5 5.1 452 14.72 0.141 3.5 -0.09 36.8 42.9 0.06
8 13.3 5.1 452 14.72 0.141 3.5 -0.09 36.8 42.9 0.06
9 13.5 5.1 453 14.72 0.135 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
10 13.5 5.1 451 15 0.136 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
12.06.18

11 13.5 5.2 452 15 0.139 3.5 -0.09 37 43.5 0.06

12 13.5 5.2 452 15 0.139 3.5 -0.09 37.5 43.5 0.06
13 13.5 5.3 454 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37.7 43.7 0.06
14 13.2 5.2 452 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
15 13.4 5.2 453 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
16 13.5 5.2 452 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
17 13.5 5.2 452 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
18 13.4 5.2 452 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
19 13.3 5.2 452 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
20 13.4 5.2 452 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
21 13.3 5.2 450 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
22 13.2 5.2 450 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
23 13.5 5.2 451 14.72 0.134 3.5 -0.09 37 43 0.06
0 13.6 5.3 452 15 0.142 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.059
1 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.142 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
2 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.141 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
3 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.141 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
4 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.139 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
5 13.6 5.3 452 15.16 0.142 3.5 -0.9 37.1 43.2 0.06
13.06.18

6 13.6 5.3 452 15.16 0.139 3.5 -0.9 37 43.2 0.06

7 13.7 5.3 452 15 0.142 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
8 13.7 5.3 452 15 0.139 3.5 -0.9 37.1 43.2 0.06
9 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.139 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
10 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.142 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
11 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.142 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
12 13.6 5.3 452 15 0.139 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
170
 Main Stream Lube EH Lube
Vacc Cond DA

Load
Time, oil oil oil
Date P T m Press
Pres Temp Press
Hrs Press temp
MW MPa C Kg/s MPa C MPa
13 13.6 5.3 452 15 0.139 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
14 13.5 5.3 451 15.27 0.138 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
15 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.139 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
16 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
17 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
13.06.18

18 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06

19 13.5 5.3 451 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
20 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
21 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
22 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
23 13.5 5.3 452 15.27 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
0 13 5.3 452 15 0.134 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.057
1 13 5.3 450 15 0.134 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.05
2 13 5.3 450 15 0.135 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.05
3 13 5.3 450 15 0.135 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.05
4 13 5.3 450 15 0.135 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.05
5 13.6 5.3 450 15 0.136 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.06
6 13.7 5.3 452 15 0.139 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.06
7 13.6 5.3 452 15 0.14 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.06
8 13.6 5.3 452 15 0.14 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.051
9 13.6 5.3 453 15 0.141 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.06
10 13.6 5.4 453 15 0.141 3.5 -0.9 36 42 0.06
14.06.18

11 13.7 5.4 453 15 0.139 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06

12 13.6 5.4 453 15 0.139 3.5 -0.9 37 43 0.06
13 13.8 5.4 452 15 0.139 3.46 -0.9 37 43 0.06
14 13.7 5.4 454 15 0.138 3.46 -0.9 37 43.5 0.06
15 13.3 5.2 453 14.72 0.139 3.46 -0.9 37 43.4 0.06
16 13.3 5.2 453 14.72 0.139 3.46 -0.9 37 44 0.06
17 13.5 5.3 454 14.72 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37 44.1 0.06
18 13.4 5.3 454 15 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37.6 44.1 0.06
19 13.4 5.3 454 15 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37.6 44 0.06
20 13.5 5.3 454 15 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37.6 44 0.06
21 13.4 5.3 454 15 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37.6 44 0.06
22 13.4 5.3 454 14.72 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37.6 44 0.06
23 13.5 5.3 454 15 0.141 3.46 -0.9 37.6 44 0.06

171
1.L Operating parameter of steam turbine

The following table shows the performance indicator parameter of steam turbine:

Initial steam Exhaust flow

T9 T10 P9 P10 h9 h10 Load flow in ST, in ST
𝑚𝑠,𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑠,𝑜𝑢𝑡
˚C ˚C bar bar kJ/kg kJ/kg % kg/s kg/s
468 53.3 69 0.145 3329 2334.2 100 15.50 15.30
468 53.3 69 0.145 3329 2334.2 95 14.73 14.54
468 53.3 69 0.145 3329 2334.2 90 13.95 13.77
468 53.3 59 0.145 3344 2360.2 85 13.18 13.01
468 53.3 59 0.145 3344 2360.2 80 12.40 12.24
468 53.3 59 0.145 3344 2360.2 75 11.63 11.48
468 53.3 59 0.145 3344 2360.2 70 10.85 10.71
468 53.3 55 0.145 3355 2373.2 65 10.08 9.95
468 53.3 55 0.145 3355 2374.2 60 9.30 9.18
468 53.3 50 0.145 3362 2382.5 55 8.53 8.42
468 53.3 50 0.145 3362 2383.1 50 7.75 7.65

