Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

A. I. Zwebek P. Pilidis

Department of Power Engineering and Propulsion, School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK

Degradation Effects on Combined Cycle Power Plant Performance— Part III: Gas and Steam Turbine Component Degradation Effects

This paper presents an investigation of the degradation effects that gas and steam turbine cycles components have on combined cycle (CCGT) power plant performance. Gas tur- bine component degradation effects were assessed with TurboMatch, the Cranfield Gas Turbine simulation code. A new code was developed to assess bottoming cycle perfor- mance deterioration. The two codes were then joined to simulate the combined cycle performance deterioration as a whole unit. Areas examined were gas turbine compressor and turbine degradation, HRSG degradation, steam turbine degradation, condenser deg- radation, and increased gas turbine back pressure due to HRSG degradation. The proce- dure, assumptions made, and the results obtained are presented and discussed. The pa- rameters that appear to have the greatest influence on degradation are the effects on the gas generator. DOI: 10.1115/1.1639007

Introduction

The rapid improvement of gas turbine technology in the 1990s drove combined cycle thermal efficiency to nearly 60% with natu- ral gas as a fuel Briesch and Bannister 1 . It will probably go even higher in the future. This high plant efficiency along with low emissions and competitive capital and running costs made the combined cycle gas turbine CCGT plant a very popular prime mover for electricity generation. This interest increase in the CCGT plants led to the users of such plants to become more concerned about the plant’s behavior after running for long times. As a result, simulation codes are developed to predict the behavior of such power plants and their subsystems on a thermo-fluid dynamic basis Erbes and Gay 2 , Roy-Aikins 3 , and Thermoflow 4 . This is the third in a series of three technical papers looking at the degradation effects that different components of combined cycle have on the plant’s performance. The first paper Zwebek and Pilidis 5 presented the effects that gas turbine components degradation have on gas turbine and hence on the overall CCGT plant, the second paper Zwebek and Pilidis 6 discussed the steam bottoming cycle component deg- radation effects have on CCGT plant. The conclusion of the two papers mentioned above is summarized herein. In the first paper, 5 , it was concluded that the GT turbine degradation has the utmost effect on gas turbine as well as on steam turbine cycles performances compared to GT compressor. Also, it was shown that the GT exhaust temperature has a predominant effect on steam cycle efficiency over the GT exhaust mass flow. Because the CCGT plant is more dependent on the gas turbine, and as it was expected, the CCGT plant performance was more sensitive to change in gas turbine cycle conditions than to the changes in steam turbine cycle conditions. The conclusion from the second paper, 6 , was that, within the HRSG unit, the evaporator degradation is the utmost effecting fault on steam turbine cycle performance compared to superheater and economizer. Also concluded that, the steam turbine isentropic

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute IGTI of THE AMERICAN

SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF

ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Paper presented at the Interna- tional Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Neth- erlands, June 3–6, 2002; Paper No. 2002-GT-30513. Manuscript received by IGTI, Dec. 2001, final revision, Mar. 2002. Associate Editor: E. Benvenuti.

efficiency as a performance parameter has the uppermost effect on steam turbine cycle power and efficiency. Finally, the effects of HRSG and condenser degradations on steam cycle and hence on CCGT plants performance is very low compared to the steam turbine unit components degradation.

GasÕSteam Turbine Performance Deterioration. Even un- der normal engine operating conditions, with good inlet filtration systems, and using a clean fuel, the gas turbine engine flow path components will become fouled, eroded, corroded, and covered with rust scale, Diakunchak 7 , Lakshminarasimha et al. 8 , Tabakoff 9 , and Tabakoff et al. 10 , and others . The results will then be an engine performance deterioration. Since the gas tur- bine, in this case, is connected to another plant steam cycle which is entirely dependent on it, then the concern due to perfor- mance deterioration will increase. This is due to the fact that any failure or malfunctioning within the gas turbine will be magnified as it would be affecting the two CCGT plants at the same time. This paper explores different component degradation effects on a simple combined cycle CCGT plant of Fig. 1. The plant under consideration is composed of a single-shaft industrial gas turbine coupled with a single-pressure HRSG steam bottoming cycle. The design point specifications of both gas and steam turbine plants used with this unfired cycle were chosen in such a way that they represent an existing typical real cycle, as follows:

Gas Turbine Specifications inlet mass flow 408.6 kg/sec compressor pressure ratio 15.2 turbine entry temperature 1697.80 K exhaust mass flow 419.4 kg/sec exhaust temperature 871.24 K power 165.93 MW thermal efficiency 35.57%

