See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325943596

Simulating combined cycle gas turbine power plants in Aspen HYSYS

Article  in  Energy Conversion and Management · June 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.049

CITATIONS READS

4 3,121

2 authors:

Zuming Liu Iftekhar A Karimi

National University of Singapore National University of Singapore
11 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    343 PUBLICATIONS   5,072 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Carbon Capture Storage & Utilization View project

Natural Gas Center View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zuming Liu on 26 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Simulating combined cycle gas turbine power plants in Aspen HYSYS T

⁎
Zuming Liu, Iftekhar A. Karimi
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 4, 117585, Singapore

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plants are becoming increasingly important for electricity generation.
Simulation Enhancing their thermal performance is essential for mitigating carbon emissions. This paper aims to present a
Gas turbine methodology for simulating the off-design operation of a triple-pressure reheat CCGT plant in Aspen HYSYS. The
Combined cycle modeling equations that rigorously capture the full off-design characteristics of various plant components (i.e.
Power plant
compressor, combustor, turbine, heat recovery steam generator, and steam turbines) are implemented in Aspen
Aspen HYSYS
HYSYS, and a specially tailored procedure is proposed for solving them. The modeling strategy and solution
procedure can be extended to simulate the off-design operation of any CCGT plants and are generically ap-
plicable to other process simulators (e.g. Aspen Plus, Unisim, and Pro II). To evaluate the model’s performance,
its predictions are compared with those of an equivalent model from GateCycle. The results show the predictions
of the two models (Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle) agree well. The average differences for the power outputs and
thermal efficiencies of the gas turbine, steam cycle, and CCGT plant are less than 2.0%, 1.5%, and 0.6%, re-
spectively. Besides, the differences arise primarily from the different gas enthalpy calculations. Since the model
enables easy integration with various energy systems and can be made dynamic for predicting real-time behavior
in Aspen HYSYS, it is very useful with wide applications.

1. Introduction operation. To this end, rigorous simulation models that accurately

Energy and environment are the two major global concerns of this
century. The global warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions is
an existential threat. CO2 is considered as the main cause, and more
than 40% of the CO2 emissions stem from the power industry [1]. As a
result, much effort is underway on producing clean, green, and efficient
electric power. Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plants are
one promising solution due to their high thermal efficiencies and low
CO2 emissions [2]. Nowadays, CCGT plants are undergoing widespread
installations. Some countries like Singapore produce more than 96% of
their electric power from CCGT plants [3].
Power plants operate under off-design (especially part-load) con-
ditions during most of their lifetimes. For example, a power plant in
Nigeria produced only 64.3% of its design capacity from 2001 to 2010
[4]. The part-load operation arises from several factors. First, the power
demand is hardly steady and rarely equals the plant design capacity.
Second, a power plant is required to maintain spinning reserves (sur-
plus capacity) to guard against unforeseen peaks in demands. Third, a
power plant may often be overdesigned to buffer against demand un-
certainties. The part-load operation decreases the plant’s thermal effi-
ciency, incurring higher fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. There-
fore, strong incentives exist for studying and optimizing the part-load
capture the full details of a power plant’s part-load operations are
needed. Such simulation models provide the basis for a variety of
routine operational tasks, such as benchmarking, process control, pro-
cess optimization, condition monitoring, fault diagnosis, performance
analysis, and performance improvement.
Zhang and Cai [5] proposed some analytical formulas for com-
pressor and turbine and combined them to predict the gas turbine
performance. Aklilu and Gilani [6] adopted the normalized parameters
from [7] to describe the characteristics of compressor and turbine and
developed a simulation model in Matlab [8] to identify the plant op-
eration mode from field data. Zhang et al. [9,10] presented a simulation
program in Excel to study the off-design characteristics of combined
cycles under different design parameters. While models in Matlab or
Excel offer much freedom in model formulation and are attractive from
a cost perspective, they are not user-friendly and require much pro-
gramming and approximations. In addition to the modeling process
being tedious, complex, and error-prone, the models may suffer from
numerical and convergence issues due to the complex nonlinear itera-
tive calculations.
On the contrary, commercial software offer a nice graphical user
interface, superior reliability, and enhanced accuracy with little or no
programming. Hence, commercial software such as GateCycle [11],

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cheiak@nus.edu.sg (I.A. Karimi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.049
Received 14 February 2018; Received in revised form 12 June 2018; Accepted 13 June 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

Nomenclature af air filter

c compressor
Symbols ca cooling air
cc combustion chamber
A area, m2 cor corrected value
C swallowing capacity d design condition
c1,c2,c3 IGV angle correction factors g flue gas
Fcu copper loss fraction in inlet
m mass flow rate, kg/s map performance map
L generator load max maximum
LHV lower heating value min minimum
N shaft speed, rpm out outlet
P pressure, bar st steam turbine
PL percent part-load s steam
PR pressure ratio t turbine
ΔP pressure drop, kPa
Qloss heat loss, kW Acronyms
R gas constant
T temperature, K BFD block flow diagram
U overall heat transfer coefficient, kJ/(s m2 K) CCGT combined cycle gas turbine
W power, kW ECON economizer
EVAP evaporator
Greek letters GT gas turbine
HP high pressure
Δα IGV angle HPP high pressure pump
γ specific heat ratio HRSG heat recovery steam generator
π expansion ratio IP intermediate pressure
η efficiency IPP intermediate pressure pump
λ constant LP low pressure
κ constant LPP low pressure pump
ν specific volume RHT reheater
φ (γ − 1)/γ RP recirculation pump
Ω combustor loading SPHT superheater
SC steam cycle
Subscripts TET Turbine exit temperature
IGVC inlet guide vane control
a air

EBSILON Professional [12], and Thermoflow [13] have been preferred
for studying power plants. Silva et al. [14] developed a thermodynamic
information system in GateCycle for detecting plant operation anoma-
lies and evaluating the performance gain from eliminating them. Lee
et al. [15] proposed an analysis tool in GateCycle for predicting the
plant generation capacity using the correction curves of gas and steam
turbines. Liu and Karimi [16] presented the necessary correlations for
simulating a CCGT plant in GateCycle and proposed a simulation-based
method for maximizing its part-load performance. Aminov et al. [17]
evaluated the fuel saving and reduction in CO2 emissions from repla-
cing a thermal power plant by a CCGT plant using EBSILON Profes-
sional. Since GateCycle, EBSILON Professional and Thermoflow are
principally designed for power plants, they offer a nice simulation ex-
perience. However, their versatility is limited in modeling other energy
systems or options (e.g. CO2 capture [18–20], Organic Rankine Cycles
(ORCs) [21–23], fuel cells [24–26], LNG terminals [27–29], air se-
paration [30–32], and absorption chillers [33–35]). For instance,
GateCycle is unable to model these energy systems. Although EBSILON
Professional and Thermoflow offer special blocks for some energy op-
tions (e.g. CO2 capture, fuel cells, air separation and absorption chil-
lers), they simulate them as black boxes. Hence, they cannot offer the
full simulation details and freedom for process modification. To avoid
these shortcomings, Nord et al. [36] and Karimi et al. [37] modeled CO2
capture process in Aspen HYSYS and Unisim respectively, while Lee
et al. [38] simulated air separation for a gasification process in Aspen
HYSYS. However, doing so requires interfacing two separate simulation
programs (e.g. Thermoflow/GateCycle and Aspen HYSYS/Unisim) with
their different architectures and properties, and complex interactions
between them are difficult to manage. Therefore, it is desirable to si-
mulate both power plants and various energy systems in one seamless
environment or platform such as a more versatile process simulator.
This is crucial to facilitate easy integration between power plants and
these energy systems.
Aspen HYSYS [39] is a powerful process simulator with a large li-
brary of ready-made component models and in-built accurate property
packages. By connecting the various components via material and en-
ergy streams, Aspen HYSYS can simulate both the steady and dynamic
performance of complex chemical/hydrocarbon fluid-based processes
[40–44]. This enables the simulation of both power plants and asso-
ciated energy systems or options. Hence, Aspen HYSYS does not have
the aforementioned shortcomings and offers an attractive platform for
simulating power plants. However, modeling the CCGT plants under
off-design conditions in Aspen HYSYS is challenging due to its se-
quential modular nature. In Aspen HYSYS, all plant components must
be solved in a sequential rather than simultaneous manner. The highly
complex steam circuits that involve mass/energy recycle in the CCGT
plants require simultaneous solution and thus pose significant chal-
lenges to Aspen HYSYS. Furthermore, detailed compressor map and
turbine characteristics have to be used for simulating CCGT off-design
performance. This requires clever constructs and implementation in
Aspen HYSYS. Therefore, a tailored non-obvious procedure is needed
for simulating the CCGT plants under off-design conditions in Aspen

