Energy 169 (2019) 684e695

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Thermodynamic evaluation of a waste gas-fired steam power plant in

an iron and steel facility using enhanced exergy analysis
Kadir Yılmaz a, Muhammet Kayfeci b, *, Ali Keçebaş c, **
a
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey
b
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey
c
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Mug
la Sıtkı Koçman University, Mug

la, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Since the industrial revolution to nowadays, many waste gases have been produced in iron-steel facil-
Received 7 March 2018 ities. These gases increased the amount of energy consumption and risky by CO2 emissions. For these
Received in revised form reasons, the useful waste gases, energy saving and decreased emissions technology are made. In this
22 September 2018
study, a collection of real operating data has been performed in an existing steam power plant using the
Accepted 1 December 2018
Available online 3 December 2018
useful waste gas that has occurred in iron and steel production facilities according to their nature,
traditional and enhanced exergy analyses of it. The thermodynamic performance of the system is
evaluated by improvement potential of the system components and by the interaction between the
Keywords:
Iron and steel facility
components. Useful waste gases produced in the facility consist of blast furnace gas, coke oven gas and
Waste gases converter gas. These gases are used for boosting the pressure and temperature of the circulation water by
Boiler means of the heat of the exhaust gas produced by burning them at the steam-powered Rankine cycle's
Steam power plant boiler and its subcomponents. The results of the study showed that the traditional and the enhanced
Enhanced exergy analysis exergy efficiencies of the system are respectively 60.7% and 83.7%. Potential improvement of the system
Thermodynamic performance and the interaction between the components are determined as 24.8% (low) and 74.5% (high). System
components with improvement priority are condenser; combustion chamber, turbine, first super-heater
and economizer at the traditional exergy analysis; whereas a combustion chamber, turbine, first super-
heater, economizer and second super-heater at the enhanced exergy analysis. Thus, as a similar result to
those for all conversion thermal systems, combustion chamber is a component that always needs to be
improved.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in this industry, worldwide consideration of energy efficiency is