Steam Turbine Specifications live steam pressure 65.4 bar live steam temperature 537.8°C steam mass flow 67 kg/sec steam turbine isentropic effic. 89.48% superheater surface area 8424.8 m 2 evaporator surface area 29315.6 m 2 economizer surface area 38004.1 m 2 condenser surface area 3942.9 m 2

306 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of a single pressure CCGT power plant HRSG efficiency 81.11% steam

Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of a single pressure CCGT power

plant

HRSG efficiency 81.11% steam turbine plant power output 76.4541 MW steam turbine plant efficiency 33.97%

The effects of the gas turbine degradation on steam cycle, and hence on the CCGT plants performance as whole was investi- gated. The faults investigated were the following:

i. compressor isentropic effic. degradation,

ii. turbine isentropic efficiency degradation,

iii. compressor and turbine fouling,

iv. compressor and turbine erosion,

v. economizer degradation,

vi. evaporator degradation,

vii. superheater degradation,

viii. steam turbine fouling,

ix. steam turbine erosion,

x. ST isentropic efficiency degradation,

xi. condenser degradation,

xii. combination of all faults mentioned above, and

xiii. gas turbine back pressure increase due to heat exchanger HRSG surfaces fouling.

The terms fouling and erosion are used in the context of other work, Diakunchak 7 and Lakshminarasimha et al. 8 . In the case of gas turbine unit, because the combustion system is not likely to be a direct cause of gas turbine performance deterioration Diakunchak 7 it was assumed not to degrade for the following reasons:

i. Combustion chamber faults that affect GT overall perfor- mance are rare in comparison to those faults that may occur in the compressor and turbine.

ii. Any malfunctioning in the combustion chamber would mean increased emissions, which is not allowed by environ- mental laws in many places.

Fault Representation

In order to investigate the effects of faults mentioned in previ- ous section on the Gas/steam turbine plants performance as a standing alone units, and hence on CCGT plant as a whole, these faults were fed into the program as a percent reduction of the original design point value shown 0.0 in Table 1 . This is done as follows:

Fouling: GT compressor, GT turbine, and ST turbine fouling is represented by reduced flow capacity at the inlet of the component plus a reduction in the component isentropic efficiency. By doing so, it is assumed that there is a blockage in the inlet area of the

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

Table 1

Representation of component degradation

Fault

Represented By

Range

Compressor fouling

Drop in Drop in C Drop in Drop in C Drop in Drop in T Rise in Drop in T Drop in C and T GT Back pressure rise Drop in U Drop in U Drop in U Drop in U Drop in Drop in T Rise in Drop in T Drop in T

0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 2.5% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 2.5% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 2.5% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 2.5% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 3.0%

0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 2.5% 0.0– 5.0% 0.0– 2.5% 0.0– 5.0%

Compressor erosion

Turbine fouling

Turbine erosion

FOD Gas turbine back pressure Economizer degradation Evaporator degradation Superheater degradation Condenser degradation Steam turbine fouling

Steam turbine erosion

FOD

component due to fouling along with a decrease in the compo- nent’s isentropic efficiency due to surface roughness, for example. Erosion: Compressor erosion is represented by a lower inlet mass flow capacity and a reduction in compressor isentropic effi- ciency. On the other hand, GT and ST turbines erosion is repre- sented by an increased flow capacity plus a reduction in the tur- bine isentropic efficiency Lakshminarasimha et al. 8 . These two phenomena are represented by changing the so- called nondimensional mass flow Eq. 1 of the component maps Table 1 .

˙

W

T i

PA

is increased or reduced

(1)

Component Efficiency Degradation: This is modeled by re- ducing the component isentropic efficiency of the appropriate map and keeping all other parameters at their design point DP levels. In this case, it was assumed that the component isentropic effi- ciency might decrease from its DP value due to any reason, such as blade tip rubs or FOD. Heat Exchanger Degradation: The degradation of either of the heat exchangers economizer, evaporator, superheater, and condenser was simulated by assuming a percent reduction in the original DP value of the overall heat transfer coefficient of the heat exchanger in concern. Gas Turbine Back Pressure: The increased back pressure at the gas turbine exhaust is represented as an increase in the GT exhaust outlet pressure. The above-mentioned faults are applied to different components of the plant in different values. Table 1 summarizes these faults and their ranges at which they were applied to each component. Therefore, throughout this study, it was assumed that there was no component washing or any type of maintenance carried out on the gas and steam turbine plants until the deterioration reached 5% from the original design point performance.

