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 turbine component degradation effects were assessed with TurboMatch, the Craneld Gas Turbine simulation code. A new code was developed to assess bottoming cycle performance 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 degradation, and increased gas turbine back pressure due to HRSG degradation. The procedure, assumptions made, and the results obtained are presented and discussed. The parameters that appear to have the greatest inuence 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 efciency to nearly 60% with natural gas as a fuel Briesch and Bannister 1. It will probably go even higher in the future. This high plant efciency 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 plants 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-uid dynamic basis Erbes and Gay 2, Roy-Aikins 3, and Thermoow 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 plants performance. The rst 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 degradation effects have on CCGT plant. The conclusion of the two papers mentioned above is summarized herein. In the rst 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 efciency over the GT exhaust mass ow. 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 International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3 6, 2002; Paper No. 2002-GT-30513. Manuscript received by IGTI, Dec. 2001, nal revision, Mar. 2002. Associate Editor: E. Benvenuti.

efciency as a performance parameter has the uppermost effect on steam turbine cycle power and efciency. 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. GasSteam Turbine Performance Deterioration. Even under normal engine operating conditions, with good inlet ltration systems, and using a clean fuel, the gas turbine engine ow 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 turbine, in this case, is connected to another plant steam cycle which is entirely dependent on it, then the concern due to performance deterioration will increase. This is due to the fact that any failure or malfunctioning within the gas turbine will be magnied 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 specications of both gas and steam turbine plants used with this unred cycle were chosen in such a way that they represent an existing typical real cycle, as follows: Gas Turbine Specications inlet mass ow408.6 kg/sec compressor pressure ratio15.2 turbine entry temperature1697.80 K exhaust mass ow419.4 kg/sec exhaust temperature871.24 K power165.93 MW thermal efciency35.57% Steam Turbine Specications live steam pressure65.4 bar live steam temperature537.8C steam mass ow67 kg/sec steam turbine isentropic efc.89.48% superheater surface area8424.8 m2 evaporator surface area29315.6 m2 economizer surface area38004.1 m2 condenser surface area3942.9 m2 Transactions of the ASME

306 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004

Copyright 2004 by 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

Table 1 Representation of component degradation Fault Compressor fouling 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 Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of a single pressure CCGT power plant Represented By 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 Range 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%

HRSG efciency81.11% steam turbine plant power output76.4541 MW steam turbine plant efciency33.97% The effects of the gas turbine degradation on steam cycle, and hence on the CCGT plants performance as whole was investigated. The faults investigated were the following: i. compressor isentropic efc. degradation, ii. turbine isentropic efciency 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 efciency 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 performance 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 environmental laws in many places.

component due to fouling along with a decrease in the components isentropic efciency due to surface roughness, for example. Erosion: Compressor erosion is represented by a lower inlet mass ow capacity and a reduction in compressor isentropic efciency. On the other hand, GT and ST turbines erosion is represented by an increased ow capacity plus a reduction in the turbine isentropic efciency Lakshminarasimha et al. 8. These two phenomena are represented by changing the socalled nondimensional mass ow Eq. 1 of the component maps Table 1. T W i is increased or reduced PA (1)

Component Efciency Degradation: This is modeled by reducing the component isentropic efciency 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 efciency 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 coefcient 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.

Fault Representation
In order to investigate the effects of faults mentioned in previous 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 ow capacity at the inlet of the component plus a reduction in the component isentropic efciency. 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

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 identied, 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. 126 307

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 Component isentropic efciency variation with degradation Nondimensional Mass Flow Change A c c c T T T C/T T C & T Isentropic Efciency Change B

Table 3 GT back pressure distribution along with other components degradation GT Back Pressure GT Fouling 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% GT Erosion 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

Physical Fault Compressor fouling Compressor erosion Compressor corrosion Turbine fouling Turbine erosion Turbine corrosion Foreign object damage Thermal distortion Blade rubbing

Ratio A:B 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

c c c T T T C/T C/T C/T

1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%

Tabakoff et al. 10, Diakunchak 7, and Lakshminarasimha et al. 8, and others, the applied degradation magnitude to each component, when simulating gas turbines deterioration performance, in most cases is either arbitrary or based on some published experimental results. Therefore, in present study the values mentioned by Diakunchak 7 and Escher 11 were taken as a guidelines from which the implanted faults were estimated. Table 2 Zwebek and Pilidis 5 shows a summary of how component isentropic efciency 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 ow capacity fouling or erosion would result in a deterioration of 0.50% in steam turbine isentropic efciency. Unfortunately, not much literature was found on the subject of CCGT plant degradation, or on modeling of this problem, including 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 problems which accompanies the increase of back pressure, e.g., high

torque on the shaft, coupling forces on thrust bearing, and vibration, 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 gures are also including the gas turbine back pressure rise due to HRSG degradation. This is accomplished 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 rst 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 efciency and power by 2.0% approximately. While the exhaust mass ow 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