Iron-steel industry is a manufacturing sector that has broad
source consumption, intense energy demand, high amount of
pollution and emissions. Approximately 5% of worldwide energy
consumption belongs to iron-steel industry [1e5]. On the other
hand, because of the intense dependency on fossil fuels, iron-steel
industry is the biggest CO2 emitter with a rate of approximately 1/3
of all CO2 emissions in the industrial sector. This corresponds to
4e5% of worldwide total CO2 emission [6]. Energy efficiency of
iron-steel industry has a direct effect on general energy con-
sumption and environmental harmful effects. Therefore, especially
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mkayfeci@karabuk.edu.tr (M. Kayfeci), alikecebas@gmail.com
(A. Keçebaş).
increasing.
Especially in Turkey, which is among the developing countries,
the history of iron-steel industry goes back to 1920s. In Turkey, the
first attempts for establishing iron-steel industry has been begun in
1925 in Kırıkkale under the control of Administration of Military
Factories. The Karabuk Iron-Steel Plant which is the first integrated
one began with the manufacturing in 1939 [7]. During the interval
between those days until 2016, with 33.2 million tons of produc-
tion, 2.1% of total worldwide production are satisfied. With its
production, Turkey takes part in 8th sequence worldwide and on
the other hand, in the 2nd sequence in Europe after Germany [8].
Thus, as a result of the high amount of manufacturing of iron and
steel, energy consumption and the amount of CO2 emissions
become very high as well.
Stone coal consumption accounts for 80%, electricity consump-
tion for 8e10%, petrol and natural gas consumption for 10e15% of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.007
0360-5442/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695
the total energy consumption of iron-steel facilities which manu-
facture liquid steel from ore [9]. In an integrated plant that man-
ufactures iron and steel, as a result of manufacturing processes,
gases that can be energy raw material carrying thermal value occur
as well. These gases are coke gas, which occurs during the putre-
faction process, blast furnace gas, which is obtained from the blast
furnaces and converter gas which occurs during the steel
manufacturing process. Generally, converter gas is not used in
plants. Blast furnace gas and coke gas, on the other hand, are used
in steam boilers burning gas, tempering furnaces of rolling mills
and other processes. However; since the production of these gases
is higher than their consumption and the possibility of their storage
in high amounts doesn't exist, in developing countries, they
generally exhausted into the atmosphere after being burned inside
the gas exhaust flues. Therefore, since these useful waste gases are
not recycled, they caused a high amount of energy loss and envi-
ronmental pollution.
After the petrol crisis in 1973; increasing petrol costs forced the
iron and steel industries to use waste heat recovery systems and
higher amount of blast furnace gas and therefore to consider the
possibilities for decreasing or completely vanishing natural gas or
coke furnace gas consumption. Therefore, the blast furnace method
is used in 95% of worldwide iron and steel manufacturing and
consumes about 75% of the total energy consumption of the related
iron-steel plant [10]. In an iron-steel facility, as an exhaust gas, blast
furnace gas is exhausted in higher amounts with respect to the
other useful exhaust gases (coke gas, converter gas). CO2 content is
higher with respect to the others. Blast furnaces are developed
continuously in order to decrease the coke consumption and in-
crease the daily manufacturing capacity.
In order to increase the energy conversion efficiency and
decrease the CO2 emission in iron-steel facilities, the necessity for
applying thermodynamic analysis methods to such thermal sys-
tems is important. The effects of numerous energy-saving and
emissions reduction measures, such as raw materials substitution,
waste heat recovery, power production, and CO2 fixation, have been
assessed using economic and energy-related indicators including
energy intensity and energy efficiency [11e15]. In addition, it is
important to obtain knowledge about the power-generating sys-
tems using useful waste gases occurred in iron-steel facilities and
about their thermodynamic efficiencies. Unfortunately, only a few
articles have considered the details of thermodynamic analysis of
iron/steel manufacturing processes in iron-steel facilities. Bisio [16]
investigated the recovery of thermal energy from exhaust gases,
which is the main purpose of energy efficiency boosting while
using blast furnace gas, and many kinds of systems for pre-heating
in Cowper stoves with blast furnace. Bisio [17] have examined a
connection mechanism in which fuel is used as an oxygen carrier in
blast furnace ovens in which turbine exhaust gas is used and in pre-
heaters for burning the gas for obtaining the necessary combustion
temperatures. A blast furnace oven system and a gas turbine power
plant have been evaluated in comparison with each other by using
exergy analysis without being exposed to the heat recovery. Bisio
and Rubatto [18] investigated fundamental types of cooling
installation using coke for the recovery of waste energy from the
coke furnaces and the effects of temperature and pressure of
generating steam on exergy efficiencies of these plants. By
considering the parameters in blast furnace operation, Ziebik and
Stanek [19,20] developed an algorithm that depends on energy and
exergy analysis as a simulation in thermodynamic evaluation and
optimization of a blast furnace plant for saving the coke up. Mod-
esto and Nebra [21,22] presented a system for an energy generation
system with a regenerative Rankine cycle using blast furnace gas
and coke furnace gas caused from the steel manufacturing for the
Companhia Sideurgica Tubarao steel factory in Brazil. The system
685
they have suggested is a combined power cycle, which consists of
two gas turbines, two heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and a
steam turbine. This system suggested is evaluated in terms of its
thermo-economic situation. Ozkan € [23] performed energy and
exergy analyses for each unit of power plant that belong to the
Ereg
li Iron-Steel Facility in Turkey. The highest exergy efficiency
and exergy destruction occurred in gas turbines and in steam boiler
respectively. They found the total exergy destruction of the system
as 1187.55 MW and its potential to improvement as 800.84 MW. On
a process or plant level, exergy analysis was conducted on a mixed
fuel-fired grateekiln for iron ore pellet in duration to investigate
the irreversibility of the process by Zhang et al. [24]. Mert et al. [25]
made exergy and economic analyses of a cogeneration plant with
gas turbine, which belongs to the Ereg
li Iron-Steel Factory in
Turkey. They detected that the maximum exergy loss took place in
the combustion chamber and development potential in terms of
system performance existed here. Aso, the gas turbine is the
component with the highest efficiency in the system and the
minimum exergy loss took place in gas turbines. On a steel pro-
duction site, the exergy concept has been used to describe the
energy problems for different energy types and CO2 emissions were
optimized by using the Pareto method in Ref. [26]. Yao et al. [27]
conducted the exergy and economic analyses of a power plant with
a combined cycle, which consists of a gas turbine in which blast
furnace gas, coke furnace gas and sinter waste gas exhausted from
steel manufacturing process which used, a steam turbine and a
HRSG cooled by means of a cooling machine. For iron
manufacturing process in a blast furnace, an optimization model
was established based on material balance and energy balance, in
which exergy loss minimization was taken as the optimization
objective [28]. Then, Liu et al. [28] investigated effects of coal ratio,
top gas temperature, slag basicity and blast parameters on the
exergy loss minimization. Yıldız et al. [29] detected the potential to
improvement of the power plant that belongs to the Kardemir Iron-
Steel Facility in Turkey by making energy and exergy analyses of its
part running by means of steam at 25 bar pressure and 385
C
temperature. They have informed that the least efficient compo-
nent inside the system was a steam boiler with 49.54% of exergy
efficiency. Zetterholm et al. [30] modelled the blast furnace boiler
system in order to evaluate its performance mathematically. They
searched the effects of re-burning the blast furnace gas exhausted
from the boiler system after the process for saving the natural gas
and especially the coke gas among LPG fuels which are used as fuel
in the blast furnace boiler.
In recent years, with rapid improving technology, waste gas
usage projects of combined cycle power plant with combustion
gases like blast furnace gas and coke gas are improved. Bassily [31]
investigated the methods for improving the efficiency and power of
a combined-cycle power plant (CCPP) which consists of a gas cycle
in which natural gas is used as fuel, a steam cycle and HRSG. For a
similar plant, Ahmedi et al. [32] tried to determine and optimize
the best CCPP design in terms of exergy, economic and environ-
mental aspects. Kaviri et al. [33] investigated the effects of exergy
efficiency and costs like component, fuel, duct burner and exergy
destruction on parameters such as gas turbine temperature,
compressor pressure rate and pinch point temperature in a CCPP
with a duct burner.
It is known that, the application of exergy-based methods
cannot be used to assess the improvement potential of component
and the interaction between components in a given system [34]. It
has been proven that the enhanced analysis is a promising and
powerful tool for comprehensively evaluating complex energy
systems. Thus, Tsatsaronis [35,36] not only evaluated the weak-
nesses of the traditional exergy analysis, but also discussed the
enhanced exergy, exergy economic and exergy environmental
686 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695
analyses that are solutions to those weaknesses. Enhanced exergy
analysis is an approach that explains and calculates the different
kinds of exergy destruction (endogenous/exogenous and unavoid-
able/avoidable) in each component of an energy system. Most of
the articles and researchers focused on studies the enhanced
exergy analysis of combined cycle power plants consisting of HRSG
fed by natural gas, coal and biomass. For example; Cziesla et al. [37]
studied the avoidable and unavoidable exergy destructions of a
combined cycle power plant that consists of HRSG which burns
natural gas. In that way, they detected design proposals and po-
tential for improvement the system and the components. Petra-
kopoulou et al. [38] analyzed a CCPP consisting of HRSG that burns
natural gas by using traditional and enhanced exergy analyses.
They reported that the interaction between the components and
potential improvement for the system existed. The component to
which improvement is necessary primarily is the combustion
chamber. Soltani et al. [39] thermodynamically modelled a com-
bined cycle power plant consisting of HRSG with externally fired
biomass. They evaluated the system potential improvement
regarding the interaction between the system components by
applying enhanced exergy analysis on the modelled system. While
the gasifier and the combustion chamber were the primary com-
ponents that require improvement, according to the traditional
exergy analysis; it was reported that they were as heat exchangers,
steam turbine, combustion chamber and condenser in the
enhanced exergy analysis. Yang et al. [40] applied traditional and
enhanced exergy analyses to the steam power plants that burn coal
and to their components. In that way, they have investigated the
effects of boiler sub-system components on boiler performance and
its potential to improvement. In addition, some optimization stra-
tegies for the fuel consumption decrease were presented. They
reported that the primary component that requires the improve-
ment was the boiler sub-system. Açıkkalp et al. [41] evaluated
thermodynamic performance of CCPP consisting of a gas cycle us-
ing natural gas as fuel, a steam cycle and HRSG which established in
Eskişehir in Turkey. By using the enhanced exergy analysis, they
reported that gas turbine and combustion chamber are compo-
nents of the improvement priorities. Boyaghchi and Molaie [42]
evaluated the thermodynamic performance of combined cycle
power plant consisting of HRSG with duct burner that burns natural
gas, by means of the enhanced exergy analysis. The effects of tur-
bine inlet temperature and compressor pressure rate on the above
mentioned system and its components' performance were inves-
tigated by In Ref. [42]. As these parameters have increased in value,
the exergy efficiency has increased as well. Anvari et al. [43] used
enhanced-exergy based analysis in order to evaluate a CCPP with
HRSG using natural gas for electricity, heating and cooling pur-
poses, in terms of thermal and economical point of view. Thus, they
made an optimization study for maximizing exergy efficiency and
minimizing manufacturing cost.
When the literature and the above mentioned studies are
reviewed carefully; it is clearly observed that, they report that it is
very important to decrease energy consumption and environ-
mental emissions of iron-steel facilities and thus it is necessary to
recycle useful waste gases. In addition, the obtained useful waste
gases have been used in combined cycle with a gas turbine. To date,
the thermodynamic performance of a steam cycle power plant with
a burning boiler in which useful waste gases, especially blast
furnace gas, coke oven gas and converter gas are burned directly,
has not been evaluated so far. This article focuses on a deep and
thorough discussion of thermodynamic performance related to
potential to improvement and interaction between components of
a steam power plant with 50 MW and its components that burns
useful waste gases exhausting from an existing iron-steel facility.
For the steam power plant located in the city of Karabük/Turkey,
the traditional and enhanced exergy analyses are performed using
actual data collected in November 18, 2016. This article is the first
one that determines and evaluates the potential to improvement
and the interactions between components of a state-of-the-art
waste gas fired steam power plant in iron-steel facilities. Another
motivation source for the authors is the investigation of sub-
components of the burning boiler inside the system as well.
2. Description of the existing power plant
An integrated iron-steel facility consists of coke factory, blast
furnaces, sinter factory, converter and rolling mills. In addition to
these, a power plant which satisfies energy requirement exists.
Power plant supplies some amount of electricity needed inside the
integrated iron-steel manufacturing plants, process steam, chemi-
cal water, oxygen, nitrogen, pressurized air and air to burn which is
required for blast furnaces. In addition; it is the location where coke
gas, blast furnace gas and converter gas generated as byproduct are
used as fuel and distributed to the other units.
The duty of coke factory inside the integrated iron-steel facilities
is to satisfy the coke requirement of a blast furnace. As a result of
coking operation of coal blend at high temperature, coke gas occurs.
Coke gas obtained as by-product is used as fuel in the tempering
furnaces and tempering pits and steel quarries during the
manufacturing. A blast furnace is the most important unit of an
iron-steel facility. In blast furnace; liquid raw iron is obtained by
smelting iron ore by heating together with additives (coke, lime-
stone, sinter). In blast furnace; chemical reactions between the
descending charge materials (ore, pellets, coke, limestone, sinter)
and ascending gases (N2, CO, CO2, H2) occur. Gases occurred as a
result of a chemical reaction, on the other hand, they are taken into
the gas cleaning unit by means of pipes at the top of the furnace.
This mixture of gas is called “blast furnace gas”. Liquid mine that
comes from blast furnaces enters together with liquid steel, con-
verter gas exhaust as by-product. If there is no high-level gas
storage plant and power plant inside an integrated iron-steel plant;
these gases obtained as by-product and exhausted into the atmo-
sphere by being burned inside the gas exhausting chimneys. Thus,
it can cause heat loss in considerable amounts.
In this study, the power plant has a total installed capacity of
50 MW and is located in the city of Karabük, Turkey. The schematic
diagram of the power plant is shown in Fig. 1. Volumetric per cent
contents of coke, blast furnace and converter gases used for the
purpose of generating power inside the plant are listed at Tables 1, 2
and 3 respectively. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the power plant is
comprised of a 19 ton per hour bi-drum water tube combustion
chamber/boiler, a 9-stage pressure compounded impulse turbine, a
two-pass shell and tube condenser. The combustion chamber
Fig. 1. Structure of the power plant.
 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695 687

