Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Aircraft Engine

A Holistic Approach to GTCC Operational Efficiency Improvement Studies

[+] Author and Article Information
Sowande Z. Boksteen

Institute for Engineering and Applied Science,
Rotterdam University,
G.J. de Jonghweg 4-6,
Rotterdam 3015 GG, The Netherlands
e-mail: s.z.boksteen@hr.nl

Jos P. van Buijtenen

Faculty of Mechanical,
Maritime and Materials Engineering,
Delft University of Technology,
Delft 2628 CD, The Netherlands

Dick van der Vecht

Maintenance Projects and Competences,
GDF SUEZ Energie Europe,
Zwolle 8041 BL, The Netherlands

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Aircraft Engine Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 15, 2014; final manuscript received August 29, 2014; published online October 28, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(4), 041204 (Oct 28, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1396; doi: 10.1115/1.4028567 History: Received July 15, 2014; Revised August 29, 2014

Because of the increasing share of renewables in the energy market, part load operation of gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC) power plants has become a major issue. In combination with the variable ambient conditions and fuel quality, load variations cause these plants to be operated across a wide range of conditions and settings. However, efficiency improvement and optimization studies are often focused on single operating points. The current study assesses efficiency improvement possibilities for the KA26 GTCC plant, as recently built in Lelystad, The Netherlands, taking into account that the plant is operated under frequently varying conditions and load settings. In this context, free operational parameters play an important role: these are the process parameters, which can be adjusted by the operator without compromising safety and other operational objectives. The study applies a steady state thermodynamic model with second-law analysis for exploring the entire operational space. A method is presented for revealing correlations between the exergy losses in major system components, indicating component interactions. This is achieved with a set of numerical simulations, in which operational conditions and settings are randomly varied, recording plant efficiency and exergy losses in major components. The resulting data is used to identify distinct operational regimes for the GTCC. Finally, the free operational parameters are used as decision variables in a genetic algorithm, optimizing plant efficiency in the operational regimes identified earlier. The results show that the optimal settings for decision variables depend on the regime of operation.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Vuorinen, A., 2009, Planning of Optimal Power Systems, Ekoenergo Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Cox, J., 2010, “Implications of Intermittency,” Modern Power Systems, 30(1), pp. 22–23.
Boksteen, S. Z, van der Vecht, D. J., Pecnik, R., and van Buijtenen, J. P., 2012, “The Role of Gas Turbine Performance Modeling in the Operational Optimization of the Newly Built ALSTOM GTCC in Lelystad, The Netherlands,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68137. [CrossRef]
Balling, L., Termuehlen, H., and Baumgartner, R., 2002, “40 Years of Combined Cycle Power Plants,” ASME Paper No. IJPGC2002-26111. [CrossRef]
Wechsung, M., Feldmüller, A., and Lemmen, H., 2012, “Steam Turbines for Flexible Load Operation in the Future Market of Power Generation,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-69312. [CrossRef]
Susta, M. R., and Greth, M., 2001, “Efficiency Improvement Possibilities in CCGT Power Plant Technology,” POWERGEN-ASIA, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 19–21.
Srinivas, T., Reddy, B., and Gupta, A., 2011, “Parametric Simulation of Combined Cycle Power Pant: A Case Study,” Int. J. Thermodyn., 14(1), pp. 29–36. [CrossRef]
Ibrahim, T. K., and Rahman, M. M., 2012, “Parametric Simulation of Triple-Pressure Reheat Combined Cycle: A Case Study,” Adv. Sci. Lett., 13(1), pp. 263–268. [CrossRef]
Variny, M., and Mierka, O., 2009, “Improvement of Part Load Efficiency of a Combined Cycle Power Plant Provisioning Ancillary Services,” Appl. Energy, 86(6), pp. 888–894. [CrossRef]
Frangopoulos, C. A., 2009, “Optimization Methods for Energy Systems,” In Exergy, Energy Systems Analysis, and Optimization, Vol. 2, C. A.Frangopoulos, ed., Eolss Publishers, Paris.
Moran, M. J., and Shapiro, H. N., 2000, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York.
Woudstra, N., Woudstra, T., Pirone, A., and van der Stelt, T., 2010, “Thermodynamic Evaluation of Combined Cycle Plants,” Energy Convers. Manage., 51(5), pp. 1099–1110. [CrossRef]
Koch, C., Cziesla, F., and Tsatsaronis, G., 2007, “Optimization of Combined Cycle Power Plants Using Evolutionary Algorithms,” Chem. Eng. Process., 46(11), pp. 1151–1159. [CrossRef]
Franco, A., and Russo, A., 2002, “Combined Cycle Plant Efficiency Increase Based on the Optimization of the Heat Recovery Steam Generator Operating Parameters,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., 41(9), pp. 843–859. [CrossRef]
Xiang, W., and Chen, Y., 2007, “Performance Improvement of Combined Cycle Power Plant Based on the Optimization of the Bottom Cycle and Heat Recuperation,” J. Thermal Sci., 16(1), pp. 84–89. [CrossRef]
Franco, A., and Casarosa, C., 2002, “On Some Perspectives for Increasing the Efficiency of Combined Cycle Power Plants,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 22(13), pp. 1501–1518. [CrossRef]
Ahmadi, P., Dincer, I., and Rosen, M. A., 2011, “Exergy, Exergoeconomic and Environmental Analyses and Evolutionary Algorithm Based Multi-Objective Optimization of Combined Cycle Power Plants,” Energy, 36(10), pp. 5886–5898. [CrossRef]
Rovira, A., Sanchez, C., Munoz, M., Valdes, M., and Duran, M. D., 2011, “Thermoeconomic Optimisation of Heat Recovery Steam Generators of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants Considering Off-Design Operation,” Energy Convers. Manage., 52(4), pp. 1840–1849. [CrossRef]
Vieira, L. S., Matt, C. F., Guedes, V. G., Cruz, M. E., and Castellões, F. V., 2010, “Maximization of the Profit of a Complex Combined-Cycle Cogeneration Plant Using a Professional Process Simulator,”ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 132(4), p. 041801. [CrossRef]
Gaing, Z.-L., 2003, “Particle Swarm Optimization to Solving the Economic Dispatch Considering the Generator Constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 18(3), pp. 1187–1195. [CrossRef]
Güthe, F., Hellat, J., and Flohr, P., 2007, “The Reheat Concept: the Proven Pathway to Ultra-Low Emissions and High Efficiency and Flexibility,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 131(2), p. 021503. [CrossRef]
Thermoflow, 2012, Thermoflow Software Suite User's Manual, Thermoflow Inc., Southborough, MA.
Iaccarino, G., and Magin, T., 2011, “Uncertainty Quantification in Computational Fluid Dynamics,” NATO Research and Technology Organisation, Neuilly sur Seine, France, Report No. RTO-AVT-193.
Rasmussen, C., and Williams, C., 2005, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Paalanen, P., Kamarainen, J.-K., and Ilonen, J., 2006, “Feature Representation and Discrimination Based on Gaussian Mixture Model Probability Densities—Practices and Algorithms,” Pattern Recognition, 39(7), pp. 1346–1358. [CrossRef]
Can Gülen, S., and Joseph, J., 2012, “Combined Cycle Off-Design Performance Estimation: A Second-Law Perspective,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 134(1), p. 011801. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Plant layout in Thermoflex

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Major components' exergy losses as function of GT load setting; relative to total fuel exergy input

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mutual plot of component exergy losses under random variation of operational parameters; relative to total fuel exergy input. (Exemplary guide for interpretation: in the mutual plot of GT and HPS-ATT, the relative exergy losses in the GT are on the Y-axis.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Cooling water temperatures associated with cluster 1 in Fig. 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Scatter plot of the operational space of low pressure steam turbine exergy loss and plant efficiency; contours of Gaussian mixtures clusters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Optimal input settings for 3 cluster centers compared to default inputs (normalized to [0 1] domain); the effect of all three optimizations was an efficiency increase of approx. 0.1%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Scatter plot of the operational space of the gas turbine exergy loss and plant efficiency; contours of Gaussian mixtures clusters



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