1.M Performance Indicator parameter of steam Turbine

The following table shows the performance indicator parameter of steam turbine:

Generator Wmake
𝑊𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑.𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑊𝐵𝐹𝑊,𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑊𝐶𝑇𝐹 𝑊𝐶𝑊,𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑆𝑇
end power up pump

WST (kW) kW kW kW kW kW kW kW
15,419.40 116.98 510 110 110 3 849.98 14,569.42
14,648.43 116.98 510 110 110 3 849.98 13,798.45
13,877.46 116.98 510 110 110 3 849.98 13,027.48
12,961.57 116.98 510 110 110 3 849.98 12,111.58
12,199.12 116.98 510 88 110 3 827.98 11,371.14
11,436.68 116.98 510 83 110 3 822.48 10,614.19
10,674.23 116.98 510 77 110 3 816.98 9,857.25
9,891.64 116.98 510 72 110 3 811.48 9,080.15
9,121.44 116.98 510 66 110 3 805.98 8,315.46
8,350.24 116.98 510 61 110 3 800.48 7,549.75
7,586.48 116.98 510 55 110 3 794.98 6,791.49

172
1.N The performance indicator parameter of combined cycle

The following table shows the performance indicator parameter of combined cycle:

Steam
Consumption 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝐺𝑇 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑆𝑇 𝑄𝑖𝑛,𝐺𝑇 𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 HR in CC
/rating
kg/kW.h kW kW kW (%) kJ/kWHr
3.57 29,191.69 43,761.11 90,317.28 48.45 7429.936
3.57 28,605.94 42,404.38 90,317.28 46.95 7667.656
3.58 28,398.66 41,426.14 90,317.28 45.87 7848.721
3.60 28,345.90 40,457.48 90,317.28 44.79 8036.64
3.61 28,284.81 39,655.95 90,317.28 43.91 8199.079
3.61 28,222.74 38,836.93 90,317.28 43.00 8371.986
3.61 28,211.03 38,068.27 90,266.51 42.17 8536.228
3.62 28,207.02 37,287.17 90,266.51 41.31 8715.047
3.62 28,176.37 36,491.83 90,114.21 40.50 8889.968
3.63 28,173.01 35,722.77 90,063.44 39.66 9076.239
3.63 28,036.95 34,828.44 89,911.13 38.74 9293.556

1.O Feed water pump Operating Data

FEED WATER PUMP

Hours HP D-End ND-End Cooling

Suction LP Discharge
Date Speed Discharge Bearing Bearing Water
Pressure Pressure
Pressure Temp Temp Pressure

Units RPM MPa MPa MPa C C MPa

0:00 3012 0.22 0.11 9.8 3.6 54 56
2:00 3017 0.22 0.11 9.8 3.6 55 57
4:00 3009 0.22 0.11 9.7 3.7 55 57
6:00 3022 0.22 0.11 9.7 3.7 56 57
8:00 3019 0.22 0.11 9.7 3.6 56 58
10:00 3009 0.22 0.11 9.7 3.7 55 57
12.06.2018
12:00 3017 0.23 0.11 9.6 3.8 55 57
14:00 3002 0.22 0.11 9.5 3.8 54 56
16:00 3017 0.22 0.11 9.8 3.6 55 57
18:00 3026 0.23 0.11 9.7 3.7 54 56
20:00 3016 0.22 0.11 9.8 3.6 54 56
22:00 3022 0.22 0.11 9.8 3.7 55 57
0:00 3022 0.22 0.11 9.7 3.8 54 56
2:00 3022 0.22 0.13 9.7 3.7 55 55
13.06.2018
4:00 3018 0.22 0.11 9.8 3.8 54 56
6:00 3016 0.21 0.12 9.8 3.8 54 56

