Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695

www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Turbomachines for application in LOTHECO

powerplants (turbomachines for LOTHECO)
a,* b
H. Haselbacher , A.C. Fischer
a
Institute of Thermal Turbomachines and Powerplants, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9,
1060 Vienna, Austria
b
VATECH HYDRO GmbH & Co., Combined Cycle, Department of CC-PB, Penzingerstraße 76, 1141 Vienna, Austria
Received 12 July 2003; accepted 31 October 2003
Available online 28 February 2004

Abstract
The improvement of the technical and economic performance of electric power generation is a contin-
uous effort. An example is the step from simple-cycle (open-cycle) gas turbines to combined-cycle power-
plants. Later, STIG and HAT cycles were introduced and, more recently, the LOTHECO concept was
proposed. This concept unites features of the standard combined-cycle powerplant and of the HAT cycle by
using low-temperature external heat––and not the exhaust energy of the gas turbine––to humidify the high
pressure combustion air. (LOTHECO is the acronym for ‘‘combined-cycle powerplant with integrated low-
temperature heat’’.)
An obstacle to the introduction of LOTHECO plants is the fact that in their simplest configuration they
require newly designed or at least extensively modified gas turbines. This is because the compressor and the
turbine mass flow rates, when adjusted to the LOTHECO conditions, are quite different. To improve this
situation, alternatives to the original LOTHECO plant concept must be developed.
It is found that combinations of standard gas turbines and expanders are solutions almost equivalent in
terms of efficiency and specific work to the original LOTHECO plant with an adjusted gas turbine. Less
desirable possibilities appear to be combinations of industrial compressors and expanders because of the
relatively low inlet temperature of expanders currently available on the market.
Ó European Communities, 2004. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Combined cycles; Gas turbines; Expanders; Specific work; Efficiency

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +43-1-58801-31310; fax: +43-1-58801-31399.
E-mail address: hermann.haselbacher@tuwien.ac.at (H. Haselbacher).

1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó European Communities, 2004. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.10.031
1688 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695

Nomenclature

AC aftercooler
C compressor
COMB combustor, combustion chamber
COND condensor
CP condensate pump
E expander
ECO economizer
EV evaporator
FP feed pump
G generator
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
HUM humidifier
LP low pressure
REC recuperator
ST steam turbine
T turbine
TIT turbine inlet temperature
w specific work, specific powerplant output
Greek symbols
g efficiency
k reciprocal of equivalence ratio
l steam-to-air ratio (ratio of the steam-to-air mass flow rates)
P pressure ratio
Subscripts
C compressor
d design
fuel based on fuel burnt
ST steam turbine
T turbine
WI injected water

1. Introduction

LOTHECO is a relatively new combined-cycle powerplant concept developed at TU Braun-

schweig [1]. The work presented here deals with the gas turbines of LOTHECO plants and has
been performed within the framework of the EC contract ENK5-CT2000-00063. The consortium
consisted of the following entities: Public Power Corporation of Greece, Technische Universitaet
Braunschweig, National Technical University of Athens, Technische Universitaet Wien, Imperial
 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695 1689

College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG, Universitatea Po-
litehnica Timisoara, Sofia Energy Centre Ltd., Frederick Institute of Technology, Electricity
Authority of Cyprus; and Hyperion Systems Engineering Ltd.
LOTHECO incorporates a standard combined-cycle powerplant (CC) and a modified humid
air turbine (HAT) cycle. In the LOTHECO cycle, the humidification is achieved by utilizing low-
temperature external heat (solar radiation, waste heat from industrial processes, geothermal en-
ergy) and not the exhaust energy of the gas turbine. The corresponding simplified powerplant
diagrams are shown in Fig. 1.