Combined Cycle Degradation Simulation

Before starting any degradation simulations it was necessary to establish a datum working line design point performance of both plants. This base line performance point is represented by 0.0 value in Table 1 above and on all deterioration graphs shown below. Once the design point performance has been identified, then the magnitude of faults representing a physical fault of the component in consideration, see ‘‘faults representation’’ , to be implanted on each component has to be established. Unfortunately, although there is a lot of work published on the subject of gas turbine performance deterioration Tabakoff 9 ,

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 307

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 2

dation

Component isentropic efficiency variation with degra-

Physical Fault

Nondimensional

Mass Flow Change A

Isentropic Efficiency Change B

Ratio

A:B

Compressor

Compressor

Compressor

Turbine

Turbine

Turbine

Foreign object damage Thermal distortion Blade rubbing

fouling

erosion

corrosion

fouling

erosion

corrosion

c c c T T T

C/T

T ↑↓

C & T

c c c T T T

C/T C/T C/T

1:0.5

1:0.5

1:0.5

1:0.5

1:0.5

1:0.5

1:2.0

1:2.0

1:2.0

Tabakoff et al. 10 , Diakunchak 7 , and Lakshminarasimha et al. 8 , and others , the applied degradation magnitude to each com- ponent, when simulating gas turbines deterioration performance, in most cases is either arbitrary or based on some published ex- perimental results. Therefore, in present study the values men- tioned by Diakunchak 7 and Escher 11 were taken as a guide- lines from which the implanted faults were estimated. Table 2 Zwebek and Pilidis 5 shows a summary of how component isentropic efficiency changes vary with degradation. These values were applied in all calculations to the appropriate components. Based on what is mentioned above, in the case of steam turbine plant, it was also assumed that every 1.0% deterioration in mass flow capacity fouling or erosion would result in a deterioration of 0.50% in steam turbine isentropic efficiency. Unfortunately, not much literature was found on the subject of CCGT plant degradation, or on modeling of this problem, includ- ing the effect of GT back pressure rise. Therefore to simulate the effect of back pressure on gas turbine performance, due to HRSG degradation some assumptions have been made. An increase in back pressure by 0.0025 atm results in a reduction in gas turbine power by 0.3%. Typical back pressure ranges from 0.025 to 0.037 atm above the design value. Because of the inherent prob- lems which accompanies the increase of back pressure, e.g., high

Table 3

GT back pressure distribution along with other com-

ponents degradation

GT Back Pressure

GT Fouling

GT Erosion

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

3.0%

3.0%

2.5%

4.0%

4.0%

3.0%

5.0%

5.0%

torque on the shaft, coupling forces on thrust bearing, and vibra- tion, it was assumed that maximum it can go up to 0.03 atm over the DP value. It is worth reminding the reader here that the values in Fig. 3 and in the following successive figures are also including the gas turbine back pressure rise due to HRSG degradation. This is ac- complished by implanting a value of GT exhaust back pressure rise with a corresponding GT degradation fouling/erosion value

as shown in Table 3.

Gas Turbine Degradation Simulation Results

Due to its working nature and depending on the place where it

is installed, it was assumed that the gas turbine might foul or

erode. Therefore, the simulation strategy of the gas turbine was divided into two different categories. The first strategy was to assume that the gas turbine will foul up 5.0% from its original DP performance. On the other hand, the second strategy assumes an erosion in gas turbine gas path components up to 5.0% from their DP performance. In parallel with each of the cases mentioned above, an amount increase in gas turbine back pressure due to degraded HRSG was assumed as shown in Table 3. As Fig. 2 shows, a back pressure increase of 3.0% resulted in

a reduction in gas turbine thermal efficiency and power by 2.0% approximately. While the exhaust mass flow was almost constant, the exhaust temperature increased by about 0.75% from its original DP value. Figure 3 summarizes the main performance parameters of gas turbine and how they vary with degradation. As it can be seen, it

and how they vary with degradation. As it can be seen, it 308 Õ Vol. 126,

308 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004

Fig. 2

Back pressure effects on GT performance

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 3 degradation GT performance parameters variation with gas turbine cycle component seems that the