173
 FEED WATER PUMP
Hours HP D-End ND-End Cooling
Suction LP Discharge
Date Speed
Pressure
Discharge
Pressure
Bearing Bearing Water
Pressure Temp Temp Pressure
Units RPM MPa MPa MPa C C MPa
8:00 3017 0.21 0.11 9.8 3.8 54 56
10:00 3009 0.22 0.12 9.7 3.7 55 57
12:00 3012 0.22 0.12 9.5 3.7 54 56
14:00 3017 0.23 0.11 9.6 3.8 56 58
13.06.2018
16:00 3012 0.22 0.12 9.6 3.8 54 56
18:00 3017 0.23 0.11 9.5 3.8 54 56
20:00 3007 0.22 0.13 9.7 3.7 56 58
22:00 3009 0.22 0.12 9.7 3.7 56 58
0:00 3022 0.24 0.11 9.8 3.6 54 56
2:00 3022 0.23 0.11 9.6 3.5 55 56
4:00 3029 0.22 0.11 9.6 3.5 55 57
6:00 3021 0.22 0.11 9.5 3.7 55 57
8:00 3012 0.22 0.11 9.6 3.8 55 58
10:00 3011 0.22 0.11 9.7 3.7 56 58
14.06.2018
12:00 3009 0.21 0.11 9.8 3.8 54 56
14:00 2998 0.22 0.11 9.6 3.8 56 58
16:00 2998 0.23 0.11 9.6 3.7 55 57
18:00 2995 0.22 0.11 9.6 3.6 55 57
20:00 2990 0.22 0.11 9.6 3.6 54 57
22:00 2992 0.22 0.11 9.6 3.6 56 56

1.P CCCW Pump Operating Data

CCCW Pump CW Heat

CW CCCW
EH Oil Comn CCCW Exchanger
Time, Suction Delivery Comn Exchanger
Date Level, HDR Outlet water
Hrs Pressure Pressure HDR Outlet
Temp Temp, press temp,
Press press
⁰C Mpa Mpa Tw2 Tw1
0:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31 0.32 38.1 0.3
2:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31 0.32 38.1 0.3
4:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
6:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31 0.32 38.1 0.3
8:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31 0.32 38.1 0.3
10:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
12.06.2018
12:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
14:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31.7 0.32 38.1 0.3
16:00 37 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
18:00 37 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
20:00 37 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
22:00 37 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
Date Time, CCCW Pump CW CW CCCW Heat CCCW

174
 Hrs EH Oil Comn Comn Outlet Exchanger Exchanger
Suction Delivery
Level, Pressure Pressure
HDR HDR press water Outlet
Temp Press Temp, temp, press
⁰C Mpa Mpa Tw2 Tw1
0:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31.3 0.32 38.1 0.3
2:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31 0.32 38.1 0.3
4:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
6:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32.2 0.32 38.1 0.3
8:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
10:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
13.06.2018
12:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
14:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 30 0.32 38.1 0.3
16:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
18:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
20:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
22:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
0:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 30 0.32 38.1 0.3
2:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 30 0.32 38.1 0.3
4:00 38 0.03 0.44 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
6:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31 0.32 38.1 0.3
8:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31 0.32 38.1 0.3
10:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
14.06.2018
12:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 31.5 0.32 38.1 0.3
14:00 38 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
16:00 37 0.03 0.45 0.22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3
18:00 39 0.03 0.47 0.22 32.9 0.32 38.1 0.3
20:00 38 0.04 0.44 0.22 32.7 0.32 38.1 0.3
22:00 39 0.03 0.44 0.22 32.8 0.32 38.1 0.3

1.Q Condenser
The following table shows the condenser data taken from the site:

Tin Tout Tsat Delta T

29 41 43 12
28 42 43.5 14
28.5 40 42 11.5
30 41 43 11
30.5 39.8 42.5 9.3
31 42 43.2 11
31.5 41.5 42.6 10
31.4 42.58 44 11.18
30.6 41.6 42.6 11
30.4 39 41.5 8.6
31 39.5 43 8.5

175
 Figure 1: Condensate Pump Flow system.

1.R Key indicators of Condenser performance

mass flow of mass flow of

Condenser Heat
water, water, hin Sin hout Sout
rejection, Qcond
mwater,inlet mwater,outlet
Kg/s Kg/s kJ/kg kJ/kg-K kJ/kg kJ/kg-K kW
15.3 15.1 121.22 0.404 171.2 0.586 789.18
15.2 15.02 117.04 0.39 175.4 0.556 908.13
15.15 14.92 119.13 0.397 167.5 0.572 760.81
15.21 14.96 125.4 0.4369 171.2 0.543 728.21
15.11 14.8 127.49 0.417 166.3 0.535 625.94
11.25 10.98 129.5 0.423 175.4 0.556 551.25
11.2 10.95 131.6 0.43 173.3 0.549 499.98
11.12 11.01 131.2 0.429 177.8 0.564 532.78
11.01 11.05 127.8 0.418 173.7 0.551 500.48
7.89 7.6 127 0.415 162.9 0.524 320.08
7.5 7.1 129.5 0.423 165 0.531 318.05