Table 1 X
Fuel content of the coke gas (COG). E_ F;sys ¼ E_ P;sys þ E_ D;k þ E_ L;sys (1)
Content, i Symbol Volumetric percent (%) k

Hydrogen H2 57.58
where the subscripts F, P, D and L denote exergy associated with
Methane CH4 22.18
Nitrogen N2 7.14
production, fuel, destruction and loss. The subscripts sys and k
Carbonmonoxide CO 6.95 mean the entire system and component, respectively.
Carbon dioxide CO2 3.02 Assuming that the system boundaries are in T0 reference, there
Ethylene C2H4 1.46 is no exergy loss associated with the components [44]. Thus, the
Acetylene C2H2 0.82
traditional exergy balance can be given at the component level as
Ethane C2H6 0.49
Oxygen O2 0.36 follows:
X
E_ F;k ¼ E_ P;k þ E_ D;k
Total 100
(2)
k

Table 2 In the literature, as the control volumes of such systems, Eq. (2)
Fuel content of the blast furnace gas (BFG). can be found in the basic exergy balances of the traditional exergy
analysis [45e47]. In this study, exergy balances of each system
Content, i Symbol Volumetric percent (%)
component were not given to focus on the main subject and for the
Nitrogen N2 57.06
sake of simplicity. Here, however, the chemical exergy calculations
Carbonmonoxide CO 23.12
Carbon dioxide CO2 18.08
of useful waste gas fuels and combustion processes will be
Hydrogen H2 1.74 mentioned.
The amount of exergy of a jth stream in a system can be deter-
Total 100
mined from

E_ j ¼ m_ j ej (3)
Table 3
Fuel content of the converter gas (CVG).
where m_ j and ej , are the mass flow rate and specific flow exergy of
Content, i Symbol Volumetric percent (%) the jth stream, respectively. When nuclear, magnetic, electric, ki-
Carbonmonoxide CO 50 netic and potential effects are neglected in thermal systems, spe-
Nitrogen N2 29 cific exergy for chemical and physical specific exergy can be written
Carbon dioxide CO2 21
as follows:
Total 100
phys
ej ¼ echem
j þ ej (4)

consists of burners, evaporator, 3 super-heaters and primary pre- The amount of exergy of waste gas fuels used in a steam power
heater. The mentioned fuels are burned in the combustion cham- plant can be expressed as:
ber by the burners. After the combustion, before the gases are  
E_ fuel ¼ echem
phys e
exhausted into the atmosphere, steam is obtained for turbine by fuel þ efuel V fuel (5)
means of heat transfer by making them pass through boiler sub-
~ 3
systems. Steam is produced in the combustion chamber/boiler at where V fuel is the flow rate of fuel in Nm /s.
a pressure of 400 kPa and a temperature of 350
C and fed to the The following equations can be used for chemical and physical
turbine. A small quantity of steam is supplied to de-aerator. The specific exergy:
turbine exhaust steam is sent to the condenser and then fed back to
the de-aerator. The boiler feeds water to the pump and then it echem
fuel ¼ 4fuel Hu;fuel (6)
pumps the fed water to the boiler and the cycle repeats. Econo-
mizer, air pre-heater and convective super-heater are integrated  . 
with the boiler. The boiler uses a balanced draught system. The ephys
fuel
ephys
¼~fuel
rfuel Mfuel (7)
water obtained after removing the latent heat of steam inside the
steam condenser is directed to an induced draught cooling tower. In where 4fuel is a chemical energy factor of each fuel as given in
addition, combustion air vacuumed from the ambience outside is Table 4, Hu;fuel is the lower heat value of the fuel, rfuel is density of
heated by exhaust gases by means of 2 air pre-heaters. fuel and Mfuel is molar weight. The molar specific flow exergy of
ephys
fuel, ~fuel
, can be determined as:

~phys ~
efuel ¼ C p;fuel ½ðT  T0 Þ  T0 lnðT=T0 Þ þ RT0 lnðP=P0 Þ (8)
3. Methodology
For a, b, c and d constant coefficients given in Table 5 for each
Exergy is defined as the more theoretical useful work can be fuel, the molar specific heat value of the fuel is given by
achieved until a system becomes dead state from a certain initial
state. Exergy analysis is a methodology that uses the first and
Table 4
second principles of thermodynamic laws in the analysis, design The chemical energy factor of fuels.
and improvement of thermal systems. Exergy is also a useful tool
Fuels 4
for describing the amount of energy conservation in a waste gas-
fired steam power plant. The traditional exergy balance of control BFG 0.980
volume at steady state for such a system can be expressed as COG 1.050
CVG 0.973
follows:
688 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695

Table 5
 
E_ fw ¼ echem
The constants used for the molar specific heat capacity of fuels.
fw þ ephys
fw
m_ fw (18)
Fuels a b c d

BFG 1.166 9.58  106 1.00  107 5.37  1011

with
COG 9.957 3.39  104 1.29  106 3.89  1010 .
CVG 0.907 2.99  104 1.26  108 3.38  1011 echem echem
¼~ Mw (19)
fw fw

and

~ 2 3
ephys
C p;fuel ¼ a þ b T þ c T þ d T (9) fw
¼ ½ðh  h0 Þ  T0 ðs  s0 Þ (20)