(a) CC (b) HAT (with partial water recovery)

Exhaust
Exha
Exhaust

CPST
FP CONDWI
CONDST Wet Air

Multi- ECO
Pressure
HRSG
HUM REC
Fuel

Fuel
COMB AC COMB

G T ST G G T
C C

Air Air

(c) LOTHECO (with partial water recovery)

Exhaust

FPWI

External Heat CONDWI

Transfer Fluid
CPST

optional
CONDST

Multi-
Pressure
HRSG
EVWI Fuel

Wet Air
AC COMB

G T ST G
C

Air

Fig. 1. Simplified powerplant diagrams: (a) CC, (b) HAT (with partial water recovery) and (c) LOTHECO (with partial
water recovery).
1690 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695

In common open-cycle gas turbines fired with standard fuels such as natural gas or light fuel oil,
the differences between the mass flow rates through the compressor, the combustion chamber, and
the turbine are rather small even in the case of water injection for NOX -reduction. The corre-
sponding situation in HAT-cycle gas turbines is entirely different because of the great amount of
water taken up in the humidifier.
Assuming water injection at an increasing rate into a standard open-cycle gas turbine, its main
components (compressor, combustor and turbine) reach critical states that must be avoided to
ensure safe operation. To name but a few: compressor surge, combustor instability, critical
combination of stresses and cooling of turbine vanes and blades.
Some of these effects are analyzed in the following section of this paper. The main purpose is to
show that a redesign of a standard open-cycle gas turbine becomes necessary if the benefits of the
HAT-cycle part of the LOTHECO cycle are to be realized.
Although the potential gains in output and thermal efficiency are significant, the corresponding
necessary redesigns are very costly. Therefore, alternative arrangements of existing turbomachines
are investigated in the third section of the paper.

2. Limitations of and modifications to existing open-cycle gas turbines

The results presented here are derived from simplified performance analyses of three LOTH-
ECO powerplants. The purpose is to indicate the relationship between several critical gas turbine
operating states and the amounts of injected water causing them. These critical states determine––
so to speak––fictitious or ‘‘extended’’ gas turbine operating lines.
The three gas turbines have identical design compressor pressure ratios PCd ¼ 15, identical
design turbine inlet temperatures TITd ¼ 1300 °C, and identical turbine geometries. Three com-
pressor sizes characterized by their respective design flow capacities are considered. The turbine
inlet temperature of the gas turbine with the largest compressor is varied in two steps from its
design value to TIT ¼ 1170 and 990 °C (see Table 1).
The steam cycles are assumed to be dual-pressure systems.
The performance calculations are based upon generic gas turbine maps as maps of existing
machines are not available. Relying on experiments conducted at the Lund Institute of Tech-
nology [2], the maximum steam-to-air ratio beyond which combustor oscillations may occur is
assumed to be lCOMB ¼ 0:4.
Fig. 2 shows the normalized powerplant output, i.e., the sum of the gas turbine and steam
turbine outputs divided by the gas turbine output, plotted vs. the steam-to-air ratio.

Table 1
Identification of operating lines in Fig. 2
Turb. Inl. Temp. TIT [°C] Relat. compr. mass flow rate
1.0 0.8 0.6
1300 1 2 3
1170 4
990 5
 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695 1691

5.0
Compressor Design Point (1)

µCOMB = 0.40
Compressor Operational Limit

Normalized Powerplant Output [-]

(50% Surge Margin)
4.0 (4)
Compressor Surge
(2)
Turbine Choking
(5)

3.0
(3)

λ=1.1
at TIT=1300˚C
2.0
. .
(1) C1: mC /mC-ref =1.0; TIT=1300˚C
. .
(2) C2: mC /mC-ref =0.8; TIT=1300˚C
. .
1.0 (3) C3: mC /mC-ref =0.6; TIT=1300˚C
. .
(4) C1: mC /mC-ref =1.0; TIT=1170˚C
. .
(5) C1: mC /mC-ref =1.0; TIT= 990˚C

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Steam-to-Air Ratio [-]

Fig. 2. Extended gas turbine operating lines.

It is seen that in a given powerplant and at constant turbine inlet temperature, represented, for
example, by line 1, the steam-to-air ratio cannot be raised much before critical operating con-
ditions are reached. When the turbine inlet temperature is reduced and the compressor is to
operate, say, in its design point (PCd ¼ 15), a corresponding additional steam flow must be
admitted. But this does not seem to raise the normalized powerplant output appreciably. As the
turbine inlet temperature continues to be reduced, the normalized powerplant output is reduced as
well. The desired increase in normalized powerplant output is achieved, however, when a com-
pressor of lower flow capacity is used in combination with the original turbine. The reverse, i.e.,
the original compressor and a larger turbine, applies as well.
The powerplant efficiencies of the five cases, expressed by the ratios of the power produced to
the fuel burnt, increase with increasing steam-to-air ratio. The rates of increase are greatest at low
steam-to-air ratios. The efficiency maxima (62–64%) are reached at steam-to-air ratios between 0.5
and 0.6.
Avoiding or reducing the problems indicated above requires at least a new design of the
compressor or of the turbine or maybe even a new design of one of these and a significant
modification of the other. Since such changes to existing machines are very expensive, alternative
concepts are now investigated.

3. Alternative powerplants concepts and their thermodynamic potential

In place of a newly designed adjusted gas turbine with a downscaled compressor or an upscaled
turbine, the following two turbomachinery combinations seem to be promising: (a) a combination
of an industrial compressor and an expander as used in process industries, and (b) a combination
of a standard gas turbine and an expander.
1692 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695

A preliminary analysis shows the following results: The compressor–expander combination is

probably the cheaper solution than the standard gas turbine–expander combination. However, it
leads to a lower specific powerplant output (based on compressor air mass flow rate) by about 40–
60% and a lower powerplant efficiency (based on fuel burnt) by about 10–15 points, again in
comparison with the standard gas turbine–expander combination with usual gas turbine inlet
temperatures and compressor pressure ratios. This result is not surprising because industrial
expanders are designed for relatively moderate inlet temperatures of approximately 500–700 °C.
Under these conditions, steam bottoming cycles become meaningless with the consequence of
substantial performance losses.
Therefore, the standard gas turbine (GT)–expander combination is further investigated. It can
be realized by the parallel arrangement of the standard GT and the expander in three ways
(Fig. 3).
Their common feature is the recuperator where the expander flow medium is heated by the GT
exhaust heat.
Their differences are related mainly to the magnitudes of the steam-to-air ratios of their
respective expander flows:

II(I) Combination of standard GT and air turbine (alternative I): Downstream of the aftercooler
(AC), the air flow is divided. The part intended for the gas turbine is fed into the evaporator
(EVWI ) where the water is injected. The remaining air flow is heated in the recuperator
(REC) by the gas turbine exhaust heat and then expanded in the air turbine (TAir ) as men-
tioned above.
I(II) Combination of standard GT and expander (alternative II): The working fluid is now di-
vided in front of the combustor (COMB). As the limit of injectable water is set by the com-
bustor [2], more water can be injected into this GT–expander combination than into the
arrangement of alternative I.
(III) Combination of standard GT and expander (alternative III): This cycle is a further develop-
ment of alternative II to raise the amount of injectable water. The steam content of the
working fluid in the expander is restricted only by the evaporator capacity and, therefore,
can exceed that of the combustor. As in alternative I, the air flow is divided downstream

(I) (II) (III)

II)
EVWI HRSG HRSG EVWI HRSG HRSG EVWI HRSG HRSG

Air Wet Air Wet Air

Fuel Fuel Fuel

REC REC REC
Air
EVWI

EVWI
EVWI

AC COMB AC COMB AC COMB

T TAir T E T E
C C C

Air Air Air

Fig. 3. Arrangements of standard GT–expander combinations.

 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695 1693

of the aftercooler. The main flow is directed to the evaporator generating a mixture with a
high steam content. Subsequent to passing the aftercooler, this mixture is divided into a
combustor stream and an expander stream. The split-off air is added to the steam enriched
combustor flow thus reducing its steam-to-air ratio to the limit set by the combustor.

The cycle analyses for a great number of design points are based on a long list of component
performance data, mainly compressor, turbine and expander efficiencies, gas turbine cooling
requirements, and relative pressure losses [3]. Common to all LOTHECO powerplants are the
availability of external heat at 200 °C, the combustor steam-to-air ratio lCOMB ¼ 0:4 and dual-
pressure steam cycles. The results are presented in Fig. 4 together with analogous information for
standard open-cycle gas turbines, standard combined-cycle powerplants, and standard LOTH-
ECO powerplants (with adjusted gas turbines).
The LOTHECO alternatives with standard open-cycle gas turbines and expanders offer almost
the same or higher powerplant efficiencies than the LOTHECO powerplants with adjusted gas
turbines. On the other hand, the latter perform better with respect to specific powerplant output
(based on compressor air mass flow rate). Nevertheless, on balance the LOTHECO alternatives
can be viewed as the preferable solutions, not least because of the availability of turbomachines.
However, these will require some, although relatively minor, modifications too because of outlets
and inlets required to connect them to evaporators and recuperators. In this respect, they are
similar to recuperated open-cycle gas turbines.

70

(f)
65
(e)
60 (c)
Net Powerplant Efficiency [%]

(d)

55

(b)
50

45
(a) Standard gas turbine
TIT=1300°C

(b) Standard combined cycle

40 (c) LOTHECO with adjusted gas turbine
(d) LOTHECO alternative I
800°C

(e) LOTHECO alternative II

35 Π C =15 (f) LOTHECO alternative III

(a) 11

30
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Specific Powerplant Output [kJ/kg]

Fig. 4. Comparison of cycle performances.

1694 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695

As turbine inlet temperatures TIT of around 1300 °C and compressor pressure ratios PC of
around 15 are relatively common, their performance data are specially presented in Table 2.
In Table 2, performance data are presented for two additional LOTHECO alternatives iden-
tified by g and h. They are based on adjusted gas turbines and heat transferred from the low-
temperature heat source into the steam cycle. This option is indicated in Fig. 1(c) by the dashed
lines designated ‘‘optional’’. Although the performance is impressive, the probability of realiza-
tion of such plants does not seem to be high.
Finally, in Fig. 5, the distribution of the power produced among the various turbomachines is
presented.

Table 2
Performance of investigated powerplant schemes at TIT ¼ 1300 °C and PC ¼ 15
Ident. Characteristics w [kJ/kg] gfuel [%]
(a) Standard gas turbine (without water injection) 361 35.4
(b) Combined-cycle powerplant 542 52.2
(c) LOTHECO with adjusted gas turbine 1252 60.9
(d) LOTHECO alternative I (standard GT and air turbine) 844 59.7
(e) LOTHECO alternative II (standard GT and expander) 891 61.9
(f) LOTHECO alternative III (standard GT and expander) 942 64.7
(g) LOTHECO with adjusted GT and integration of external low- 1301 63.3
temperature heat into the steam cycle (economizer)
(h) LOTHECO with adjusted GT and integration of external low- 1520 73.9
temperature heat into the steam cycle (LP steam generation)

100
10.2
15.3
18.9
Power Contribution of Turbomachines [%]

90 20.7 22.8
23.4 3.3
33.3
80 6.0
7.6
9.3
9.9 9.9
70 36.4
14.4 22.8

60 12.7

50

40
66.7 70.0 67.3
30 59.0 55.9 54.0
50.0
20

10

(b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Gas Turbine Expander HP Steam Turbine LP Steam Tiurbine

Fig. 5. Contribution of thermal turbomachines to total plant output.

 H. Haselbacher, A.C. Fischer / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1687–1695 1695

4. Conclusions

The investigation of the basic and various alternative LOTHECO concepts shows that there
exist obstacles to the realization of some of them. They concern mainly the application of stan-
dard gas turbines because of their limited tolerance to differences between compressor and turbine
mass flow rates.
The next obvious choice would appear to be combinations of industrial compressors and
expanders. They, however, are unattractive thermodynamically because of the low expander inlet
temperatures and all their consequences.
The analyses indicate that combinations of standard gas turbines and expanders are the best
options for the following reasons: (a) With respect to performance, these alternative LOTHECO
concepts are equal to or better than the originally proposed one in terms of efficiency (based on
fuel burnt). The specific powerplant outputs (based on compressor air mass flow rate) are only
about 25% smaller than that of the original concept. (b) The gas turbines require few and simple
design modifications and expanders are common turbomachines in process industries.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this project by the European
Commission.

References

[1] N. Aronis, R. Leithner, A. Witkowski, New combined cycle with integrated low temperature heat or solar heat, in:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental
Aspects of Energy Systems (ECOS), Enschede, 5–7 July, 2000.


[2] N.D. Agren, M.O. Westermark, M.A. Bartlett, T. Lindquist, First Experiments on an evaporative gas turbine pilot
power plant: water circuit chemistry and humidification evaluation, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power 124 (1) (2002) 96–102.
[3] A.C. Fischer, H. Haselbacher, Realisierung von Gasturbinen-Kraftwerken mit Wasser/Dampf-Eind€ usung mittels
Kombination von Standardgasturbinen und Turboexpandern, VDI-Energietechnik-Konferenz, Stuttgart 2003 and
VDI-Bericht, Energietechnik, Nr. 1746, VDI-Verlag, D€usseldorf, 2003, pp. 93–106.