176
1.S Lube Oil System

Lube Oil System

Main Main
Time, Cooler Lube
Date Pump Pump Lube Lube Oil Cooler
Hrs Outlet Oil
Suction Delivery Oil filter Diff Inlet
Temp, Tank
Pressure, Pressure, Level Press Temp, ⁰C
⁰C Level
Mpa Mpa
0:00 0.12 1.34 -64 2 56 40 80
2:00 0.12 1.34 -63 2 56 38 80
4:00 0.14 1.36 -64 2 56 39 80
6:00 0.13 1.34 -63 2 56 38 80
8:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
10:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
12.06.2018
12:00 0.13 1.34 -64 2 56 40 80
14:00 0.12 1.34 -63 2 56 40 80
16:00 0.13 1.34 -63 2 56 40 80
18:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
20:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
22:00 0.14 1.34 -64 2 56 40 80
0:00 0.12 1.31 -63 2 56 38 80
2:00 0.12 1.31 -63 2 56 39 80
4:00 0.12 1.32 -65 2 56 38 80
6:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
8:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
10:00 0.14 1.34 -63 2 56 41 80
13.06.2018
12:00 0.14 1.36 -64 2 56 41 80
14:00 0.12 1.32 -65 2 56 40 80
16:00 0.12 1.34 -64 2 56 40 80
18:00 0.12 1.34 -63 2 56 38 80
20:00 0.14 1.36 -64 2 56 39 80
22:00 0.13 1.34 -63 2 56 38 80
0:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
2:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
4:00 0.13 1.34 -64 2 56 40 80
6:00 0.12 1.34 -63 2 56 40 80
8:00 0.13 1.34 -63 2 56 40 80
10:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
14.06.2018
12:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
14:00 0.14 1.34 -64 2 56 40 80
16:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
18:00 0.12 1.32 -65 2 56 40 80
20:00 0.12 1.32 -64 2 56 40 80
22:00 0.12 1.32 -65 2 56 40 80

177
1.T Demi Water, Cooling Tower Operating data

Clarified
water
Cooling Tower water
Demi Water before Cooling water Basin
Time, (make-up)
Date demi
Hrs
water
Conductivit Conductivit Conductivit
pH pH pH pH
y µs/cm y µs/cm y µs/cm
7.3
9 2.16 7.46 36.16 7.16 28.16 7.32
2
7.1
12 3.42 7.32 72.16 7.52 56.16 7.36
6
11.06.18
7.4
15 1.12 7.16 76.16 7.32 66.12 7.39
2
7.3
18 1.28 7.49 99.16 7.12 78.16 7.14
6
7.1
9 2.16 7.32 98.16 7.42 76.16 7.46
6
7.3
12 1.16 7.16 1.12 7.46 96.16 7.42
2
12.06.18
7.4
15 2.42 7.42 1.28 7.42 776.12 7.16
6
7.1
18 3.16 7.51 3.16 7.32 71.12 7.33
2
7.1
9 1.96 7.16 4.16 7.18 61.16 7.33
7
7.2
12 2.16 7.32 3.16 7.32 1.96 7.49
8
13.03.18
7.3
15 2.42 7.16 2.12 7.16 2.16 7.56
6
7.1
18 1.16 7.32 23.16 7.34 19.16 7.32
6
7.4
9 2.12 7.42 71.16 7.16 56.16 7.52
2
7.1
12 3.42 7.36 79.12 7.42 66.16 7.36
3
14.06.18
7.3
15 2.96 7.52 88.16 7.36 76.42 7.42
9
7.4
18 1.42 7.16 96.16 7.39 88.28 7.56
9

178
1.U Daily Testing report of Pre-HRSG and HRSG Water

Feed Water Before Condensate

Time
HRSG Water HRSG (HP/LP)
Date
Conductivity
Hrs pH pH pH
µs/cm
9 9.32 9.56 9.16 121.16
11.06.18
15 9.14 9.42 9.36 128.1
9 9.46 9.16 9.42 96.16
12.06.18
15 9.16 9.32 9.36 126.16
9 9.32 9.42 9.12 92.14
13.06.18
15 9.16 9.36 9.32 126.16
9 9.42 9.16 9.16 99.16
14.06.18
15 9.32 9.28 9.12 94.16

1.V Air compressor Cycle time taking for 24 hr’s

Compressor 1 Compressor 2
Hr
t, s T, s t, s T, s
1 184 0.86 198 56
2 185 55 200 60
3 195 45 210 65
4 188 52 190 60
5 200 46 196 68
6 210 40 210 55
7 205 50 220 59
8 195 48 190 69
9 220 55 188 75
10 200 65 205 49
11 186 70 200 55
12 188 65 210 58
13 195 60 195 62
14 200 58 188 72
15 185 51 199 59
16 205 60 205 56
17 203 55 220 45
18 210 48 180 78
19 205 52 189 69
20 186 68 203 54
21 194 65 198 60
22 204 49 208 51
23 198 44 200 63
Average: 189.21 50.07 191.75 58.25