The amount of exergy of total combustion air in the system can

echem
where chemical specific exergy, ~fw , can be expressed as follows.
be obtained by
  echem
~ ¼ RT0 lnðPsatur ðT0 Þ=P0 Þ (21)
E_ ca ¼ ~
fw
echem
ca ephys
þ~ca n_ ca (10)
The above calculation steps in the boiler feed water are also used
where n_ ca is total molar flow rate of combustion air in kmol/s, and for its liquid and vapor states.
n_ ca of the combustion air is calculated taking into account the In evaluating the traditional exergy analysis of the waste gas-
relative and specific humidity's of the air. fired steam power plant, the following exergy efficiency is used in
Using the data listed in Table 6, molar chemical and physical the system and component level:
specific exergies can be calculated for the combustion air: .  . 
εk ¼ E_ P;k E_ F;k ¼ 1  E_ D;k E_ F;k (22)
X
echem
~ca ¼ RT0 yi lnðyi =yÞ (11)
The enhanced exergy analysis provides an insight methodology
to identify, make important decisions, and make non-design im-
ephys
~ ¼0 (12) provements to understand the potential for improving system
ca
components and the interactions between system components in
It should be noted that the physical specific exergy is zero such complex systems. Many examples of its application to
because the combustion air is at the reference state (ambient) different conversion systems are available in the literature [38e41].
temperature and pressure. In this study, the enhanced exergy analysis was applied to the
The exergy of the flue gas resulting from the combustion process system which was considered to further evaluate the performance
is found by the following expression. of the waste gas-fired steam power plant.
  Depending on today's technological and economic limitations,
E_ fg ¼ ~
phys
echem
fg þ~
efg n_ fg (13) especially in the production methods, each system component does
not have the best thermodynamic behavior. Therefore, it is not
possible to eliminate the amount of exergy destruction of system
where n_ fg is the total molar flow rate of the flue gas in kmol/s and it
component by the actual engineering applications. However, by
can be found by
setting the most appropriate operating conditions, minimum
exergy destruction amounts can be obtained. In this case, when the
Pfg V_ fg ¼ n_ fg RTfg (14) system components are run under the most favorable operating
UN
The molar chemical and physical specific exergy amounts of the (theoretical) conditions, the ðE_ D =E_ P Þk ratio of the considered
flue gas can respectively be calculated by: component can be determined. This ratio is a key parameter for
calculating the amount of unavoidable exergy destruction of the
X individual components of the actual process. The unavoidable
echem
~fg ¼ R T0 yi lnðyi =yÞ (15) operating conditions given in Table 8 are used for the considered
system components. These conditions are determined by the
phys ~ ½ðT  T Þ  T lnðT=T Þ þ R T lnðP=P Þ experience and assumptions of the system-related expert, engineer
~
efg ¼ C p;fg 0 0 0 0 0 (16)
and decision maker [48,49]. Thus, the amount of unavoidable
exergy destruction for any component can be calculated as follows
where y is mole fraction and using the values given in Table 7, the [37,48]:
molar specific heat amount of the flue gas is calculated by the
following equation: UN
 . UN
E_ D;k ¼ E_ P;k $ E_ D E_ P (23)
k
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C p;fg ¼ yO2 C p;O2 þ yCO2 C p;CO2 þ yH2 O C p;H2 O þ yN2 C p;N2 (17)
where the superscript UN is the unavoidable part of the amount of
Total exergy together with chemical and physical exergy exergy destruction of any component. Avoidable part of the amount
amounts for boiler feed water can be given as of exergy destruction of the component, superscript AV, is found by
the following expression:
Table 6 AV Real UN
The molar flow rate and mole fraction of combustion air. E_ D;k ¼ E_ D;k  E_ D;k (24)
Combustion air content, i Molar flow rate (kmol/s) Mole fraction yi
The maximum efficiency can be achieved in a system if they
H2O 0.029 0.0033 provide the best interaction and compatibility among each other.
N2 6.847 0.7873 Hence, determining the interaction between system components is
O2 1.821 0.2094
an important step towards improving the system. During the
 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695 689

Table 7
The percent volume, molar flow rate and mole fraction of flue gases.

Flue gas content, i Percent volume (%) Molar flow rate (kmol/s) Mole fraction yi

CO2 19.16 0.366 0.1916

H2O 3.60 0.069 0.0360
N2 71.74 1.370 0.7174
O2 5.50 0.105 0.0550

Table 8
The theoretical and unavoidable conditions of the system components.

System components Theoretical conditions Unavoidable conditions

FD Fan (FF) hmech ¼ 100%, helec ¼ 100% hmech ¼ 100%, helec ¼ 98%
ID Fan (IF) hmech ¼ 100%, helec ¼ 100% hmech ¼ 100%, helec ¼ 98%
First air preheater (APH1) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 2, Dp ¼ 2
Second air preheater (APH2) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 2, Dp ¼ 2
Economizer (ECO) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 2, Dp ¼ 0
First feedwater preheater (FWPH1) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Second feedwater preheater (FWPH2) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Feedwater tank/deaerator (FWT) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 1, Dp ¼ 0
Third feedwater preheater (FWPH 3) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Fourth feedwater preheater (FWPH 4) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Condensate pump (CONP) hmech ¼ 100%, his ¼ 100% hmech ¼ 100%, his ¼ 95%
Feedwater pump (FWP) hmech ¼ 100%, his ¼ 100% hmech ¼ 100%, his ¼ 95%
Condenser (COND) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 2, Dp ¼ 0
Turbine (TURB) hmech ¼ 100%, his ¼ 100% hmech ¼ 100%, his ¼ 97%
Combustion chamber/Boiler (CC) Qloss ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0, l ¼ 2.42 Qloss ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0, l ¼ 1
Evaporator (EVA) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 2, Dp ¼ 0
First superheater (SH1) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Second superheater (SH2) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Third superheater (SH3) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Primary preheater (PPH) DTmin ¼ 0, Dp ¼ 0 DTmin ¼ 4, Dp ¼ 0
Motors helec ¼ 100% helec ¼ 98%

AV;EX
interaction between these components, there is an exergy (E_ D;k ), as stated below, respectively.
destruction caused by the system component itself and exergy
UN;EX UN UN;EN
destruction caused by other components. However, the amount of E_ D;k ¼ E_ P;k  E_ D;k (27)
exergy destruction caused by a component itself is called as
EN
endogenous exergy destruction, E_ D;k . The considered system
AV;EN EN UN;EN
component intended to calculate this is operated in the actual E_ D;k ¼ E_ P;k  E_ D;k (28)
conditions and all other remaining components are simulated in
the theoretical operating conditions. It is determined by a linear
AV;EX EX UN;EX
curve fitting operation for the exergy destruction of the considered E_ D;k ¼ E_ P;k  E_ D;k (29)
component and for the exergy destruction of all remaining com-
ponents. The b number in the linear equation fitted with y ¼ ax þ b In the evaluation of the enhanced exergy analysis of the waste
expresses as the endogenous part of the amount of exergy gas-fired steam power plant, modified exergy efficiency is used in
destruction of the considered component [50]. The exergy amount the system and component level, as follows:
caused by the other components to the considered component is
. UN AV;EX

defined as the amount of exogenous exergy destruction. It can be εmodified ¼ E_ P;k E_ F;k  E_ D;k  E_ D;k (30)
found in
Assumptions used during the analyses are as follows:
EX Real EN
E_ D;k ¼ E_ D;k  E_ D;k (25)
 The boiler subsystem consists of 3 burners, 1 evaporator, 3
It is also possible to determine the technological, economic and super-heaters and 1 drum.
productive limits of the interaction between components in a  The overall system operates under steady state condition.
system. The amounts of the endogenous and exogenous exergy  The ambient temperature and pressure are 21
C and 1 bar,
destructions of the considered system component can be divided respectively.
into avoidable and unavoidable parts. Therefore, by multiplying the  The composition of air is 21% O2 and 79% N2 in percent volume.
UN
above-mentioned ðE_ D =E_ P Þk ratio and the endogenous exergy  In the burners complete combustion occurs under adiabatic
destruction, the unavoidable-endogenous exergy destruction conditions.
UN;EN
amount (E_ D;k ) of the system component can be calculated  The isentropic efficiency of the steam turbine, the pumps and
[51,52]: the fans is considered as 80%, 85% and 95%, respectively.
 . UN  The steam quality at steam turbine exit is acceptable as 0.95.
UN;EN EN
E_ D;k ¼ E_ P;k $ E_ D E_ P (26)  The pinch point temperature difference and the pressure drop
k
for all the heat exchangers (e.g., condenser, evaporator, feed-
UN;EX
Other expressions are unavoidable-exogenous one (E_ D;k ), water pre-heater, super-heater, etc.) are 8 K and 3% of inlet
AV;EN
_
avoidable-endogenous one (ED;k ) and avoidable-exogenous one pressures, respectively.
690 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695

