Advanced Gas Turbine Cycles

Advanced Gas
Turbine Cycles
Corn bined STlG

Steam
- Exhaust
4
Water
1i
li
q L
t
Air
PERGAMON
ADVANCED GAS TURBINE
CYCLES
ADVANCED GAS TURBINE
CYCLES
J. H. Horlock F.R.Eng., F.R.S.

Whittle Laboratory
Cambridge, U.K.
2003
An imprint of Elsevier Science
AMSTERDAM * BOSTON . HEIDELBERG . LONDON . NEW YORK
OXFORD . PARIS * S A N DEGO * SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE
SYDNEY . TOKYO
ELSEVIER SCIENCE Ltd
The Boulevard, Langford Lane
Kidlington, Oxford OX5 lGB, UK
0 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
This work is protected under copyright by Elsevier Science, and the following terms and conditions apply to its use:
Photocopying
Single photocopies of single chapters may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. Permission of
the Publisher and payment of a fee is required for all other photocopying, including multiple or systematic copying,
copying for advertising or promotional purposes, resale, and all forms of document delivery. Special rates are available
for educational institutions that wish to make photocopies for non-profit educational classroom use.
Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, U K phone:
(4) 1865 843830, fax: (4) 1865 853333, e-mail: permissions@elsevier.com. You may also complete your request
on-line via the Elsevier Science homepage (http://www.elsevier.com), by selecting ‘Customer Support’ and then
‘Obtaining Permissions’.
In the USA, users may clear permissions and make payments through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; phone: (+1) (978) 7508400, fax: 7504744, and in the UK through the
Copyright Licensing Agency Rapid Clearance Service (CLARCS), 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P OLP, U K
phone: (4) 207 631 5555; fax: (4) 207 631 5500. Other countries may have a local reprographic rights agency for
payments.
Derivative Works
Tables of contents may be reproduced for internal circulation,but permission of Elsevier Science is required for external
resale or distribution of such material.
Permission of the Publisher is required for all other derivative works, including compilations and translations.
Electronic Storage or Usage

Permission of the Publisher is required to store or use electronically any material contained in this work, including any
chapter or part of a chapter.
Except as outlined above, no part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the
Publisher.
Address permissions requests to: Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department, at the phone, fax and e-mail
addresses noted above.
Notice
No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury andor damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructionsor ideas contained
in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of
diagnoses and drug dosages should be made.
First edition 2003
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

A catalog record from the Library of Congress has been applied for.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record from the British Library has been applied for.
ISBN 0-08-044273-0
@ The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO 239.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).
Printed in The Netherlands
To W.R.H.
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Chapter 1 . A brief review of power generation thermodynamics. . . . . 1
1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2. Criteria for the performance of power plants . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1. Efficiency of a closed circuit gas turbine plant . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.2. Efficiency of an open circuit gas turbine plant . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3. Heatrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.4. Energy utilisation factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3. Ideal (Carnot) power plant performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4. Limitations of other cycles ........................
1.5. Modifications of gas turbine cycles to achieve higher
thermalefficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 2 . Reversibility and availability...................... 13
2.1. Introduction .................................. 13

2.2. Reversibility. availability and exergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1. Flow in the presence of an environment at To (not
involving chemical reaction) ....................... 14
2.2.2. Flow with heat transfer at temperature T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3. Exergy flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.1. Application of the exergy flux equation to a closed cycle . . . . 20
2.3.2. The relationships between 6. (+and ZCR. Z Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4. The maximum work output in a chemical reaction at To. . . . . 22
2.5. The adiabatic combustion process.................... 23
2.6. The work output and rational efficiency of an open circuit
gas turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7. A final comment on the use of exergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Chapter 3 Basic gas turbine cycles ......................... 27
3.1. Introduction .................................. 27
vii
viii Confenrs
3.2. Air standard cycles (uncooled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2.1. Reversible cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.1.1. The reversible simple (Joule-Brayton) cycle. [CHTIR. . . . . . . 28
3.2.1.2. The reversible recuperative cycle [ C m ] R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.1.3. The reversible reheat cycle [CHTHTIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.1.4. The reversible intercooled cycle [CICHTIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2.1.5. The 'ultimate' gas turbine cycle ..................... 32
3.2.2. Irreversible air standard cycles ...................... 33
3.2.2.1. Component performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.2.2. The irreversible simple cycle [CHTII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.2.3. The irreversible recuperative cycle [CHTXII . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3. The [CBTII open circuit plant-a general approach . . . . . . . . 39
3.4. Computer calculations for open circuit gas turbines . . . . . . . . 43
3.4.1. The [CBTIIGplant ............................... 43
3.4.2. Comparison of several types of gas turbine plants. . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Chapter 4 . Cycle efficiency with turbine cooling (cooling flow

ratesspecified). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2. Air-standard cooled cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.1. Cooling of internally reversible cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2,l.l. Cycle [CHTIRCIwith single step cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.1.2. Cycle [cHT]RC* with two step cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2.1.3. Cycle [cHT]Rm with multi-step cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2.1.4. The turbine exit condition (for reversible cooled cycles) . . . . . 54
4.2.2. Cooling of irreversible cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2.2.1. Cycle with single-step cooling [CH'I'IIcl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2.2.2. Efficiency as a function of combustion temperature or
rotor inlet temperature (for single-step cooling) . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.2.2.3. Cycle with two step cooling [CHTIIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.2.2.4. Cycle with multi-step cooling [CHTlICM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2.2.5. Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3. Open cooling of turbine blade rows-detailed fluid
mechanics and thermodynamics...................... 59
4.3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3.2. The simple approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3.2.1. Change in stagnation enthalpy (or temperature) through
an open cooled blade row . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3.2.2. Change of total pressure through an open cooled blade row . . . 62
4.3.3. Breakdown of losses in the cooling process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Contents ix
4.4. Cycle calculations with turbine cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Chapter 5 . Full calculations of plant efficiency ................. 71
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.2. Cooling flow requirements ........................ 71
5.2.1. Convective cooling ............................. 71
5.2.2. Film cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.2.3. Assumptions for cycle calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3. Estimates of cooling flow fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.4. Single step cooling ............................. 75
5.5. Multi-stage cooling ............................. 75
5.6. A note on real gas effects ......................... 82
5.7. Other studies of gas turbine plants with turbine cooling . . . . . 82
5.8. Exergy calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Chapter 6 . ‘Wet’ gas turbine plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.2. Simple analyses of STIG type plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.2.1. The basic STIG plant ............................ 85
6.2.2. The recuperative STIG plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.3. Simple analyses of EGT type plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.3.1. A discussion of dry recuperative plants with ideal heat
exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.3.2. The simple EGT plant with water injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.4. Recent developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.4.1. Developments of the STIG cycle .................... 97
6.4.1 .1. The ISTIG cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.4.1.2. The combined STIG cycle......................... 99
6.4.1.3. The FAST cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.4.2. Developments of the EGT cycle ..................... 99
6.4.2.1. The RWI cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.4.2.2. The HAT cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.4.2.3. The REVAP cycle .............................. 100
6.4.2.4. The CHAT cycle ............................... 101
6.4.2.5. The TOPHAT cycle ............................. 101
6.4.3. Simpler direct water injection cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
X Contents
6.5. A discussion of the basic thermodynamics of

these developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.6. Some detailed parametric studies of wet cycles . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Chapter 7 . The combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

7.2. An ideal combination of cyclic plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.3. A combined plant with heat loss between two cyclic
plants in series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.4. The combined cycle gas turbine plant (QCGT) . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7.4.1. The exhaust heated (unfired) CCGT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.4.2. The integrated coal gasification combined
cycle plant (IGCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.4.3. The exhaust heated (supplementary fired) CCGT . . . . . . . . . . 116
7.5. The efficiency of an exhaust heated CCGT plant . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.5.1. A parametric calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.5.2. Regenerative feed heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.6. The optimum pressure ratio for a CCGT plant . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.7. Reheating in the upper gas turbine cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.8. Discussion and conclusions......................... 128
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Chapter 8 . Novel gas turbine cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

8.2. Classification of gas-fired plants using novel cycles . . . . . . . . 132
8.2.1. Plants (A) with addition of equipment to remove the carbon 132
dioxide produced in combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.2. Plants (B) with modification of the fuel in
combustion-chemically reformed gas turbine
(CRGT) cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
8.2.3. Plants (C) using non-carbon fuel (hydrogen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
8.2.4. Plants (D) with modification of the oxidant in combustion . . . . 135
8.2.5. Outline of discussion of novel cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.3. COz removal equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8.3.1. The chemical absorption process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8.3.2. The physical absorption process ..................... 136
8.4. Semi-closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.5. The chemical reactions involved in various cycles . . . . . . . . . 140
8.5.1. Complete combustion in a conventional open circuit plant . . . . 140
8.5.2. Thermo-chemical recuperation using steam (steam.TCR) . . . . . 141
8.5.3. Partial oxidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Contents xi
8.5.4. Thermo-chemical recuperation using flue gases

(fluegas/TCR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8.5.5. Combustion with recycled flue gas as a carrier . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.6. Descriptions of cycles ........................... 144
8.6.1. Cycles A with additional removal equipment for carbon
dioxide sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.6.1.1. Direct removal of COz from an existing plant . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.6.1.2. Modifications of the cycles of conventional plants using the
semi-closed gas turbine cycle concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
8.6.2. Cycles B with modification of the fuel in combustion
through thenno-chemical recuperation (TCR) . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.6.2.1. The steam/TCR cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
8.6.2.2. The flue gas thermo-chemically recuperated (FG/TCR) cycle . 150
8.6.3. Cycles C burning non-carbon fuel (hydrogen) . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8.6.4. Cycles D with modification of the oxidant in combustion . . . . 154
8.6.4.1. Partial oxidation cycles........................... 155
8.6.4.2. Plants with combustion modification (full oxidation) . . . . . . . 158
8.7. IGCC cycles with C02 removal (Cycles E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
8.8. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
CHAPTER 9 . The gas turbine as a cogeneration 167

(combined heat and power) plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

9.2. Performance criteria for CHP plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
9.2.1. Energy utilisation factor .......................... 168
9.2.2. Artificial thermal efficiency ........................ 170
9.2.3. Fuel energy saving ratio .......................... 170
9.3. The unmatched gas turbine CHP plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9.4. Range of operation for a gas turbine CHP plant . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.5. Design of gas turbines as cogeneration (CHP) plants . . . . . . . 177
9.6. Some practical gas turbine cogeneration plants . . . . . . . . . . . 177
9.6.1. The Beilen CHP plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
9.6.2. The Liverpool University CHP plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
.
APPENDIX A Derivation of required cooling flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
A.l. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

A.2. Convective cooling only .......................... 183
A.3. Film cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
A.4. The cooling efficiency ........................... 186
xii contmrs
A S. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
.
APPENDIX B Economics of gas turbine plants .................... 189
B.I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

B.2. Electricity pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
B.3. The capital charge factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
B.4. Examples of electricity pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
B.5. Carbon dioxide production and the effects of a carbon tax . . . . 192
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Index ................................................... 195

PREFACE
Many people have described the genius of von Ohain in Germany and Whittle in the
United Kingdom, in their parallel inventions of gas turbine jet propulsion; each developed
an engine through to first flight. The best account of Whittle’s work is his Clayton lecture
of 1946 [l]; von Ohain described his work later in [2]. Their major invention was the
turbojet engine, rather than the gas turbine, which they both adopted for their new
propulsion engines.
Feilden and Hawthorne [3] describe Whittle’s early thinking in their excellent
biographical memoir on Whittle for the Royal Society.
“‘I‘he idea for the turbojet did not come to Whittle suddenly, but over a period
of some years: initially while he was a final year flight cadet at RAF Cranwell
about 1928; subsequently as a pilot officer in a fighter squadron; and then
finally while he was a pupil on a flying instructor’s course.. .. While involved
in these duties Whittle continued to think about his ideas for high-speed high
altitude flight. One scheme he considered was using a piston engine to drive a
blower to produce a jet. He included the possibility of burning extra fuel in the
jet pipe but finally had the idea of a gas turbine producing a propelling jet
instead of driving a propeller”.
But the idea of gas turbine itself can be traced back to a 1791 patent by Barber, who
wrote of the basic concept of a heat engine for power generation. Air and gas were to be
compressed and burned to produce combustion products; these were to be used to drive a
turbine producing a work output. The compressor could be driven independently (along
the lines of Whittle’s early thoughts) or by the turbine itself if it was producing enough
work.
Here lies the crux of the major problem in the early development of the gas turbine. The
compressor must be highly efficient-it must use the minimum power to compress the gas;
the turbine must also be highly efficient-it must deliver the maximum power if it is to
drive the compressor and have power over. With low compressor and turbine efficiency,
the plant can only just be self-sustaining-the turbine can drive the compressor but do no
more than that.
Stodola in his great book of 1925 [4] describes several gas turbines for power
generation, and Whittle spent much time studying this work carefully. Stodola tells how in
1904, two French engineers, Armengaud and Lemae, built one of the first gas turbines, but
it did little more than turn itself over. It appears they used some steam injection and the
small work output produced extra compressed air-but not much. The overall efficiency
has been estimated at 2-3% and the effective work output at 6- 10kW.
Much later, after several years of development (see Eckardt and Rufli [ 5 ] ) ,
Brown Boveri produced the first industrial gas turbine in 1939, with an electrical power
xiii
xiv Prefwe
output of 4MW. Here the objective of the engineering designer was to develop as much
power as possible in the turbine, discharging the final gas at low temperature and velocity;
as opposed to the objective in the Whittle patent of 1930, in which any excess energy in the
gases at exhaust from the gas generator-the turbine driving the compressor-would be
used to produce a high-speed jet capable of propelling an aircraft.
It was the wartime work on the turbojet which provided a new stimulus to the further
development of the gas turbine for electric power generation, when many of the aircraft
engineers involved in the turbojet work moved over to heavy gas turbine design. But
surprisingly it was to be the late twentieth century before the gas turbine became a major
force in electrical generation through the big CCGTs (combined cycle gas turbines, using
bottoming steam cycles).
This book describes the thermodynamics of gas turbine cycles (although it does touch
briefly on the economics of electrical power generation). The strictures of classical
thermodynamics require that “cycle” is used only for a heat engine operating in closed
form, but the word has come to cover “open circuit” gas turbine plants, receiving “heat”
supplied through burning fuel, and eventually discharging the products to the atmosphere
(including crucially the carbon dioxide produced in combustion). The search for high gas
turbine efficiency has produced many suggestions for variations on the simple “open
circuit” plant suggested by Barber, but more recently work has been directed towards gas
turbines which produce less COz, or at least plants from which the carbon dioxide can be
disposed of, subsequent to sequestration.
There are many books on gas turbine theory and performance, notably by Hodge [6],
Cohen, Rogers and Saravanamuttoo[7], Kerrebrock [8], and more recently by Walsh and
Fletcher [9]; I myself have added two books on combined heat and power and on
combined power plants respectively [10,11]. They all range more widely than the basic
thermodynamics of gas turbine cycles, and the recent flurry of activity in this field has
encouraged me to devote this volume to cycles alone. But the remaining breadth of gas
turbine cycles proposed for power generation has led me to exclude from this volume the
coupling of the gas turbine with propulsion. I was also influenced in this decision by the
existence of several good books on aircraft propulsion, notably by Zucrow [12], Hill and
Peterson [13]; and more recently my friend Dr Nicholas Cumpsty, Chief Technologist of
Rolls Royce, plc, has written an excellent book on “Jet Propulsion” [ 141.
I first became interested in the subject of cycles when I went on sabbatical leave to
MIT,from Cambridge England to Cambridge Mass.There I was asked by the Director of
the Gas Turbine Laboratory, Professor E.S.Taylor, to take over his class on gas turbine
cycles for the year. The established text for this course consisted of a beautiful set of
notes on cycles by Professor (Sir) William Hawthorne, who had been a member of
Whittle’s team.Hawthorne’s notes remain the best starting point for the subject and I
have called upon them here, particularly in the early part of Chapter 3.
Hawthorne taught me the power of temperature-entropy diagram in the study of cycles,
particularly in his discussion of “air standard” cycles-assuming the working fluid to be a
perfect gas, with constant specific heats. It is interesting that Whittle wrote in his later
book [15] that he himself “never found the (T,s diagram) to be useful”, although he had a
profound understanding of the basic thermodynamics of gas turbine cycles. For he also
wrote
Preface xv
“When in jet engine design, greater accuracy was necessary for detail design, I worked
in pressure ratios, used y = 1.4 for compression and y = 1.3 for expansion and assumed
specific heats for combustion and expansion corresponding to the temperature range
concerned. I also allowed for the increase in mass flow in expansion due to fuel addition
(in the range 1.5-2%). The results, despite guesswork involved in many of the
assumptions, amply justified these methods to the point where I was once rash enough to
declare that jet engine design has become an exact science”. Whittle’s modifications of air
standard cycle analysis are developed further in the later parts of Chapter 3.
Hawthorne eventually wrote up his MIT notes for a paper with his research student,
Graham de Vahl Davis [ 161, but it is really Will Hawthorne who should have written this
book. So I dedicate it to him, one of several great engineering teachers, including Keenan,
Taylor and Shapiro, who graced the mechanical engineering department at MIT when I
was there as a young assistant professor.
My subsequent interest in gas turbines has come mainly from a happy consulting
arrangement with Rolls Royce, plc and the many excellent engineers I have worked with
there, including particularly Messrs.Wilde, Scrivener, Miller, Hill and Ruffles. The
Company remains at the forefront of gas turbine engineering.
I must express my appreciation to many colleagues in the Whittle Laboratory of the
Engineering Department at Cambridge University. In particular I am grateful to Professor
John Young who readily made available to me his computer code for “real gas” cycle
calculations; and to Professors Cumpsty and Denton for their kindness in extending to me
the hospitality of the Whittle Laboratory after I retired as Vice-Chancellor of the Open
University. It is a stimulating academic environment.
I am also indebted to many friends who have read chapters in this book including John
Young, Roger Wilcock, Eric Curtis, Alex White (all of the Cambridge Engineeering
Department), Abhijit Guha (of Bristol University), Pericles Pilidis (of Cranfield
University) and Giampaolo Manfrida (of Florence University). They have made many
suggestions and pointed out several errors, but the responsibility for any remaining
mistakes must be mine.
Mrs Lorraine Baker has helped me greatly with accurate typing of several of the
chapters, and my friend John Stafford, of Compu-Doc (silsoe-solutions) has provided
invaluable help in keeping my computer operational and giving me many tips on preparing
the material. My publishing editor, Keith Lambert has been both helpful and encouraging.
Finally I must thank my wife Sheila, for putting up with my enforced isolation once
again to write yet another book.
J. H. Horlock
Cambridge, June 2002
REFERENCES
[l] Whittle, Sir Frank. (1945). The early history of the Whittle jet propulsion engine, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs.
152,419-435.
[2] von Ohain, H. (1979), The Evolution and Future of Aero-propulsion Systems. 40 Years of Jet Engine
Rogress. W.J. Boyne, and D.S. Lopez, (ed.), National Air and Space Museum, Washington DC.
Xvi Preface
[31 Feilden, G.B.R. and Hawthome, W.R., Sir Frank Whittle, O.M. K.B.E. (1998) Biological Memoirs of the
Royal Society, 435-452.
[4] Stodola, A. (1924). Steam and Gas Turbines. McGraw Hill, New Yo&.
[51 Eckardt, D. and Rufli,P. (2000). ABBlBBC Gas Turbines - A Record of Historic Firsts, ASME Turbo-Expo
2000 Paper TE00 A10.
[61 Hodge, J. (1955), Cycles and performance Estimation. Buttenvaths, London.
[71 Cohen, H., Rogers, G.F.C. and Saravanamuttoo,H.I.H. (1996). Gas Turbine Theory. Longman, 4th edn.
[8] Kerrebrock, J. (1992). Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines. MlT Press.
[9] Walsh, P.P. and Fletcher, P. (1998). Gas Turbine Performance. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
[lo] Horlock, J.H. (1987), Cogeneration - Combined Heat and Power Plants. Pergamon, 2nd edn, Krieger,
Malabar, Florida, 1997.
[ l l ] Horlock, J.H. (1992), Combined Power Plants. Pergamon, 2nd edn,Krieger, Melbourne, USA, 2002.
[12] Zucrow, M.J. (1958). Aircraft and Missile Propulsion John Wiley, New York.
[131 Hill, P.G. and Peterson, C.R. (1992). Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion. MIT Press, 2nd edn.
[14] Cumpsty, N.A. (1997), Jet Propulsion. Cambridge University Press.
[151 Whittle, Sir Frank. (1981). Gas Turbine Aero-Themodynamics. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
[16] Hawthorne. W. R.,and Davis, G. de V.(1956). Calculating gas turbine performance. Engng. 181,361-367.
The author is grateful to the following for permission to reproduce the figures listed below.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.7 and 9.8