Fig. 3

degradation

GT performance parameters variation with gas turbine cycle component

seems that the effect of either fouling or erosion is tending to have a similar curvature trend, but the magnitude is different. As this figure shows, the maximum degradation consequence was encountered with gas turbine power deterioration due to GT component erosion. This was around 15.2% from the original DP value. The corresponding plant thermal efficiency drop was about 11.5% . The combination of decreased compressor mass flow with an increased turbine flow capacity, due to erosion by 5%, led to a higher about 2.5% reduction in the plant’s overall efficiency in comparison to the case where both components are experiencing fouling. This is due to the fact that the decreased pressure ratio through the turbine due to erosion resulted in a lower power out- put of the turbine, and hence a reduced overall power output of the engine which then reflected on the engine’s overall efficiency. This shows that the erosion effect of gas turbine gas path compo- nents on the gas turbine performance is higher than the fouling effect.

Steam Cycle Degradation Simulation Results

As it was explained above, since the trend of the GT degrada- tion due to either fouling or erosion is the same, and they only differ in the magnitude, and due to the limited space page num- bers allowed for this paper it was decided to discuss only the fault which gave the higher impact on GT performance when simulating the bottoming cycle. Therefore, as already showed, since the GT erosion effects were predominant over the effect of fouling, it was decided to use its values when simulating steam cycle performance degradation. The most important steam turbine cycle performance deteriora- tion simulation results are represented graphically in Figs. 4 through 8. It is worth reminding the reader here that the values in these figures are including also the gas turbine degradation ero- sion and GT exhaust back pressure rise effects due to HRSG degradation as shown in Fig. 3. The GT degradation effects on ST as well as on CCGT plants was plotted within the graphs showing those plants degradation. Figure 4 shows the effects of degraded topping GT as well as bottoming ST cycles on the steam flow through the bottoming cycle. As this figure shows, the increase in steam mass flow about

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

8.3% was at its highest value with superheater degradation by 5%. Although the expectation was to see the highest change in mass flow variation with GT degradation, the results came up with different values. In reality, this increase in mass flow was not due to degraded superheater. In fact as Zwebek and Pilidis 6 showed, the effect of degraded superheater alone on steam mass flow with out gas turbine degradation is almost negligible 0.51% . Therefore, as Eq. 1 shows, the inlet conditions at the ST inlet are controlled by the so-called nondimensional mass flow Eq. 1 above . Now by comparing the superheater degradation effects in Figs. 4, 7, and 8 with GT degradation effects it will be observed that while steam live pressure is almost constant Fig. 7 , there was an increase in steam mass flow. Now to fulfil the conditions of Eq. 1 , then the live steam temperature must increase. This is the result obtained as Fig. 8 shows . The same discussion is al- most applicable to all other conditions. It is well known from the very basics of steam turbine cycle theory that the steam turbine power is a function of steam mass flow and its enthalpy. Now by comparing Fig. 5 with Fig. 4 it would be observed that the steam turbine power is more or less following the mass flow behavior. The effects of degraded topping as well as bottoming cycle components on steam turbine power plant are illustrated in Fig. 5. As this figure shows, the largest displacement of ST turbine power from its original DP value was encountered with superheater as well as condenser degradations. Again as stated above, this in- crease in ST power is merely due to increased gas turbine exhaust temperature due to GT degradation which led to increase steam mass flow and hence to increase the ST power. On the other hand, the lowest effect on ST power resulted from GT degradation along with ST turbine isentropic efficiency degradation; this was around 4.2%. One of the very important results obtained from this study is that, unlike the case with GT or ST degradations alone where the relationship between performance parameter variation ST power, ST Rankine, etc. and deterioration is linear, in the case of both plants deteriorated the relationship obtained was also nearly linear. Cerri 12 stated that the maximal CCGT efficiency is reached when the GT exhaust temperature is higher than the one corre-

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 309

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 4 radation ST steam mass flow variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-

Fig. 4

radation

ST steam mass flow variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-

sponding to the maximum GT efficiency; i.e., as GT exhaust tem- perature goes up, the CCGT efficiency goes up. Since gas turbine efficiency is already at its maximum, and still by increasing GT exhaust temperature due to any reason the CCGT will increase. This would then implicitly indicate that this increase is gained by increased steam turbine plant’s power due to the increased steam turbine inlet conditions as explained above. This exactly coincides with the results obtained in the current study see Fig. 5 . The next important performance parameter to discuss here is the steam turbine plant Rankine efficiency variation with degra-

dation, which is illustrated in Fig. 6. The thermal efficiency defi- nition of steam turbine bottoming plant is given by

R

W SC

Q HRSG

.

