0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gas Turbines: Industrial and Cogeneration

A Unique Approach for Thermoeconomic Optimization of an Intercooled, Reheat, and Recuperated Gas Turbine for Cogeneration Applications

[+] Author and Article Information
R. Bhargava

Universal Ensco, Inc., 1811 Bering Drive, Houston, TX 77057

A. Peretto

DIEM—University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, Bologna 40136, Italy

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 124(4), 881-891 (Sep 24, 2002) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1476928 History: Received December 01, 2000; Revised March 01, 2001; Online September 24, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Smith, D., 1999, “First H System Gas Turbine Planned for Baglan,” Mod. Power Syst., May, pp. 37–42.
Casper, R. L., 1993, “Application of the LM-6000 for Power Generation and Cogeneration,” ASME Paper No. 93-GT-278.
Abe, T., Sugiura, T., Okunaga, S., Nojima, K., Tsutsui, Y., and Matsunuma, T., 2000, “Research and Development of Practical Industrial Cogeneration Technology in Japan,” ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-0655.
Rice,  I. G., 1980, “The Combined Reheat Gas Turbine/Steam Turbine Cycle, Part I—A Critical Analysis of the Combined Reheat Gas Turbine Steam Turbine Cycle,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 102, pp. 35–41.
Rice,  I. G., 1987, “Thermodynamic Evaluation of Gas Turbine Cogeneration Cycles, Part II—Complex Cycle Analysis,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 109, pp. 8–15.
El-Masri,  M. A., 1986, “On Thermodynamics of Gas Turbine Cycles, Part II—A Model for Expansion in Cooled Turbines,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 108, pp. 151–159.
El-Masri, M. A., 1987, “Thermodynamics and Performance Projections for Intercooled/Reheat/Recuperated Gas Turbine Systems,” ASME Paper No. 87-GT-108.
Macchi, E., Bombarda, P., Chiesa, P., Consonni, S., and Lozza, G., 1991, “Gas Turbine Based Advanced Cycles for Power Generation. Part B: Performance Analysis of Selected Configurations,” International Gas Turbine Congress, Yokohama, Oct.
Farmer, R., 1993, “Reheat GTs Boost 250 and 365 MW Combined Cycle Efficiency to 58%,” Gas Turbine World, Sept.–Oct.
Negri di Montenegro, G., Gambini, M., and Peretto, A., 1995, “Reheat and Regenerative Gas Turbines for Feed Water Repowering of Steam Power Plant,” ASME Turbo Expo, Houston, June 5–8.
Bhargava, R., Bianchi, M., Negri di Montenegro, G., and Peretto, A., 2000, “Thermo-Economic Analysis of an Intercooled, Reheat and Recuperated Gas Turbine for Cogenerative Applications: Part I—Base Load Operation,” ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-0316.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Schematic layout of the recuperated ICRH gas turbine in cogenerative application (dotted lines represent GT cooling flow streams)
Grahic Jump Location
ESIMax versus ηel for different βTOT as a function of Tin for medium size recuperated ICRH gas turbine-based cogeneration systems
Grahic Jump Location
ηel versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (high size—100 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ηel versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (medium size—20 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ηel versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (low size—5 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ESIB versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (high size—100 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ESIB versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (medium size—20 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ESIB versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (low size—5 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ESIB versus Pel for the four cycles and for the three load cases considered (Pel/Qth ratio constant for each load case and equal to the value maximizing ESIB for the Brayton cycle)
Grahic Jump Location
ηth versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (medium size—20 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
Specific work versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (medium size—20 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
βTOT versus ηel for the four cycles considered (low size—5 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ms/ma versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (high size—100 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ms/ma versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (medium size—20 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ms/ma versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (low size—5 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
ms versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles and for the three load cases
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (high size—100 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (medium size—20 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (low size—5 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (high size—100 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (medium size—20 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (low size—5 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (high size—100 MW)
Grahic Jump Location
DCRR versus Pel/Qth for the four cycles considered (low size—5 MW)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In