179
The following calculations shows the air compressor performance:
Volume rate of flow,
𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐷 𝑃𝑁
𝑞𝐹𝐴𝐷 = 𝑞𝑁 𝑥 𝑥
𝑇𝑁 𝑃𝐹𝐴𝐷

Or, 𝑞𝑁 = (𝑞𝐹𝐴𝐷 x 𝑇𝑁 x 𝑃𝐹𝐴𝐷 ) / (𝑇𝐹𝐴𝐷 𝑥 𝑃𝑁 )

12.1𝑥(273+0)𝑥1.1
= 1.031𝑥(273+26) = 11.99 𝑚3 /min

Mass Flow, 𝑚̇(kg/min) = 𝑞𝑁 (𝑚3 /min) x 𝜌 (kg/𝑚3 )

= 11.99 x 1.225 = 14.68775 kg/min

𝑃1 𝑄𝑓 log 𝑟
Isothermal Power, (kw) = 36.7

Where, P1=Absolute inlet pressure (kg/cm2) = 1.031 kg/cm2

r=compression ratio = 7.6/1.031=7.502

Qf= Free air delivered (m3/hr)=12.1x60= 726 m3/hr

1.031 𝑥 726 𝑥 log 7.502

So, Isothermal Power, kw = =17.84 kw
36.7
17.84
Isothermal efficiency = 𝑥 100 = 30.7%
58
75
Specific Power Consumption = 726 = 0.11 kwh/ m3
𝑉𝑅 (𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) 10 𝑥 (7.6−6.6)
Compressor Idle Time, 𝑡𝐼 = = = 0.83 min
𝑞 12.1
𝑉𝑅 (𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) 10 𝑥 (7.6−6.6)
Compressor Running Time, 𝑡𝑅 = = = 3.36 min
𝑉̇ −𝐿𝐵 12.1−10.98
60 60
Motor Cycle Speed, A= 𝑡 +𝑡 = 4.19 = 14.32/hr
𝐼 𝑅

𝑇 .83
% leakage = 𝑇+𝑡 x 100 = 3.36+0.83 x 100 = 19.80%
𝑇
System leakage quantity, q (m3/min) = 𝑇+𝑡 x Q = 2.396 m3/min

Leakage quantity per day = q x 24 x 60 = 2.396x24x60=3451.53 m3/day

Energy lost due to leakage/day = 0.11 x 3451.5322 = 379.67 kwh/day
Leakage quantity per day = q x 24 x 60 = 2.81744x24x60=4057.1189 m3/day
Energy lost due to leakage/day = 0.11 x 4057.1189 = 446.283 kwh/day
Average Energy lost due to leakage/day = (446.283+401.452)/2 = 423.8675 kwh/day

180
1.W Operating parameter of Circulating water pump, Cooling tower fan in
summer season

Time CW Pump Cooling Tower Fan

Curr, I Voltage Power, Mass flow of Curr, I Voltage, Power, Mass flow of air,
Hrs
Amp V Wele, Kw water, Mw, Kg/hr Amp V Wele, Kw Ma, Kg/hr

0 88.8 6300 794.54 10329007.85 165 400 98.31 1966166400

1 88.2 6300 789.17 10259217.26 165 400 98.31 1966166400

2 86.5 6300 773.96 10061477.24 166 400 98.90 1978082560

3 87.1 6300 779.33 10131267.84 167 400 99.50 1989998720

4 87.2 6300 780.22 10142899.6 166 400 98.90 1978082560

5 86.3 6300 772.17 10038213.71 165 400 98.31 1966166400

6 85.9 6300 768.59 9991686.65 164 400 97.71 1954250240

7 85.5 6300 765.01 9945159.588 164 400 97.71 1954250240

8 86.8 6300 776.64 10096372.54 169 400 100.69 2013831040

9 87.1 6300 779.33 10131267.84 165 400 98.31 1966166400

10 87.8 6300 785.59 10212690.2 168 400 100.10 2001914880

11 87.4 6300 782.01 10166163.13 166 400 98.90 1978082560

12 88.2 6300 789.17 10259217.26 167 400 99.50 1989998720

13 89.1 6300 797.22 10363903.15 168 400 100.10 2001914880

14 88.5 6300 791.85 10294112.56 168 400 100.10 2001914880

15 87.9 6300 786.49 10224321.96 168 400 100.10 2001914880

16 86.5 6300 773.96 10061477.24 169 400 100.69 2013831040

17 86.9 6300 777.54 10108004.31 169 400 100.69 2013831040

18 88.5 6300 791.85 10294112.56 170 400 101.29 2025747200

19 88.6 6300 792.75 10305744.32 170 400 101.29 2025747200

20 87.5 6300 782.91 10177794.9 171 400 101.88 2037663360

21 88.5 6300 791.85 10294112.56 171 400 101.88 2037663360

22 88.1 6300 788.28 10247585.49 169 400 100.69 2013831040

23 87.2 6300 780.22 10142899.6 169 400 100.69 2013831040

24 86.8 6300 776.64 10096372.54 166 400 98.90 1978082560

Total: 19567.31 2493.46

181
1.X Operating parameter of Closed Cycle Circulating water pump in summer
season