(2)

This equation shows that the steam turbine bottoming cycle efficiency is a function of steam turbine net power output and the heat transferred in the HRSG (Q HRSG ), which is representing the heat input to the steam cycle. Now by looking at Fig. 9 it will be

to the steam cycle. Now by looking at Fig. 9 it will be Fig. 5 radation

Fig. 5

radation

Steam turbine power variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-

310 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 6 Rankine efficiency variation with gas and steam cycles component degrada- tion seen that

Fig. 6

Rankine efficiency variation with gas and steam cycles component degrada-

tion

seen that all types of degradations resulted into an increase in the HRSG efficiency, i.e., increased Q HRSG . As Fig. 5 shows, al- though ST power increased with all types of degradation as well, yet the increase in the Q HRSG relative to DP value in some cases was higher than the increase in ST power. This led to the ST efficiency to fall with such cases. This can be clearly seen in the case of ST turbine isentropic degradation. In this case, the in- crease in ST power was around 4.2% with 5% degradation. Al- though as Fig. 9 shows there was an increase in HRSG effi- ciency by about 4.2% for the same magnitude of degradation as

well, nevertheless, the increase in Q HRSG was predominant and hence resulted in decreasing the ST turbine efficiency by approxi- mately 3.3%. As Figs. 5 and 6 show, the ST turbine isentropic efficiency has a predominant effect over all other types of ST cycle degradations. This is in agreement with the conclusion established by Zwebek and Pilidis 6 . The degradation effects of gas and steam plants on live steam pressure and temperature are expressed on Figs. 7 and 8, respec- tively. As Fig. 7 shows, the blockage of the steam turbine inlet due

As Fig. 7 shows, the blockage of the steam turbine inlet due Fig. 7 radation Live

Fig. 7

radation

Live steam pressure variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 311

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 8 degradation Live steam temperature variation with gas and steam cycles component to fouling

Fig. 8

degradation

Live steam temperature variation with gas and steam cycles component

to fouling by 5.0% resulted in about 11.6% increase in live steam pressure at the ST turbine inlet. The combination of all other types of degradation with steam turbine fouling reduced the inlet pres- sure to about 11.0%. On the other hand, the degradation of all components along with steam turbine erosion by 5.0% resulted in only 0.3% approximately reduction in live steam pressure. In the case of live steam temperature, as Fig. 8 shows, the effect of different components degradation on live steam temperature is mostly controlled by increased gas turbine exhaust temperature. As already shown above see Fig. 3 the effect of gas turbine

components degradation was to increase the GT exhaust tempera- ture. This, then by itself, led the live steam temperature to increase see explanation above .

Combined Cycle Degradation Results

The degradation results have been explained in part by address- ing the two cycles separately. Figure 10 shows the whole CCGT plant’s power and how it varies with GT and ST plants degradation.

power and how it varies with GT and ST plants degradation. Fig. 9 312 Õ Vol.

Fig. 9

312 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004

HRSG efficiency variation with gas Steam cycles component degradation

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 10 CCGT power variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation As this figure

Fig. 10

CCGT power variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

As this figure shows, although there was an increase in ST power see Fig. 5 , the decrease that was caused by GT power see Fig. 3 was predominant. This actually is a straightforward result since GT power counts for the two thirds of the total amount of CCGT power. Figure 11 is a reproduction of Fig. 9 showing the CCGT efficiency is actually following the behavior of CCGT power. As the two previous figures showed, the GT turbine degradation alone was having the least effect on CCGT plant power and effi- ciency. On the other hand, when the ST component effects were included in the degradation, the outcome deterioration results started to increase. As these two figures show, the largest degra-

dation effect was due to the ST turbine isentropic efficiency deg- radation along with GT degradation. This was about 10.7% and 4.3% deterioration in CCGT power and efficiency respectively with 5.0% degradation. Figures 9 and 12 illustrate the degradation effects of both plants on HRSG efficiency ( HRSG ) and stack temperature, respectively. The stack temperature is mainly a measure of the amount of gas turbine exhaust heat utilization by the bottoming cycle. Also, by definition, HRSG efficiency is a function of stack temperature and HRSG exhaust inlet temperature for a given ambient temperature Eq. 3

temperature for a given ambient temperature Eq. 3 Fig. 11 CCGT efficiency variation with gas steam

Fig. 11

CCGT efficiency variation with gas steam cycles component degradation

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 313

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 12 Stack temperature variation with gas and steam cycles component deg- radation HRSG T

Fig. 12

Stack temperature variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-

radation

HRSG

T Gin T Stack

T Gin T amb .