4. Results and discussion D,k L,k

In this study, the thermodynamic performance of the steam 69.69 MW 12.06 MW

power plant using useful waste gases as a by-product in the inte-
grated iron-steel facility is evaluated by the exergy analysis. The
126.25 MW
interaction between components and the potential to improve-
ment are investigated in detail by performing the enhanced exergy
207.99 MW
analysis on the power plant and its components. The thermody- P,k
namic parameters at each line steam as shown in Fig. 1 were
collected on the existing power plant in 18 November 2016. The
collected parameters and the calculated values obtained by the
F,k
methodology given in section 2 along with Tables 1e7 are listed in
Table 9. First, an exergy analysis is performed using the traditional
Fig. 2. The results of the exergy analysis for the system.

Table 9
Thermodynamic properties of data collected for each steam and, their exergy rate in
exergy analysis. Exergy analysis is performed first using the
the power plant as of November 18, 2016. enhanced exergy analysis.
_ j (kW)
The results obtained by applying the exergy analysis of a waste
Steam, j Flow type Tj (
C) Pj (kPa) _ j (kg/s)
m Ex
gas-fired steam power plant are shown in Fig. 2. It is a 6% loss of
1 Air 21.0 101.33 57.36 19663 exergy of approximately 208 MW total exergy input in the system.
2 Air 21.6 107.23 57.36 19389
A total exergy input of approximately 208 MW in the system con-
3 Air 195.0 106.13 57.36 17265
4 Air 340.0 105.21 57.36 13393 sists of 6% exergy losses, 34% exergy destructions, and the
5 COG 30.0 103.93 0.87 19925.4 remaining 60% exergy production. As can be seen from Fig. 2, there
6 BFG 30.0 103.23 26.82 140005.8 are a large percentage of exergy losses due to system components.
7 OCG 30.0 109.78 6.26 28399.8 Therefore, the component-level analysis results are listed in
8 NG e e e e
9 Flue gas 346.0 100.73 91.31 4121
Table 10. As shown in Table 10, the highest rate of exergy input
10 Flue gas 305.0 100.48 91.31 6162 occurs in the combustion chamber (CC) with 74.6 MW and then in
11 Flue gas 225.0 98.44 91.31 9567 the turbine (TURB) with 65.3 MW. The amount of energy produced
12 Flue gas 150.0 97.94 91.31 12362 in the TURB for the day when the system data is collected is found
13 Flue gas 150.6 102.73 91.31 11983
to be 50.7 MW. A variation of the amount of exergy destruction of
14 Water-liquid 43.8 588 43.74 175
15 Water-liquid 81.4 475 43.74 1017 the system components is shown in Fig. 3. From this figure, the
16 Water-liquid 120.9 360 43.74 2568 highest exergy destruction rate between the system components
17 Water-liquid 137.0 360 52.17 4024 occurs at approximately 23 MW in condenser (COND), 19.2 MW in
18 Water-liquid 140.0 10800 52.17 4736 the combustion chamber (CC), 14.6 MW in turbine (TURB), 10.9 MW
19 Water-liquid 140.0 10800 3.22 1752
20 Water-liquid 140.0 10800 48.95 4443
in first super-heater (SH1), and 6.1 MW in economizer (ECO).
21 Water-liquid 178.5 10600 48.95 7025 Moreover, exergy destruction amounts of all remaining compo-
22 Water-liquid 217.0 10400 48.95 10151 nents after the second air pre-heater (APH2) at 1.8 MW and the
23 Water-liquid 304.0 9800 48.95 19663 feedwater tank/deaerator (FWT) at 1.7 MW have remained below
24 Water-liquid 309.0 9750 48.95 20378
1 MW. Thus, the most inefficient running and operating system
25 Water-liquid 309.0 9750 48.95 20378
26 Water/steam mixture 309.0 9750 48.95 20399 components have been determined in the system.
27 Saturated steam 309.0 9750 48.95 20378
28 Steam 400.0 9450 48.95 62281
29 Water-liquid 140.0 10800 1.66 150.7 Table 10
30 Steam 372.0 9450 50.61 61907 Results of the exergy analysis of the system and its components.
31 Steam 455.0 9125 50.61 68882
32 Water-liquid 140.0 10800 1.56 141.6 Component, k E_ F,k E_ P,k E_ D.k
33 Steam 461.0 9125 52.17 71501
(kW) (kW) (kW)
34 Steam 532.0 8800 52.17 77205
35 Steam 532.0 360 0.20 221.6 FF 315 274.1 40.9
36 Steam 532.0 8800 51.97 76909 IF 500 378.4 121.6
37 Steam 356.4 2363 2.27 2540 APH1 2795 2124.1 670.9
38 Steam 355.4 2245 2.27 2526 APH2 3871 2041 1830
39 Water-liquid 198.9 2245 2.27 383 ECO 9512 3404 6107
40 Steam 304.7 1501 3.19 3224 FWPH1 3126 2142.8 983.2
41 Steam 303.8 1426 3.19 3203 FWPH2 2963 2581.9 381.1
42 Water-liquid 164.3 1426 5.46 623.3 FWT 5726 4025 1701
43 Steam 244.1 887 2.77 2463 FWPH 3 1885 1551.6 333.4
44 Steam 238.8 588 2.77 2313 FWPH 4 1252.5 841.6 410.9
45 Saturated steam 125.6 236 3.13 1994 CONP 110 75.9 35.1
46 Saturated steam 123.9 224 3.13 1971 FWP 800 711.3 88.7
47 Supercooled water 87.4 224 3.13 85.95 COND 53051 30053.8 22997.2
48 Saturated steam 85.7 59 2.78 1219 TURB 65340 50700 14640
49 Saturated steam 84.4 56 2.78 1199 CC 74585 55340 19245
50 Supercooled water 49.7 56 5.91 32.24 EVA 36.6 21 15.6
51 Saturated steam 43.8 14 37.50 128.5 SH1 52810.4 41903.3 10907.1
52 Water-liquid 27.0 200 0.33 0.116 SH2 11911 6975.3 4935.7
53 Water-liquid 43.8 14 43.74 149.9 SH3 8830.6 5704.4 3126.2
54 Water-liquid 27.0 310 2100 969.3 PPH 975.4 715 260.4
55 Water-liquid 35.0 10200 2100 24020 Drum 21 21 0
 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695 691

25000 curve fitting method used in Ref. [50] are used in the analysis. Thus,
Exergy destruction (kW)

the minimum (unavoidable), optimum (theoretical) and maximum

20000 (mediocre) values of the exergy destruction amounts of each
component are calculated. The distribution of the enhanced exergy
15000 analysis results of the exergy destruction occurred in the system are
displayed in Fig. 4. As regards Fig. 4, 12% of the exergy destruction
10000 rate of the system can be avoided, while 37% is the exogenous
exergy rate caused by the components themselves. On the other
5000 hand, the improved performance of the system is determined as
24%. Studies [40,41,43,53] in the literature close to the study topic is
0
depicted that this value is higher than 24%. Improved performances
IF