Fig. 2 Back pressure effects on GT performance

308 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. 3 GT performance parameters variation with gas turbine cycle component degradation

seems that the effect of either fouling or erosion is tending to have a similar curvature trend, but the magnitude is different. As this gure 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 efciency drop was about 11.5%. The combination of decreased compressor mass ow with an increased turbine ow capacity, due to erosion by 5%, led to a higher about 2.5% reduction in the plants overall efciency 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 output of the turbine, and hence a reduced overall power output of the engine which then reected on the engines overall efciency. This shows that the erosion effect of gas turbine gas path components 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 degradation due to either fouling or erosion is the same, and they only differ in the magnitude, and due to the limited space page numbers 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 deterioration simulation results are represented graphically in Figs. 4 through 8. It is worth reminding the reader here that the values in these gures are including also the gas turbine degradation erosion 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 ow through the bottoming cycle. As this gure shows, the increase in steam mass ow 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 ow variation with GT degradation, the results came up with different values. In reality, this increase in mass ow was not due to degraded superheater. In fact as Zwebek and Pilidis 6 showed, the effect of degraded superheater alone on steam mass ow 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 ow 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 ow. Now to full 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 almost 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 ow 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 ow behavior. The effects of degraded topping as well as bottoming cycle components on steam turbine power plant are illustrated in Fig. 5. As this gure 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 increase in ST power is merely due to increased gas turbine exhaust temperature due to GT degradation which led to increase steam mass ow 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 efciency 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 efciency is reached when the GT exhaust temperature is higher than the one correAPRIL 2004, Vol. 126 309

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 ST steam mass ow variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

sponding to the maximum GT efciency; i.e., as GT exhaust temperature goes up, the CCGT efciency goes up. Since gas turbine efciency 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 plants 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 efciency variation with degra-

dation, which is illustrated in Fig. 6. The thermal efciency denition of steam turbine bottoming plant is given by

W SC . Q HRSG

(2)

This equation shows that the steam turbine bottoming cycle efciency 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

Fig. 5 Steam turbine power variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

310 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 efciency variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

seen that all types of degradations resulted into an increase in the HRSG efciency, i.e., increased Q HRSG . As Fig. 5 shows, although 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 efciency to fall with such cases. This can be clearly seen in the case of ST turbine isentropic degradation. In this case, the increase in ST power was around 4.2% with 5% degradation. Although as Fig. 9 shows there was an increase in HRSG efciency 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 efciency by approximately 3.3%. As Figs. 5 and 6 show, the ST turbine isentropic efciency 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, respectively. As Fig. 7 shows, the blockage of the steam turbine inlet due

Fig. 7 Live steam pressure variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 311

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 Live steam temperature variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

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 pressure 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 temperature. 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 addressing the two cycles separately. Figure 10 shows the whole CCGT plants power and how it varies with GT and ST plants degradation.

Fig. 9 HRSG efciency variation with gas Steam cycles component degradation

312 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. 10 CCGT power variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

As this gure 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 efciency is actually following the behavior of CCGT power. As the two previous gures showed, the GT turbine degradation alone was having the least effect on CCGT plant power and efciency. On the other hand, when the ST component effects were included in the degradation, the outcome deterioration results started to increase. As these two gures show, the largest degra-

dation effect was due to the ST turbine isentropic efciency degradation along with GT degradation. This was about 10.7% and 4.3% deterioration in CCGT power and efciency respectively with 5.0% degradation. Figures 9 and 12 illustrate the degradation effects of both plants on HRSG efciency ( 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 denition, HRSG efciency is a function of stack temperature and HRSG exhaust inlet temperature for a given ambient temperature Eq. 3

Fig. 11 CCGT efciency variation with gas steam cycles component degradation

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 313

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 degradation

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 efciency increases with decreased 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, although in this case both plants were degraded, all types of degradation 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 component degradation.

HRSG Q ST T

heat recovery steam generator heat transfer steam turbine temperature nondimensional mass ow efciency heat transfer coefcient GT compressor combined cycle gas turbine steam turbine inlet HRSG inlet steam cycle turbine HRSG exit

Subscripts C CC GT ST i Gin SC T Stack

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 cycles degradations leads to a nearly linear behavior of the deterioration results. The obtained degradation effects of GT plant on steam cycle plants 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 efciency degradations led to the highest deterioration of CCGT plant power and efciency. The combination of both plant component degradation led to decreasing the stack temperature ( T Stack). This shows that the effects of GT degradation on T Stack and hence on HRSG are predominant over the effect ST component degradation.

References
1 Briesch, M. S., and Bannister, R. L., 1995, A Combined Cycle Designed to Achieve Greater Than 60 Percent Efciency, 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 Thermoow, 1999, Thermoex, Fully Flexible Heat Balance ModellingUsers 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 Degradation Effects, ASME Paper 2001-GT-389. 7 Diakunchak, I. S., 1992, Performance Deterioration in Industrial Gas Turbines, 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 Conference, Atlanta, GA, May 1214.

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

314 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

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

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

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 315

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