(3)

This equation shows that, for a given HRSG inlet exhaust and ambient temperatures, the HRSG efficiency increases with de- creased stack temperature (T Stack ) and vice versa. While, as Zwebek and Pilidis 5 showed, the effects of GT component degradation resulted in decreasing T Stack , the effects of ST component degradation Zwebek and Pilidis 6 came up somewhat with opposite results. Now, as Fig. 12 shows, al- though in this case both plants were degraded, all types of degra- dation led to decreasing T Stack and hence increasing the HRSG see Fig. 11 . This leads us to a conclusion that the effects of GT degradation on HRSG are predominant over the effect ST compo- nent degradation.

Conclusions

The results obtained showed that the erosion of gas turbine gas path components has a predominant effect on its performance over the effect of fouling. The results obtained are in agreement with those found in the literature. The combination of the two upper and bottoming cy- cle’s degradations leads to a nearly linear behavior of the deterio- ration results. The obtained degradation effects of GT plant on steam cycle plant’s performance are in agreement with the published data that the authors found in open literature, 12 . The combination of GT component degradation with ST turbine isentropic efficiency degradations led to the highest deterioration of CCGT plant power and efficiency. The combination of both plant component degradation led to decreasing the stack temperature (T Stack ). This shows that the ef- fects of GT degradation on T Stack and hence on HRSG are pre- dominant over the effect ST component degradation.

Nomenclature

atm atmospheric pressure CCGT combined cycle gas turbine plant DP design point GT gas turbine

314 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004

HRSG heat recovery steam generator

Q

heat transfer

ST steam turbine

T

temperature

nondimensional mass flow efficiency

U heat transfer coefficient

Subscripts

C

GT compressor

CC

combined cycle

GT

gas turbine

ST

steam turbine

inlet

i

Gin

HRSG inlet

SC

steam cycle

T turbine Stack HRSG exit

References

1 Briesch, M. S., and Bannister, R. L., 1995, ‘‘A Combined Cycle Designed to Achieve Greater Than 60 Percent Efficiency,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 117. 2 Erbes, M. R., and Gay, R. R., 1989, ‘‘Gate/Cycle Predictions of the Off-Design Performance of Combined-Cycle Power Plants,’’ Winter Annual Meeting of the ASME, San Francisco, CA. 3 Roy-Aikins, J. E. A., 1995, ‘‘BRAKINE: A Programming Software for the Performance Simulation of Brayton and Rankine Cycle Plants,’’ Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Part A, J. Power Energy, 209. 4 Thermoflow, 1999, Thermoflex ® , Fully Flexible Heat Balance Modelling- Users Manual. 5 Zwebek, A. I., and Pilidis, P., 2001, ‘‘Degradation Effects on Combined Cycle Power Plant Performance, Part 1: Gas Turbine Cycle Component Degradation Effects,’’ ASME Paper 2001-GT-388. 6 Zwebek, A. I., and Pilidis, P., 2001, ‘‘Degradation Effects on Combined Cycle Power Plant Performance, Part II: Steam Turbine Cycle Component Degrada- tion Effects,’’ ASME Paper 2001-GT-389. 7 Diakunchak, I. S., 1992, ‘‘Performance Deterioration in Industrial Gas Tur- bines,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 114. 8 Lakshminarasimha, A. N., Boyce, M. P., and Meher-Homji, C. B., 1994, ‘‘Modelling and Analysis of Gas Turbine Performance Deterioration,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 116. 9 Tabakoff, W., 1986, ‘‘Compressor Erosion and Performance Deterioration,’’ AIAA/ASME 4th Joint Fluid Mechanics, Plasma Dynamics, and Laser Con- ference, Atlanta, GA, May 12–14.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

10 Tabakoff, W., Lakshminarasimha, A. N., and Pasin, M., 1990, ‘‘Simulation of Compressor Performance Deterioration due to Erosion,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 112. 11 Escher, P. C., 1995, ‘‘Pythia: An Object-Oriented Gas Path Analysis Computer

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

Program for General Applications,’’ Ph.D. thesis, School of Mechanical Engi- neering, Cranfield University, UK. 12 Cerri, G., 1987, ‘‘Parametric Analysis of Combined Gas-Steam Cycles,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 109.

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 315

Downloaded 11 Feb 2008 to 138.250.82.63. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm