Abstract

The best assurance an owner has to maximize the performance of the entire combined cycle power plant is the perfect alignment of heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) performance guarantee metrics to this goal. Currently, HRSG equipment performance guarantees include steam generation rates and steam temperature at each pressure level plus draft loss and reheater pressure drop. This profusion of guaranteed parameters with multiple bonus/liquidated damages (LD) rates is not always well correlated to the customer's ultimate goal of delivering power from the bottoming cycle since the behavior of each steam generation circuit is a complex function of steam pressure, steam turbine performance, and gas turbine exhaust temperature. This paper proposes a solution that normalizes and combines all HRSG performance measurements into a single value directly and reliably tied to the customer value metric (which may be different for fired and unfired operation or other load points). This is achieved by expressing the HRSG performance guarantee in terms of exergy recovered to steam and plant exergy loss attributable to the HRSG (gas side draft loss). This will be shown, with examples, to serve the goals of the customer to confirm by test that an HRSG delivers the promised steam exergy consistent with the plant level performance requirement.

References

1.
Gülen
,
S. C.
, and
Smith
,
R. W.
,
2010
, “
A Simple Mathematical Approach to Data Reconciliation in a Single-Shaft Combined-Cycle System
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2006-90145. 10.1115/GT2006-90145
2.
Dincer
,
I.
, and
Rosen
,
M.
,
2020
,
Exergy—Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development
,
Elsevier
, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
3.
Querol
,
E.
,
Gonzalez-Regueral
,
B.
, and
Perez-Benedito
,
J. L.
,
2013
,
Practical Approach to Exergy and Thermoeconomic Analyses of Industrial Processes
,
Springer
, New York, pp.
9
28
.
4.
Baykal
,
S.
,
Rufli
,
P.
,
Bolliger
,
R.
,
Fusaro
,
F.
, and
Kujawski
,
H.
,
2016
, “
Identification of Thermodynamic Design Parameters Using Multi Objective and Multi Variable Optimization Methodologies to Achieve 65% Combined Cycle Plant Net Efficiency
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2016-57785.10.1115/GT2016-57785
5.
ASME,
2008
,
Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generators, Reaffirmed 2013
,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
New York
, Standard No. ASME PTC 4.4.
6.
Smith
,
R. W.
, and
Gülen
,
S. C.
,
2020
, “
Natural Gas Power
,”
Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology
,
R.
Malhotra
, ed.,
Springer
, New York, pp.
249
307
.
7.
Smith
,
R. W.
,
2017
,
Advances in Steam Turbines for Modern Power Plants
,
T.
Tanuma
, ed.,
Woodhead Publishing
, Cambridge, MA, pp.
57
92
.
8.
Gas Turbine World,
2016
,
Handbook
, Vol.
32
,
Pequot Publishing
,
Fairfield, CT
.
9.
Gülen
,
S. C.
, and
Smith
,
R. W.
,
2010
, “
Second Law Efficiency of the Rankine Bottoming Cycle of a Combined Cycle Power Plant
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
132
(
1
), p.
011801
.10.1115/1.3124787
10.
Gülen
,
S. C.
,
2010
, “
A Proposed Definition of CHP Efficiency
,”
Power
, 154(6), pp.
58
63
.
You do not currently have access to this content.