1214
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi
HYSYS, and to our knowledge, no study in the open literature has
presented such a procedure.
In this paper, a detailed model and a systematic procedure are
presented for simulating the off-design operation of a triple-pressure
reheat CCGT plant in Aspen HYSYS. The implementation of the rigorous
modeling equations for various plant components in Aspen HYSYS is
explained in detail. This produces an Aspen HYSYS model that captures
the full details of the CCGT plant. A tailored procedure is then proposed
for solving the Aspen HYSYS model. Finally, to evaluate the model’s
performance, its simulation results are compared with those of an
equivalent model from GateCycle.
2. Methodology
2.1. Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of a triple-pressure reheat CCGT power
plant. The plant comprises a Gas Turbine (GT), a Heat Recovery Steam
Generator (HRSG), and three Steam Turbines (STs). The GT has an Air
Compressor (AC) and a turbine running on a common shaft with a
combustor in between. The common shaft rotates at a constant speed to
deliver a fixed frequency (50 or 60 Hz) of power. The ambient air passes
through an air filter to the AC, and the combustor uses the pressurized
air from the AC to burn a gaseous fuel (e.g. natural gas) and feeds the
hot gas into the turbine, where it expands to produce power. As the
turbine blades are exposed to the hot gas from the combustor, some air
from the AC exit is supplied to keep them cool. The exhaust gas from
the turbine then goes through the HRSG, before being vented to the
ambient as a flue gas. The HRSG recovers the remaining heat from the
exhaust gas to produce steam.
The HRSG comprises three steam generation subsystems: High-
Pressure (HP), Intermediate-Pressure (IP), and Low-Pressure (LP). Each
subsystem has one feedwater pump (LPP, IPP, or HPP in Fig. 1), one or
more economizers, one evaporator, and one or more superheaters. The
feedwater from each pump gets preheated in the economizers, boiled in
the evaporator, and superheated in the superheaters. Two reheaters
(RHT1 and RHT2 in Fig. 1) are located between the HP superheaters.
Moreover, two desuperheaters (DESHT1 and DESHT2 in Fig. 1) be-
tween the HP superheaters and reheaters moderate the temperatures of
HP steam and reheat steam for safe operation by injecting water. Fur-
thermore, a recirculation pump (RP in Fig. 1) recycles some hot water
from the LP economizer exit back into its feed to prevent low-
Fig. 1. Schematic of a triple-pressure reheat CCGT power plant.
1215
Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225
temperature corrosion. The HP steam expands in an HP steam turbine
(HPST) and then mixes with the IP steam. The mixed steam enters the
reheaters and then expands in an IP steam turbine (IPST). The exhaust
steam from the IPST mixes with the LP steam and enters an LP steam
turbine (LPST). The three STs share a common shaft that rotates at the
same speed as the GT. After expansion, the exhaust steam from the
LPST goes to a condenser, and the condensate is pumped back via the
LPP to the LP economizer.
2.2. CCGT simulation in Aspen HYSYS
The following assumptions are made for simulating the triple-
pressure reheat CCGT plant in Aspen HYSYS.
• The CCGT plant is at steady state.
• The fuel combustion is complete in the combustor.
• There are no leaks of water or flue gas from the HRSG.
• The cooling water flow of the condenser is constant.
The modeling equations describing the full off-design characteristics
of various plant components rigorously are mainly from [16]. This
paper focuses on (1) the details and challenges of implementing them in
Aspen HYSYS, and (2) a tailored procedure for efficiently and reliably
solving the resulting Aspen HYSYS model for the CCGT plant. The Peng-
Robinson fluid package is used for air, fuel, and exhaust gas, while
ASME steam table is employed for water and steam. Fig. 2 shows our
complete Block Flow Diagram (BFD) for the CCGT plant in Aspen
HYSYS.
2.2.1. Air filter
The air filter is simulated by the Control Valve module (AFT in
Fig. 2(a)) in Aspen HYSYS. The pressure drop through the air filter
(ΔPaf ) is given by the following equation [11,16].
m⎞
1.84 −1
ΔP = ΔPd ⎛ ⎛ T ⎞⎛ P ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ md ⎠ ⎝ Td ⎠ ⎝ Pd ⎠ (1)
where ΔP is the pressure drop, m is the mass flow rate, T is the tem-
perature, P is the pressure, and subscript d denotes the design condi-
tion. While this is a precise approach to model the air filter, the pressure
drop is usually quite small (< 100 Pa) even at the design condition.
Hence, the pressure drop across the air filter is set as a fixed percentage
(0.5%) of the ambient pressure. It is computed in a Spreadsheet module
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

CCGT plant – GT (a)

CCGT plant – SC (b)

CCGT plant – SC (c)

Fig. 2. Block flow diagram (BFD) for the CCGT plant in Aspen HYSYS: (a) Gas turbine (GT), (b–c) Steam cycle (SC).

1216
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

(SS1 in Fig. 2(a)) and then exported to AFT in Fig. 2(a). 2.2.3. Combustor
The combustor is simulated by the Conversion Reactor module
2.2.2. Air compressor (AC) (COMB in Fig. 2(a)) in Aspen HYSYS. The fuel combustion is defined as
The AC operating characteristics can be described by its perfor- a set of conversion reactions with 100% conversions. Then, for a given
mance map, which for a typical GT compressor is expressed in terms of fuel flow (mf ), the pressure drop in and heat loss from the combustor
pressure ratio (or isentropic efficiency) versus corrected mass flow and are computed using the following equations [16,47] in SS-1, and ex-
corrected speed (see Fig. 3). However, the compressor vendors do not ported to COMB in Fig. 2(a).
share actual performance maps except with their customers. Hence, real 2
⎡ min Tin ⎞ ⎛ min, d Tin, d ⎞ ⎤
compressor maps are hard to find in the open literature, and an example ΔPcc = ΔPcc, d ⎢ ⎜⎛ ⎟/
⎟⎥
performance map is shown in Fig. 3. The map relates the following Pin ⎠ ⎜ Pin, d
⎣⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎦ (7)
dimensionless operational variables [16,45].
Qloss, d = (1−ηcc, d ) mf , d LHVf (8a)
min Tin ⎞ ⎛ min, d Tin, d ⎞
Relative corrected mass flow: mcor , r = ⎜⎛ ⎟/
⎜ ⎟ Ω = 1.8
min
⎝ Pin ⎠ ⎝ Pin, d
⎠ Pin exp(Tin/300) (8b)
(2a)
mf ⎛ Ω ⎞1.6
Relative pressure ratio: PRr = (PR−1)/(PRd−1) Qloss = Qloss, d ⎜ ⎟
(2b) mf , d ⎝ Ωd ⎠ (8c)
Relative isentropic efficiency: ηr = η / ηd (2c) where ΔPcc is the pressure drop in the combustor, LHV is the lower
heating value, Qloss is the heat loss, Ω is the combustor loading, and
Relative corrected speed: Ncor , r = (N / Tin )/(Nd/ Tin, d ) (2d) subscript f denotes the fuel.

where η is the efficiency, N is the shaft speed, and PR = Pout / Pin . Sub-
script cor denotes the corrected value, r denotes the relative value, in
denotes the inlet, and out denotes the outlet.
The AC is simulated by the Compressor module (AirCOMP in
Fig. 2(a)) in Aspen HYSYS. However, AirCOMP can only accept oper-
ating curves expressed in terms of pressure head (or isentropic effi-
ciency) versus volumetric flow, and not the one in Fig. 3. Hence, a
special procedure is needed to overcome this limitation.
For supplying the performance map in Fig. 3 to AirCOMP, equi-
spaced parabolic lines indexed by an auxiliary coordinate called β [46]
(0.4 ≤ β ≤ 1.0 ) are introduced on the map, as shown in Fig. 4. The β
lines intersect the speed lines (Ncor , r ) and each (β , Ncor , r ) defines a un-
ique point on the compressor map. Every point (β , Ncor , r ) on the map
2.2.4. Turbine
In a heavy-duty turbine, blade cooling is necessary to prevent tur-
bine blades from overheating. In this paper, the turbine blade cooling is
simulated by bleeding two air streams from the AC exit and injecting
them into the turbine inlet and exit, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2(a),
the stator cooling air mixes with the main hot gas at the turbine inlet.
The mixed gas then expands in the turbine. Finally, the rotor cooling air
mixes with the expanded gas at the turbine outlet. The stator and rotor
cooling flows can be computed by Eq. (9) [48] in SS-1. Their mixing
with the turbine inlet and outlet gases is simulated by the Mixer module
in Aspen HYSYS.
0.5
P Tca, d ⎞
mca = mca, d ⎜⎛ ca ⎟⎞ ⎛ ⎜ ⎟

represents a unique triplet of PRr , mcor , r , and ηr . Each of these three is ⎝ ca, d ⎠ ⎝ Tca ⎠
P (9)
stored as a two-dimensional look-up table in SS-1 with β and Ncor , r as
where mca is the mass flow rate of the cooling air, and Pca and Tca are the
arguments. Given any (x , y ) = (β , Ncor , r ) , PRr , mcor , r and ηr are obtained
pressure and temperature of the cooling air.
from these tables via bilinear interpolations (see Fig. 5) as follows.
The turbine flow characteristics can be described by the following
x2−x x −x1 constant swallowing capacity [49–51].
f (x , y1) = f (x1, y1) + f (x2 , y1)
x2−x1 x2−x1 (3a)
min Tin min, d Tin, d
x −x x −x1 C= = = Cd
f (x , y2 ) = 2 f (x1, y2 ) + f (x2 , y2 ) κPin κd Pin, d (10a)
x2−x1 x2−x1 (3b)
γ+1
y2 −y y−y1 γ ⎛ 2 ⎞ γ−1
f (x , y ) = f (x , y1) + f (x , y2 ) κ= ⎜ ⎟
y2 −y1 y2 −y1 (3c) Rg ⎝ γ + 1 ⎠ (10b)
where f denotes PRr , mcor , r or ηr , x denotes β , y denotes Ncor , r , and
( x1, y1), ( x1, y2 ), ( x2 , y2 ), and ( x2 , y1) denote the closest four points that
surround ( x , y ) in a table of f (x , y ) .
Modern ACs have variable inlet guide vanes (IGVs) whose openings
are varied to regulate the air flow. This opening is measured by an IGV
angle Δα (normally 0 ≤ Δα ≤ 40º) , where Δα = 0 corresponds to the
fully open IGVs. For a given Δα , Eqs. (4)–(6) [47] can be used to correct
the PRr , mcor , r , and ηr read from the map.
PRr , IGV = PRr (1−c1 Δα ) (4)

mcor , r , IGV = mcor , r (1−c2 Δα ) (5)

ηr , IGV = ηr (1−c3 Δα 2) (6)

where c1, c2 , and c3 are vane angle correction factors.

Then, given β and Ncor , r , the AC can be simulated in Aspen HYSYS as
follows. Compute PRr , mcor , r and ηr from Eq. (3), PRr , IGV , mcor , r , IGV and
ηr , IGV from Eqs. (4)–(6), and PR , min and η from Eq. (2) all in SS-1.
Export PR and η to AirCOMP in Fig. 2(a) and min to its inlet stream (S1). Fig. 3. Relativized compressor map.

1217
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

P (S7) is unknown, and depends on the HRSG pressure drop (ΔPHRSG ).

ΔPHRSG is computed from Eq. (1), and simulated by a Control Valve
module (DUCT in Fig. 2(a)) before the HRSG. P (S7) needs to be iterated
such that P (S7)−ΔPHRSG = Pamb . This is achieved by using an Adjust
module (ADJ-TP in Fig. 2(a)) as follows. Given a P (S7) , compute ηt from
Eq. (10) in SS-1, and export its value to TURB in Fig. 2(a). Aspen HYSYS
simulates TURB and gives T (S6) , where T denotes temperature. Com-
'
pute Pamb = P (S7)−ΔPHRSG in SS-1. In ADJ-TP, select P (S7) as the ad-
'
justed variable, Pamb as the target variable, and specify Pamb as the
specified target value. The complete GT simulation procedure in Aspen
HYSYS is shown in Fig. 6.

2.2.5. Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)

Fig. 4. β lines on a relativized compressor map.
Fig. 5. Bilinear interpolation for reading the compressor map expressed in
terms of (β, Ncor , r ) as coordinates.
where C is the swallowing capacity, κ is a constant, γ is the specific heat
ratio, and Rg is the gas constant. The ambient temperature and GT shaft
speed fix Ncor , r . Then, for a given mf , β that satisfies C = Cd fixes the AC
operating point on the map. Determining the correct β requires itera-
tions, and is done by using an Adjust module (ADJ-BETA in Fig. 2(a)) in
Aspen HYSYS. In ADJ-BETA, β is selected as the adjusted variable,
C computed in SS-1 is chosen as the target variable, and Cd is supplied as
the specified target value. Once a β is given, Aspen HYSYS can simulate
AirCOMP and COMB, and adjust β to achieve C = Cd . Then, the gas into
the turbine is fully known, and Aspen HYSYS can simulate the turbine
fully.
The turbine is simulated by the Expander module (TURB in
Fig. 2(a)) in Aspen HYSYS. The turbine isentropic efficiency (ηt ) is es-
timated by the following semi-empirical formula [10,52].
N Tin, d πdφ−1 ⎛ N Tin, d πdφ−1 ⎞
ηt = ηt , d λ−(λ−1)
Nd Tin π φ−1 ⎜ Nd Tin π φ−1 ⎟ (11)
⎝ ⎠
where π = Pin/ Pout , φ = (γ −1)/ γ , λ is a known constant, and sub-
script t denotes turbine.
For solving TURB, its outlet pressure [P (S7) ] is needed. Here, P
denotes pressure, and S7 denotes the stream in Fig. 2(a). However,
The HRSG comprises a series of economizers, evaporators, and su-
perheaters. The economizers and superheaters are heat exchangers that
extract the waste heat from the exhaust gas for heating water and
steam, respectively. Hence, they are simulated by the LNG Exchanger
module in Aspen HYSYS. However, the evaporators involve change in
state along with phase equilibrium, and hence their simulation is dif-
ferent and more challenging than the economizers and superheaters.
Normally, an evaporator consists of a boiler and a steam drum. The
boiler is a heat exchanger that extracts the waste heat from the exhaust
gas to produce water/steam mixture, while the steam drum is a phase-
separator that separates water/steam mixture into saturated water and
steam. Thus, the boiler and steam drum are simulated by the LNG
Exchanger and Separator modules in Aspen HYSYS. The steam gen-
eration process in the evaporator is simulated as follows. The boiler
extracts the waste heat from the exhaust gas to generate water/steam
mixture. The water/steam mixture mixes with the subcooled water
from the economizer in the steam drum to produce saturated steam and
water. The saturated steam goes to the superheater while the saturated
water returns to the boiler. Note that the LNG Exchanger module is
essentially the same as the Heat Exchanger module here, since there are
only two streams involved in heat exchange and mass and energy bal-
ances are of our only interest. Our motivation is to just make the BFD
look cleaner (less convoluted) as shown in Fig. 2(b–c).
The LNG Exchanger module in Aspen HYSYS needs a UA value
(overall heat transfer coefficient × heat transfer area) for heat exchange
calculation. Since U is mainly affected by the exhaust gas flow under
off-design conditions, UA is computed in SS-1 as follows [53], and then
exported to each LNG Exchanger module.
0.8
mg ⎞
UA = (UA)d ⎛⎜ ⎟
m
⎝ g, d ⎠ (12)
where mg is the gas mass flow rate. The water/steam pressure losses in
HRSG heat exchangers vary as follows during off-design operation [11].
1.98
m⎞
ΔP = ΔPd ⎛
⎜ ⎟ for water
m
⎝ d⎠ (13)
1.98
m⎞ ⎛ν⎞
ΔP = ΔPd ⎛
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ for steam
m
⎝ d⎠ ⎝ νd ⎠ (14)
where ν is the specific volume of steam. The water/steam pressure
losses are computed in SS1, and exported to the corresponding LNG
Exchanger modules.
The HP steam and reheat steam from the HRSG may exceed their
maximum allowable temperatures (THPSmax and TRHSmax ) during off-
design operation. For safe operation, two desuperheaters are installed
to moderate their temperatures by injecting water. The two desu-
perheaters are simulated by two Mixer modules (DeSH1 and DeSH2 in
Fig. 2(b)) in Aspen HYSYS. Moreover, two Adjust modules (ADJ-SH1
and ADJ-SH2 in Fig. 2(b)) are employed to control the temperatures of
HP steam and reheat steam under off-design operation. In ADJ-SH1 and
ADJ-SH2, m (S26a) and m (S41a) are selected as the adjusted variables,
T (S36) and T (S51) are chosen as the target variables, and THPSmax and

1218
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

Fig. 6. GT simulation procedure in Aspen HYSYS.

TRHSmax are supplied as the specified target values. Here, m refers to steam flow during off-design operation, and thus can be corrected as
mass flow rate, T refers to temperature, and S26a, S41a, S36, and S51 follows [12]:
refer to the streams in Fig. 2. 5 4 3
The LP economizer feedwater temperature cannot fall below the ⎡ m m m
ηst = ηst , d ⎢−0.1035 ⎜⎛ s ⎟⎞ + 0.2357 ⎜⎛ s ⎟⎞ −0.1872 ⎜⎛ s ⎟⎞
minimum allowable temperature (TFWmin ) to avoid low-temperature ⎝ ms , d ⎠ ⎝ ms , d ⎠ m
⎝ s, d ⎠
⎣
corrosion. Hence, some warm water from the LP economizer exit is 2
m m ⎤
recycled back to its feed. An Adjust module (ADJ-RCF in Fig. 2(c)) is + 0.0585 ⎜⎛ s ⎟⎞ + 0.0163 ⎜⎛ s ⎟⎞ + 0.98⎥
employed to control the LP economizer feedwater temperature. In ADJ- ⎝ ms, d ⎠ ⎝ ms, d ⎠ ⎦ (16)
RCF, m (S65b) is selected as the adjusted variable, T (S63) is chosen as
where subscript s denotes steam, and st denotes steam turbine.
the target variable, and TFWmin is supplied as the specified target value.
The HPST, IPST, and LPST are simulated by three Expander modules
(HPT, IPT, and LPT in Fig. 2(b–c)) in Aspen HYSYS, respectively. The
2.2.6. Water pumps
isentropic efficiencies for HPST, IPST, and LPST are computed in SS-1
The water pumps (HPP, IPP, LPP, and RP) are simulated by the using Eq. (16), and exported to HPT, IPT, and LPT.
Pump module along with the Control Valve module in Aspen HYSYS.
The pump curves for the water pumps can be either supplied as user
2.2.8. Condenser
input or generated automatically inside the Pump module. The control
The condenser is simulated by the LNG Exchanger module (CONDR
valves (HPCV, IPCV, and LPCV) serve as regulating the steam pressures
in Fig. 2(c)) in Aspen HYSYS. It condenses the water/steam mixture
in the HRSG to match the ST operation.
from the LPST to saturated water. Thus, the vapor fraction of S60 in
Fig. 2(c) is set to 0. Because the heat transfer in the condenser is very
2.2.7. Steam turbines (STs)
efficient and the cooling water flow is kept unchanged, the UA value for
CCGT plants usually adopt sliding pressure operation for STs under
the condenser is assumed constant under off-design conditions. Then,
off-design conditions. This implies that the throttling valves of STs are
the condenser operating pressure varies to fully condense the water/
fully open and the steam pressures in the HRSG are regulated by water
steam mixture. An Adjust module (ADJ-CDP in Fig. 2(c)) is employed to
pumps to match ST characteristics. Since valve throttling is eliminated,
find the right condenser pressure. In ADJ-CDP, P (S59) is selected as the
sliding pressure operation produces a better plant performance than
adjusted variable, the relative UA error of the CONDR is chosen as the
constant pressure operation [54]. The off-design characteristics of an ST
target variable, and 0 is supplied as the specified target value.
can be described by the Stodola’s method [55,56].
Finally, the generator efficiency [57] and the power outputs for the
ms Tin ms, d Tin, d GT, Steam Cycle (SC), and CCGT plant are computed in SS-1 as follows.
=
Pin2 −Pout
2
Pin2 , d−Pout
2
,d (15) Lgen ηgen, d
ηgen = 2
Lgen ηgen, d + (1−ηgen, d )[(1−Fcu ) + Fcu Lgen ] (17)
The isentropic efficiency (ηst ) of an ST is mainly affected by the

1219
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi
WGT = (Wt −Wc / ηmech ) ηgen (18)
WSC = (WHPST + WISPT + WLPST ) ηgen−(WHPP + WIPP + WLPP + WRP )
(19)
WCCGT = WGT + WSC (20)
where ηgen is the generator efficiency, ηmech is the AC mechanical effi-
ciency, Lgen = Win/ Win, d , where Win is the work input to the generator,
and Fcu is the copper loss fraction.
This completes the development of an Aspen HYSYS model for si-
mulating the CCGT plant under off-design conditions.
2.3. Simulation procedure
Consider simulating the CCGT plant operation for given mf and Δα .
Aspen HYSYS simulates the GT by iterating β and P (S7) using two
Adjust modules (ADJ-BETA and ADJ-TP). The GT simulation procedure
is presented in Fig. 6. When ADJ-BETA and ADJ-TP converge, the GT is
solved and the turbine exhaust gas flow, temperature, and composition
become known. Now, the SC must be simulated for this known exhaust
gas conditions. However, simulating the SC in Aspen HYSYS is chal-
lenging due to the following factors.
(1) Aspen HYSYS is a sequential modular simulator, in which the SC
components have to be solved in a sequential manner. However, the
HP, IP, and LP steam circuits that involve mass/energy recycle in
the SC require simultaneous rather than sequential solution. This
poses significant challenges to Aspen HYSYS. For configuring the SC
components to be solved sequentially, the Recycle module in Aspen
HYSYS is needed. Nonetheless, determining how many Recycle
modules should be used and where to place them are combinato-
rially demanding and require clever thinking.
(2) The HRSG steam conditions (flow, pressure, and temperature) have
to satisfy the ST characteristics, namely Eq. (15). Thus, the HRSG
Fig. 7. SC simulation procedure in Aspen HSYSY.
1220
Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225
and STs must be solved jointly and special constructs are necessary
for back-pressure calculations.
The procedure in Fig. 7 is designed ingeniously to address the above
challenges. Simulating the evaporator is its key first step. Consider the
HP evaporator (HP drum and HP boiler in Fig. 2(b)). For simulating it,
Recycle modules (R3 and R9 in Fig. 2(b)) are needed for specifying
stream conditions (e.g. flow, pressure, temperature, etc.). The Recycle
module in Aspen HYSYS is a mathematical operation and has an inlet
stream and an outlet stream. For example, R9 has S30a as the inlet
stream and S30b as the outlet stream. In the Recycle module, the stream
conditions can be transferred forwards from the inlet to the outlet.
Aspen HYSYS first utilizes the outlet stream conditions as assumed
values to solve the flowsheet sequentially around the Recycle module.
Based on the differences between the inlet and outlet stream conditions,
Aspen HYSYS updates the outlet stream conditions iteratively until the
inlet stream conditions match the out stream conditions within the
tolerances specified in the Recycle module.
The simulation of the HP evaporator is performed with Recycle
modules as follows. Since the HP boiler produces steam/water mixture,
the vapor fraction of S32 can be set to any value between 0 and 1. Then,
two Recycle modules (R3 and R9) are employed for specifying P (S30b) ,
T (S12b) , and T (S30b) . Aspen HYSYS uses them to solve the HP boiler
and HP drum, as the flow, pressure, and composition of the exhaust gas
streams within the HRSG are already known. The HP boiler computes
m (S32) from the energy balance and heat transfer equations, which
enables the HP drum to calculate m (S30b) and m (S33) from mass and
energy balances and water/steam equilibrium. This means that the HP
evaporator can automatically compute its own water flow. Next,
m (S30a) is set to m (S30b) in SS-1, which fixes the water flow in the HP
circuit. The pressure losses in the HP economizers are computed by Eq.
(13) in SS-1. In the following, two Recycle modules (R2 and R10) are
used for specifying T (S11b) , P (S26b) , T (S26b) and m (S26a) . Meanwhile,
m (S26b) is set to m (S26a) in SS-1. Aspen HYSYS solves HP SHPT1 and
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

HP SHPT2, and computes T (S12b) and T (S36) , respectively. The pres- 3. Model evaluation on an example power plant
sure losses in HP SPHT 1 and HP SPHT 2 are computed by Eq. (14) in
SS-1. If T (S12a) does not match T (S12b) within the specified tolerance The performance of our Aspen HYSYS model is evaluated with an
in R3, Aspen HYSYS updates T (S12b) , and the HP evaporator simulation example CCGT plant. Since real operational data for CCGT plants are
continues again. This process repeats until T (S12a) and T (S12b) are not available in the open literature, an alternative way is to compare its
within the specified tolerance. If T (S36) exceeds THPSmax , ADJ-SH1 predictions with those of an equivalent model built in GateCycle, a
adjusts m (S26a) to prevent the HP steam from over-temperature. Now, widely used commercial software in the power industry.
the HPT inlet steam conditions are fully known. However, they may not The following data is used for evaluation. The plant is assumed to
match the HPST characteristics, namely Eq. (15). Hence, knowing the use IGVC for part-load operation. Table 3 shows the design parameters
HPT inlet flow and temperature, the HPT expected inlet pressure of the CCGT plant and Fig. 3 presents the AC performance map.
[P'(S36) ] is computed from Eq. (15), and P (S30a) is back calculated in Moreover, c1 = 0.01, c2 = 0.01 and c3 = 0.0001 in Eqs. (4)–(6) [47],
SS-1 by adding the pressure losses in HP SPHT 1 and HP SPHT2. λ = 2.083 in Eq. (11) [10], and Fcu = 0.48 in Eq. (17) are used in this
Moreover, the pressure iteration in R9 is activated. If P (S30a) does not paper. Furthermore, both THPSmax and TRHSmax are assumed to be
match P (S30b) within the specified tolerance in R9, Aspen HYSYS up- 565 °C while TFWmin is assumed to be 50 °C.
dates P (S30b) until the difference between P (S30a) and P (S30b) falls Table 4 presents the design performance of the CCGT plant in Aspen
within the specified tolerance. Hence, when R9 converges, the HP HYSYS and GateCycle. In the following, the relative deviations (RD)
steam conditions match the HPST characteristics. This completes the between the two simulation models (Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle)
simulation of the HP circuit in a sequential manner, starting from the defined by Eq. (21) in GT, SC, and CCGT performance are evaluated.
HP evaporator. The same simulation logic is applied to the IP/LP cir-
cuits. Finally, a Recycle module (R6) is used for the LP economizer HYSYS Result−GateCycle Result
RD (%) = × 100
water recirculation; an Adjust module (ADJ-RCF) adjusts the water GateCycle Result (21)
recirculation flow to control the LP economizer feedwater temperature;
an Adjust module (ADF-CDP) adjusts the condenser pressure to fully
condense the water/steam mixture from the LPST. The detailed simu- 3.1. Gas turbine (GT) performance
lation procedure for the SC is presented in Fig. 7. The Recycle modules
in the BFD and their stream variables are summarized in Table 1. All the Fig. 8 shows the relative deviations for the key operating parameters
variables are transferred forwards in the Recycle modules. Aspen of the AC and turbine. Clearly, nearly all are within 1.0%. Moreover,
HYSYS iterates on the stream variables systematically until the Recycle the average deviation for all operating parameters in Fig. 8 is less than
modules converge. Therefore, when all the Recycle and Adjust modules 0.5%. The minor discrepancies for the operating parameters in Fig. 8
converge, the SC is solved successfully. arise from the differences in gas enthalpy calculations. For calculating
Inlet guide vane control (IGVC) is usually employed for part-load gas enthalpies, GateCycle uses the NASA method [59], in which gases
operations in CCGT plants. IGVC simultaneously manipulates mf to are assumed to be ideal. Aspen HYSYS uses the Peng-Robinson equa-
achieve the desired part-load and Δα to maintain TET at its design value tion-of-state [60], which is based on real gas experimental data. The
(TETd ) [57,58]. Two Adjust modules are used to implement IGVC in NASA method uses two separate fourth-order (5-parameter) tempera-
Aspen HYSYS. As shown in Fig. 2(a), ADJ-FF adjusts mf , and ADJ-IGV ture-dependent polynomials to calculate gas enthalpies below and
adjusts Δα . In ADJ-FF, m (NG) is selected as the adjusted variable, above 1000 K (726.85 °C), respectively. Aspen HYSYS directly calcu-
WCCGT / WCCGT , d × 100 computed in SS-1 is chosen as the target variable, lates gas enthalpies from the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state. Hence,
and the desired percent part-load (PL%) is supplied as the specified Aspen HYSYS predicts a higher (lower) gas enthalpy below (above)
target value. In ADJ-IGV, Δα is selected as the adjusted variable, T (S7) 1000K than GateCycle, as shown in Fig. 9. The differences in gas en-
is chosen as the target variable, and TETd is supplied as the specified thalpy predictions affect the complex interactions between the AC and
target value. turbine, represented by the matching between the compressor map
Now, given a part-load (PL ), the Aspen HYSYS model can simulate (Fig. 3) and turbine characteristics (Eq. (10)). This results in the minor
the triple-pressure reheat CCGT plant in Fig. 1. To converge the model discrepancies shown in Fig. 8. Because of these minor discrepancies,
smoothly, some guidelines are proposed here. First, some simple cor- Aspen HYSYS predicts a lower GT power output and efficiency than
relations for the minimum and maximum parameters in the Adjust GateCycle, as shown in Fig. 10. Moreover, as the plant load decreases,
modules are developed, as shown in Table 2. Second, based on the the differences in gas enthalpy predictions drive the GT power output
minimum and maximum parameters, the initial guess and step size for and efficiency of Aspen HYSYS farther way from those of GateCycle. As
each Adjust module are set to 0.5 × (Minimum + Maximum) and a result, the relative deviations in the GT power output and efficiency
0.1 × (Maximum−Minimum) , respectively. Third, the Adjust modules increase with decreasing plant load. However, their maximum devia-
should be activated progressively. For instance, ADJ-BETA, ADJ-IGV, tions are within 3.2%, and the average deviation is less than 2.0%.
ADJ-TP, ADJ-CDP, and ADJ-RCF are first activated. Then, ADJ-SH1 and
ADJ-SH2 are activated one at a time. Finally, ADJ-FF is activated. In Table 1
this way, the Aspen HYSYS model converges smoothly for a given PL . Stream variables for the Recycle modules in Aspen
It is clear from the above details that developing and solving the HYSYS. All are transferred in the forwards direction.
CCGT model in Aspen HYSYS require ingenious constructs and thinking
Module Stream variable
based on a full understanding of Aspen HYSYS. By giving a detailed and
explicit procedure, this paper makes CCGT simulation easy for the re- R1 T(S10b)
searchers, and thus makes a significant contribution. Given the plant R2 T(S11b)
design data, the model requires only one input, namely the desire part- R3 T(S12b)
R4 T(S14b)
load (PL ), and produces all the useful outputs, including but not limited R5 T(S17b)
to, the power outputs and efficiencies of the GT, SC, and CCGT plant. R6 P(S65b) and T(S65b)
Moreover, it can either work stand-alone, or be easily integrated with R7 P(S53b) and T(S53b)
various energy systems (e.g. CO2 capture, ORCs, fuel cells, LNG term- R8 P(S43b) and T(S43b)
R9 P(S30b) and T(S30b)
inals, air separation, and absorption chillers). Furthermore, it can be
R10 P(S26b) and T(S26b)
made dynamic by Aspen HSYSY Dynamics for predicting the plant real- R11 P(S41b) and T(S41b)
time behavior. Therefore, it is very useful and has wide applications.

1221
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225

Table 2
Minimum and maximum parameters for the Adjust modules in Aspen HYSYS.
Module Adjusted variable Base value Minimuma (%) Maximuma (%)

ADJ-BETA β 0.7 0.274PL + 70.0 0.274PL + 76.0

ADJ-FF m(NG) NG design flow 0.8352PL + 14.0 0.8352PL + 18.0
ADJ-IGV Δα 100% 0.6241PL + 35.0b 0.6241PL + 38.0b
ADJ-TP P(S7) S7 design pressure 0.0144PL + 97.0 0.0144PL + 100.0
ADJ-SH1 m(S26a) S34 design flow 0 −0.0163PL + 2.0
ADJ-SH2 m(S41a) S34 design flow 0 −0.0066PL + 1.0
ADJ-RCF m(S65ba) S65b design flow −0.355PL + 128.0 −0.355PL + 146.0
ADJ-CDP P(S59) S59 design pressure 0.422PL + 54.0 0.422PL + 60.0

a
Maximum (Minimum) value/Base value × 100.
b
IGV opening (100 − Δα).

Table 3 Table 4
Design parameters of the CCGT plant. Design performance of the CCGT plant in Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle.
Parameter/variable Value Performance Aspen HYSYS GateCycle

Ambient condition GT power (MW) 253.2 257.2

Pressure (kPa) 101.3 GT efficiency (%) 36.17 36.78
Temperature (°C) 15.0 SC power (MW) 139.8 137.8
Molar fraction 77.30% N2, 20.74% O2, 1.01% H2O, SC efficiency (%) 30.73 30.33
0.03% CO2, 0.92% Ar Plant net power (MW) 393.0 395.0
Plant efficiency (%) 56.14 56.49
Fuel condition
Pressure (bar) 30.0
Temperature (°C) 10.0
Molar fraction 87.08% CH4, 7.83% C2H6, 2.94% C3H8,
1.47% N2, 0.68% CO2

Gas turbine
Inlet air flow (kg s−1) 635.0
Inlet air pressure loss (%) 0.5
Compressor pressure ratio 15.4
Compressor isentropic efficiency (%) 88.0
Compressor mechanical efficiency (%) 99.0
Fuel flow (kg s−1) 14.74
Combustor efficiency (%) 99.5
Combustor pressure loss (%) 3.5
Combustor exit temperature (°C) 1405.0
Turbine inlet temperature (°C) 1328.0
Turbine exhaust temperature (°C) 615.0

Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)

HP/IP/LP steam temperatures (°C) 565.0/297.0/295.0
HP/IP/LP pinch point temperatures 10.0/10.0/10.0
(°C)
HP/IP/LP approach point 8.0/10.0/16.4
temperatures (°C)
HP SPHT 1 steam outlet temperature 510.0
(°C)
RHT 1/2 steam outlet temperature (°C) 520.0/565.0
HP ECON 1/2 water outlet 208.0/280.0
temperature (°C)
Pressure losses on gas/water/steam 1.5/5.0/3.0
sides (%)

Steam turbines (STs)

HP/IP/LP ST inlet pressure (bar) 98.8/24.0/4.0
HP/IP/LP ST isentropic efficiency (%) 87.0/91.0/89.0

Condenser
Pressure (kPa) 7.4
Cooling water temperature (°C) 25.0
Cooling water temperature rise (°C) 10.0
Generator
Generator efficiency (%) 98.5
Shaft speed (rpm) 3000

3.2. Steam cycle (SC) performance

Fig. 8. Relative deviations for the operating parameters of the AC (a) and
Figs. 11–13 show the relative deviations for the operating para- turbine (b).
meters of the HPST, IPST, and LPST. Since both Aspen HYSYS and
GateCycle use the ASME steam table for water and steam, the relative
deviations in Figs. 11–13 are primarily from their gas models. Because

1222
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi
Fig. 9. Gas enthalpy difference between Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle.
Fig. 10. Relative deviations for the power outputs and efficiencies of the GT,
SC, and CCGT plant.
Fig. 11. Relative deviations for the HPST operating parameters.
the SC operates below 1000 K , Aspen HYSYS predicts a higher gas
enthalpy than GateCycle. Hence, Aspen HYSYS predicts higher steam
flows and higher ST power outputs. The higher steam flows lead to
higher ST isentropic efficiencies according to Eq. (16). This enables the
HPST and IPST to expand to lower temperatures in Aspen HYSYS than
GateCycle. Since the LPST usually expands to two-phase (water/steam)
region, both Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle predict the same LPST outlet
temperature. On the other hand, HP steam and reheat steam exceed
their maximum allowable temperatures under IGVC; hence, desu-
perheaters are activated to prevent them from over-temperature. This is
1223
Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225
Fig. 12. Relative deviations for the IPST operating parameters.
Fig. 13. Relative deviations for the LPST operating parameters.
why both HPST and IPST inlet temperatures from Aspen HYSYS and
GateCycle are the same. The steam pressure profiles from Aspen HYSYS
and GateCycle are jointly determined by the HRSG and STs. Hence,
their variations are dependent on the profiles of stream flows and
temperatures. Clearly, in Figs. 11–13, the relative deviations in steam
pressures and temperatures for HPST, IPST, and LPST are all less than
0.6%, and the relative deviations in steam flows and power outputs are
within 2.4%. Moreover, the relative deviations in the SC power output
and efficiency range between 1.2 and 2.0% as shown in Fig. 10, and the
average deviation is less than 1.5%.
3.3. CCGT performance
Fig. 10 shows the relative deviations for the plant power output and
efficiency. Since the GT dominates the plant performance, Aspen
HYSYS predicts a relatively lower power output and efficiency than
GateCycle. The relative deviations in the plant power output and effi-
ciency are less than 0.6% for 100–40% loads. The reason is that Aspen
HYSYS predicts a higher SC power output, which compensates its lower
GT power output. However, the two simulation models are comparable
in terms of their simulation results. Our comparison is useful for any-
body wanting to use Aspen HYSYS instead of GateCycle, and vice versa.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a detailed Aspen HYSYS model was presented for si-
mulating the off-design operation of a triple-pressure reheat CCGT
plant. The challenges of implementing the rigorous modeling equations
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi
for various plant components were addressed, and a tailored procedure
was proposed for their solution. The Aspen HYSYS model captures the
full off-design details of the CCGT plant including compressor map,
turbine characteristics, and flow-dependent variables, such as pressure
drops and heat transfer coefficients. To our knowledge, this is the first
fully-detailed Aspen HYSYS model in the open literature for a CCGT
plant during off-design operation. The modeling strategy and solution
procedure presented in this paper can be extended to simulate any
CCGT plants in Aspen HYSYS. Moreover, they are generically applicable
to other commercial process simulators, such as Aspen Plus, Unisim,
and Pro II. The presence of mass/energy recycle in a CCGT plant poses
significant challenges to such sequential modular simulators; hence, the
specially tailored and ingenious simulation procedure is the major
contribution of this paper.
Using the data from an example CCGT plant, it was shown that the
predictions from the Aspen HYSYS model and an equivalent GateCycle
model are acceptably comparable. The relative deviations for the most
operating parameters of the GT and SC were within 1.0% and 0.6%,
respectively. Specifically, the average deviations in the power outputs
and thermal efficiencies of the GT, SC, and CCGT plant were less than
2.0%, 1.5%, and 0.6%, respectively. A thorough study was also done in
this paper to analyze the key causes for these various deviations. It was
found that the different procedures for computing gas enthalpies are the
main factor.
As the world moves to integrate CCGT plants within wider and di-
verse energy systems to conserve fuels and reduce CO2 emissions, more
general purpose simulators such as Aspen HYSYS versus stand-alone
specialized simulators such as GateCycle are becoming essential. In this
context, Aspen HYSYS offers several important advantages over
GateCycle such as wider and more versatile physical property packages,
easy integration with other energy systems or options (e.g. CO2 capture,
ORCs, fuel cells, LNG terminals, air separation, and absorption chillers),
dynamic simulation, and real-time optimization.
Acknowledgement
Zuming Liu acknowledges ACTSYS Process Management
Consultancy Company, Singapore for hosting his industrial internship
under a ring-fenced Graduate Research Scholarship from the National
University of Singapore. The authors thank Mr Norman Lee, MD of
ACTSYS for inspiring them to work on GT modeling. They further thank
Mr Norman Lee, Dr Yu Liu, and Mr Weiping Zhang of ACTSYS for
several enlightening discussions and preliminary information on the GT
operation in a CCGT plant. They acknowledge the support from the
National University of Singapore via a seed grant R261-508-001-646/
733 for CENGas (Center of Excellence for Natural Gas). They also ac-
knowledge the use of Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle under academic li-
censes.
References
[1] IEA. World Energy Outlook; 2017.
[2] Rao AD. Combined cycle systems for near-zero emission power generation, natural
gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) systems; 2012.
[3] EMA Singapore; 2017. < https://www.ema.gov.sg/Statistics.aspx > .
[4] Oyedepo SO, Fagbenle RO, Adefila SS, Adavbiele SA. Performance evaluation and
economic analysis of a gas turbine power plant in Nigeria. Energy Convers Manage
2014;79:431–40.
[5] Zhang N, Cai R. Analytical solutions and typical characteristics of part-load per-
formances of single shaft gas turbine and its cogeneration. Energy Convers Manage
2002;43:1323–2337.
[6] Aklilu BT, Gilani SI. Mathematical modeling and simulation of a cogeneration plant.
Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:2545–54.
[7] Al-Hamdan QZ, Ebaid MSY. Modeling and simulation of a gas turbine engine for
power generation. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2006;128:302.
[8] MathWorks; 2016. < https://www.mathworks.com/ > .
[9] Zhang G, Zheng J, Yang Y, Liu W. Thermodynamic performance simulation and
concise formulas for triple-pressure reheat HRSG of gas–steam combined cycle
under off-design condition. Energy Convers Manage 2016;122:372–85.
[10] Zhang G, Zheng J, Xie A, Yang Y, Liu W. Thermodynamic analysis of combined
1224
Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225
cycle under design/off-design conditions for its efficient design and operation.
Energy Convers Manage 2016;126:76–88.
[11] GateCycle 6.1. General Electric Company; 2013.
[12] Ebsilon Professional; 2016. < http://www.sofbid.com > .
[13] Thermoflow; 2016. < https://www.thermoflow.com/ > .
[14] Silva JAM, Venturini OJ, Lora EES, Pinho AF, Santos JJCS. Thermodynamic in-
formation system for diagnosis and prognosis of power plant operation condition.
Energy 2011;36:4072–9.
[15] Lee JH, Kim TS. Kim E-h. Prediction of power generation capacity of a gas turbine
combined cycle cogeneration plant. Energy 2017;124:187–97.
[16] Liu Z, Karimi IA. Simulation and operation of a combined cycle gas turbine power
plant for part-load operation. Chem Eng Res Des 2018;131:29–40.
[17] Aminov Z, Nakagoshi N, Xuan TD, Higashi O, Alikulov K. Evaluation of the energy
efficiency of combined cycle gas turbine. Case study of Tashkent thermal power
plant, Uzbekistan. Appl Therm Eng 2016;103:501–9.
[18] Oh S-Y, Binns M, Cho H, Kim J-K. Energy minimization of MEA-based CO2 capture
process. Appl Energy 2016;169:353–62.
[19] Soltani SM, Fennell PS, Mac Dowell N. A parametric study of CO2 capture from gas-
fired power plants using monoethanolamine (MEA). Int J Greenhouse Gas Control
2017;63:321–8.
[20] Esquivel-Patiño GG, Serna-González M, Nápoles-Rivera F. Thermal integration of
natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO2 capture systems and organic
Rankine cycles. Energy Convers Manage 2017;151:334–42.
[21] Budisulistyo D, Wong CS, Krumdieck S. Lifetime design strategy for binary geo-
thermal plants considering degradation of geothermal resource productivity.
Energy Convers Manage 2017;132:1–13.
[22] Kim IS, Kim TS, Lee JJ. Off-design performance analysis of organic Rankine cycle
using real operation data from a heat source plant. Energy Convers Manage
2017;133:284–91.
[23] Baccioli A, Antonelli M. Organic flash cycles: off-design behavior and control
strategies of two different cycle architectures for waste heat recovery applications.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;157:176–85.
[24] Bakalis DP, Stamatis AG. Full and part load exergetic analysis of a hybrid micro gas
turbine fuel cell system based on existing components. Energy Convers Manage
2012;64:213–21.
[25] Lee YD, Ahn KY, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Exergetic and exergoeconomic eva-
luation of a solid-oxide fuel-cell-based combined heat and power generation system.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;85:154–64.
[26] Sharifzadeh M, Meghdari M, Rashtchian D. Multi-objective design and operation of
solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) triple combined-cycle power generation systems: in-
tegrating energy efficiency and operational safety. Appl Energy 2017;185:345–61.
[27] Fahmy MFM, Nabih HI, El-Rasoul TA. Optimization and comparative analysis of
LNG regasification processes. Energy. 2015;91:371–85.
[28] Xue F, Chen Y, Ju Y. Design and optimization of a novel cryogenic Rankine power
generation system employing binary and ternary mixtures as working fluids based
on the cold exergy utilization of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Energy
2017;138:706–20.
[29] Mehrpooya M, Sharifzadeh MMM, Zonouz MJ, Rosen MA. Cost and economic po-
tential analysis of a cascading power cycle with liquefied natural gas regasification.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;156:68–83.
[30] Querol E, Gonzalez-Regueral B, Ramos A, Perez-Benedito JL. Novel application for
exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of processes simulated with Aspen Plus®.
Energy 2011;36:964–74.
[31] Esfilar R, Mehrpooya M, Moosavian SMA. Thermodynamic assessment of an in-
tegrated biomass and coal co-gasification, cryogenic air separation unit with power
generation cycles based on LNG vaporization. Energy Convers Manage
2018;157:438–51.
[32] Deng Z, Jin B, Zhao Y, Gao H, Huang Y, Luo X, et al. Process simulation and
thermodynamic evaluation for chemical looping air separation using fluidized bed
reactors. Energy Convers Manage 2018;160:289–301.
[33] Somers C, Mortazavi A, Hwang Y, Radermacher R, Rodgers P, Al-Hashimi S.
Modeling water/lithium bromide absorption chillers in ASPEN Plus. Appl Energy
2011;88:4197–205.
[34] Mansouri R, Boukholda I, Bourouis M, Bellagi A. Modelling and testing the per-
formance of a commercial ammonia/water absorption chiller using Aspen-Plus
platform. Energy 2015;93:2374–83.
[35] Ochoa AAV, Dutra JCC, Henríquez JRG, dos Santos CAC. Dynamic study of a single
effect absorption chiller using the pair LiBr/H2O. Energy Convers Manage
2016;108:30–42.
[36] Nord LO, Anantharaman R, Bolland O. Design and off-design analyses of a pre-
combustion CO2 capture process in a natural gas combined cycle power plant. Int J
Greenhouse Gas Control 2009;3:385–92.
[37] Karimi M, Hillestad M, Svendsen HF. Natural gas combined cycle power plant in-
tegrated to capture plant. Energy Fuels 2012;26:1805–13.
[38] Lee JJ, Kim YS, Cha KS, Kim TS, Sohn JL, Joo YJ. Influence of system integration
options on the performance of an integrated gasification combined cycle power
plant. Appl Energy 2009;86:1788–96.
[39] Aspen HYSYS V9; 2017. < www.aspentech.com > .
[40] Taimoor AA, Muhammad A, Saleem W, Zain-ul-abdein M. Humidified exhaust re-
circulation for efficient combined cycle gas turbines. Energy 2016;106:356–66.
[41] Mehrpooya M, Zonouz MJ. Analysis of an integrated cryogenic air separation unit,
oxy-combustion carbon dioxide power cycle and liquefied natural gas regasification
process by exergoeconomic method. Energy Convers Manage 2017;139:245–59.
[42] Wang Y, Tang Q, Wang M, Feng X. Thermodynamic performance comparison be-
tween ORC and Kalina cycles for multi-stream waste heat recovery. Energy Convers
Manage 2017;143:482–92.
Z. Liu, I.A. Karimi
[43] Alobaid F, Starkloff R, Pfeiffer S, Karner K, Epple B, Kim H-G. A comparative study
of different dynamic process simulation codes for combined cycle power plants –
Part A: part loads and off-design operation. Fuel 2015;153:692–706.
[44] Alobaid F, Starkloff R, Pfeiffer S, Karner K, Epple B, Kim H-G. A comparative study
of different dynamic process simulation codes for combined cycle power plants –
Part B: start-up procedure. Fuel 2015;153:707–16.
[45] Palmer CA, Erbes MR, Pechtl PA. GateCycle performance analysis of the LM2500
gas turbines utilizing low heating value fuels. ASME Cogen Turbo Power, ASME
IGTI 1993;8:69.
[46] Smooth C 8.3. Preparing compressor maps for gas turbine performance modeling;
2015. < http://www.gasturb.de/compressor-maps.html > .
[47] Kurzke J. GasTurb 12 - design and off-design performance of gas turbines; 2015.
< http://wwwgasturbde/ > .
[48] Palmer CA, Erbes MR. Simulation methods used to analyze the performance of the
GE PG6541B gas turbines utilizing low heating value fuels. ASME IGTI Cogen-
Turbo; 1994.
[49] Reynolds WC, Perkins HC. Engineering thermodynamics. McGraw-Hill; 1977.
[50] Kim YS, Lee JJ, Kim TS, Sohn JL. Effects of syngas type on the operation and
performance of a gas turbine in integrated gasification combined cycle. Energy
Convers Manage 2011;52:2262–71.
[51] Kim YS, Lee JJ, Kim TS, Sohn JL, Joo YJ. Performance analysis of a syngas-fed gas
1225
View publication stats
Energy Conversion and Management 171 (2018) 1213–1225
turbine considering the operating limitations of its components. Appl Energy
2010;87:1602–11.
[52] Lu S, Lin R. Gas turbine steady-state design and off-design characteristic general
model. Inst Eng Thermophys 1996:404–7.
[53] Holman JP. Heat transfer. McGraw-Hill; 1997.
[54] Sanchez Fernandez E, Sanchez del Rio M, Chalmers H, Khakharia P, Goetheer ELV,
Gibbins J, et al. Operational flexibility options in power plants with integrated post-
combustion capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2016;48:275–89.
[55] Csanady GT. Theory of turbomachines. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964.
[56] Cooke DH. On prediction of off-design multistage turbine pressures by Stodola’s
ellipse. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1985;107:596–606.
[57] Haglind F. Variable geometry gas turbines for improving the part-load performance
of marine combined cycles – gas turbine performance. Energy 2010;35:562–70.
[58] Domachowski Z, Dzida M. Influence of inlet guide vane control on combined cycle
power plant transients. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo expo, Amsterdam,
Netherlands; 2002.
[59] McBride BJ, Gordon S, Reno MA. Coefficients for calculating thermodynamic and
transport properties of individual species. NASA Technical Memorandum, 4513;
1993.
[60] Aspen HYSYS V9. Aspen HYSYS V9 Help. Peng-Robinson calculation methods;
2017.