PPH
FWT

FWP

CC
COND
FF

ECO

CONP

EVA
APH1
APH2

FWPH1
FWPH2

FWPH3

TURB
FWPH4

SH1
SH2
SH3
determined at low values may be regarded as a sign that the system
is well designed or that all components operate in harmony.
System components However, the exergy destruction caused by other components to
any component in the system is 26%.
Fig. 3. The change of the exergy destruction for the system components. As a result of exergy analysis, the system components that need
improvement are; condenser, combustion chamber, turbine, first
super-heater and economizer. The results of the enhanced exergy
AV analysis at the component level are listed in Table 11. These results
are illustrated by the figures in the ongoing sections. The initial
12% EX results of the enhanced exergy analysis at the component level are
13% presented as percentage in Fig. 5. Although the evaporator (EVA)
EN among the system components has the highest percentage of
37%
avoidable exergy destruction (blue) at 66%, its values are 6.9 MW,
5.4 MW, 3.1 MW, 2.8 MW and 0.7 MW at the CC, TURB, COND, SH1
and ECO, respectively. From Fig. 5, it is seen that the exergy
38% destruction percentages (orange) caused by the other components
of the FF and IF fans are the highest. Among the components with
the highest amount of exergy destruction (COND, CC, TURB, SH1
and ECO), the COND has the highest percentage of endogenous
UN exergy destruction with 58% (13.3 MW). However, the amount of
endogenous exergy destroyed by CC is founded as the highest at
Fig. 4. The results of the enhanced exergy analysis for the system. 16.8 MW. It was followed by the COND, TURB, SH1 and ECO. In the
CC, self-induced exergy destruction rate (endogenous) occurs due
to the high chemical irreversibilities that occur during the com-
Exergy analysis is again used to determine the interactions be- bustion process and the sub-system components. Especially if the
tween the components and the potential to improvement of the endogenous exergy rate of the first super-heater can be destroyed,
components at the system component level in the enhanced exergy the combustion chamber can be improved. In order to make a
analysis. However, the operating conditions given in Table 8 and the further assessment, Eqs. (26)e(29) are used to determine the

Table 11
The splitting results of the exergy destruction for the system and its components.
_ D (kW) _ AV (kW)
Ex _ UN (kW)
Ex _ EN (kW)
Ex _ EX (kW)
Ex
Component, k Ex D;k D;k D;k D;k _ UN
Ex _ AV
Ex
D;k D;k

_ UN;EX (kW)
Ex _ AV;EN (kW)
Ex _ AV;EX (kW)
Ex
_ UN;EN (kW)
Ex D;k D;k D;k
D;k

EF 40.9 27.03 13.87 9.6 31.3 7.1 6.77 2.5 24.53

IF 121.6 65.96 55.64 39.5 82.1 36.7 18.94 2.8 63.16
APH1 670.9 210.2 460.7 568 102.9 288.4 172.3 279.6 69.4
APH2 1830 341 1489 1786.3 43.7 802.6 686.4 983.7 642.7
ECO 6107 685 5422 5861 246 3956.8 1465.2 1904.2 1219.2
FWPH1 983.2 350.8 632.4 763.8 219.4 436.1 196.3 327.7 23.1
FWPH2 381.1 149.5 231.6 285.6 95.5 137.2 94.4 148.4 1.1
FWT 1701 127 1574 956.3 744.7 1623.5 49.5 667.2 794.2
FWPH3 333.4 95 238.4 300.7 32.7 200 38.4 100.7 5.7
FWPH4 410.9 128.5 282.4 286.9 124 179.4 103 107.5 21
CONP 135.1 4.4 130.7 125.6 9.5 83 47.7 42.6 38.2
FWP 88.71 9.95 78.76 81.2 7.51 41.1 37.66 40.1 30.15
COND 22997 2804 20193 13364 9633 15364.6 4828.4 2000.6 4804.6
TURB 14640 5388 9252 10684 3956 5936.3 3315.7 4747.7 640.3
CC 19245 6874 12371 16830 2415 10365 2006 6465 409
EVA 15.6 11.3 4.3 9.8 5.8 2.5 1.8 7.3 4
SH1 10907.1 3071.2 7835.9 9463.7 1443.4 6826.7 1009.2 2637.0 434.2
SH2 4935.7 1759.4 3176.3 3983.8 951.9 2345.5 830.8 1638.3 121.1
SH3 3126.2 1078.6 2047.6 2734.1 392.1 1750.2 297.4 983.9 94.7
PPH 260.4 84.1 176.3 204.6 55.8 151.0 25.3 53.6 30.5
Overall system 69685.81 17260.34 52425.47 51942.5 17743.31 39457.8 12967.67 12484.7 4775.64
692 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695

100%
90%
Exergy destruction (%)
Exergy destruction (%)

100%
80%

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
70%

0%
60%
50%
40%
30%
FF
20% IF
10%
0% APH1
IF

PPH
FWT

FWP

CC
COND
ECO
FF

CONP

EVA
APH1
APH2

FWPH1
FWPH2

FWPH3

TURB
FWPH4

SH1
SH2
SH3
APH2

UN-EN
System components
AV UN EX EN
ECO
Fig. 5. The percent change of the exergy destruction for the system components in the FWPH1
enhanced exergy analysis.

System components
FWPH2

UN-EX
endogenous and exogenous parts in avoidable and unavoidable FWT
exergy destruction rates of the system components. Thus, the
further splitting process is performed. Fig. 6 shows the results of
FWPH3
the further splitting process for the system. In the vast majority of FWPH4
system components, there is the unavoidable-endogenous exergy AV-EX
destruction rate as 57%. However, the avoidable exergy destruction CONP
rate caused by the components themselves in the system is avail-
able as 17%. This value is 12.5 MW, and the system components
FWP
have the potential to improve by this value. As can be seen in Fig. 6, COND
7% is the avoidable-exogenous exergy destruction rate. The pre-
TURB
AV-EN

dictability of the effect of other components of the considered

component is 7% with 4.8 MW at the system level.
The changes in the exergy destruction of system components for
the further splitting process are depicted in Fig. 7. The highest
percentage in the avoidable-endogenous exergy (green) is 49% for
an evaporator (EVA). Compared with the COND, CC, TURB, SH1 and
ECO components, 6.5 MW for CC is the highest amount of the
avoidable-endogenous exergy destruction. It is followed by 4.7 MW
for TURB, 2.6 MW for SH1, 1.9 MW for ECO, and 1.6 MW for SH2. It is
clearly seen that in this analysis the ranking of the improvement
priority components is different from that of the traditional exergy
analysis. While the most important improvement priority compo-
nent in the traditional exergy analysis is the condenser (COND), it is
not among the first 5 improvement priority components in the
enhanced exergy analysis. The avoidable-exogenous exergy
destruction rates (orange) of fans (FF and IF), feedwater tank/
deaerator (FWT), evaporator (EVA), condenser (COND), fourth
feedwater preheater (FWP4) and turbine (TURB) can be avoided if
the exergy destructions of the other components are improved (see
Fig. 7).
AV-EN
17%
UN-EX
19%
CC
EVA
SH1
SH2
SH3
PPH
Fig. 7. The percent change of the exergy destruction for the system components in the
further splitting process.
The exergy efficiency changes of the system and its components
for the traditional exergy and the enhanced exergy analyses are
presented in Fig. 8. As seen from the figure, total exergy efficiency of
the system is calculated as 60.7% and 83.7% for the traditional and
enhanced exergy analyses, respectively. Moreover, the improve-
ments made on all system components, the system efficiency can
be increased by 83.7%. For example, the lowest exergy efficiency
AV-EX among the system components is attributed to the condenser
(COND) as 23%. As a result of the improvements, the condenser
7%
value can be increased up to 36%. The highest increase of exergy
efficiency among the components is 79% for the economizer (ECO).
5. Conclusions

57% In this paper, the thermodynamic performance of a state-of-the-

art waste gas-fired steam power plant has been analyzed based on
the traditional and enhanced exergy analyses. Especially the boiler
sub-system has been investigated in detail. To evaluate thermo-
UN-EN dynamically the performance for improvement and the interaction
between the system and its components, the data collected from
Fig. 6. The results of the further splitting process for the system. the existing system on November 18, 2016 are used The following
 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695 693

boundaries are well chosen or operated, 20.2 MW of the

Exergy efficiency (%) unavoidable exergy destruction seem to be high. This means

100
that the potential for improvement is lower than other

20

40

60

80
k

0
components.
e) Unavoidable exergy destruction rates of all components
FF except evaporator and fans (FF and IF) are higher than
modified

IF avoidable ones. However, the evaporator and fans are less

affected by the total amount of exergy destruction of the
APH1 system. On the other hand, the super-heater, turbine, com-
bustion chamber and feedwater preheater components have
APH2 the highest avoidable exergy destruction rate.
ECO f) The exogenous exergy destruction rate of all components
except for fans (FF and IF) is higher than the endogenous
FWPH1 exergy destruction rate. The air pre-heaters, super-heater 3,
pumps (CONP and FWP), condenser, economizer and burner
System components

FWPH2 have the highest destruction of exogenous exergy. Thus, the

FWT importance of improving other components should be
emphasized.
FWPH3 g) Among the components, avoidable exergy destruction rate
FWPH4 caused by air pre-heaters, super-heaters, feedwater pre-
heaters, turbines, combustion chamber and the economizer
CONP itself have the highest value. These components can be
improved by technological, economic, production and oper-
FWP ational methods. Therefore, the system efficiency and power
COND generation can be increased.
h) The feedwater tank/deaerator and condenser components do
TURB not have avoidable-endogenous exergy destruction rate.
CC Therefore, it is better to treat other components than
improve them. This may have overlook in the traditional
EVA exergy analysis.
i) In the combustion chamber, large heat gains can be obtained
SH1 from the heat transfer in the sub-system by improving the
SH2 heating surfaces and the combustion during the conversion
of the exergy of the fuel to the exergy of the flue gas.
SH3
PPH Acknowledgements
SYSTEM The authors thank to the Karabük Iron and Steel Industry and
Trade Inc., Karabük, Turkey for the support. The authors are very
Fig. 8. The change of the exergy efficiency for the system and its components in the
exergy and the enhanced exergy analyses. grateful to the reviewers due their appropriate and constructive
suggestions as well as their proposed corrections, which have been
utilized in improving the quality of the paper.
discussion and conclusions can be achieved from the results ob-
tained in the study:
Nomenclature
a) The exergy efficiency of the system is 60.7%. It is possible to
a, b, c constants
increase it to 83.7% on the basis of possible improvements.
~p
C molar specific heat capacity (kJ/kmol K)
This value is the result of the exergy efficiency of the
enhanced exergy analysis. e specific exergy (kJ/kg)
b) The system's potential to improvement is 24.8% of the ~
e molar specific exergy (kJ/kmol)
avoidable exergy destruction, and this value is considered to E_ exergy rate (kW)
be low. The interaction between the system components is h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
74.5% of the total exergy amount and the value is considered Hu lower heat value (kJ/Nm3)
to be high. M molar weight (kg/kmol)
c) Power generation from turbines is 50.7 MW, this could be m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
increased up to 55.4 MW with an increased of 4.7 MW as a n mole number (kmol)
result of the improvements. n_ total molar flow rate (kmol/s)
d) System components that are prioritized to improve, ac- P pressure (kPa)
cording to the traditional exergy analysis are the condenser, R Universal gas constant (kJ/kmol K)
combustion chamber, turbine, first super-heater and econo- s specific entropy (kJ/kg K)
mizer. However, in the enhanced exergy analysis, this sort of T temperature (
C or K)
the combustion chamber, turbine, first super-heater, econo- V_ volumetric flow rate (m3/s)
mizer and second super-heater have occurred in this order. ~
V flow rate (Nm3/s)
As the condenser's technological, economic and productive
y mole fraction (%)
694 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695

Greek symbols integration with iron-and steelmaking. Energy 2012;41:203e11.

[16] Bisio G. First-and second-law analysis of energy recoveries in blast-furnace
ε exergy or exergetic or second law efficiency (%)
regenerators. Energy 1996;21(2):147e55.
r density (kg/m3) [17] Bisio G. A second-law analysis of the “hot blast stove gas turbine” combination
4 chemical energy factor (%) by applying the parameter “usable exergy”. Energy Convers Manag
1998;39(3e4):217e27.
[18] Bisio G, Rubatto G. Energy saving and some environment improvements in
Subscripts coke-oven plants. Energy 2000;25:247e65.
ca combustion air [19] Ziebik A, Stanek W. Influence of blast-furnace process thermal parameters on
energy and exergy characteristics and exergy losses. Int J Energy Res 2006;30:
D destruction
203e19.
F fuel [20] Ziebik A, Stanek W. Energy and exergy system analysis of thermal improve-
fg flue gas ments of blast-furnace plants. Int J Energy Res 2006;30:101e14.
fw feed water [21] Modesto M, Nebra SA. Analysis of a repowering proposal to the power gen-
eration system of a steel mill plant through the exergetic cost method. Energy
j successive number of elements 2006;31(15):3261e77.
k component/location [22] Modesto M, Nebra SA. Exergoeconomic analysis of the power generation
L loss system using blast furnace gas and coke oven gas in a Brazil steel mill. Appl
Therm Eng 2009;29(11e12):2127e36.
P product €
[23] Ozkan E. Exergy analysis of cogeneration and conventional electricity pro-
sys system duction system at Ereg
li Iron and Steel Works Co. M.Sc. Thesis. Istanbul,
0 reference state Turkey: Yıldız Technical University, Chemical Engineering; 2009. in Turkish.
[24] Zhang Y, Feng J, Xu J, Zhang Y, Yang J. Energy and exergy analyses of a mixed
fuel-fired grateekiln for iron ore pellet induration. Energy Convers Manag
Superscripts 2011;52:2064e71.
[25] Mert MS, Dilmaç OF,€ Ozkan
€ S, Karaca F, Bolat E. Exergoeconomic analysis of a
AV avoidable
cogeneration plant in an iron and steel factory. Energy 2012;46:78e84.
chem chemical [26] Grip C-E, Larsson M, Harvey S, Nilsson L. Process integration. Tests and
EN endogenous application of different tools on an integrated steelmaking site. Appl Therm
EX exogenous Eng 2013;53:366e72.
[27] Yao H, Sheng D, Chen J, Li W, Wan A, Chen H. Exergoeconomic analysis of a
phys physical combined cycle system utilizing associated gases from steel production pro-
UN unavoidable cess based on structural theory of thermoeconomics. Appl Therm Eng
2013;51:476e89.
[28] Liu X, Chen L, Qin X, Sun F. Exergy loss minimization for a blast furnace with
Abbreviations comparative analyses for energy flows and exergy flows. Energy 2015;93:
BFG blast furnace gas 10e9.
CCPP combined cycle power plant [29] Yıldız G. Making energy and exergy analysis of the equipments which were in
power plant of an integrated iron steel factory. M.Sc. Thesis. Karabük, Turkey:
COG coke gas Karabük University, Mechanical Engineering; 2016. in Turkish.
CVG converter gas [30] Zetterholm J, Ji X, Sundelin B, Martin PM, Wang C. Dynamic modelling for the
HRSG heat recovery steam generation hot blast stove. Appl Energy 2017;185:2142e50.
[31] Bassily AM. Enhancing the efficiency and power of the triple-pressure reheat
combined cycle by means of gas reheat, gas recuperation, and reduction of the
References irreversibility in the heat recovery steam generator. Appl Energy 2008;85:
1141e62.
[1] Pardo N, Moya JA. Prospective scenarios on energy efficiency and CO2 emis- [32] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy, exergoeconomic and environmental
sions in the European iron & steel industry. Energy 2013;54(1):113e28. analyses and evolutionary algorithm based multi-objective optimization of
[2] Xu TF, Karali N, Sathaye J. Undertaking high impact strategies: the role of combined cycle power plants. Energy 2011;36:5886e98.
national efficiency measures in long-term energy and emission reduction in [33] Kaviri AG, Jaffar MNM, Lazim TM. Modeling and multi-objective exergy based
steelmaking. Appl Energy 2014;122(1):179e88. optimization of a combined cycle power plant using a genetic algorithm.
[3] Morfeldt J, Silveira S. Capturing energy efficiency in European iron and steel Energy Convers Manag 2012;58:94e103.
production-comparing specific energy consumption and Malmquist produc- [34] Dincer I, Ratlamwala TAH. Importance of exergy for analysis, improvement,
tivity index. Energy Effic 2014;7(6):955e72. design, and assessment. WIREs Energy Environ 2013;2:335e49.
[4] Chen W, Yin X, Ma D. A bottom-up analysis of China's iron and steel industrial [35] Tsatsaronis G. Recent developments in exergy analysis and exergoeconomic.
energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Appl Energy 2014;136(31):1174e83. Int J Exergy 2008;5:489e99.
[5] Ali H, Lynn P, Zhang CX, Nathaniel A, Li XP, Shangguan FQ. Comparison of iron [36] Tsatsaronis G. Strengths and limitations of exergy analysis. In: Bejan A,
and steel production energy use and energy intensity in China and the U.S. Mamut E, editors. Thermodynamic optimization of complex energy systems.
J Clean Prod 2014;65(15):108e19. Kluwer Academic; 1999. p. 93e100.
[6] Zetterholm J, Ji X, Sundelin B, Martin PM, Wang C. Dynamic modelling for the [37] Cziesla F, Tsatsaronis G, Gao Z. Avoidable thermodynamic inefficiencies and
hot blast stove. Appl Energy 2017;185:2142e50. cost in an externally fired combined cycle power plant. Energy 2006;31:
[7] https://www.kardemir.com/Yonetim.aspx?Sec¼Sirket&b¼3&Ani¼&Lng¼en- 1472e89.
US&W¼4 retrieved on 22 December 2017. [38] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Carassai A. Traditional and
[8] World Steel Association, www.worldsteel.org. retrieved on 22 December advanced exergetic analyses applied to a combined cycle power plant. Energy
2017. 2012;41:146e52.
[9] Yakışık Y. Technical and economical analysis of a waste gas fired steam boiler [39] Soltani S, Yari M, Mahmoudi SMS, Morosuk T, Rosen MA. Advanced exergy
at an integrated iron and steel production work. M.Sc. Thesis. Ankara, Turkey: analysis applied to an externally-fired combined-cycle power plant integrated
Gazi University, Mechanical Engineering; 2010. In Turkish. with a biomass gasification unit. Energy 2013;59:775e80.
[10] Liu X, Chen L, Qin X, Sun F. Exergy loss minimization for a blast furnace with [40] Yang Y, Wang L, Dong C, Xu G, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Comprehensive
comparative analyses for energy flows and exergy flows. Energy 2015;93: exergy-based evaluation and parametric study of a coal-fired ultra-super-
10e9. critical power plant. Appl Energy 2013;112:1087e99.
[11] Wu H, Lv K, Liang L, Hu H. Measuring performance of sustainable [41] Açıkkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergy analysis of an electricity
manufacturing with recyclable wastes: a case from China's iron and steel generating facility using natural gas. Energy Convers Manag 2014;82:146e53.
industry. Omega 2017;66:38e47. [42] Boyaghchi FA, Molaie H. Sensitivity analysis of exergy destruction in a real
[12] Liu J, Yu Q, Peng J, Hu X, Duan W. Thermal energy recovery from high tem- combined cycle power plant based on advanced exergy method. Energy
perature blast furnace slag particles. Int Commun Heat Mass Tran 2015;69: Convers Manag 2015;99:374e86.
23e8. [43] Anvari A, Saray RK, Bahlouli K. Employing a new optimization strategy based
[13] Zhao X, Bai H, Lu X, Shi Q, Han J. A MILP model concerning the optimisation of on advanced exergy concept for improvement of a tri-generation system. Appl
penalty factors for the short-term distribution of byproduct gases produced in Therm Eng 2017;113:1452e63.
the iron and steel making process. Appl Energy 2015;148:142e58. [44] Tsatsaronis G. Design optimization using exergoeconomics. In: Thermody-
[14] Xiong B, Chen L, Meng F, Sun F. Modeling and performance analysis of a two namic optimization of complex energy systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
stage thermoelectric energy harvesting system from blast furnace slag water Publishers; 1999.
waste heat. Energy 2014;77:562e9. €
[45] Eskin N, Gungor A, Ozdemir K. Thermodynamic analysis of a FBCC steam
[15] Rom~ ao I, Nduagu E, Fagerlund J, Gando-Ferreira LM, Zevenhoven R. CO2 fix- power plant. Energy Convers Manag 2009;50:2428e38.
ation using magnesium silicate minerals. Part 2: energy efficiency and [46] Ahmadi GR, Toghraie D. Energy and exergy analysis of Montazeri steam
 K. Yılmaz et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 684e695
power plant in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:454e63.
[47] Noroozian N, Mohammadi A, Bidi M, Ahmadi MH. Energy, exergy and eco-
nomic analyses of a novel system to recover waste heat and water in steam
power plants. Energy Convers Manag 2017;144:351e60.
[48] Tsatsaronis G, Park MH. On avoidable and unavoidable exergy destructions
and investment costs in thermal systems. Energy Convers Manag 2002;43:
1259e70.
[49] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Carassai A. Traditional and
advanced exergetic analyses applied to a combined cycle power plant. Energy
2012;41:146e52.
[50] Kelly S, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis: approaches for
splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and exogenous parts. Energy
695
2009;34:384e91.
[51] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. A general exergy-based method for combining a
cost analysis with an environmental impact analysis. Part I. Theoretical
development. In: Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical engi-
neering congress and exposition; 2008. Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
[52] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. A general exergy-based method for combining a
cost analysis with an environmental impact analysis. Part II. Application to a
cogeneration system. In: Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical
engineering congress and exposition; 2008. Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
[53] Galindo J, Ruiz S, Dolz V, Royo-Pascual L. Advanced exergy analysis for a
bottoming organic Rankine cycle coupled to an internal combustion engine.
Energy Convers Manag 2016;126:217e27.