Time CCCW Pump

Curr, I Voltage, Power, Mass flow of water in
Hrs
Amp V Wele, Kw closed cycle, Mcccw, Kg/hr
0 177 400 100.55 703870.94
1 176 400 99.98 699894.27
2 173 400 98.28 687964.25
3 172 400 97.71 683987.58
4 170 400 96.57 676034.24
5 171 400 97.14 680010.91
6 175 400 99.41 695917.60
7 176 400 99.98 699894.27
8 177 400 100.55 703870.94
9 177 400 100.55 703870.94
10 177 400 100.55 703870.94
11 178 400 101.12 707847.62
12 179 400 101.68 711824.28
13 176 400 99.98 699894.27
14 176 400 99.98 699894.27
15 175 400 99.41 695917.60
16 177 400 100.55 703870.94
17 178 400 101.12 707847.62
18 177 400 100.55 703870.94
19 176 400 99.98 699894.27
20 176 400 99.98 699894.27
21 177 400 100.55 703870.94
22 177 400 100.55 703870.94
23 178 400 101.12 707847.62
24 179 400 101.68 711824.28
Total 2499.62

182
1.Y Cooling tower performance indicator parameter in summer season
The performance indicator parameter of cooling tower in summer season is shown in table below:
CCCW
Time, Tw2 Outlet Tw1 CCCW Exchanger Ta WBT, Heat Load,
Approach Range 𝜂 𝜀
Hrs ⁰C Press, ⁰C Outlet press, MPa ⁰C ⁰C D
MPa

0 33 0.32 39.2 0.3 29 28 5 6.2 55.35 0.49 64039849

1 29.8 0.32 37.5 0.3 30 27 2.8 7.7 73.33 0.37 78995973

2 30.5 0.32 37.8 0.3 31 27 3.5 7.3 67.59 0.51 73448784

3 30.6 0.32 37.9 0.3 30 28 2.6 7.3 73.74 0.33 73958255

4 30.8 0.32 38.1 0.3 28 28 2.8 7.3 72.28 0.28 74043167

5 31.5 0.32 38.1 0.3 28 28 3.5 6.6 65.35 0.35 66252211

6 31.6 0.32 38.1 0.3 29 28 3.6 6.5 64.36 0.40 64945963

7 31.7 0.32 38.1 0.3 29 28 3.7 6.4 63.37 0.41 63649021

8 31 0.32 38.4 0.3 28 28 3 7.4 71.15 0.29 74713157

9 31.1 0.32 38.4 0.3 28 28 3.1 7.3 70.19 0.30 73958255

10 31 0.32 38.1 0.3 29 28 3 7.1 70.30 0.33 72510100

11 30 0.32 37.8 0.3 29 27 3 7.8 72.22 0.34 79296072

12 31.3 0.32 37.3 0.3 30 27 4.3 6 58.25 0.59 61555304

13 31 0.32 38.1 0.3 29 28 3 7.1 70.30 0.33 73583712

14 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 30 27 5 6.1 54.95 0.62 62794087

15 32.2 0.32 38.1 0.3 31 27 5.2 5.9 53.15 0.73 60323500

16 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 32 28 4 6.1 60.40 0.66 61375011

17 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 33 28 4 6.1 60.40 0.78 61658826

18 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 34 28 4 6.1 60.40 0.98 62794087

19 30 0.32 38.1 0.3 35 28 2 8.1 80.20 0.65 83476529

20 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 36 27 5 6.1 54.95 2.38 62084549

21 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 37 27 5 6.1 54.95 4.55 62794087

22 32 0.32 39 0.3 38 28 4 7 63.64 4.00 71733098

23 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 29 28 4 6.1 60.40 0.44 61871688

24 30 0.32 38.1 0.3 30 28 2 8.1 80.20 0.25 82157487

30. 65.26 0.85
Avg: 31.32 0.32 38.1 0.3 27.68 3.64 6.8 69120511
8

183
1.Z Cooling tower performance indicator parameter in summer season

The Heat loss by water, Volume of air required, heat gain by air and Mass of air required in
cooling tower system in summer season is given in table below:

Heat Loss By Heat Gain Mass Of Air

Volume Of air
Cpw Water, HL By air, HG, Required Mair,
required, V, Kj/hr
Kj/Hr Kj/Hr Kg/hr
4.186 406429932.6 8186147.737 406429933 8830233.82
4.186 403683784.4 8130835.928 403683784 8770570.08
4.186 395903031.2 7974119.136 395903031 8601522.81
4.186 398649179.4 8029430.945 398649179 8661186.55
4.186 399106870.7 8038649.58 399106871 8671130.51
4.186 394987648.5 7955681.866 394987648 8581634.9
4.186 393156883 7918807.327 393156883 8541859.07
4.186 391326117.5 7881932.787 391326118 8502083.24
4.186 397276105.3 8001775.04 397276105 8631354.68
4.186 398649179.4 8029430.945 398649179 8661186.55
4.186 401853018.9 8093961.389 401853019 8730794.25
4.186 400022253.5 8057086.849 400022253 8691018.42
4.186 403683784.4 8130835.928 403683784 8770570.08
4.186 407803006.7 8213803.641 407803007 8860065.69
4.186 405056858.5 8158491.832 405056858 8800401.95
4.186 402310710.3 8103180.023 402310710 8740738.21
4.186 395903031.2 7974119.136 395903031 8601522.81
4.186 397733796.6 8010993.675 397733797 8641298.64
4.186 405056858.5 8158491.832 405056858 8800401.95
4.186 405514549.9 8167710.467 405514550 8810345.91
4.186 400479944.8 8066305.484 400479945 8700962.38
4.186 405056858.5 8158491.832 405056858 8800401.95
4.186 403226093 8121617.293 403226093 8760626.12
Avg: 400559543.3 8067908.725 400559543 8702691.76

184
[Link] Operating parameter of Circulating water pump, Cooling tower fan in winter
season

Time CW Pump Cooling Tower Fan

Curr, I Voltage, Power, Mass flow of Curr, I Voltage, Power, Mass flow of
Hrs
Amp V Wele, Kw water, Mw, Kg/hr Amp V Wele, Kw air, Ma, Kg/hr
0 86.2 6300 771.25 10026581.95 163 400 97.11 1942334080
1 84.9 6300 759.64 9875368.99 160 400 95.32 1906585600
2 84.5 6300 756.06 9828841.93 158 400 94.13 1882753280
3 83 6300 742.64 9654365.44 159 400 94.73 1894669440
4 83.2 6300 744.43 9677628.97 153 400 91.15 1823172480
5 83.1 6300 743.53 9665997.21 152 400 90.56 1811256320
6 83 6300 742.64 9654365.44 155 400 92.35 1847004800
7 83.2 6300 744.43 9677628.97 151 400 89.96 1799340160
8 83.1 6300 743.53 9665997.21 157 400 93.54 1870837120
9 82.5 6300 738.16 9596206.62 150 400 89.37 1787424000
10 84 6300 751.59 9770683.10 161 400 95.92 1918501760
11 83 6300 742.64 9654365.44 160 400 95.32 1906585600
12 84.9 6300 759.64 9875368.99 158 400 94.13 1882753280
13 84.5 6300 756.06 9828841.93 159 400 94.73 1894669440
14 80.5 6300 720.27 9363571.31 153 400 91.15 1823172480
15 80 6300 715.80 9305412.48 162 400 96.52 1930417920
16 79 6300 706.85 9189094.82 163 400 97.11 1942334080
17 78 6300 697.90 9072777.17 164 400 97.71 1954250240
18 83.2 6300 744.43 9677628.98 158 400 94.13 1882753280
19 83.1 6300 743.53 9665997.21 158 400 94.13 1882753280
20 82.5 6300 738.16 9596206.62 159 400 94.73 1894669440
21 82.6 6300 739.06 9607838.38 153 400 91.15 1823172480
22 81.5 6300 729.22 9479888.96 162 400 96.52 1930417920
23 81 6300 724.74 9421730.14 163 400 97.11 1942334080
24 81.6 6300 730.11 9491520.73 164 400 97.71 1954250240
Total: 18486.45 2356.4

185
[Link] Operating parameter of Closed Cycle Circulating water pump in winter
season

CCCW Pump
Curr, I Voltage, Power, Mass flow of water in closed
Amp V Wele, Kw cycle, Mcccw, Kg/hr
177 400 100.55 703870.94
176 400 99.98 699894.27
170 400 96.57 676034.24
175 400 99.41 695917.60
177 400 100.55 703870.94
178 400 101.12 707847.62
177 400 100.55 703870.94
171 400 97.14 680010.91
172 400 97.71 683987.58
172 400 97.71 683987.58
173 400 98.28 687964.25
173 400 98.28 687964.26
174 400 98.84 691940.93
175 400 99.41 695917.60
176 400 99.98 699894.27
175 400 99.41 695917.60
177 400 100.55 703870.94
178 400 101.12 707847.62
177 400 100.55 703870.94
172 400 97.71 683987.58
172 400 97.71 683987.58
173 400 98.28 687964.25
173 400 98.28 687964.25
178 400 101.12 707847.62
179 400 101.68 711824.28
Total 2482.58

186
[Link] Cooling tower performance indicator parameter in winter season

CCCW CCCW
Time, Tw2⁰ Outlet Tw1 Exchanger Ta, WBT, Heat Load,
Approach Range 𝜂 𝜀
Hrs C Press,
MPa
⁰C Outlet
press, MPa
⁰C ⁰C D

2 30.5 0.32 37.8 0.3 16 27 3.5 7.3 67.59 0.16 73194048.21

3 30.6 0.32 37.9 0.3 16 28 2.6 7.3 73.73 0.12 73194048.21

4 30.8 0.32 38.1 0.3 15 28 2.8 7.3 72.27 0.12 73194048.21

5 31.5 0.32 38.1 0.3 18 28 3.5 6.6 65.34 0.17 66175440.85

6 31.6 0.32 38.1 0.3 19 28 3.6 6.5 64.35 0.18 65172782.66

7 31.7 0.32 38.1 0.3 21 28 3.7 6.4 63.36 0.21 64170124.46

8 31 0.32 38.4 0.3 22 28 3 7.4 71.15 0.18 74196706.41

9 31.1 0.32 38.4 0.3 23 28 3.1 7.3 70.19 0.21 73194048.21

10 31 0.32 38.1 0.3 25 28 3 7.1 70.29 0.22 71188731.83

11 30 0.32 37.8 0.3 26 27 3 7.8 72.22 0.25 78207339.19

12 31.3 0.32 37.3 0.3 27 27 4.3 6 58.25 0.41 60159491.68

13 31 0.32 38.1 0.3 28 28 3 7.1 70.29 0.29 71188731.83

14 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 29 27 5 6.1 54.95 0.54 61162149.88

15 32.2 0.32 38.1 0.3 28 27 5.2 5.9 53.15 0.51 59156833.49

16 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 27 28 4 6.1 60.39 0.36 61162149.88

17 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 26 28 4 6.1 60.39 0.33 61162149.88

18 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 26 28 4 6.1 60.39 0.33 61162149.88

19 30 0.32 38.1 0.3 23 28 2 8.1 80.19 0.13 81215313.77

20 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 21 28 4 6.1 60.39 0.23 61162149.88

21 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 20 28 4 6.1 60.39 0.22 61162149.88

22 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 19 28 4 6.1 60.39 0.20 61162149.88

23 32 0.32 38.1 0.3 17 28 4 6.1 60.39 0.18 61162149.88

24 30 0.32 38.1 0.3 16 27 3 8.1 72.97 0.13 81215313.77

Avg: 31.2 0.32 38.0 0.3 21 27.72 3.56 6.74 65.45 0.24 67659374.98

187
[Link] Cooling tower performance indicator parameter in winter season

The Heat loss by water, Volume of air required, heat gain by air and Mass of air required in
cooling tower system in summer season is given in table below:

Winter time
Heat Loss By Volume Of air Heat Gain By air, Mass Of Air
Water, HL Kj/Hr required, V, Kj/hr HG, Kj/Hr RequiredMair, Kg/hr
251827632 2881998.813 244533529 3446479
248029768 2838534.794 240845668 3394502
246861194 2825161.249 239710942 3378509
242479043 2775010.458 235455718 3318535
243063329 2781697.23 236023081 3326532
242771186 2778353.844 235739400 3322534
242479043 2775010.458 235455718 3318535
243063329 2781697.23 236023081 3326532
242771186 2778353.844 235739400 3322534
241018325 2758293.527 234037310 3298544
245400477 2808444.319 238292534 3358518
242479043 2775010.458 235455718 3318535
248029768 2838534.794 240845668 3394502
246861194 2825161.249 239710942 3378509
235175457 2691425.806 228363679 3218580
233714740 2674708.875 226945271 3198588
230793306 2641275.014 224108455 3158606
227871871 2607841.153 221271639 3118624
243063329 2781697.23 236023081 3326532
242771186 2778353.844 235739400 3322534
241018325 2758293.527 234037310 3298544
241310469 2761636.914 234320992 3302543
238096891 2724859.667 231200494 3258562
241780439 2767015.404 234777349 3308974

188