Krieger Publishing Company, Melbourne, Florida, USA Figs. 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
2.4, 2.5, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 9.5.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Figs. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.11,
4.12,5.4,5.6,5.9,5.10,5.11,6.1,6.8,6.9,6.10,6.12,6.14,6.18,6.19,6.20,7.4,7.7,7.11,
8.1, 8.2, 8.6, 8.7, 8.13, 8.14, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, 8.24, 8.25, 8.26, 8.27, 8.28,A.1,
B.l, B.2, B.3.
Council of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers: Figs. 3.8, B.4, 7.9, 7.10.
Princeton University: Figs. 6.2,6.3, 6.4, 8.11, 8.12.
Pearson Education Limited Fig. 3.12.
Brown Boveri Company Ltd, Baden, Switzerland: Fig. 7.8.
International Journal of Applied Thermodynamics: Figs. 8.8, 8.23
NOTATION
Note: Lower case symbols for propertiesrepresent specific quantities (Le. per unit mass)
Symbol Meaning Typical Units

A area
b, B steady flow availability
B Biot number
C capital cost
CP specific heat capacity, at constant pressure
rcv10 calorific value at temperature To
dh hydraulic diameter
e, E e x w
I
8 work potential of heat transferred thennal exery
EUF energy utilisation factor
f fuellair ratio; also friction factor
F fuel energy supplied
g. G Gibbs function
irH enthalpy
h heat transfer coefficient
H plant utilisation
1 interest or discount rate
I lost work due to irreversibility (total)
rcR lost work due to internal irreversibility
P lost work due to heat transfer to the atmosphere
L blade length
rn mass fraction (e.g. of main steam flow)
M Mass flow; also fuel cost per annum;also
molecular weight: also Mach number
RR' Ratio of air and gas specific heats, ( c d ( c m )
NDCW non-dimensional compressor work
NDTW non-dimensional hnbine work
NDNW non-dimensional net work
NDHT non-dimensional heat supplied
N plant life
OM annual operational maintenance costs
P pressure
P electricity cost per year
8. Q heat supplied or rejected
r pressure ratio
R gas constant
R universal gas constant
S fuel costs per unit mass;also steam to air ratio
s, s entropy
st Stanton number
t time; also thermal barrier thickness
T temperature
V velocity
w, w specific work output, work output
xvii
xviii Notation
(continued)
w+, w+ temperature difference ratios in heat transfer
X isentropic t e m p h u t ratio
Y velocity ratio
z polytropic expansion index
A, B, C,D. E, constants defined in text
F, KK'
a proportions of capital cost
a = %lh@
B = I + % (8 - 1); also capital cost factor
Y = C*/C"
6 loss parameter
E heat exchanger effectiveness; also quantity
defined in eqn. [4.24]
b cost of fuel per unit of energy
t efficiency - see note below
8 ratio of maximum to minimum temperahut
A area ratio in heat transfer; also CO,
performance parameter
CL scaling factor on steam entropy, ratio of mass flows in
combined cycle (lower to upper)
Y nondimensional heat supplied (v,) or heat unused (w)
14Efl.T parameters in cycle analysis
P density
T ~ J T - ; also corporate tax rate
*4
7
cooling air mass flow fraction
temperature function, J: 9,
also turbine stage loading coefficient
U expansion index defined in text i-1
K constant in expression for stagnation pressure loss (-f
subsrripts
4 a', b, b', c, states in steam cycle
d, e, e', f, f'
a air
A relating to heat rejection; artificial efficiency
bl blade (temperature)
B boiler; relating to heat supply
C cooling air
cot combustion (temperature)
C compressor (isentropic efficiency)
CAR Carnot cycle
cc combustion chamber (efficiency or loss)
CP combined plant (general)
CG cogeneration plant
cs control surface
cv control volume
d debt
dP dewpoint
Notation xix
(continued)

D demand
e maximum efficiency; also equity; also external
E electrical (unit price); also exit from turbine, and
from first turbine stage
fuel
gas
higher (upper, topping), relating to heat supply,
work output
HL between high and lower plants
HR rejection from higher plant
JB Joule-Brayton cycle
i inlet
LIB irreversible Joule-Brayton cycle
k product gas component; also year number (k= 1,2, . . . )
L lower (bottoming), relating to heat supply, work output
LR rejection from lower plant
rnax maximum
min minimum
m mixture
Nu non-useful (heat rejection)
0 outlet
0 overall (efficiency)
P polytropic (efficiency)
P product of combustion
p' product of supplementary combustion
rit rotor inlet temperature
R rational; also reactants
REV reversible (process)
S steam; also state after isentropic compression or
expansion; also surface area (A,)
S state at entry to stack also supplementary heating
T turbine (isentropic efficiency)
U useful (heat delivered)
W water; also maximum specific work
X cross-sectional flow area (Ax)
x. Y states leaving heat exchanger; also states at entry
and exit from component
1, I/, 2, 2'. miscellaneous, refemng to gas states
3, 3/, 4,4', . . . .
0 conceptual environment (ambient state);
also stagnation pressure
superscripts
CR refemng to internal irreversibility
Q refemng to thermal exergy
(associated with heat transfer); also to
lost work due to external irreversibility associated
with heat transfer
rate of (mass flow, heat supply, work output, etc)
new or changed value (e.g. of efficiency)
(continued on next pnge)
xx Notation
(continued)
’ (e.g. a’, b’, 1’. states in feed heating train, in reheating or intercooling
2’, 3’. 4’)
-(e.g. T) mean or averaged (e.g. temperature)
Note on eificiencies
7 is used for thermal efficiency of a closed cycle, but sometimes with a subscript
~ thermal efficiency of a higher cycle); % is used for (arbitrary) overall efficiency
(e.g. 1 )for
of a plant.
A list of efficiencies is given below.
Plant T h e m 1 Efficiencies 7
m higher cycle
rh lower cycle
W P combined cycle
llco cogeneration plant
WAR Carnot cycle
Plant (Arbitrary) Overall Efficiencies l)o
(%)H higher plant
(%kP combined plant
(%)L lower plant
Rational Efficiencies
Component Efficiencies
r)B boiler
W compressor, isentropic
m turbine, isentropic
% polytropic
Cycle Descriptions
The nomenclature originally introduced by Hawthorne and Davis is followed, in which

compressor, heater, turbine and heat exchanger are denoted by C, H, T and X respectively
and subscripts R and I indicate reversible and irreversible. For the open cycle the heater is
replaced by a burner, B. In addition subscripts U and C refer to uncooled and cooled
turbines in a cycle and subscripts 1, 2, ... indicate the number of cooling steps. Thus, for
example [CBTXIIc2 indicates an open irreversible regenerative cycle with two steps of
turbine cooling.
Chapter 1
A BRIEF REVIEW OF POWER GENERATION

THERMODYNAMICS
1.1. Introduction
A conventional power plant receiving fuel energy (F),proaucing work (W) and
rejecting heat (QA) to a sink at low temperature is shown in Fig. 1.1 as a block diagram.
The objective is to achieve the least fuel input for a given work output as this will be
economically beneficial in the operation of the power plant, thereby minimising the fuel
costs. However, the capital cost of achieving high efficiency has to be assessed and
balanced against the resulting saving in fuel costs.
The discussion here is restricted to plants in which the flow is steady, since virtually all
the plants (and their components) with which the book is concerned have a steady flow.
It is important first to distinguish between a closed cyclic power plant (or heat engine)
and an open circuit power plant. In the former, fluid passes continuously round a closed
circuit, through a thermodynamic cycle in which heat (QB) is received from a source at a
high temperature, heat (QA) is rejected to a sink at low temperature and work output (W) is
delivered, usually to drive an electric generator.
Fig. 1.2 shows a gas turbine power plant operating on a closed circuit. The dotted chain
control surface (Y) surrounds a cyclic gas turbine power plant (or cyclic heat engine)
through which air or gas circulates, and the combustion chamber is located within the
second open control surface (a. Heat QBis transferred from Z to Y, and heat QA is rejected
from Y. The two control volumes form a complete power plant.
Usually, a gas turbine plant operates on ‘open circuit’, with internal combustion (Fig.
1.3). Air and fuel pass across the single control surface into the compressor and
combustion chamber, respectively, and the combustion products leave the control
surface after expansion through the turbine. The open circuit plant cannot be said to
operate on a thermodynamic cycle; however, its performance is often assessed by
treating it as equivalent to a closed cyclic power plant, but care must be taken in such an
approach.
The Joule-Brayton (JB) constant pressure closed cycle is the basis of the cyclic gas
turbine power plant, with steady flow of air (or gas) through a compressor, heater,
turbine, cooler within a closed circuit (Fig. 1.4). The turbine drives the compressor and
a generator delivering the electrical power, heat is supplied at a constant pressure and is
also rejected at constant pressure. The temperature-entropy diagram for this cycle is also
1
2 Advanced gas turbine cycles
FUEL ENERGY
SUPPLIED F
POWER
WORK W
HEAT REJECTED QA
Fig. 1.1. Basic power plant.
shown in the figure. The many variations of this basic cycle form the subject of this
volume.
An important field of study for power plants is that of the ‘combinedplunt’ [I]. A broad
definition of the combined power plant (Fig. 1.5) is one in which a higher (upper or
topping) thermodynamic cycle produces power, but part or all of its heat rejection is used
in supplying heat to a ‘lower’ or bottoming cycle. The ‘upper’ plant is frequently an open
circuit gas turbine while the ‘lower’ plant is a closed circuit steam turbine; together they
form a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)plant.
Exhaust
gases
I Controt
;/surface z
ControI
1- - -- -- --
water
Fig. 1.2. Closed circuit gas turbine plant (after Haywood [3]).
Chapter 1. A brief review of power genemtion thermodynamics 3
Control
surface
1
Reactants {~ Combustion
chamber ~(products)
I Exhaust gases
Generator
IW
‘ Compressor Turbine I
1- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1
Fig. 1.3. Open circuit gas turbine plant (after Haywood [3]).
The objective of combining two power plants in this way is to obtain greater work
output for a given supply of heat or fuel energy. This is achieved by converting some of the
heat rejected by the upper plant into extra work in the lower plant.
The term ‘cogenerarion’ is sometimes used to describe a combined power plant, but it
is better used for a combined hear andpower (CHP)plant such as the one shown in Fig. 1.6
(see Ref. [2] for a detailed discussion on CHP plants). Now the fuel energy is converted
partly into (electrical) work (W) and partly into useful heat (eu)
at a low temperature, but
higher than ambient. The non-useful heat rejected is Qw.
2
I -
Heater
Cooler Turbine
0 ’ rn
S
Temperature - entropy diagram
Fig. 1.4. Joule-Brayton cycle (after Ref. [I]).
4 Advonced gas turbine cycles
FUEL ENERGY
SUPPLIED F
UPPER
1 [HIGHER]
POWER
PLANT
t WORK
OUTPUT WH
HEAT
LOSS
BOTTOMING
[LOWER] WORK
POWER OUTPUT WL
I HEAT RWECTED Qr,
Fig. 1.5. Combined power plant.
1.2. Criteria for the performance of power plants
1.2.1. Eficiency of a closed circuit gas turbine plant
For a cyclic gas turbine plant in which fluid is circulated continuously within the plant
(e.g. the plant enclosed within the control surface Yin Fig. 1.2), one criterionof performance
POWER
4 PLANT b
USEFUL HEAT WORK OUTPUT W

OUTPUT Qu
NON-USEFUL
Chapter 1. A brief review of power generation thennodynamics 5
is simply the thermal or cycle efficiency,

W
q" -
QB '
where Wis the net work output and QB is the heat supplied. Wand QBmay be measured for a
mass of fluid (M)that circulates over a given period of time. Thus, the efficiency may also be
expressed in terms of the power output (w
and the rate of heat transfer (QB),
w
q = -,
QB
and this formulation is more convenient for a steady flow cycle. In most of the
thermodynamic analyses in this book, we shall work in terms of W, QB and mass flow M (all
measured over a period of time), rather than in terms of the rates W, Q B and &f(we call M a
mass flow and M a mass flow rate).
The heat supply to the cyclic gas turbine power plant of Fig. 1.2 comes from the control
surface 2.Within this second control surface, a steady-flow heating device is supplied with
reactants (fuel and air) and it discharges the products of combustion. We may define a
second efficiency for the 'heating device' (or boiler) efficiency,
(1.3)
QB is the heat transfer from 2 to the closed cycle within control surface Y,which occurs
during the time interval that Mf, the mass of fuel, is supplied; and [CV], is its calorific
value per unit mass of fuel for the ambient temperature (To)at which the reactants enter.
F = Mf[CVl0 is equal to the heat (eo) that would be transferred from 2 if the products
were to leave the control surface at the entry temperature of the reactants, taken as the
temperature of the environment, To. Fig. 1.7 illustrates the definition of calorific value,
- + w=o - -
I- t I I
I I
I Po -To
H
RO
- - I
CONTROL VOLUME Q, = M,[CVlo
Fig. 1.7. Determination of calorific value [CV], (after Ref. [2]).
where Qo is equal to Mf[CVl0 = [-AH0] = HR0- Hpo, the change in enthalpy from
reactants to products, at the temperature of the environment.
The overall efficiency of the entire gas turbine plant, including the cyclic gas turbine
power plant (within Y) and the heating device (within Z), is given by
170 =F
W
= (E)(->QB
= 77%. ( 1.4)
The subscript 0 now distinguishes the overall efficiency from the thermal efficiency.
1.2.2. Eficiency of an open circuit gas turbine plant
For an open circuit (non-cyclic) gas turbine plant (Fig. 1.3) a different criterion of
performance is sometimes used-the rational eficiency (m). This is defined as the ratio of
the actual work output to the maximum (reversible) work output that can be achieved
between the reactants, each at pressure (po)and temperature (To)of the environment, and
products each at the same po, To. Thus
W
7)R’- (1.5a)
WREV
(1.5b)
where [-AGO] = GRO - Gpo is the change in Gibbs function (from reactants to products).
(The Gibbs function is G = H - TS, where H is the enthalpy and S the entropy.)
[- AGO]is not readily determinable, but for many reactions [- AH01 is numerically
almost the same as [- AGO]. Thus the rational efficiency of the plant is frequently
approximated to
where [-AH01 = HRo- Hpo. Haywood [3] prefers to call this the (arbitrary) overall
eficiency, implying a parallel with 170 of Eq. (1.4).
Many preliminary analyses of gas turbines are based on the assumption of a closed
‘air standard’ cyclic plant, and for such analyses the use of 77 as a thermal efficiency is
entirely correct (as discussed in the early part of Chapter 3 of this book). But most
practical gas turbines are of the open type and the rational efficiency should strictly be
used, or at least its approximate form, the arbitrary overall efficiency 770. We have
followed this practice in the latter part of Chapter 3 and subsequent chapters; even
though some engineers consider this differentiation to be a somewhat pedantic point
and many authors refer to 70 as a thermal efficiency (or sometimes the ‘lower heating
value thermal efficiency’).
Chapter 1. A brief review ofpower generation thermodym'cs 7
1.2.3. Heat rate
As an alternative to the thermal or cycle efficiencyof Eq. (1.l), the cyclic heat rate (the
ratio of heat supply rate to power output) is sometimes used:
QB
Heat rate = - = -.
QB
w w
This is the inverse of the closed cycle thermal efficiency, when QB and W are expressed in
the same units.
But a 'heat rate' based on the energy supplied in the fuel is often used. It is then defined
as
Heat rate =
- -F
Mf[CVIO _
W W'
which is the inverse of the (arbitrary)overall efficiency of the open circuit plant, as defined
in Eq. (1.6).
1.2.4. Energy utilisationfactor
For a gas turbine operating as a combined heat and power plant, the 'energy utilisation
factor' (EUF) is a better criterion of performance than the thermal efficiency. It is defined
as the ratio of work output (W)plus useful heat output (eU)
to the fuel energy supplied (F),
W+Qu
EUF= -
F '
and this is developed further in Chapter 9.
13. Ideal (Carnot) power plant performance
The second law of thermodynamics may be used to show that a cyclic heat power plant
(or cyclic heat engine) achieves maximum efficiency by operating on a reversible cycle
called the Carnot cycle for a given (maximum) temperature of supply (T-) and given
(minimum) temperature of heat rejection (Tmin).Such a Carnot power plant receives all its
heat (QB) at the maximum temperature @.e.TB = Tmm)and rejects all its heat (QA) at the
minimum temperature (i.e. TA = Tmin);the other processes are reversible and adiabatic
and therefore isentropic (see the temperature-entropy diagram of Fig. 1.8). Its thermal
efficiency is
Clearly raising T,, and lowering Thn will lead to higher Carnot efficiency.
The Carnot engine (or cyclic power plant) is a useful hypothetical device in the study of
the thermodynamics of gas turbine cycles, for it provides a measure of the best
performance that can be achieved under the given boundary conditions of temperature.
Tt
I
0 ' I t
Fig. 1.8. Temperature-entropy diagram for a Carnot cycle (after Ref. [l]).
It has three features which give it maximum thermal efficiency:

(i) all processes involved are reversible;
(ii) all heat is supplied at the maximum (specified) temperature (T-);
(iii) all heat is rejected at the lowest (specified) temperature (Tmin).
In his search for high efficiency, the designer of a gas turbine power plant will attempt
to emulate these features of the Carnot cycle.
1.4. Limitations of other cycles
Conventional gas turbine cycles do not achieve Carnot efficiency because they do not
match these features, and there exist
(i) 'external irreversibilities' with the actual (variable) temperature of heat supply being
less than T,, and the actual (variable) temperature of heat rejection being greater
than Tmin;
(ii) 'internal irreversibilities' within the cycle.
Following Caput0 [4], we define mean temperatures of heat supply and rejection as
T = QB T = QA
B - -9
I
,
~ Q B
A-
$!g (1.11)
Parameters & and tAare then defined to measure the failures to achieve the maximum and
minimum temperatures T,, and Tmin,
(1.12)
where & is less than unity and tAis greater than unity. The combined parameter
(1.13)
where T = (T&T-). 5 is then an overall measure of the failure of the real cycle to
achieve the maximum and minimum temperatures and is always less than unity (except for
the Carnot cycle, where 5 becomes unity).
Caput0 then introduced a parameter (a)which is a measure of the irreversibilities
within the real cycle. He first defined
(1.14)
which, from the definitions of T, can be seen to be the entropy changes in heat supply and
heat rejection, respectively. The parameter u is then defined as
ffB
-
ff= (1.15)
CA
the ratio of entropy change in heat supply to entropy change in heat rejection. For the
Carnot cycle u is unity, but for other (irreversible) cycles, a value of u less than unity
indicates a ‘widening’ of the cycle on the T,s diagram due to irreversibilities (e.g. in
compression and/or expansion in the gas turbine cycle) and a resulting loss in thermal
efficiency.
The overall effect of these failures to achieve Carnot efficiency is then encompassed in
a new parameter, p, where
p = tu. (1.16)
The efficiency of the real cycle may then be expressed in terms of T (the ratio of
minimum to maximum temperature) and p. For
For the Carnot cycle u = 1, 8 = 1 and p = 1, so that qcAR= 1 - T.

For the JB cycle of Fig. 1.4, there is no ‘widening’ of the cycle due to irreversibilities,
so that ffA = ffB and u = 1. The efficiency then is given by
7
q = 1- - < qcm = 1 - 7, (1.18)
5
and the failure to reach Carnot cycle efficiency is entirely due to non-achievement of T,
and/or T~,,.pis less than unity, so q < qCm.
For an irreversible gas turbine cycle (the irreversible Joule-Brayton (LTB) cycle of
Fig. 1.9), ffA > ffB (ais less than unity) and 5 < 1 so that the thermal efficiency is
q = 1-
7
=1-
T
G. (1.19)
1.5. Modifications of gas turbine cycles to achieve higher thermal efficiency

There are several modifications to the basic gas turbine cycle that may be introduced to
raise thermal efficiency.
0 S
Fig. 1.9. Irreversible Joule-Brayton cycle.
Two objectives are immediately clear. If the top temperature can be raised and the
bottom temperature lowered, then the ratio T = (Tmin/Tmm) is decreased and, as with a
Carnot cycle, thermal efficiency will be increased (for given p). The limit on top
temperature is likely to be metallurgical while that on the bottom temperature is of the
surrounding atmosphere.
A third objective is similarly obvious. If compression and expansion processes can
attain more isentropic conditions, then the cycle ‘widening’ due to irreversibility is
decreased, cr moves nearer to unity and the thermal efficiency increases (for a given 7).
Cycle modifications or innovations are mainly aimed at increasing 6 (by increasing & or
decreasing lA).
Fig. 1.10 shows the processes of heat exchange (or recuperation), reheat and
intercooling as additions to a JB cycle. Heat exchange alone, from the turbine exhaust to
the compressed air before external heating, increases & and lowers &, so that the overall
REHEAT
I MAIN HEAT
SUPPLIED , 3 3’
1’ J 1 A , MAINHEAT
INTERCOOLING REJECTED
1
0 S
Fig. 1.10. Temperature-entropy diagram showing reheat, intercooling and recuperation.

Chapter 1. A brief review of power genemfionfhetmo&namics 11
increase in 6 leads to higher thermal efficiency. Reheat alone (without a heat exchanger)
between two stages of turbine expansion, has the effect of increasing & but it also
increases so that 6 decreases and thermal efficiency drops. Similarly, intercooling alone
(without a heat exchanger) lowers the mean temperature of heat rejected (decreasing tA)
and it also decreases & so that 6 decreases and thermal efficiency drops. However, when
reheating and intercooling are coupled with the use of a heat exchanger then & is
increased and ,$A decreased, so 6 is increased and thermal efficiency increased markedly.
Indeed, for many stages of reheat and intercooling, a Carnot cycle efficiency can in theory
be attained, with all the heat supplied near the top temperature TB and all the heat rejected
near the lowest temperature, TA.
Reheat and intercooling also increase the specific work of the cycle, the amount of work
done by unit quantity of gas in passing round the plant. This is illustrated by the increase in
the area enclosed by the cycle on the T, s diagram.
More details are discussed in Chapter 3, where the criteria for the performance of the
components within gas turbine plants are also considered.
References
[l] Horlock, J.H. (1987). Cc-generation: Combined Heat and Power, Pergamon Press, Oxford, See also 2nd edn,
Krieger, Melbourne, FL, 1996.
[2] Horlock, J.H. (1992), Combined Power Plants, Pergamon Press, Oxford, See also 2nd edn, Krieger,
Melbourne, FL, 2002.
[3] H a y w m R.W. (1991). Analysis of Engineering Cycles 4th edn, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
[4] Caputa, C. (1%7), Una Cifra di Merito Dei Cicli Termcdinamici Directti, Il Calore 7, 291-300.
Chapter 2
REWERSIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY
2.1. Introduction
In Chapter 1, the gas turbine plant was considered briefly in relation to an ideal
plant based on the Carnot cycle. From the simple analysis in Section 1.4, it was explained
that the closed cycle gas turbine failed to match the Carnot plant in thermal efficiency
because of
(a) the ‘6 effect’ (that heat is not supplied at the maximum temperature and heat is not
rejected at the minimum temperature) and
(b) the ‘ueffect’ (related to any entropy increases within the plant, and the consequent
‘widening’ of the cycle on the T, s diagram).
Since these were preliminary conclusions, further explanations of these disadvantages
are given using the second law of thermodynamics in this chapter. The ideas of
reversibility, irreversibility, and the thermodynamic properties ‘steady-flow availability’
and ‘exergy’ are also developed.
In defining the thermal efficiency of the closed gas turbine cycle, such as the one shown
in Fig. 1.2, we employed the first law of thermodynamics (in the form of the steady-flow
energy equation round the cycle), which states that the heat supplied is equal to the work
output plus the heat rejected, i.e.
Here W is the net work output, i.e. the difference between the turbine work output (WT) and
the work required to drive the compressor (W,), W = WT - W,.
For rhe open circuit gas turbine of Fig. 1.3, if the reactants (air Ma and fuel Mf)enter at
+
temperature To, and the exhaust products (Ma M f ) leave at temperature T4,then the
steady-flow energy equation yields
where subscripts R and P refer to reactants and products, respectively, and it has been
assumed that there are no heat losses from the plant. If we now consider unit air flow at
entry with a fuel flow .f (= Mf/Ma) then the enthalpy flux HRo is equal to the sum of
the enthalpy (hat)) and the enthalpy of the fuel flow ,f supplied to the combustion
chamber (fhfo), both at ambient temperature To, and the enthalpy of the exhaust gas
13
is Hp4= (1 +f ) h p 4 .Hence
ha0 +fh, =w +(1 +f)hP4. (2.3)
where w = WIM, is the specific work (per unit air flow).
If the same quantities of fuel and air were supplied to a calorific value experiment at To
(Fig. 1.7) then the steady-flow energy equation for that process would yield
hao +fhm = ( 1 +f)hpo +f [Cvlo, (2.4)
where [CV], is the calorific value of the fuel. Combining these two equations yields
f [CVIO = w + ( 1 +f NhP4 - h w ) . (2.5)
This equation is often used as an ‘equivalent’ form to Eq. (2.1), the calorific value term
being regarded as the ‘heat supplied’ and the gas enthalpy difference term (I + f ) X
(hp4- hw) being regarded as the ‘heat rejected’ term.
In this chapter we will develop more rigorous approaches to the analysis of gas turbine
plants using both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
2.2. Reversibility, availability and exergy
The concepts of reversibility and irreversibility are important in the analysis of gas
turbine plants. A survey of important points and concepts is given below, but the reader is
referred to standard texts [ 1-31 for detailed presentations.
A closed system moving slowly through a series of stable states is said to undergo a
reversible process if that process can be completely reversed in all thermodynamic
respects, i.e. if the original state of the system itself can be recovered (internal
reversibility) and its surroundings can be restored (external irreversibility). An irreversible
process is one that cannot be reversed in this way.
The objective of the gas turbine designer is to make all the processes in the plant as near
to reversible as possible, i.e. to reduce the irreversibilities, both internal and external, and
hence to obtain higher thermal efficiency (in a closed cycle gas turbine plant) or higher
overall efficiency (in an open gas turbine plant). The concepts of availability and exergy
may be used to determine the location and magnitudes of the irreversibilities.
2.2.1. Flow in the presence of an environment ut To (not involving chemical reuction)
Consider first the steady flow of fluid through a control volume CV between prescribed
stable states X and Y (Fig. 2. I ) in the presence of an environment at ambient temperature
To (Le. with reversible heat transfer to that environment only). The maximum work which
is obtained in reversible flow between X and Y is given by
[(WCV)REVG = Bx - B Y 9 (2.6)
where B is the steady flow availability function
B = H - ToS, (2.7)
Chapter 2. Reversibility and availability 15
I 1
I
I IC"
I
I I
X 1 Y
I I
I I
Fig. 2.1. Reversible process with heat transfer at temperature TO(to the environment) (after Ref. [5]).
and Hand S are the enthalpy and entropy, respectively [l]. The reversible (outward) heat
transfer between X and Y is
[<QO>REVli= TdSX - SY). (2.8)

A corollary of this theorem is that the maximum work that can be extracted from fluid at
prescribed state X is the exergy
Ex = Bx - Bo. (2.9)
Here Bo is the steady flow availability function at the so-called 'dead state', where the fluid
is in equilibrium with the environment, at state (Po,To).The maximum work obtainable
between states X and Y may then be written as
[(WCV)REVIi = (BX - BO) - (BY - B O ) = (EX - EY). (2.10)

From the steady-flow energy equation, the work output in an actual (irreversible) flow
through a control volume CV, between states X and Y in the presence of an environment at
To (Fig. 2.2), is
Wcvli = (Hx- H Y ) - [Qoli, (2.1 1)
Reservoir at T,
Fig. 2.2. Actual process with heat transfer at temperature TO(to the environment) (after Ref. [5]).
where [eo]$is the heat transferred to the environment from the control volume. [Wcv]; is
less than [(Wcv)REv]i and [eo];
is greater than [(Qo)REv]$.The leaving entropy flux
associated with this outward heat transfer is [Qo]i/To, such that the increase in entropy
across the control volume is
Sy - Sx = AScR - [Qo];/To, (2.12)
where AScR is the entropy created within the control volume. The work lost due to this
internal irreversibility is, therefore
ICR = [(WCV)REVI~
- [Wcvli = (Bx - BY)- (ffx - ffy - [QoG)
(2.13)
2.2.2. Flow with heat transfer at temperature T
Consider next the case where heat [eREv]:

= JidQREVis rejected (Le. transferred
from the control volume CV at temperature T) in a reversible steady-flow process
between states X and Y, in the presence of an environment at TO.[QREv]$is taken as
positive.
Fig. 2.3 shows such a fully reversible steady flow through the control volume CV. The
heat transferred [Q,,];, supplies a reversible heat engine, delivering external work
[( and rejecting heat [(Qo)REv]$to the environment.
The total work output from the extended (dotted) control volume is (Bx- BY), if the
flow is again between states X and Y. But the work from the reversible external engine is
(2.14)
x j cv I heat engine)
, Internally reversible !
I process I
[(Qo)REJ;
Environment at (po, To)
Fig. 2.3. Reversible proress with heat m s f e rat temperature T (to Camot engine) (after Ref 15J).
The maximum (reversible) work obtained from the 'inner' control volume CV is
therefore equal to
For a real (irreversible) flow process through the control volume CV between fluid
states X and Y (Fig. 2.4), with the s u m heat rejected at temperature T([Q]i = [Q,]:),
the work output is [Wcv];. Heat [eo]:
may also be transferred from CV directly to the
environment at TO.From the steady-flow energy equation,
The entropy flux from the control volume associated with the heat transfer is
[Qol!
-+-,
dQ
TO
so the entropy increase across it is given by
(2.17)
The lost work due to irreversibility within the control volume CV is

fR = r(wcv)REvl; - Kwkvl;
= Bx - BY - Ix T-To
( 7 ) d Q - (WX
- HY)- [el: - [Qol:}
(2.18)
TO
Fig. 2.4. Actual process with heat transfers at temperatures T and To (after Ref. [5]).
from Eq.(2.17). Thus the work lost due to internal irreversibility within the control volume
when heat transfer takes place is still ToAFR,as when the heat transfer is limited to
exchange with the environment.
The actual work output in a real irreversible process between stable states X and Y is
therefore
T-To
= Bx - By - Jx (-)de -fR
= EX - EY - - fR, (2.19)
where
is the work potential, sometimes called the thermal energy of the heat rejected.
The above analysis has been concerned with heat transfer from the control volume.
Consider next heat [de]: = [dQREV]itransferred to the control volume. Then that heat
could be reversibly pumped to CV (at temperature T ) from the atmosphere (at temperature
To)by a reversed Carnot engine. This would require work inpur
Under this new arrangement, Eq. (2.15) for the reversible work delivered from CV would
become
(2.20)
and Eq. (2.19) for the work output from the actual process would be
[Wcvli = (Ex - Ey) + EpN - ICR, (2.21)
where eN
is the work potential or thermal energy of the heat supplied to CV,
T-To
EPN = Jx (-)de.
If heat were both transferred to and rejected from CV,then a combination of Eqs. (2.19)
and (2.21) would give
[w(y]i = (Ex - Ey) + E~N- @UT - fR. (2.22)

23. Exergyflux
Eq. (2.22) may be interpreted in terms of exergy flows, work output and work potential
(Fig. 2.5). The equation may be rewritten as
Ex = [wcv]: + (Gm- @N) +fR +Eye (2.23)

Thus, the exergy Ex of the entering flow (its capacity for producing work) is translated
into
(i) the actual work output [Wcv]i,
(ii) the work potential, or thermal exergy, of the heat rejected less than that of the heat
supplied ( e m - @N),
(iii) the work lost due to internal irreversibility, ICR = T o e R ,
(iv) the leaving exergy, E y .
If the heat transferred from the control volume is not used externally to create work, but
is simply lost to the atmosphere in which further entropy is created, then G,,.,.
can be said
to be equal to E,,.,., a lost work term, due to external irreversibility. Another form of
Eq. (2.23) is thus
Ex + @N = wcv + XI"" + I& + Ey, (2.24)

which illustrates how the total exergy supplied is used or wasted.
These equations for energy flux are frequently used to trace exergy through a power
plant, by finding the difference between the exergy at entry to a component [Ex] and that at
exit [EY], and summing such differences for all the components to obtain an exergy
statement for the whole plant, as in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.6 below. Practical examples of the
application of this technique to real gas turbine plants are given below and in the later
chapters.
+ E%"T
Fig. 2.5. Exergy fluxes in actual process (after Ref. [5]).

2.3.1. Application of the exergyjux equation to a closed cycle
We next consider the application of the exergy flux equation to a closed cycle plant
based on the Joule-Brayton (JB) cycle (see Fig. 1.4), but with irreversible compression
and expansion processes-an ‘irreversibleJoule-Brayton’ (IJB) cycle. The T, s diagram
is as shown in Fig. 2.6.
If the exergy flux (Es. (2.23)) is applied to the four processes 1-2,2-3, 3-4,4-1, then
E~ - E~ = gm.
Hence, by addition the exergy equation for the whole cycle is
(2.26)
where W, = W, +
WI2 = WT - W,-, the difference between the turbine work output
W, = W, and the compressor work input, Wc = -W12.
The corresponding ‘first law’ equations for the closed cycle gas turbine plant lead to
Qm - Qow= WT- WC= W
,, (2.27)
in comparison with m.(2.26).
2.3.2. The relationships between a and I cR, ZQ
The exergy equation (2.26) enables useful information on the irreversibilities and lost
work to be obtained, in comparison with a Garnot cycle operating within the same
temperature limits (Tmm= T3 and Tmin= To).Note first that if the heat supplied QB is the
same to each of the two cycles (Carnot and LTB), then the work output from the Carnot
engine (WCAR)is greater than that of the LTB cycle (WuB), and the heat rejected from the
former is less than that rejected by the latter.
-
w wT- wC
Fig. 2.6. Exergy fluxes in c l o d UB gas turbine cycle.

Chapter 2. Rwersibiliiy and availability 21
An exergy flux statement for the Carnot plant is
[%]CAR = wCAR, (2.28)
where [@N]CAR = J(1 - (TdT3))dQ = mt,RQB and @* is zero.

For the LTB cycle
(2.29)
The difference between Eqs. (2.28) and (2.29) is
Hence,
w, = wc, -Zg -@* -IfR, (2.30)
where
(2.3 1)
and
(2.32)
&, I& may be regarded as irreversibilities of heat supply and rejection in the
LTB cycle. Z$ is the lost work involved in supplying heat QB from a reservoir at a
constant (maximum) temperature T3 to the ITB air heater at temperature T, rather than
to a Carnot cycle air heater at a temperature just below T3. gm
is the lost work
involved in rejection of the (larger) quantity of heat QA from the LTB cycle to the
atmosphere.
The thermal efficiency of the LTB cycle is thus less than that of the Carnot plant, by
an amount
(2.33a)
= (dSa>IJB
- T, (2.33b)
where 5 and CTare the parameters that were introduced in the simple preliminary analysis
of the ITB cycle given in Chapter 1, Section 1.4. 6 was related to the mean temperatures of
supply and rejection and CT to the ‘widening’ of the cycle.
Thus for a JB cycle, with no internal irreversibility, ZCR = 0 and vjB= 1, from
Eqs. (2.33) and (1.17)
(2.34)
For an ‘irreversible’ Carnot type cycle (ICAR) with all heat supplied at the top
temperature and all heat rejected at the lowest temperature (Tmm= T3, Tmin= To,
= 0, &;CAR = l), but with irreversible compression and expansion ( q c m =
uB/crA < I), Eqs. (2.33) and (1.17) yield
(2.35)
However, use of Eqs. (2.34) and (2.35) together does not yield Eq.(2.33b) because the
values of IQ and IF”are not the same in the LTB, JB and ICAR cycles.
2.4. The maximum work output in a chemical reaction at To
The (maximum) reversible work in steady flow between reactants at an entry state
Ro(po,To) and products at a leaving state Po(po,To)is
(2.36)
It is supposed here that the various reactants entering are separated at (po.To); the
various products discharged are similarly separated at (po,To).The maximum work may
then be written as
where G is the Gibbs function, G = H - TS. This is the maximum work obtainable from
such a combustion process and is usually used in defining the rational efficiency of an open
circuit plant. However, it should be noted that if the reactants and/or products are not at
pressure po, then the work of delivery or extraction has to be allowed for in obtaining the
maximum possible work from the reactants and products drawn from and delivered to the
atmosphere. The expression for maximum work has to be modified.
Kotas [3] has drawn a distinction between the ‘environmental’ state, called the dead
state by Haywood [ 11, in which reactants and products (each at po, To) are in restricted
thermal and mechanical equilibrium with the environment; and the ‘truly or completely
dead state’, in which they are also in chemical equilibrium, with partial pressures ( p k ) the
same as those of the atmosphere. Kotas defines the chemical exergy as the sum of
the maximum work obtained from the reaction with components at po, To, [ - AGO],and
work extraction and delivery terms. The delivery work term is xkMkRkToIn(po/pk),where
pk is a partial pressure, and is positive. The extraction work is also xkMkRkToIn( po/pk)but
is negative.
In general, we shall not subsequently consider these extraction and delivery work terms
here, but use [-AGO] as an approximation to the maximum work output obtainable from a
chemical reaction, since the work extraction and delivery quantities are usually small.
Their relative importance is discussed in detail by Horlock et al. [4].
25. The adiabatic combustion process

Returning to the general availability equation, for an adiabatic combustion process
between reactants at state X and products at state Y (Fig. 2.7) we may write
B~ - B~~ = ICR = T ~A~C~, (2.38)
since there is no heat or work transfer, and the work lost due to internal irreversibility is
I CR. In forming the exergy at the stations X and Y we must be careful to subtract the steady
flow availability function in the final equilibrium state, which we take here as the product
(environmental) state at (pol TO).Then Eq. (2.38) may be written as
B~ - G~ = B~~ - G~ +T,A~C~
or
+
B , - BRO [-AGO] = B p y - BW + TOAsCR. (2.39)
It is convenient for exergy tabulations to associate the term [-AGO] = so - Gpo with
the exergy of the fuel supplied (of mass Mf), i.e. Em = [-AGO]. For a combustion process
burning liquid or solid fuel (at temperature To)with air (subscript a, at temperature T I ) ,the
left-hand side of the equation may be written as
Ex = B,I - B,o + [-AGO] = Ea] + Efo. (2.40
Usually, TI = To, so E,, = Eno and with E , = Em the exergy equation becomes
+ E =~ E~
E,~ + ICR. (2.41)
For a combustion process burning gaseous fuel (which may have been compressed from
state 0 to state 1’), the left-hand side of the exergy Eq. (2.41) may be rewritten as
Ed + E f l , = Em + ICR. (2.42)
In general, for any gas of mass M we may write
E = M ( h - kO) - M T O ( S - SO), (2.43)
5--.1K$T
COFlTROL VOLUME
Fig. 2.7. Exergy fluxes in adiabatic combustion.

where ho and so are the specific enthalpy and specific entropy at the ambient pressure po
and the temperature To, respectively. For a semi-perfect gas withp = pRT and cp = cp(T),
(2.44)
s - so = 4 - R ln@/po), (2.45)
T
[
b - bo = - cpdT - To+ + RTo ln(plpo), (2.46)
2.6. The work output and ratiom- rfficiency of an open c - d t gas turbine
The statements on work output made for a real process (Eq.(2.23)) and for the ideal
chemical reaction or combustion process at @o. To) (Eq.(2.37)) can be compared as
(2.47)
The first equation may be applied to a control volume CV surrounding a gas turbine
power plant, receiving reactants at state R, Ro and discharging products at state P y =
P4. As for the combustion process, we may subtract the steady flow availability function
for the equilibrium product state (GPO)from each side of Eq. (2.47) to give
This equation, as illustrated in the (T, s) chart of Fig. 2.8 for an open circuit gas turbine,
shows how the maximum possible work output from the ideal combustion process splits
into the various terms on the right-hand side:
0 the actual work output from the open circuit gas turbine plant;
0 the work potential of any heat transferred out from various components, which
if transferred to the atmosphere at To, becomes the work lost due to external irrever-
sibility,gW = ZEm;
0 the work lost due to internal irreversibility, ZcR (which may occur in various
components);
0 the work potential of the discharged exhaust gases, (Bp4 - GPO).
Note that in Eq. (2.49) the term (BRX- GRO)does not appear as it has been assumed
here that all reactants enter at the ambient temperature TO,for which [-AGO] is known. For
a compressed gaseous fuel, (BM - GRO) will be small but not entirely negligible.
EP4
0 S
Fig. 2.8. Exergy fluxes in actual CBT gas turbine plant with combustion.
The rational efficiency may be defined as the ratio of the actual work output [Wcv]i to
the maximum possible work output, approximately [-AGO],
(2.50)
Fig. 2.9 illustrates this approach of tracing exergy through a plant. The various terms
in Eq. (2.49) are shown for an irreversible open gas turbine plant based on the JB cycle.
The compressor pressure ratio is 12:1, the ratio of maximum to inlet temperature is 5:l
(T- = 1450 K with To = 290 K), the compressor and turbine polytropic efficiencies are
0.4
0.35
>
2 0.3 1. WORK OUTPUT
w
2. COMBUSTION LOSS
0.25 3. COMPRESSOR LOSS
W 4. TURBINE LOSS
2 0.2 0
5. EQOUT=
0 6. EXHAUST LOSS
Ez 0.15
0
2 0.1
0.05
0
n n
3 4 5
COMPONENT
Fig. 2.9. Work output and exergy losses in CBT gas turhine plant (all as fractions of fuel exergy).
0.9, and the combustion pressure loss is 3% of the inlet pressure to the chamber. The
method of calculation is given in Chapters 4 and 5, but it is sufficient to say here that it
involves the assumption of real semi-perfect gases with methane as fuel for combustion
and no allowance for any turbine cooling. The work terms associated with the abstraction
and delivery to the atmosphere are ignored in the valuation of the fuel exergy, which is
thus taken as [-AGO].
The thermal efficiency, the work output as a fraction of the fuel exergy (the maximum
reversible work), is shown as no. 1 in the figure and is 0.368. The internal irreversibility
terms, xFR/[-AGo], are shown as nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the diagram, for the combustion
chamber, compressor and turbine, respectively. It is assumed that there is no hear rejection
to the atmosphere from the engine, i.e. IQ = 0 (no. 5 ) , but there is an exergy loss in the
discharge of the exhaust gas to the atmosphere, (BP4- Gm)/[-AGo], the last term of
Eq. (2.49), which is shown as no. 6 in the diagram.
The dominant irreversibilities are in combustion and in the exhaust discharge.
2.7. A final comment on the use of exergy
We shall later give more detailed calculations for real gas turbine plants together with
diagrams similar to Fig. 2.9. Exergy is a very useful tool in determining the magnitude of
local losses in gas turbine plants, and in his search for high efficiency the gas turbine
designer seeks to reduce these irreversibilities in components (e.g. compressor, turbine,
the combustion process, etc.).
However, it is wise to emphasise the interactions between such components. An
improvement in one (say an increase in the effectiveness of the heat exchanger in a
[CBTX], recuperative plant) will lead to a local reduction in the irreversibility or exergy
loss within it. But this will also have implications elsewhere in the plant. For the [CBTXII
plant, an increase in the recuperator effectiveness will lead to a higher temperature
entering the combustion chamber and a lower temperature of the gas leaving the hot side
of the exchanger. The irreversibility in combustion is decreased and the exergy loss in the
final exhaust gas discharged to atmosphere is also reduced [6].
Therefore, plots of exergy loss or irreversibility like Fig. 2.9, for a particular plant
operating condition, do not always provide the complete picture of gas turbine
performance.
References
[ I ] Haywood, R.W. (1980). Equilihrium Thermodynamics, Wiley, New York.
[2] Gyftopoulos, E.P. and Beretta, G.P. (1991), Thermodynamic Foundations and Applications, MacMillan,
New York.
131 Kotas, T.J.(1985). The Exergy Method of Thermal Power Analysis, Butterworth, London.
[4] Horlock, J.H., Manfrida, G. and Young, J.B. (ZOOO), Exergy analysis of modem fossil-fuel power plants,
ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 122, 1-17.
[ 5 ] Horlock, J.H. (2002). Combined Power Plants, 2nd edn, Krieger, Melbourne USA.
[6] Horlock, J.H. (1998), The relationship between effectivenessand exergy loss in counterflow heat exchangers,
ASME Paper 1998-GT-32.
Chapter 3
BASIC GAS TURBINE CYCLES
3.1. Introduction
In the introduction to Chapter 1 on power plant thermodynamics our search for high
thermal efficiency led us to emphasis on raising the maximum temperature T,, and
lowering the minimum temperature Tmi,, in emulation of the performance of the Carnot
cycle, the efficiency of which increases with the ratio (T,,,JTmin). In a gas turbine plant,
this search for high maximum temperatures is limited by material considerations and
cooling of the turbine is required. This is usually achieved in ‘open’ cooling systems, using
some compressor air to cool the turbine blades and then mixing it with the mainstream
flow.
Initially in this chapter, analyses of basic gas turbine cycles are presented by reference
to closed uncooled ‘air standard’ (ah)cycles using a perfect gas (one with both the gas
constant R and the specific heats c,, and c, constant) as the working fluid in an externally
heated plant. Many of the broad conclusions reached in this way remain reasonably valid
for an open cycle with combustion, i.e. for one involving real gases with variable
composition and specific heats varying with temperature. The a/s arguments are developed
sequentially, starting with reversible cycles in Section 3.2 and then introducing
irreversibilities in Section 3.3.
In Section 3.4, we consider the open gas turbine cycle in which fuel is supplied in a
combustion chamber and the working fluids before and after combustion are assumed to be
separate semi-perfect gases, each with c,(T), c,(T), but with R = [c,(T) - c,(T)]
constant. Some analytical work is presented, but recently the major emphasis has been on
computer solutions using gas property tables; results of such computations are presented in
Section 3.5.
Subsequently, in Chapter 4, we deal with cycles in which the turbines are cooled. The
basic thermodynamics of turbine cooling, and its effect on plant efficiency, are considered.
In Chapter 5 , some detailed calculations of the performance of gas turbines with cooling
are presented.
We adopt the nomenclature introduced by Hawthorne and Davis [l], in which
compressor, heater, turbine and heat exchanger are denoted by C, H, T and X, respectively,
and subscripts R and I indicate internally reversible and irreversible processes. For the
open cycle, the heater is replaced by a burner, B. Thus, for example, [CBTXII indicates an
open irreversible regenerative cycle. Later in this book, we shall in addition, use subscripts
27
28 Advanced gos turbine cycles
U and C referring to uncooled and cooled turbines in a plant, but in this chapter, all cycles
are assumed to be uncooled and these subscripts are not used.
It is implied that the states referred to in any cycle are stagnation states; but as velocities
are assumed to be low, stagnation and static states are virtually identical.
3.2. Air standard cycles (uncooled)
3.2.1. Reversible cycles
3.2.1.1. The reversible simple (Joule-Brayton) cycle, [CHT]R

We use the original Joule-Brayton cycle as a standard-an internally reversible closed
gas turbine cycle 1,2,3,4 (see the T ,s diagram of Fig. 3.1), with a maximum temperature
T3 = TB and a pressure ratio r. The minimum temperature is taken as TA, the ambient
temperature, so that TI = TA.
For unit air flow rate round the cycle, the heat supplied is 4 B = cp(T3- T2),the turbine
work output is WT = c (T - T4) and the compressor work input is wc = cp(T2- T I ) .
p 3
Hence the thermal efficiency is
= w/qB = [cp(T3 - T4) - cp(T2 - TdI/[Cp(T3- T2)1
= 1 - [(T4 - Tl)/(T3 - T2)] = 1 - { [(T&Ti) - l]/[(T3/Ti)- X I } = ( UX),(3.1)

where x = r ( r l y y = T2/Tl= T3/T4is the isentropic temperature ratio.
Initially this appears to be an odd result as the thermal efficiency is independent of the
maximum and minimum temperatures. However, each elementary part of the cycle, as
shown in the fibre,has the same ratio of temperature of supply to temperature of rejection
RESERVOIR
I
I TB
I 1 ATMOSPHERE
0 S
Fig. 3.1. T,sdiagram for reversible closed simple cycle, [CHTIR.

Chapter 3. Basic gas turbine cycles 29
(TsITR = x). Thus each of these elementary cycles has the same Carnot type efficiency,
equal to [l - (TR/Ts)]= [l - ( l / x ) ] .Hence it is not surprising that the whole reversible
cycle, made up of these elementary cycles of identical efficiency, has the same efficiency.
However, the net specific work,
w = (wT - W C ) = CpTi[(8/x)- l ] ( x - l), (3.2)
does increase with 8 = T3/T, at a given x. For a given 8, it is a maximum at x = @”.
Although the [CHTIR cycle is internally reversible, extern1 irreversibility is involved
in the heat supply from the external reservoir at temperature TB and the heat rejection to a
reservoir at temperature TA. So a consideration of the intern1 thermal efficiency alone
does not provide a full discussion of the thermodynamic performance of the plant. If the
reservoirs for heat supply and rejection are of infinite capacity, then it may be shown that
the irreversibilities in the heat supply ( q B ) and the heat rejection ( q A ) , respectively, both
positive, are
3.2.1.2. The reversible recuperative cycle [CHnrl,

A reversible recuperative a/s cycle, with the maximum possible heat transfer from the
exhaust gas, 41. = c,(T4 - T y ) , is illustrated in the T , s diagram of Fig. 3.2, where T y =
T2. This heat is transferred to the compressor delivery air, raising its temperature
to Tx = T4, before entering the heater. The net specific work output is the same as that
0 S
Fig. 3.2. T,s diagram for reversible closed recuperative cycle, [CHTXIR.
of the [ c H T ] R cycle (the area enclosed on the T , s diagram is the same) but the heat
supplied from the external reservoir to reach the temperature T3 = TA is now less than in
the [Cm]R cycle. It is apparent from the T , s diagram that the heat supplied, qB =
cp(T3- T x )is equal to the turbine work output, wT = cp(T3- T4),and hence the thermal
efficiency is
T/=(WT-WC)/WT= 1 -(WC/WT)= 1 - (Tl(X- 1)/T3[1 -(I/X)])
= 1 - (x/e). (3.8)
The internal thermal efficiency increases as 8 is increased, but unlike the [GHTIR cycle
efficiency, drops with increase in pressure ratio r. This is because the heat transferred qT
decreases as r is increased.
Plots of thermal efficiency for the [CHT], and [ m ] R cycles against the isentropic
temperature ratio x are shown in Fig. 3.3, for 8 = T3/Tl = 4, 6.25. The efficiency of the
[CHT], cycle increases continuously with x independent of 8, but that of the [ C m ] R
cycle increases with 8 for a given x. For a given 8 = T3/T1,the efficiency of the [cHTx]R
cycle is equal to the Carnot efficiency at x = 1 and then decreases with x until it meets the
efficiency line of the [ c H T ] R at x = (e)'" where 7 = 1 - ( I / @ " . When x > eln, where
T4 = T2,a heat exchanger cannot be used.
The specific work of the two cycles is the same (Q. (3.2)), and reaches a maximum at
x= where (wlcpTl)= (eln - 1>2.
3.2.1.3. The reversible reheat cycle [CHTHT],

If reheat is introduced between a high pressure turbine and a low pressure turbine then
examination of the T, s diagram (Fig. 3.4a) shows that the complete cycle is now made up
- -[CHwR T3/Tl=4
CARNOT T-l= 4
- - - [CHTXIR T-1 = 6.25
CARNOT T3/T1 = 6.25
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

ISENTROPIC TEMPERATURE RATIO
Fig. 3.3. Thermal efficiencies of closed reversible cycles.
)f two types of elementary cycles, 1,2,3,4” and 4”,4/,3/, 4. The efficiency of the latter
:ycle is 17 = 1 - ( l/xA), where xA = T4,/T4n= T3,/T4;it is less than that of the former
:ycle 77 = 1 - (l/x) and the overall efficiency of the ‘combined’ cycle is therefore
T T
3 3‘
S S
a b
Fig. 3.4. T , s diagram for reheating added to reversible simple and recuperative cycles.
reduced compared with that of the [CHT]R cycle. However, the specific work, which is
equal to the area of the cycle on the T, s diagram, is increased.
If a heat exchanger is added at low pressure ratio (Fig. 3.4b) then the mean supply
temperature is greater than that of the [ c m ] R cycle whereas the temperature of heat
rejection will be the same as in the [ c m ] R cycle. Therefore the efficiency of
the [ C m x ] R cycle is greater than that of the [CHTXIRcycle.
3.2.1.4. The reversible intercooled cycle [CICHTIR

If the compression is split and intercooling is introduced between a low pressure
compressor and a high pressure compressor (Fig. 3.5a), then by considering the elementary
cycles it can be seen that the efficiency should be reduced compared with the [ c H T ] R
cycle.
However, addition of a heat exchanger at low pressure ratio (Fig. 3.5b) means that
while the mean temperature of heat supply remains the same as in the [ c m ] R cycle, the
temperature of heat rejection is lowered compared with that cycle. The efficiency of the
[CICHTXIRcycle is therefore greater than that of the [ c m ] R cycle.
3.2.1.5. The ‘ultimate’ gas turbine cycle

In the ‘ultimate’ version of the reheated and intercooled reversible cycle
[CICICIC-..HTHTHT...X]R, both the compression and expansion are divided into a
large number of small processes, and a heat exchanger is also used (Fig. 3.6). Then the
efficiency approaches that of a Carnot cycle since all the heat is supplied at the maximum
temperature TB = T,, and all the heat is rejected at the minimum temperature TA = Tmin.
T T
3
3
1‘ 1 1’ 1
S S
a b
Fig. 3.5. T,sdiagram for intercooling added to reversible simple and ncuperative cycles.
Chapter 3. Basic gas htrbinc cycles 33
qI3
\
isentropic
turbines
isentropic
compressors
Fig. 3.6. T,s diagram for 'ultimate' reversible gas turbine cycle [CICIC.. .BTBT.. .XIR.
3.2.2. Irreversible air standard cycles
3.2.2.1. Component pelformance

Before moving on to the als analyses of irreversible gas turbine cycles we need to define
various criteria for the performance of some components, all of which have been assumed
to be perfect (reversible) in the analyses of Section 3.2.1. The criteria used are listed in
Table 3.1.
In addition to the irreversibilities associated with these components, pressure losses
(Ap) may occur in various parts of the plant (e.g. in the entry and exit ducting, the
combustion chamber, and the heat exchanger). These are usually expressed in terms of
non-dimensional pressure loss coefficients, t=A P / @ ) ~ ,where @)m is the pressure at
entry to the duct. (Mach numbers are assumed to be low, with static and stagnation
pressures and their loss coefficients approximately the same.)
As alternatives to the isentropic efficiencies for the turbomachinery components, and
qc,which relate the overall enthalpy changes, small-stageor polytropic efficiencies(qpTand
qK) are often used. The pressure-temperature relationship along an expansion line is then
p/Tz = constant, where z = ['y/(y - l)T)pTI,
and the entry and exit temperatures are related by T3/T4= r!") = xT.
Table 3.1
Performance criteria
Component Criterion of performance

Turbine Isentropic efficiency
% = Enthalpy drophentropic enthalpy drop
Compressor Isentropic efficiency
= Isentropic enthalpy riselenthalpy rise
Heat exchanger Effectiveness (or thermal ratio)
E = Temperature rise (cold side)/maximum temperature difference between entry
(hot side) and entry (cold side)

Along a compression line,

p/Tz = constant, where now z = [yrlpc/(y- l)],
and exit and entry temperatures are related by T2/Tl = rgh) = xc.
The analysis of Hawthorne and Davis [ 13 for irreversible ds cycles is developed using
the criteria of component irreversibility, firstly for the simple cycle and subsequently for
the recuperative cycle. In the main analyses, the isentropic efficiencies are used for the
turbomachinery components. Following certain significant relationships, alternative
expressions, involving polytropic efficiency and xc and xT, are given, without a detailed
derivation, in equations with p added to the number.
3.2.2.2. The irreversible simple cycle [CHT],

A closed cycle [CHTIl, with state points 1,2,3,4, is shown in the T,s diagram of
Fig. 3.7. The specific compressor work input is given by
wc = c,(TZ - T i ) = cp(TZs - Tl)/Vc = c , T ~ ( x- l ) / l c . (3.9)
The specific turbine work output is
WT = cp(T3 - r4) = rh.cp(T3 - T4s)= 7h.CpT311 - (l/x)], (3.10)
so that the net specific work is
S
Fig. 3.7. T , s diagram for irreversible closed simple cycle [CHTII.
The specific heat supplied is

q = cp(T3 - T2) = CpT1K8- 1) - (x - 1)/77cl, (3.12)
or
4 = c P r 3- ~ ~ C 1, T w= - 1) - (XC - 1)1,
so that the thermal efficiency is given by
7 = w/q = ( a - x)[l - (l/x)]/(p - x), (3.13)
where p = 1 + vC(8 - l), or
77 = w/q = [e(l - ( I I X T ) ) - (xc - l)l/[(8 - 1) - (xc - 1)l. (3.13P)
The important point here is that the efficiency is a function of the temperature ratio 8 as
well as the pressure ratio T (and x), whereas it is a function of pressure ratio only for the
reversible cycle, [CJ4"IR.
Optimum conditions and graphical plot

The isentropic temperature rise for maximum specific work (x,) is obtained by
differentiating Eq. (3.11) with respect to x and equating the differential to zero, giving
x,=a
li2
. (3.14)
By differentiating Eq. (3.13) with respect to x and equating the differential to zero, it
may be shown that the isentropic temperature ratio for maximum thermal efficiency (x,) is
given by the equation
Ax: +BX, + c = 0, (3.15)
where A = (a- p - l), B = -2a, C = ap.
Solution of this equation gives
+
x, = ap/{a [a(p - a)(p - l)lln}. (3.16)
In their graphical interpretations, using isentropic rather than polytropic efficiencies,
Hawthorne and Davis plotted the following non-dimensional quantities, all against the
parameter x = T("-')'" :
Non-dimensional compressor work,
NDCW = wc/cp(T3 - TI) = (x - 1y(p - 1); (3.17)
Non-dimensional turbine work,
NDTW = WT/CP(T3 - TI) = a(x - l)/X(P - 1); (3.18)
Non-dimensional net work,
NDNW = w/cp(T3 - TI) = ( a [ l- (l/x)] - {x - l)}/(P - 1); (3.19)
Non-dimensional heat transferred,
NDHT = q/cp(T3 - TI) = ( p - x)/@ - 1); (3.20)
W
m
0.5
i
P 0.05
0
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75
ISENTROPIC TEMPERATURE RATIO [XI
Fig. 3.8. Graphical plot for [CHTII cycle (after Horlock and Woods [2]).
Thermal efficiency
7) = N D N W m H T = [(a- x)(x - l)]/X(P - x). (3.21)
Fig. 3.8 reproduces the quantities NDNW, NDHT and v, for the example of the simple
[CHTII cycle studied by Horlock and Woods [2], in which 8 = 4.0, qc = 0.8, = 0.9,
i.e. a = 2.88, p = 3.4. The location of the maximum net work output is obvious. The
maximum cycle efficiency point is obtained by the graphical construction shown (a line
drawn tangent to NDNW at x,, from the point where the line NDHT meets the x axis at
x = p). Values of x, = 1.697 (rw = 6.368) and x, = 2.050 (re = 12.344), as calculated
from Eqs. (3.14) and (3.16), are indicated in the diagrams. The maximum thermal
efficiency is 7)= 0.315.
As mentioned before, the thermal efficiency for the irreversible plant [CHTIr is a
function of the temperature ratio 8 = T3/T, (as opposed to that of the reversible simple
cycle [CHT],, for which 7) is a function of x only, and pressure ratio r, as illustrated in
Fig. 3.3). Fig. 3.9 illustrates this difference, showing the irreversible thermal efficiency
77(x, 8) which is strongly &dependent.
3.2.2.3. The irreversible recuperative cycle [CkllX]~

For the closed recuperative cycle [CHTXII, with states 1,2, X, 3,4, Y as in the T, s
diagram of Fig. 3.10, the net specific work is unchanged but the heat supplied has to be
reassessed as heat 4T is transferred from the turbine exhaust to the compressor delivery air.
Using the heat exchanger effectiveness, E = (T, - T2)/(T4- T2)the heat supplied
becomes
4Jj = Cp(T3 - Tx) = Cp(T3 - T4) -I- Cp(1 - E)(T4 - Tz), (3.22)
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
x>
W 0.3
0
Y
k 0.25
i
w
x
c
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Fig. 3.9. Thermal efficiency of [CHT],cycle.

Fig. 3.10. T,sdiagram for irreversible closed recuperative cycle [CHTII.
and the thermal efficiency is

7 = ( a [ l - (l/x)] - (x - l)}/{Ecr[l - (l/x)] + (1 - E)(B -x)], (3.23)
Optimum conditions and graphical plot

The isentropic temperature ratio for maximum efficiency (x,) is again obtained by
writing a ~ / a x= 0; after some algebra this yields
+
A ' ( x , ) ~ B'x, + d = 0, (3.24)
where
A' = (1 - & ) ( a - p + 11, B' = - 2 N l - E), c' = ~ . [-p E @ + l)].
For the [CHTXII plant, with the cycle parameters quoted above for the [CHTII plant:
(i) with E = 0.5, the values of x for maximum efficiency and maximum work become
identical, x, = x, = allz = 1.697 and 7 = 0.337;
(ii) with E = 0.75, x, = 1.506, x, = 1.697, and 7 = 0.385.
For their graphical interpretation, Hawthorne and Davis wrote
NDHT = q/[cp(T3- Ti )I = E(NDNW) [AI, + (3.25)
where [A] = [ ( 2 -
~ 1)NDCW + (1 - and the efficiency as
E)],
7 = NDNW/NDHT = { E + ([A]/NDNW))-'. (3.26)

The graphical representation is not as simple as that for the [CHTII cycle, but still
informative. It is also shown in Fig. 3.8, which gives a plot of the [CHTXII efficiency
against x for the parameters specified earlier, and for E = 0.75. The term in the square
brackets [A] in Eq. (3.25) is linear with x, passing through the x, y points [l,
01; [ 1, (1 - E)];
+
[(p 1)/2,1/2], where l = 1 - [(p - 1)(1 - E ) / ( ~ - E l)] = -0.2.
The effect of varying E can also be interpreted from this type of diagram. For E = 1.0,
i.e. for a cycle [CHTIIXR,the maximum efficiency occurs when r = 1.0 (the 'square
bracket' line becomes tangent to the NDNW curve at x = 1.0). For high values of E
(greater than 0.5), the tangent meets the curve to the left of the maximum in NDNW,
whereas for low E the tangent point is to the right. For E = 0.5 the point [l, 01 is located at
[ - 001 and the 'square bracket' line becomes horizontal, touching the NDNW curve at its
maximum at r = r,; so that for E = 0.5, re = r,.
3.2.3. Discussion
The Hawthorne and Davis approach thus aids considerably our understanding of a/s
plant performance. The main point brought out by their graphical construction is that the
maximum efficiency for the simple [CHT], cycle occurs at high pressure ratio (above that
for maximum specific work); whereas the maximum efficiency for the recuperative cycle
[CHTX], occurs at low pressure ratio (below that for maximum specific work). This is a
fundamental point in gas turbine design.
Fuller analyses of a/s cycles embracing intercooling and reheating were given in a
comprehensive paper by Frost et al. [3], but the analysis is complex and is not reproduced
here.
3.3. The [CBTII open circuit plant-a general approach
In practical open circuit gas turbine plants with combustion, real gas effects are present
(in particular the changes in specific heats, and their ratio, with temperature), together with
combustion and duct pressure losses. We now develop some modifications of the a/s
analyses and their graphical presentations for such open gas turbine plants, with and
without heat exchangers, as an introduction to more complex computational approaches.
The Hawthorne and Davis analysis is first generalised for the [CBTIIopen circuit plant,
with fuel addition for combustion,f per unit air flow, changing the working fluid from air
in the compressor to gas products in the turbine, as indicated in Fig. 3.1 1. Real gas effects
are present in this open gas turbine plant; specific heats and their ratio are functions off
and T , and allowance is also made for pressure losses.
The flow of air through the compressor may be regarded as the compression of a gas
with properties ( c ~and~ ( y)a ) ~1 2(the
~ double subscript indicates that a mean is taken over
the relevant temperature range). The work required to compress the unit mass of air in the
compressor is then represented as
where x is now given by x = r('") and z = (ya)12/[(ya)12- 11.

The pressure loss through the combustion chamber is allowed for by a pressure loss
factor Ap23 = ( p 2 - p 3 ) / ~ 2so
, that (p3/p2)= 1 - (Ap/p)23. Similarly, the pressure loss
I 1
Fig. 3.1 1. T , s diagram for irreversible open circuit simple plant [CBvI.
factor through the turbine exhaust system is (ApIp)41 = (p4 - pl)/p4, and hence (pl/p4) =
1- (&/p)41*
The work generated by the turbine per unit mass of air after receiving combustion gas
of mass (1 + f ) and subjected to a pressure ratio of r[1 - [(1 - ( A ~ / P ) ~ may
~],
then be written approximately as
WT 25 (1 +f)%(Cpa)12T3[1 - (1 + @/X”)l/n, (3.28)
) ~ 8 = { [ ( ~ ) 3 4 - ~IX(AP/P)I/(Y~)M
where TJ = ( ~ p a ) d ( ~ p gand is small-
The appearance of n as the index of x in Eq. (3.28) needs to be justified. Combustion in
gas turbines usually involves substantial excess air and the molecular weight of the mixed
products is little changed from that of the air supplied, since nitrogen is the main
component gas for both air and products. Thus the mean gas constant (universal gas
constant divided by mean molecular weight) is virtually unchanged by the combustion. It
then follows that
The non-dimensional net work output (per unit mass of air) is then
NDNw = w/(cpa)12(T3 - TI)
1 + f ) / n ] [ 1 - (1
= {[a( + S)/Y] - ( x - l))/(P - l), (3.29)
and the ‘arbitrary overall efficiency’ of the plant (vo)is now defined, following Haywood
[41, as
70 = w/[-rnol, (3.30)
where [ -AH0] is the change of enthalpy at temperature To in isothermal combustion of a

mass of fuel f with unit air flow (i.e. in a calorific value process). In the combustion
process, assumed to be adiabatic,

[ha2 +&ol = Hg3 = (1 +f)hg3, (3.31)
where bois the specific enthalpy of the fuel supplied at To.
But from the calorific value process, with heat [-AHo] =f[CV], abstracted to restore
the combustion products to the temperature To,
h& +fhfo = H@ + [-AH01 = (1 +f)hgO + [-A&]. (3.32)
From Eqs. (3.31) and (3.32)
f[CVIo = W g 3 - HgO) - (ha2 - ha01 = (1 +f)(hg3 - hgo) - (ha2 - h,)
where the ambient temperature is now taken as identical to the compressor entry
temperature (Le. To = T I ) .The non-dimensional heat supplied is, therefore
= {[(I +f>(P - Wn’l - ( x - 1)MP - 11, (3.34)

where n‘ = ( ~ ~ ) 1 2 / ( ~ ~ ~ ) 1 3 .
The temperature rise in the combustion chamber may then be determined from
+
Eq. (3.33), in the approximate form (T3 - T2) = (uf b). Strictly u and b are functions of
the temperature of the reactants and the fuel-air ratiof. but fixed values are assumed to
cover a reasonable range of conditions. Accordingly, the fuel-air ratio may be expressed as
f = { T3 - TI [ 1 + ( x - 1)/7)c] - b}/u. (3.35)
Using this expression to determinef for given T3 and Tl, mean values of (yg)% and (cpg)34
for the turbine expansion may be determined from data such as those illustrated graphically
in Fig. 3.12. For the weak combustion used in most gas turbines, with excess air between
200 and 400%,f << 1. Strictly, for given T3 and Tl, the mean value of (cpg)34, and indeed
(y&, will vary with pressure ratio.
The (arbitrary) overall efficiency may be written as
70 = NDNWmHT
= ([cu(l +f>/nI[l - (1 + @/Y3 - (x - l)}/([(l +f)(P - l)/n’I - ( x - l)}.
(3.36)
Calculation of the specific work and the arbitrary overall efficiency may now be made
parallel to the method used for the ah cycle. The maximum and minimum temperatures
are specified, together with compressor and turbine efficiencies. A compressor pressure
ratio ( r ) is selected, and with the pressure loss coefficients specified, the corresponding
turbine pressure ratio is obtained. With the compressor exit temperature T2 known and T3
specified, the temperature change in combustion is also known, and the fuel-air ratiof
may then be obtained. Approximate mean values of specific heats are then obtained from
Fig. 3.12. Either they may be employed directly, or n and n’ may be obtained and used.
1.4
z
(I)
I
0
ti
1.3
v)
U
0
P
3g -
p E1.2 FUEL-AIR RATIO 0.0
“3
Y,
c
Y
-J
n
-- -FUELAIR RATIO 0.0135
0
1.1
I -FUEL-AIR RATIO 0.027
0
LL
E
n
v)
1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
TEMPERATURE K
Fig. 3.12. Specific heats and their ratios for ‘real’ gases-air and products of combustion (after Cohen et al.,
see Preface 171).
With turbine and compressor work determined, together with the ‘heat supplied’, the
arbitrary overall efficiency is obtained.
Thus there are three modifications to the ah efficiency analysis, involving (i) the
specific heats (n and n’), (ii) the fuel-air ratio f and the increased turbine mass flow
(1 +fl, and (iii) the pressure loss term 8. The second of these is small for most gas
turbines which have large air-fuel ratios and f is of the order of 1/100. The third,
which can be significant, can also be allowed for a modification of the a/s turbine
efficiency, as given in Hawthorne and Davis [I]. (However, this is not very
convenient as the isentropic efficiency then varies with r and x, leading to
substantial modifications of the Hawthome-Davis chart.)
The first modification, involving n and n’, is important and affects the Hawthome-
Davis chart. The compressor work is unchanged but the turbine work, and hence the
non-dimensional net work NDNW, are increased. The heat supplied term NDHT is
also changed. It should be noted here that the assumption n’ = (n l)/2, used by +
Horlock and Woods, is not generally valid, except at very low pressure ratios.
Guha [5] pointed out some limitations in the linearised analyses developed by Horlock
and Woods to determine the changes in optimum conditions with the three parameters n
(and n’),f and 6. Not only is the accurate determination of ( c ~ ~(and
) , hence
~ n’)important
but also the fuel-air ratio; although small, it cannot be assumed to be a constant as r is
varied. Guha presented more accurate analyses of how the optimum conditions are
changed with the introduction of specific heat variations with temperature and with the
fuel-air ratio.
Chapter 3. Basic guas turbine cycles 43
3.4. Computer calculations for open circuit gas turbines

Essentially, the analytical approach outlined above for the open circuit gas turbine
plants is that used in modem computer codes. However, gas properties, taken from tables
such as those of Keenan and Kaye [6], may be stored as data and then used directly in a
cycle calculation. Enthalpy changes are then determined directly, rather than by mean
specific heats over temperature ranges (and the estimation of n and n'), as outlined above.
A series of calculations for open circuit gas turbines, with realistic assumptions for
various parameters, have been made using a code developed by Young [7], using real gas
tables. These illustrate how the analysis developed in this chapter provides an
understanding of, and guidance to, the performance of the real practical plants. The
subscript G here indicates that the real gas effects have been included.
3.4.1. The [CBTIIG plant
Fig. 3.13 shows the overall efficiency for the [CBTIIG plant plotted against the
isentropic temperature ratio for various maximum temperatures T3 (and 6 = T3/T,,with
TI = 27°C (300 K)). The following assumptions are also made:
polytropic efficiency, qp = 0.9 for compressor and turbine;
pressure loss fraction in combustion 0.03;
fuel (methane) and air supplied at 1 bar, 27°C (300 K).
This figure may be compared with Fig. 3.3 (which showed the a / s efficiency of plant
[CHT], as a function of x only) and Fig. 3.9 (which showed the a/s efficiency of
60
50
40
z
!
0
30
W
A
2w> m
0
IO
0
1 I.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
ISENTROPIC TEMPERATURE RATD
Fig.3.1 3. Overall efficiencyof [CBTIlocycle as a function of pressure ratio r with 7'3 (and temperature ratio e) as
a parameter.
55
50
48
5
t2i u
$35
Y
Y
4 m
2 25
z 20
15
10
800 800 looo 1200 1400 1600 1800 Moo 2200 2400
MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE ( "C)
Fig.3.14. Overall efficiency of [ C B V Icycle

~ as a function of temperature T3 with pressure ratio r as a parameter.
plant [CHTII as a function of x and e). Fig. 3.13 is quite similar to Fig. 3.9, where the
optimum pressure ratio increases with T3,but the values are now more realistic.
The [CBTIIGefficiency is replotted in Fig. 3.14, against (T3/T1)with pressure ratio as a
parameter. There is an indication in Fig. 3.14 that there may be a limiting maximum
temperature for the highest thermal efficiency, and this was observed earlier by Horlock
et al. [8] and Guha [9]. It is argued by the latter and by Wilcock et al. [ 101 that this is a real
gas effect not apparent in the a/s calculations such as those shown in Fig. 3.9. This point
will be dealt with later in Chapter 4 while discussing the turbine cooling effects.
3.4.2. Comparison of several types of gas turbine plants
A set of calculations using real gas tables illustrates the performance of the several
types of gas turbine plants discussed PreViOUSlY, the [CBTIIG,[CBTX]IG,[ C B ~ T X ] I G ,
[CICBTXIIGand [CICBTBTXIIGplants. Fig. 3.15 shows the overall efficiency of the five
plants, plotted against the overall pressure ratio ( r ) for T3 = 1200°C. These calculations
have been made with assumptions similar to those made for Figs. 3.13 and 3.14. In
addition (where applicable), equal pressure ratios are assumed in the LP and HP
turbomachinery, reheating is set to the maximum temperature and the heat exchanger
effectiveness is 0.75.
The first point to note is that the classic Hawthorne and Davis argument is reinforced-
that the optimum pressure ratio for the [CBT]IGplant (r = 45) is very much higher than
that for the [CBTXIIGplant ( r = 9). (The optimum r for the latter would decrease if the
effectiveness ( E ) of the heat exchanger were increased, but it would increase towards that
of the [CBTIIGplant if E fell towards zero.)
While the lowest and highest optimum pressure ratios are for these two plants, the
addition of reheating and intercooling increases the optimum pressure ratios above that of
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PRESSURE RATIO
Fig. 3.15. Overall efficiencies of several irreversible gas turbine plants (with T
, = 120O0C).
the simple recuperative plant. The highest efficiency (with a high optimum pressure ratio)
occurs for the most complex [CICBTBTXII~plant, but the graph of efficiency (7)) with
pressure ratio is very flat at the high pressure ratios, of 30-55 (7)approaches the efficiency
of a plant with heat supplied at maximum temperature and heat rejected at minimum
temperature).
Finally, carpet plots of efficiency against specific work are shown in Fig. 3.16, for all
these plants. The increase in efficiency due to the introduction of heat exchange, coupled
with reheating and intercooling, is clear. Further the substantial increases in specific work
associated with reheating and intercooling are also evident.
3.5. Discussion
The discussion of the performance of gas turbine plants given in this chapter has
developed through four steps: reversible a/s cycle analysis; irreversible a/s cycle analysis;
open circuit gas turbine plant analysis with approximations to real gas effects; and open
circuit gas turbine plant computations with real gas properties. The important conclusions
are as follows:
The initial conclusion for the basic Joule-Brayton reversible cycle [CHTIR, that
thermal efficiency is a function of pressure ratio ( r )only, increasing with t-,is shown to
have major limitations. The introduction of irreversibility in a h cycle analysis shows
that the maximum temperature has a significant effect; thermal efficiency increases
with (T3/T,),and so does the optimum pressure ratio for maximum efficiency.
The a/s analyses show quite clearly that the introduction of a heat exchanger leads to
higher efficiency at low pressure ratio, and that the optimum pressure ratio for the
200 Joo Qoo 500 600 700 800

SPECIFIC WORK Mlkg
Fig. 3.16. Overall efficiency and specific work of several irreversible gaq turbine plants (with T,, = 1200°C).
[CHTXIr cycle is much lower than that of the [CHTII cycle. The optimum pressure
ratio for maximum specific work falls between these two pressure ratios.
(c) The major benefits of the addition of reheating and intercooling to the unrecuperated
plants are to increase the specific work. However, when these features are coupled with
heat exchange the full benefits on efficiency are obtained.
References
[ l ] Hawthorne, W.R. and Davis, G.de V. (1956). Calculating gas turbine performance, Engineering 181,
361 -367.
[2] Horlock, J.H. and Woods, W.A. (2000), Determination of the optimum performance of gas turbines, Proc.
Instn. Mech. Engrs. J. Mech. Engng. Sci. 214(C), 243-255.
[3] Frost, T.H., Agnew, B. and Anderson, A. (1992). Optimisation for Brayton-Joule gas turbine cycles, Proc.
Instn. Mech. Engrs. Part A, J. Power Energy 206(A4), 283-288.
[4] Haywood, R.W. (1991). Analysis of Engineering Cycles, 4th edn, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
[5] Guha, A. (2003), Effect of internal combustion and real gas properties on the optimum performance of gas
present status turbines, Instn. Mech. Engrs., in press.
161 Keenan, J.H. and Kaye, J. (1945). Gas Tables, Wiley, New York.
[7] Young, J.B. (1998). Computer-based Project on Combined-CyclePower Generation. Cambridge University
Engineering Department Report.
[8] Horlock, J.H., Watson, D.T. and Jones, T.V. (2001), Limitations on gas turbine performance imposed by
large turbine cooling flows, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 123(3), 487-494.
[9] Guha, A. (2000), Performance and optimization of gas turbines with real gas effects, Proc.Instn. Mech.
Engnrs. Part A 215,507-512.
[IO] Wilcock, R.C., Young, J.B. and Horlock, J.H. (2002), Real Gas Effects on Gas Turbine Plant Efficiency.
ASME Paper GT-2002-30517.
Chapter 4
CYCLE EFFICIENCY WITH TURBINE COOLING (COOLING

FLOW RATES SPECIFIED)
4.1. Introduction
It was pointed out in Chapter 1 that the desire for higher maximum temperature (Tmm)
in thermodynamic cycles, coupled with low heat rejection temperature (Tmin),is
essentially based on attempting to emulate the Carnot cycle, in which the efficiency
increases with (TmJTmi,,).
It has been emphasised in the earlier chapters that the thermal efficiency of the gas
turbine increases with its maximum nominal temperature, which was denoted as T3.
Within limits this statement is true for all gas turbine-based cycles and can be sustained,
although not indefinitely, as long as the optimum pressure ratio is selected for any value of
T3; further the specific power increases with T3. However, in practice higher maximum
temperature requires improved combustion technology, particularly if an increase in
harmful emissions such as NO, is to be avoided.
Thus, the maximum temperature is an important parameter of overall cycle
performance. But for modem gas turbine-based systems, which are cooled, a precise
definition of maximum temperature is somewhat difficult, and Mukhejee [l] suggested
three possible definitions. The first is the combustor outlet temperature (Tcot)which is
based on the average temperature at exit from the combustion chamber. However, in a
practical system, this does not take into account the effect of cooling flows that are
introduced subsequently (e.g. in the first turbine row of guide vanes). So a second
definition involving the rotor inlet temperature (T",) has tended to be used more widely
within the gas turbine industry. T", is based on the averaged temperature taken at the
exit of the first nozzle guide vane row, NGV (ie. at entry to the first rotor section), and
this can be calculated assuming that the NGV cooling air completely mixes with the
mainstream. A third definition, the so-called I S 0 firing temperature, Trso, can be
calculated from the combustion equations and a known fuel-air ratio, but this definition
is less frequently used (it should theoretically yield the same temperature as Tcot).
T,, and T", are both important in the understanding of relative merits of candidate
cooling systems, and we shall later emphasise the difference between T,, and Tfit.Without
improvements in materials and/or heat transfer, it is doubtful whether much higher T",
values can be achieved in practice; as a result, a practical limit on plant efficiency may be
near, before the stoichiometric limit is reached. Below we refer to T,,, as T3,the maximum
temperature in cycle analyses, and Tfitas Ts, the temperature after cooling of the first
NGV row.
In this chapter, cycle calculations are made with assumed but realistic estimates of the
probable turbine cooling air requirements which include some changes from the uncooled
thermal efficiencies. Indeed it is suggested that for modem gas turbines there may be a
limit on the combustion temperature for maximum thermal efficiency [2,3].
As discussed in Chapter 3, analysis of uncooled gas turbine cycles was developed in
three stages:
(a) for air-standard (ds)reversible cycles;
(b) for ds irreversible cycles;
(c) for real gas irreversible cycles.
By introducing the effects of turbine cooling a similar development is followed in this
chapter. Here, we look initially at the effect of turbine cooling in
(a) in reversible ds cycles; and
(b) in irreversible a/s cycles.
For the purpose of the cycle analyses (a) and (b), the following assumptions are made:
(i) cooling is of the open type, with a known air flow fraction ($) first cooling a blade
row and then mixing with the mainstream; and (ii) complete mixing takes place, under
adiabatic conditions, at constant static pressure and low Mach number (and therefore
constant stagnation pressure). Before moving on to more realistic cycle calculations (but
with the cooling air quantity ($) assumed to be known), we consider the irreversibilities
in the turbine cooling process, showing how changes in stagnation pressure and
temperature (and entropy) are related to $. These changes are then used in cycle
calculations for which $ is again specified, but real gas effects and stagnation pressure
losses are included.
Subsequently, in Chapter 5, we shall show how the cooling quantities may be
determined; we give even more practical cycle calculations, with these cooling quantities
($) being determined practically rather than specified ab initio. But for the discussions in
this chapter, in which we assess how important cooling is in modifying the overall
thermodynamics of gas turbine cycle analysis, it is assumed that $ is known.
The nomenclature introduced by Hawthorne and Davis [4] is adopted and; gas turbine
cycles are referred to as follows: CHT, CBT, CHTX, CBTX, where C denotes compressor;
H, air heater; B, burner (combustion); T, turbine; X, heat exchanger. R and I indicate
reversible and irreversible. The subscripts U and C refer to uncooled and cooled turbines in
a cycle, and subscripts 1,2, M indicate the number of cooling steps (one, two or multi-step
cooling). Thus, for example, [CI-TJI,-2 indicates an irreversible cooled simple cycle with
two steps of turbine cooling. The subscript Tis also used to indicate that the cooling air has
been throttled from the compressor delivery pressure.
4.2. Air-standard cooled cycles
The initial analysis [5] is presented by reference to closed d s cycles using a perfect gas
as a working fluid in an externally heated plant. As for the uncooled cycles studied in
Chapter 3, it is argued subsequently that many of the conclusions reached in this way
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (cooling flow rates specified) 49
remain substantially valid for open cycles with combustion, i.e. for those involving
real gases with variable composition and specific heats varying with temperature.
The arguments of this section are developed sequentially, starting with internally
reversible cycles and then considering irreversibilities. Here we concentrate on the gas
turbine with simple closed or open cycle (CHT, CBT).
4.2.1. Cooling of intentally reversible cycles
4.2.1.1. Cycle [CHTIRC, with single step cooling

Consider first a cycle with reversible compression and expansion, but one in which,
after a unit flow of the compressed gas has been heated externally, it is cooled by mixing
with the remaining compressor delivery air (+) before entering the turbine in the internal
cycle, which is otherwise reversible (Fig. 4.1 shows the T , s chart). This single step of
cooling is representative of cooling the nozzle guide vanes of the first stage in a real gas
turbine plant, reducing the rotor inlet temperature from T3 = T,, to T5= Tfit.
We assume low velocity (constant pressure) mixing of the ‘extra’ cooling gas mass flow
(+) at absolute temperature T2 with the gas stream (of unit mass flow), which has been
heated to the maximum temperature T3 = TB.From the steady flow energy equation, if
both streams have the same specific heat (c,), it follows that
(4.1)
where T5is the resulting temperature in the mixed stream, before it is expanded through
+
the turbine. The turbine work output is now WT = (1 +)cpT5[(l - (l/x)], and the
QB I
Fig. 4.1. Temperature-entropy diagram for single-step cooling-reversible cycle [CHTI, (after Ref. [5]).
+
compressor work is Wc = (1 +)cpT1(x- 1). But the heat supplied, before the mixing
process, to the stream of unit mass flow is still Q B = cp(T3- T2),which from Eq. (4.1)
may be written as
QB = (1 + +kp(T5 - T2)- (4.2)
Hence, the internal thermal efficiency is
(T)RCI= (WT- WCYQB

= I(1++)cpT5[1-(1~X)l-(1++)cpTI(X- l)M1++)cp(T5-T2))
= [(o‘Ix) - 1 3 ( -
~ i)/[(e’ - 1) - (X - i)], (4.3)
where 8’= Ts/Tl.But this expression can be simplified as
(7)RCI -(l/x)l=(?))RU~ (4.4)
which is independent of 9’.
Thus the cooled ‘reversible’cycle [CHT]R,-~with a first rotor inlet temperature, T5, will
have an internal thermal efficiency exactly the same as that of the uncooled cycle [CHT],
with a higher turbine entry temperature T3 = TB,and the same pressure ratio. There is no
penalty on efficiency in cooling the turbine gases at entry; but note that the specific work
output, w = (wT - wc)/cpTl= [(e’/$ - l](x - l), is reduced, since 8’ < 8.
This result requires some explanation. An argument was given by Denton [6], who
+
pointed out that the expansion of the mixed gas (1 +) from T5 to T6 may be considered
as a combination of unit flow through the turbine from T3to T4,and an expansion of a flow
of +from T2 to T I ,through a ‘reversed’ compressor (Fig. 4.2). The cycle [1,2,3,5,6,1] of
Fig. 4.2a is equivalent to two parallel cycles as indicated in Fig. 4.2b: a cycle [1,2,3,4,1]
with unit circulation; plus another cycle passing through the state points [1,2,2,1] with a
circulation $. The second cycle has the same efficiency as the first (but vanishingly small
work output) so that the combined cooled cycle has the same efficiency as each of the two
1
p
Y
3
S
T*
T
B
Fig. 4.2. Temperature-entropy diagram for single-step coolingquivalent two cycles (after Ref. [5]).
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (cooling jlow rates specified) 51
component cycles. This interpretation will also be useful when we consider the internally
irreversible cycles later.
There is an apparent paradox here that as the cooled cycle contains an irreversible
process (constant pressure mixing), its efficiency might be expected to be lower than the
original uncooled cycle. The answer to this paradox follows from consideration of all
the irreversibilities in the cycle and we refer back to the analysis of Section 3.2.1.1, for the
rational efficiency of the [CHT]Ru cycle. The irreversibility associated with the heat
supply is unchanged, as given in Eq. (3.3), but the irreversibility associated with the heat
rejection QA between temperatures T6 and TI = TA becomes
(4.5)
The irreversibility in the adiabatic mixing is

IM = TA[(1 + $h- s3 - @21 = CpT~[[$ln(TdTd]- ln(TB/T5)19 (4.6)
since low Mach number and constant pressure mixing have been assumed.
The sum of the irreversibilities ZA and ZM is thus
IA + IM = QA - TAcp ln[(T6/TA)(TB/T5)1 + @pTA ln[(T5/T2)(TAIT6)1* (4.7)
But, since TB/T4= T5/T6 = T2/TA= x, this equation becomes
IB + IM = QA - C ~ Tln(T4/TA),
A (4.8)
which is the same as the irreversibility associated with heat rejection in the uncooled cycle
[ c H T ] R U given in Chapter 3, Eq. (3.4). Further the maximum work, W ,,, is unchanged
from that given in the [cHT]Ru cycle, as is the rational efficiency. The sum of all the
irreversibilities are the same in the two cycles, [CHTIRuand [cHT]Rc, but they are broken
down and distributed differently. This point is amplified by Young and Wilcock [7].
4.2.1.2. Cycle [CHTIRc2 with two step cooling

A reversible cycle with turbine expansion split into two steps (high pressure, HP,and
low pressure, LP) is illustrated in the T, s diagram of Fig. 4.3. The mass flow through the
heater is still unity and the temperature rises from T2 to T3 = TB; hence the heat supplied
QBis unchanged, as is the overall isentropic temperature ratio (x). But cooling air of mass
flow &, is used at entry to the first HP turbine (of isentropic temperature ratio xH) and
additional cooling of mass flow & is introduced subsequently into the LP turbine (of
isentropic temperature ratio xL). The total cooling flow is then $ = &. +
As is shown in Fig. 4.3a, the lower pressure cooling is fed by air JIL at state 7, at a
corresponding pressure p7 and a temperature T7, and this mixes with air (1 &)from the +
HP exhaust at temperature TS to produce a temperature Ts as indicated in the diagram. The
+
full turbine gas flow (1 I,+) then expands through a pressure ratio xL to a temperature T,-I
and subsequently rejects heat, finishing at TI = TA.
But this expansion through the LP turbine may be considered as two parallel
+
expansions. The first is of mass flow (1 &,) from the temperature T9 to a temperature T6
+
(a continuation of the expansion of (1 &,) from 5 to 9); and the second is of mass flow
& through a reversed compressor from state 7 to state 1 (which cancels out the
T 3 T 3
TB
1 TA 1
+
compression of & from I to 7). An equivalent cycle of mass flow (1 &) through the
states [ 1,2,5,6] is thus produced, with the state 5 formed after mixing of (unit) heated gas at
temperature T3 with cooling air (CIH at temperature T2. But the efficiency of that cycle
[ 1,2,5,6] is the same as that of the original uncooled cycle [ 1,2,3,4], with a unit mass flow.
Thus, the original conclusion that single step cooling does not change the efficiency of a
reversible simple cycle [cHT]R", is extended; two step cooling, with air abstracted from
the compressor at the appropriate pressure, also does not change the thermal efficiency,
(r))RC? = [1 - (l/x)l = (r))RU- (4.9)
However, it is important to note that this conclusion becomes invalid if the air for cooling
the LP turbine is taken from compressor delivery (as in Fig. 4.3b) and then throttled at
constant temperature (T2 = T7t) to the lower pressure before being mixed with the gas
leaving the HP turbine. The thermal efficiency drops as another internal irreversibility is
introduced; it can be shown [5] that
($RC?T - l)l48 - 4.
= (TJ)~)RU- [ ~ ( x H (4.10)
The drop in thermal efficiency due to throttling the LP air is very small. For example, a
cycle [cHT]Rcz with a pressure ratio of r = 36.27 (x = 2.79) has a thermal efficiency of
( 7 ) ) ~=
~ 2( r ) ) ~ " = 0.642. For the cycle [CHT]RC~T = 0.05 and XH = 1.22, 8 = 6,
with I+~L
the second term in Eq.(4.10) is only 0.003, i.e. the thermal efficiency drops from 0.642 to
(T)RCZT = 0.639.
4.2.1.3. Cycle [CHTIRcMwith multi-step cooling

The argument developed in Section 4.2.1.2 can be extended for three or more steps of
cooling, to give the same efficiency as the uncooled cycle. Indeed the efficiency will be the
same for multi-step cooling, with infinitesimal amounts of air abstracted at an
infinite number of points along the compressor to cool each infinitesimal turbine stage
at the required pressures.
Chapter 4. Cycle eflciency with turbine cooling (cooling pow rates specified) 53
But another approach to multi-step cooling [8, 91 involves dealing with the turbine
expansion in a manner similar to that of analysing a polytropic expansion. Fig. 4.4 shows
+
gas flow (1 JI) at ( p , T ) entering an elementary process made up of a mixing process at
constant pressure p , in which the specific temperature drops from temperature T to
temperature T’, followed by an isentropic expansion in which the pressure changes to
+
(p dp) and the temperature changes from T’ to (T dT). +
+
In the first mixing process, the entry mainstream flow (1 $) mixes with cooling flow
dJI drawn from the compressor at temperature Tcomp.Thus, if cpis constant, then
(1 + JI+ dJIkp7J = (1 + JIkpT + d@pTcomp,
and
In the second process of isentropic expansion
cJ(T + dT) - 7‘1 = vdp, (4.12)
where v is the specific volume.

Subtracting Eq. (4.11) from Eq. (4.12), it then follows that in the overall elementary
+ +
process, ( p , T, 1 $1 to ( p dp, T dT, 1 $ d$), + + +
+
cpdT cp(p- TmmP)dJI/(l JI) = vdp, + (4.13)
(4.14)
I
S
Fig. 4.4. Temperature-entropy diagram for multi-step cooling-reversible cycle [CHTIRW(after Ref. [5]).
There are two approaches to integrating this equation:

(a) the three terms can be integrated separately to give a p , T, $ relation; and
(b) two of the three terms can be brought together if an expression for d@dT is known; a
more familiar polytropic p , T type of relation can then be obtained.
In the first approach [T'- T,,,,]/T in Eq. (4.14) may be written approximately as
[ 1 - (Tcomp/T)],for a process which does not deviate too far from the original (uncooled)
isentropic expansion; and further (TcomdT')may be approximated to T2/T3= x/8. Then
Eq. (4.14) may be integrated to give
T/p(y-'yy = C/[1 + $I6, (4.15)
where 6 = 1 - (x/f3). The cooling is carried out over the full turbine expansion, to an exit
state (PI, TE), so
i& = TE/Tl= (O/x)/[l + I/+$ < (Wx). (4.16)
In the second approach, a value for & is not assumed but a relationship for d$/dT is
determined from semi-empirical expressions for the amount of cooling air that is
required in an (elementary) turbine blade row. One such relationship, derived in Ref. [5],
gives
&llc1/[1 + $1 = -AdT/T, (4.17)
where A = 2Cw+[1 - (x/@)]/[@(y - 1)M3 = 2Cw+6/[@(y - 1)M,3, in which Cand w +
are parameters obtained from the definition of the blade cooling effectiveness, Muis the
blade Mach number and @ = cPAT/U2is the stage loading coefficient, with AT the
(positive) temperature drop across the stage.
Eq. (4.14) can then be integrated to give
TIPu = constant, (4.18)
where I+ = ( y - 1)/$1 - A) and it follows that
i& = TE/TI = 8/r'. (4.19)
4.2.1.4. The turbine exit condition (for reversible cooled cycles)

There is a link between the thermal efficiency and the turbine exit temperature TE. It
results from expressing the thermal efficiency of the cycle in the form
7 = [ 1 - QA/&] = 1 - (l/X), (4.20)
and it has been argued that this equation is valid for all the reversible cycles considered
above (except for the second step cooling by throttled compressor delivery air,
[CWIRCZT).
The heat supplied is Q B = cp[T3- T2], and for each of these reversible cycles the heat
+
rejected will be Q A = cp(1 I/+)(TE - TI), Thus, the efficiency is given by
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (cooling frow rates specified) 55
where & is the total amount of cooling air supplied from the compressor. The exhaust
temperature TEis therefore a function of & and, if I& is neglected, then it is given by
= TE/T~
=1 + [(e - x)/x(~+ &)I = (e/x)(i - &)+ k. (4.22)
This expression for & can also be obtained directly from Eqs. (4.16) and (4.19) [5].
4.2.2. Cooling of irreversible cycles
From the study of uncooled cycles in Chapter 3, we next move to consider irreversible
cycles with compressor and turbine isentropic efficiencies, qc and %, respectively.
The a/s efficiency of the irreversible uncooled cycle [CHTInrwas given in Eq.(3.13) as
(rl)IU = [(a- x)(x - l)l/[X(P -4 1 , (4.23)
+
where a! = qcw8 and /3 = 1 qc(8 - l), with 8 = T3/T,,and this will be used as a
comparator for the modified (cooled) cycles. As a numerical illustration, with
T3 = 1800K, T I = 300 K (8= 6.0), = 0.9, qc = 0.8, (Y = 4.32, and /3 = 5, the
uncooled thermal efficiency (q)nris a maximum of 0.4442, at x = 2.79 (r = 36.27).
compared with the reversible efficiency, (v)~"= 0.642. The expression for efficiency,
Eq. (4.23), is modified when turbine cooling takes place.
4.2.2.1. Cycle with single-step cooling [CHT],c,

Consider again the simplest case of compressor delivery air (mass flow $, at T2),mixed
at constant pressure with unit mass flow of combustion products (at T3)to give mass flow
+
(1 I,+) at T5 (see the T ,s diagram of Fig. 4.5). The compression and expansion processes
are now irreversible.
Again, following Denton [6], the turbine expansion from T5 to Ts may be interpreted as
being equivalent to an expansion of unit flow from T3 to T4 together with an expansion
1
~~ ~ ~
Fig. 4.5. Temperature-entropy diagram for single-step cooling-irreversible cycle [CHT],,-, (after Ref. [ 5 ] ) .
+
of gas flow from T2 to T7. However, the work input to compress the fraction of the +
mainstream compressor flow is not now effectively cancelled by the latter expansion. The
cycle [ 1,2,3,5,6,1]is thus equivalent to a combination of two cycles: one of unit mass flow
following the original uncooled cycle state points [1,2,3,4,1] (and with the same efficiency
( v ) ~and
) ; another of mass flow +following the state points [1,2,2,7,1].The second cycle
effectively has a negative work output and a heat supply which in the limit is zero.
Analytically, the efficiency of this combination of the two cycles may be expressed as
(V)lCl = I(T3 - T4) + rcr(T2 - T7)- (1 + * v 2 - T d W , - T2)
= (V)IIJ - 4 V 7 - TiY(T3 - T2) = (V)IU - $ 4- ~

1)/(B - x), (4.24)
where E = [l - (%vc/x) - % (%/x)I. +
Thus the efficiency of the cooled cycle is now less than that of the uncooled cycle by an
amount which is directly proportional to the cooling air used ($1. The magnitude of the
correction term to the uncooled efficiency is small for a cycle with compressors and
turbines of high isentropic efficiency. For a cooled version of the uncooled cycle
+
considered earlier, with = 0.15 and x = 2.79, the second term on the right hand side of
Eq. (4.24) is 0.0200, the efficiency dropping from ( T ) = ~ 0.4442 to (q)lcl = 0.4242.
Thus cooling apparently has a relatively small effect on cycle efficiency, even when the
amount of cooling flow needed becomes quite large. But Eq. (4.24) indicates that for a
+
given the reduction in efficiency should also decrease as the maximum temperature
increases, for a given pressure ratio.
4.2.2.2. Eficiency as a function of combustion temperature or rotor inlet temperature

( f o r single-step cooling)
An important point needs to be re-emphasised, that the cooled efficiency (q),cl with
'combustion' temperature (T, = Tat) is the same as the uncooled efficiency (7)m at the
'rotor inlet temperature' (T5= T ~ , )
Fig. 4.6 shows diagrammatically both ( v ) and ~ ( v ) ~ plotted
c~ against maximum
temperature (in Fig. 4.6a). The efficiency of the cooled gas turbine ( V ) ~ C (point
, A) is less
rl
T
5 l3
a t
Fig. 4.6. Efficiency plots for irreversible uncooled and single-step cooled cycles (after Ref. [5]). (a) Efficiency
against maximum temperature. (b) Eficiency against nondimensional maximum temperature. (c) Efficiency
against combustion temperature (T3)and rotor inlet temperature (T5).
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (coolingflow rates specified) 57
than the efficiency of the uncooled turbine (q)121at the same T3 (point B), as given in
Eq. (4.24). But it is the same as the efficiency of the uncooled turbine ( q )at~point C, at a
maximum temperature T5 (the rotor inlet temperature of the cooled turbine). Here the
analysis of Section 4.2.2.1, for a/s cycles with constant specific heats, is developed further,
to find the slopes of the curves (aq/a/ae), at all the three points A, B and C;the slopes are
then used to determine the relations between the expressions for (q)~cl and ( q ) 1 ~ .
An approximate relation for the cooling fraction $ obtained by El-Masri [lo], and
derived in Appendix A, is also used,
$= KIT3 - Tbll/[Tbl - T217 (4.25)
where Tbl is the allowable (constant) blade temperature, T2 is the compressor delivery
(coolant) temperature and K is a constant (approximately 0.05). Differentiation of
Eq. (4.24) at constant x (and T2),and using Eq. (4.25), yields
ra(~)lcl/ae]x= EW(X - w ( p - X? + E ~ -X i ) ~ 1 {- [(p - X Y V ~ I M ~- x12,

(4.26)
where T = (0, - &), with = Tbl/TIassumed constant. The first term on the right hand
side gives the rate of increase of thermal efficiency in the absence of cooling, [a(q),,/a 01,.
After some algebra [5], it follows that
[a(7))ICl/a e], )A =( - K , { [a(q)lU/a e], B* (4.27)
So in Fig. 4.6a, the slope of the curve at A is (1 - K ) times the slope of the (q)rU
curve at B. (q)Iclthus increases with T3at a smaller rate than (7)~. Eq.(4.27) may then be
integrated to (non-dimensional) temperature 6, from @.,I where = 0, and the uncooled
and cooled efficiencies are the same, [ ( q ) I U ] b l = [(q)I(-llbl = (&I.
Thus
(q)ICl - (q)b1 = (1 - K)[(r))lU - (q)bll, (4.28)
or
(q)ICI = (1 - K)(q)lU + K(?l)hl- (4.29)
as illustrated in Fig. 4.6b. Hence
= ( v ) l U - (rl)ICl = K[(q)lU - ( q ) b l ] * (4.30)
An alternative approach is shown in Fig. 4.612. The cooled efficiency (q)lcl may be
presented as a unique function of the rotor inlet temperature (T5), for a given x and
component efficiencies. But from the El-Masri expression, Q. (4.25), it can be deduced
that the cooling air quantity $is a function of the combustion temperature T3, for a given x
(and T2)and a selected blade temperature Tbl, so that from the steady flow energy equation
for the mixing process, there is a value of T3 corresponding to the rotor inlet temperature
Ts. Analytically, we may therefore state that (q)IcI=f ( T s )and ( ~ 7 =) f (~ T~3 ) ,but taking
note that Ts = f ( T 3 ) .Thus, uncooled and cooled efficiencies may be plotted against two
horizontal scales, T3 and Ts, as indicated in Fig. 4.6c, which results in a single line. This
point is further discussed in Section 4.4.
4.2.2.3. Cycle with two step cooling [CHTIIC~

For two step cooling, now with irreversible compression and expansion, Fig. 4.7 shows
that the turbine entry temperature is reduced from T3 to T5 by mixing with the cooling air
&+ taken from the compressor exit, at state 2, pressurep2, temperature T2 (Fig. 4.7a). After
+
expansion to temperature T9,the turbine gas flow (1 &+)is mixed with compressor air at
state 7 (mass flow JIL) abstracted at the same pressure p7 with temperature T7,to give a
+ +
cooled gas flow (1 I+!+, JIL) at temperature Ts. This gas is then expanded to
temperature Tl0.
It may be shown [5] that
7hc2 = ( h ~
- [&I& - 1) + (CILEL(XL - I)I/(P - x), (4.31)
where sL= [l - ( m ~ / & - +
~ r) ) ~ (m/xL)].It has been assumed here that x >> xH, so
that the efficiencies qc and are the same over the isentropic temperature ratios x and xL.
For the a/s example quoted earlier, with this form of two stage cooling (with x = 2.79,
xH = 1.22, &+ = 0.1, JIL = 0.05), the thermal efficiency is reduced from 0.4442
(uncooled) to 0.4257, i.e. by 0.0185, still not a significant reduction. If the second step
of cooling uses compressor delivery air rather than air taken at the appropriate pressure
along the compressor, then the analysis proceeds as before, except that the expansion work
for the processes 7, 11 in Fig. 4.7a is replaced by that corresponding to 7', 11' in Fig. 4.7b.
It may be shown [5] that the efficiency may then be written as
?hC2 = ( 7 ) l U - { @(x - 1) - & ( E - EL) - mtk(xH - I)}/(@ - x). (4.32)
The second term in the curly brackets is very small indeed and may be ignored; the last
term in these brackets effectively represents the throttling loss in this irreversible cycle.
For the numerical example the cooled efficiency becomes 0.4205, a reduction of 0.0237
from ( T / ) ~ "= 0.4442. The extra loss in efficiency for throttling the cooling air from
compressor discharge to the appropriate pressure at the LP turbine entry is thus 0.0052 for
the numerical example, which is again quite small.
T 3 T 3
TB
S S
a b
Fig. 4.7. Temperam-entropy diagram for two step cooling-irreversible cycle. (a) Cooling air taken at
appropriate pressures. (b) Cooling air throttled from compressor exit (after Ref. [ 5 ] ) .
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (coolingpow rates specified) 59
4.2.2.4. Cycle with multi-step cooling [ C H T I I ~ ~

The two step cooling example given above can in theory be extended to multi-step
cooling of the turbine. It is more convenient to treat the turbine expansion as a
modification of normal polytropic expansion; the analysis is essentially an adaptation of
that given in Section 4.2.1.3 for the multi-step cooled turbine cycle.
If the polytropic efficiency in the absence of cooling is qp,then it may be shown [ 5 ] that
T/p' = C/(1 + (4.33)
where u = ( y - I)qp/yand 6 = 1 - ( d e ) . At the exit state E,
TEITI = O/ra(l + &)'. (4.34)
Alternatively,
~ / p=~constant,
' (4.35)
where u' = ( y - l)q,/Hl - A), and A is obtained from heat transfer analysis as indicated
earlier. A 'modified' polytropic efficiency is dp= qp/(l- A), so that u /= dP(y - l)/y.
The turbine temperature at exit is then given by
TE/Tl = O / F ' . (4.36)

Clearly, if A is zero (no heat transfer), then the normal polytropic relation holds. A point of
interest is that if qp = ( 1 - A) then dP= 1 and the expansion becomes isentropic (but not
reversible adiabatic).
4.2.2.5. Comment
For the various reversible cycles described in Section 4.2.1, the thermal efficiency was
the same, independent of the number of cooling steps. This is not the case for the
irreversible cycles described in this section. Both the thermal efficiency and the turbine
exit temperature depend on the number and nature of cooling steps (whether the cooling
air is throttled or not).
43. Open cooling of turbine blade rowdetailed fluid mechanics

and thermodynamics
4.3. I . Introduction
The preliminary a/s analyses of turbine cooling described above contained two
assumptions:
(i) open cooling with the cooling fraction known;
(ii) adiabatic mixing at constant pressure (low velocities were assumed, stagnation and
static conditions being the same).
In Chapter 5 (and Appendix A), the detailed fluid mechanics and thermodynamics
involved in cooling an individual turbine blade row are discussed, enabling JI to be
determined so that computer calculations for ‘real’ plants can be made. Here we continue
to assume that the cooling fraction is known, but use a computer code based on real gas
data to undertake parametric estimates of plant performance (the code developed by
Young [ 111 was employed, as in Chapter 3 for uncooled cycles).
We concentrate here on open loop cooling in which compressor air mixes with the
mainstream after cooling the blade row, the system most widely used in gas turbine plants
(but note that a brief reference to closed loop steam cooling in combined cycles is made
later, in Chapter 7). For a gas turbine blade row, such as the stationary entry nozzle guide
vane row where most of the cooling is required, the approach first described here (called
the ‘simple’ approach) involves the following:
(a) assuming a value of +, use of the steady flow energy equation to determine the
overall change in the mainstream flow temperature from combustion temperature to
rotor inlet temperature;
(b) determining the magnitude of the stagnation pressure drop involved in the process
(which is also dependent on the magnitude of +).
From (a) and (b), the stagnation pressure and temperature can thus be calculated at exit
from the cooled row; they can then be used to study the flow through the next (rotor) row.
From there on a similar procedure may be followed (for a rotating row the relative (To),,
and (po),, replace the absolute stagnation properties). In this way, the work output from
the complete cooled turbine can be obtained for use within the cycle calculation, given the
cooling quantities +.
Young and Wilcock [7] have recently provided an alternative to this simple approach.
They also follow step (a), but rather than obtaining po as in (b) they determine the
constituent entropy increases (due to the various irreversible thermal and mixing effects).
Essentially, they determine the downstream state from the properties To and the entropy s,
rather than To and po. This approach is particularly convenient if the rational efficiency of
the plant is sought. The lost work or the irreversibility ( 1 1 = TOEAS)may be subtracted
from the ideal work [ - AGO] to obtain the actual work output and hence the rational
efficiency,
(4.37)
These two approaches may be shown to be thermodynamically equivalent and, given the
same assumptions, will lead to identical results for the state downstream of a cooled row
(if the input conditions are the same-see the published discussion of Ref. 171). But the
Young and Wilcock method gives a fuller understanding of the details of the cooling
process.
Here we first describe the ‘simple’ approach, assuming that J/,I is known, and describe
how po and To downstream of the cooled row are obtained (steps (a) and (b) above). We
then briefly describe the Young/Wilcock approach which leads to the determination and
summation of the component entropy increases, again for a given +.
We defer to Chapter 5 (and Appendix A) a description of how the required cooling
+
fraction (and the heat transferred) can be obtained from heat transfer analysis, following
the work of Holland and Thake [ 121.
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (cwlingJow rates specified) 61
4.3.2. The simple approach
Fig. 4.8 shows the open cooling process in a blade row diagrammatically. The heat
transfer Q, between the hot mainstream (g) and the cooling air ( c ) inside the blades, takes
place from control surface A to control surface B, i.e. from the mainstream (between
combustion outlet state 3g and state Xg), to the coolant (between compressor outlet state
2c and state Xc). The injection and mixing processes occur within control surface C
(between states Xg and Xc and a common fully mixed state 5m, the rotor inlet state). The
flows through A plus B and C are adiabatic in the sense that no heat is lost to the
environment outside these control surfaces; thus the entire process (A B C) is + +
adiabatic. We wish to determine the mixed out conditions downstream at station 5m.
4.3.2.I . Change in stagnation enthalpy (or temperature) through an open cooled

blade row
The total enthalpy change across the whole (stationary) cooled blade row is
straightforward and is obtained for the overall process (i.e. the complete adiabatic flow
through control surfaces ( A + B ) plus (C)). Even though there is a heat transfer Q
‘internally’ between the unit mainstream flow and the cooling air flow $, from A to B, the
overall process is adiabatic.
In the simplified a/s analysis of Section 4.2 we assumed identical and constant specific
heats for the two streams. Now we assume semi-perfect gases with specific heats as
functions of temperature; but we must also allow for the difference in gas properties
between the cooling air and the mainstream gas (combustion products). Between entry
states (mainstream gas 3g, and cooling air, 2c) and exit state 5m (mixed out), the steady
+
flow energy equation, for the flow through control surfaces (A B) and C, yields, for a
stationary blade row,
(ho)3g + 4@0)2c = (1 + $)(ho)Sm. (4.38)
It is assumed that the entry gas (g), the cooling air ( c )and the mixed exit gas (m) are all
semi-perfect gases with enthalpies measured from the same temperature datum (absolute
temperature, T = 0). The specific heat at constant pressure of the mixture in state 5m
~~
I
39 A I C 5m
x9
Q I
2c B .1
X
Fig. 4.8. Mixing of cooling air with mainstream flow.

is given by
and hence
Cpg[(TO).?g - (T0)SgI = J/cpc[(T0)5c- (T0)2cl? (4.40)
where the specific heats are now mean values over the relevant temperature range.
These equations enable the exit temperature Tosm to be determined. Alternatively, the
exit enthalpy can be obtained directly from
(h0)3g - (h0)5g = fl(h0)Sc - (hO)2cl* (4.41)
if tables of gas properties are used instead of specific heat data.
4.3.2.2. Change of total pressure through an open cooled blade row

It has already been shown that (stagnation) pressure losses have an appreciable effect
on cycle efficiency (see Section 3.3), so as well as obtaining the enthalpy change, it is
important to determine the stagnation pressure change in the whole cooling process.
To determine the overall change in total pressure we must now consider the three
control surfaces A, B and C of Fig. 4.8 separately.
For the fluid streams flowing through control surface A and B we may regard each as
undergoing a Rayleigh process-a compressible fluid flow with friction and heat transfer.
According to Shapiro [ 131, in such a process the change in total pressure Apo over a length
du is related to the change in stagnation temperature ATo and to the skin friction as
APO~PO - (4fdr/d,)l,
= -(YM*/N(ATO/TO) (4.42)
where M is the Mach number, f the skin friction coefficient and dh the hydraulic mean
diameter of the duct. For the mainstream gas flow in control surface A, (AT0& = -Q/c,;
and for the cooling air flow in B, (ATo)c= +e/@, where Q is the heat transferred,
which is determined from heat transfer analysis as described in Chapter 5 and Appendix A.
In the simple approach, the change pO due to Q (the first term in Eq. (4.42)) i s usually
ignored for both streams. The change of po due to frictional effects in the mainstream flow
is usually included in the basic polytropic efficiency (qp)of the uncooled flow, so that
[@0)3g - @0)xgl/(P0)3g = YM:,[l - TpV2 (4.43)
is already known. The change of po due to friction in the coolant flow through the complex
internal geometry is usually obtained using an empirical friction factor k so that
[(PO)ZC - (Po)xcI/(Po)2c = w f 2 c > 2 / 2 . (4.44)

Thus, po and To at exit from the control surfaces A and B are given by
A (mainstream gas)
(To)x~
= (T0)3g - Q/cpg, == (P0)3g{ 1 - Y M & [ ~- ~ p l / 2 } ,
(Po)x~ (4.45)
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (coolingflow rates specified) 63
B (coolant air)
(To)xc = (Td2C + Q/rb.cF, @o>xc % (po)tc(1 - mzc/2). (4.46)
We can then proceed to determine the changes across control surface C. The final total
temperature (To)sm has already been obtained but the total pressure (po)*,,,has to be
determined. An expression given by Hartsel [ 141 for the mainstream total pressure loss in
this adiabatic mixing process again goes back to the simple one-dimensional momentum
analysis given by Shapiro [ 131 for the flow through control surface C illustrated in Fig. 4.8.
Hartsel developed Shapiro's table of influence coefficients to allow for a difference
between the total temperature of the injected flow (now (To)xc) and the mainstream
(To)xg):
APoIPo = 11 - @o)sm~(Po)xg)l
= -(+YM;,m( I + [(To)xc~(~o)x,)l
- 2Y cos 41. (4.47)
Here y is the ratio of the velocity of the injected coolant to that of the free stream
0,= V,/V,), Mx,the Mach number of the free stream and 4 the angle at which the cooling
air enters the mainstream (Fig. 4.8).
The value of y has to be determined; an approximation suggested by Hartsel is to take
= @o)xg, so that Vc/Vg= [(T&c/(To)x,)]'n, since the static pressures must be the
same where the coolant enters. A sufficient approximation might be to take (To)xg as the
exit temperature from the combustion chamber and (To)xc as the exit temperature from
the compressor (Le. again ignoring Q in Eqs. (4.45) and (4.46)).
A more sophisticated approach would not only take account of Eqs. (4.45) and
(4.46) to give the two stagnation temperatures at exit from control surfaces A and B,
but it would also not assume the total pressures of coolant and mainstream to be the
same. For the first nozzle guide vane row these can be derived by accounting for losses
as follows:
(i) in the mainstream (g), the stagnation pressure at delivery from the compressor less
ApKc in the combustion process, and Apo in the nozzle row itself (as in control
surface A, due to friction and the heat transfer away from the mainstream gas if
included);
(ii) in the coolunr air stream (c), the stagnation pressure at extraction from the
compressor less a loss ApoD (in the ducting and disks before coolant enters the
blade itself), and Apes (in the blading heat transfer process in control surface B
due to both friction and heat transfer, if included).
The total pressures at X may thus be determined, as ( p o ) x gand ( P ~ ) ~ If,
, . as Hartsel
implies, the mainstream Mach number at X ( M x g )is also known, which means that the
static pressure at the mixing plane ( px) is also known, Mxc may also be determined from
(po)x,. The two different velocities V, and V , are then obtained, together with the required
value of y for Eq. (4.47).
But there is a further subtle point here in determining y , as implied by Young and
p ~ ] not only is the Mach number Mx,known but also the
Wilcock. With [( p ~ ) ~ J known,
non-dimensional mass flow, { ~R(To)xc]''2/Axc(po)xc }, may be obtained. This means that
the area Ax,,required to pass the coolant flow, is also determined. Obviously a degree of
successive approximation should be involved in obtaining the full solution to the complete
cooling flow process.
An empirical development of the approach described above uses experimental cascade
data, obtained with and without coolant discharge, to obtain an overall relationship
between the total cooling flow through the blade row ($) and the extra stagnation pressure
loss arising from injection of the cooling air. In film cooling, the air flow leaves the blade
surface at various points round the blade profile causing variable loss (noting that injection
near the trailing edge causes little total pressure loss-it may even reduce the basic loss in
the wake). If there is an elementary amount of air d$ at a particular location where the
injection angle is 4, then an overall figure for the extra total pressure loss due to coolant
injection in a typical blade row can be obtained by ‘integrating’the Hartsel equation (4.47)
round the blade profile [ 3 ] .An overall exchange factor for the extra blade row stagnation
pressure mixing loss in the row can thus be obtained in the form
APoJPo= - K$, (4.48)
to be used in the subsequent cycle calculations. Alternatively, Eq.(4.48)can be converted
into a modified small stage or polytropic efficiency, q,, = vstage
vmgelqstage = K’ rcI, (4.49)
using the relationship given in Ref. [ 3 ] ,
K/d = [ ~ ~ s t a g e / ~ s t a~g eA~ P~ [ ~ J P [(Y - I),

~ ]- 1)l~~xstage (4.50)
(v- I Y Y .
in which xStage= rstage
4.3.3. Breakdown of losses in the cooling process
The simple approach described before involves approximations, particularly to obtain

the stagnation pressure loss. The full determination of (p&, and (TO)5mfrom the various
equations given above can lead to an approximation for the downstream entropy (sjm),
using the Gibbs relation applied between stagnation states,
TOAS = Ah0 - ApoJp~. (4.51)

If the outlet specific entropy ~ 5 ,is determined in this way the gross entropy generation in
the whole process is also obtained,
AS = ( 1 + $)’)S5m - ( S l g + $s2c). (4.52)
and hence the total irreversibility I = TOAS.However, this does not give details on how
the various irreversibilities arise in the cooling process.
Young and Wilcock [ 7 ] provided a much more rigorous approach which includes an
illuminating discussion of how the losses arise in the cooling process. They prefer to
address the problem by breaking the overall flow into flows through the ‘component’
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (cooling flow rates spec8ed) 65
control surfaces of Fig. 4.8 and determining the various entropy changes directly. Their
breakdown of the gross entropy then involves writing
(4.53)
Here ASintemalis the entropy increase of the cooling fluid in control surface B due to
friction and the heat transfer (Q, in), ASmetalis the entropy created in the metal between the
mainstream and the coolant (or metal plus thermal barrier coating if present) due to
temperature difference across it, ASextemalis the entropy increase in the mainstream flow
within control surface A before mixing due to heat transfer (Q, out), plus the various
entropy increases due to the mixing process itself in control surface C.
The reader is referred to the original papers for detailed analysis, where the various
components of entropy generation and irreversibility are defined. The advantage of this
work is not only that it involves less approximation but also that it is revealing in terms of
the basic thermodynamics. It should also be used by designers who should be able to see
how design changes relate to increased or decreased local loss.
4.4. Cycle calculations with turbine cooling
In order to make a preliminary assessment of the importance of turbine cooling in cycle

analysis, the real gas calculations of a simple open uncooled cycle, carried out in Chapter 3
for various pressure ratios and combustion temperatures, are now repeated with single step
turbine cooling, i.e. including cooling of the first turbine row, the stationary nozzle guide
vanes.
Here the magnitudes of the cooling flow fractions are assumed, together with the extra
stagnation pressure loss due to mixing. Subsequently, in Chapter 5, the calculations are
repeated for cooling flow fractions accurately assessed from heat transfer analysis,
together with associated total pressure losses. But the present investigation concentrates
on whether the conclusion derived from the a/s analyses-that cooling makes relatively
little difference to plant thermal efficiency-remains valid when real gas effects are
included.
For the purpose of the current calculations the cooling flow fractions were assumed to
increase linearly with combustion temperature, from 0.05 at 1200°C. Thus, the following
values of cooling fraction were assumed: 0.05 at 1200°C;0.075 at 1400°C;0.10 at 1600°C;
0.125 at 1800°C; 0.15 at 2000°C.
The choice of these values is arbitrary. In practice, the cooling fraction will depend not
only on the combustion temperature but also on the compressor delivery temperature
(i.e. the pressure ratio), the allowable metal temperature and other factors, as described in
Chapter 5 . But with +assumed for the first nozzle guide vane row, together with the extra
total pressure loss involved ( K = 0.07 in Eq. (4.48)), the rotor inlet temperature may be
determined. These assumptions were used as input to the code developed by Young [ 113
for cycle calculations, which considers the real gas properties.
Fig. 4.9 shows the results of calculations based on these assumptions in comparison
with the uncooled calculations (the other assumptions were those listed for the earlier
uncooled calculations in Section 3.4.1). The (arbitrary) overall efficiency is shown plotted
54
52
50
>
0
z
0
w48
U.
U
W
j 46
d
9
044
42
40
I000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE OC
Fig. 4.9. Calculation of efficiency of simple [CBT] plants-single-step cooled [CBT],,-, and uncooled
[CBTIt-as a function of maximum temperature (Tcm)with pressure ratio (r) as a parameter.
against combustion outlet temperature (T,,, = T3) for various selected pressure ratios
( r = 30,40,50).It is indeed clear that the drop in efficiency produced by turbine cooling is
small, as anticipated in the a/s analyses developed earlier in this chapter. This drop
decreases with increasing combustion temperature as anticipated in the a/s analysis
leading to Eq.(4.24); indeed at the highest combustion temperatures there appears to be no
drop in thermal efficiency at all. It is explained later in Chapter 5 that this is a small real gas
effect brought about by the change in the constitution of the combustion products, and in
particular the dominant effect of the water vapour content on the mean specific heat.
Fig. 4.10 shows more fully calculated overall efficiencies (for turbine cooling only)
replotted against isentropic temperature ratio for various selected values of T3 = T,,,. This
figure may be compared directly with Fig. 3.9 (the a/s calculations for the corresponding
CHT cycle) and Fig. 3.1 3 (the ‘real gas’ calculations of efficiency for the uncoooled CBT
cycle). The optimum pressure ratio for maximum efficiency again increases with
maximum cycle temperature T3.
The (arbitrary) overall efficiency and specific work quantities obtained from these
calculations are illustrated as carpet plots in Fig. 4.11. It is seen that the specific work is
reduced by the turbine cooling, which leads to a drop in the rotor inlet temperature and the
turbine work output. Again this conclusion is consistent with the preliminary analysis and
calculations made earlier in this chapter.
A final calculation illustrates the earlier discussion on the difference between
combustion temperature T,, = T3 and rotor inlet temperature T,it = Ts. Fig. 4.12 shows
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (cooling flow rates specified) 61
55
50
ae
>
0
z 45
w
0
k40
W
-1
3 35
F
0
30
25
20
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Fig. 4.10. Calculation of efficiency of simple [CBT] plant-single-step cooled [CBT]lcl as a function of
isentropic temperature ratio with maximum temperature (TcJ as a parameter.
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

SPECIFIC WORK [kJlkg GAS]
Fig. 4.1 1. Calculation of efficiency of simple [CBT] plants-single-step cooled [CBT]lcl and uncooled
[CBTIIU--as a function of specific work with pressure ratio (r) and maximum temperature (TCJas parameters
and with q*= q p=~ 0.9, T h l = 1073 K (after Ref. [5]).
45
30
Y
0 +UNCOOLED
20
15
lo00 12M) 1400 1600
1800 XI00 1200 2400 2600 2800
MAXIMUMTEMPERATURE K
COMBUSTIONT, (UNCOOLED) OR ROTOR INLET T,(COOLED]
Fig. 4.12. Calculation of efficiency of [CBT] plant: uncooled [CBT]I~J as a function of combustion temperature
(Tco,);single-step cooled [CBTIlcl as a function of rotor inlet temperature (Tht). Pressure ratio r = 30, l)c = 0.8,
= 0.9, Thl= 1123 K (after Ref. [5]).
a single step cooling calculation of overall efficiency (for a pressure ratio of 20) plotted
against both T3 and T5. It is seen that data expressed as 77o(T5)does in fact almost fall on
the uncooled efficiency line v0(T3),the effect anticipated in Section 4.2.2.2, where a/s
analysis was used leading to the diagram of Fig. 4 . 6 ~ .
4.5. Conclusions
It has been shown from air-standard cycle analysis that

(a) plant efficiency drops relatively little due to turbine cooling;
(b) the efficiency of the cooled turbine plant, when expressed as a function of the rotor
inlet temperature (T5),is virtually identical to the efficiency of the uncooled plant
when expressed as a function of combustion temperature (T3);
(c) the difference between uncooled and cooled efficiency decreases at high combustion
temperature;
(d) the rate of increase of thermal efficiency of the cooled cycle falls with increasing
T3; but there is no prediction of a maximum efficiency being attained at high T3.
These conclusions are broadly confirmed by real gas calculations for single step
cooling with arbitrary assumptions for cooling flow fractions.
But it appears that thermal efficiency does tend towards a maximum level with
increasing combustion temperature. More realistic calculations of highly cooled turbines
are given in the next chapter, after a brief description of the heat transfer analysis involved
in the determination of cooling flow quantities.
Chapter 4. Cycle eficiency with turbine cooling (coolingfiow rates specified) 69
References
[ I ] Mukherjee, D.K. (1976). Design of turbines, using distributed or average losses; effect of blading, AGARD
195, 8-1-8-13.
[2] Chiesa, P., Consonni, S., Lozza, G. and Macchi, E. (1993). Redicting the ultimate performance of advanced
power cycles based on vely high temperatures, ASME paper 93-GT-223.
[3] Horlock J.H., Watson, D.E. and Jones, T.V. (2001), Limitations on gas turbine performance imposed by
[4] Hawthorne, W.R. and Davis, G.de V. (1956). Calculating gas turbine performance, Engineering 181,
361 -361.
[SI Horlock, J.H. (2001). Basic thermodynamics of turbine cooling, ASME J. Turbomachinery 123(3),
583-592.
[6] Denton, J.D (1993). Loss mechanisms in turbomachines, ASME paper 93-GT-435.
[7] Young, J.B. and Wilccck, R.C. (2002). Modelling the aircooled gas turbine, Partl, ASME J. Turbo-
machinery 124, 207-213.
[8] Traupel, W. (1966). Thermische Turbomaschinen, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
[91 Hawthome, W.R. (1956). The thermodynamicsof cooled turbines, Parts I and II,Proc.ASME 78, 1765 (see
also p. 1781).
[IO] El-Masri, M.A. (1987). Exergy analysis of combined cycles. Part 1. Air-cooled Braytoncycle gas turbines,
ASME J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 109,228-235.
[I 11 Young, J.B. (1998). Computer-based project on combinedcycle power generation, Cambridge University
Tnternal Report.
[I21 Holland, M.J. and Thake, T.F. (1980). Rotor blade cooling in high pressure turbines, AIAA J. Aircraft 17(6),
412-418.
[I31 Shapiro, A.H. (1953). The dynamics and thermodynamics of compressible fluid flow, Ronald Press,
New York.
[14] Hartsel, J.E. (1972). Prediction of effects of mass-transfer cooling on the blade-row efficiency of turbine
airfoils, AIAA paper 72- I I .
Chapter 5
FULL CALCULATIONS OF PLANT EFFICIENCY
5.1. Introduction
In Chapter 4 calculations were made on the overall efficiency of CBT plants with
turbine cooling, the fraction of cooling air ($) being assumed arbitrarily. In this chapter,
we outline more realistic calculations, with the cooling air fraction +being estimated from
heat transfer analysis and experiments.
There are several papers in the literature which give details of cycle calculations, and
include details of how the cooling flow quantity may be estimated and used. Here we
describe one such approach used by the author and his colleagues. Initially, we summarise
how +can be obtained (fuller details are given in Appendix A). We then illustrate how this
information is used in calculations, once again using a computer code in which real gas
effects are included.
Subsequently, we refer briefly to other comparable studies, including the calculations
of exergy losses and rational efficiency. Finally, we show the ‘real gas’ exergy calculations
for two practical plant~-[CBT]~ and [CBTXII.
5.2. Cooling flow requirements
The method devised by Holland and Thake [I] for estimating the cooling air (w,),as a
+
fraction of mainstream entry flow to a blade row (w& i.e. = w,/wg,was described by
Horlock et al. [2] and is reproduced in Appendix A; Fig. A.l shows diagrammatically the
notation employed there and the same symbols are defined and used below.
5.2.1. Convective cooling
Consider first a convectively cooled blade row (Fig. A. la). It is shown in Appendix A
that the mass flow of cooling air (w,)required for a mass flow of mainstream gas (wg),
entering at temperature Tgi, is given by
+= WJW, = cw+, (5.1)
where w+ is a ‘temperature difference ratio’ defined as
(5.2)
with Tbl,the allowable blade temperature and Tci, the cooling air entry temperature.
71
If EO is the blade cooling effectiveness, defined as
(5.3)
and vcmlis the cooling efficiency,
in which T, is the cooling air outlet temperature before mixing, then it follows that
The ‘constant’ C is
in which St, is the external gas Stanton number, A,, and A, are the gas surface and cross-
sectional flow areas, and cpg,cF are the gas and cooling air specific heats, respectively.
The cooling efficiency can be determined from the internal heat transfer. If Tbl is
considered to be more or less constant, then it may be shown that
77,001 = 1 - exp(-O, (5.6)

where c=
( h ~ A , , l w , c ,=
) (SfJc3/Acx),and Sr, is now the internal cooling air Stanton
number, A,, and A,, refemng to surface and cross-sectional areas of the internal cooling
air flow, respectively.
Experience gives values of 6 for various geometries, but St, is found to be a weak
function of Reynolds number, so in practice there is relatively little variation in cooling
efficiency (0.6 < vCwl< 0.8). Thus, both C and vcmldo not vary greatly and if they are
amalgamated into a single constant, K = C/qcool,then
or
@ = K(Tgi - Tbl)/(Tbl - Tcil, (5.8)

a form used by El-Masri [3] for his cycle calculations, and also used in the last chapter to
relate T,,, and Tfit.
5.2.2. Film cooling
For a film cooled blade row, cooling air at outlet temperature T,, is discharged into the
mainstream through the holes in the blade surface to form a cooling film (Fig. A. 1b).
A film cooling effectiveness is now defined as
where Tawis the adiabatic wall temperature.

Chapter 5 . Full calculations of plant e$ciency 73
A new ‘temperature difference ratio’ W + is written as
w+ = [Taw - Tbll/[Tco - Tcil

= [&O - ( l - %~ol)&F - EO),
- EOEF~cooll/r)cool(l (5.10)
and it is shown in Appendix A that the cooling fraction is now given by
(5.1 1)
where
P = hf,/[h,( 1 + B)1, (5.12)
in which (hfg/hg)is the ratio of the heat transfer coefficient under film cooling conditions
(hf,) to the convectively cooled heat transfer coefficient (hg),and B = hf@ is the Biot
number, which takes account of a thermal barrier coating (TBC) of thickness t and
+
conductivity k. In practice, hf, increases above hg, and (1 B) is increased as TBC is
added. For the purposes of the cycle calculations described below, p is taken as unity so
that
+=cw+, (5.13)
where C is the same constant as the one for convective cooling only.
5.2.3. Assumptionsfor cycle calculations
In the cycle calculations described below [2], film cooling was assumed. Further, as
described in Appendix A, various assumptions were made for the critical constants, as
follows. The constant C in Eq. (5.13) was taken as 0.045, and within W + ,the cooling
efficiency cool as 0.7 and the film cooling effectiveness eFas 0.4. All were assumed to be
constant over the range of cooling flows considered.
In a particular blade row, for a given gas entry temperature Tgi,a cooling air entry
temperature Tci,and an assumed allowable blade metal temperature Tbl, the blade cooling
effectiveness EO is obtained. With EF = 0.4 and cool = 0.7, W + then follows from
+
Eq. (5.10). With C = 0.045 the cooling air flow fraction is obtained from Eq. (5.13).
53. Estimates of cooling flow fraction

The results of calculations for the cooling air flow fractions in the first (nozzle guide
vane) row of the turbine, based on the assumptions outlined in Section 5.2 for film cooled
blading, are illustrated in Fig. 5.1. The entry gas temperature Tgi was taken as the
combustion temperature Tc, = T3 and the cooling air temperature as the compressor
delivery temperature T2.The cooling air required is shown here as a fraction of the exhaust
+
gas flow, i.e. as +/(l +), plotted against compressor pressure ratio and combustion
temperature for an allowable blade metal temperature, Tbl = 800°C.Also shown are
0.35
3
s
L
0.3
I-
v)
3
0.25
3 +r=20
+r=30
z 0.2
+t=35
0
I- +r=40
3
LL
I
0.15
+T=45
-0-r=50
._..._
CHAPTER 4 ASSUMPTION
3
2
L
0.1
I-
Z
5
0
0.05
0
0
0
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE - O C
Fig. 5.1. Calculated coolant air fractions for single step cooling (of nozzle guide vanes), as a function of combustion temperature with pressure ratio as a parameter.
Chapter 5. Full calculations ofplant eficiency 75
the arbitrary assumptions made in Chapter 4 for the calculations to illustrate the changes in
thermal efficiency for gas turbine plants in which single-step cooling is introduced.
The cooling fraction obviously increases with combustion temperature, but the
compressor pressure ratio (and hence the cooling air temperature T2) is also critically
important. It is seen that the arbitrary assumptions made for I/, in Chapter 4 (linearly
increasing with the combustion temperature T,,, = T3)would be approximately valid for a
cycle with a pressure ratio just below 30.
5.4. Single step cooling
The results of a set of computer calculations for a CBT plant with single-step cooling
(i.e. of the first stage nozzle guide vanes) are illustrated in Fig. 5.2, in the form of
(arbitrary) overall thermal efficiency (70)against pressure ratio (r) with the combustion
temperature T,,, as a parameter, and in Fig. 5.3 as 70 against T,, with r as a parameter.
Young's computer code [4] was used for these efficiency calculations. It involves an
assumption that the mainstream gas is expanded through a nominal (small) pressure ratio,
mixed with cooling air at compressor delivery conditions and this mixed gas then
expanded through the full turbine pressure ratio. Within the calculations, the values of I/,
given in Fig. 5.1 were also used to derive the extra stagnation pressure loss associated with
mixing (as described in Section 4.3.2.2 leading to Eq. (4.47), with the empirical constant K
taken as 0.07). This extra stagnation pressure loss was added to the assumed stagnation
pressure loss in combustion, (Apo/po)cc = 0.03.
Fig. 5.2 shows that for the single-step cooled CBT plant at a given combustion
temperature, the overall efficiency of the cooled gas turbine efficiency increases with
pressure ratio initially but, compared with an uncooled cycle, reaches a maximum at a
lower optimum pressure ratio. Fig. 5.3 shows that for a given pressure ratio the efficiency
generally increases with the combustion temperature T,,, even though the required cooling
fraction increases.
Fig. 5.4 shows a carpet plot of overall efficiency against specific work for the cooled
[CBTIIcl plant (single step) with pressure ratio and combustion temperature as
parameters. As shown earlier, by the preliminary air standard analysis and the subsequent
calculations in Chapter 4, there are relatively minor changes of thermal efficiency
compared with the uncooled plant [CBTIIUc,but there is a major effect in the reduction of
specific work.
5.5. Multi-stage cooling
At very high combustion temperatures, it is not sufficient that the first blade row alone
needs to be cooled. In practice, up to half a dozen rows may be cooled in an industrial gas
turbine, if the combustion temperature is high and the allowable blade metal temperature is
low. The cooling fractions for each of the cooled rows must be estimated and used in the
cycle calculations, which now become complex.
Illustrations of such calculations, for an open cycle [CBTIIC3plant, were given by
Horlock et al. [2], in which it was assumed that three blade rows were film cooled, the two
50 I I I I I I I I
49
48
A
E 47
*
0
3- 46
0
t 45
W
4
i
Y
9 43
0
42
41
40
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
PRESSURE RATIO
Fig. 5.2. Overall efficiency of [CBTIlcl plant with single-step cooling of NGVs, as a function of pressure ratio with combustion temperature as a parameter.
50
49
48
LI
E 47 a
5E 46 4
f9
-
0
vl
45
W
-I
Y
5 43
0
42 - ,
\
41
40
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE OC
Fig. 5.3. Overall efficiency of [CBTIIcl plant with single-step cooling of NGVs, as a function of combustion temperature with pressure ratio as a parameter.
50
49
-48
*g 47
E!
0
k46
W
4
+r = 30 one step cooling
W
> -A- r = 35 one step cooling
044
4 r = 40 one step cooling
43
42
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
SPECIFIC WORK [kJlkg exhaust gas]
Fig. 5.4. Overall efficiency and specific work for [cB'l'lrclplant with single-step cooling of NGVs, with
combustion temperature and pressure ratio as parameters (after Ref. [ 5 ] , Chapter 4).
rows of the first turbine stage and the stationary nozzle guide vanes of the second stage. As
in the single-step cooling calculations described before, film cooling was assumed and the
Holland and Thake approach was followed to determine the cooling air required in each of
these blade rows.
From the combustion temperature T,,, and an assumed first stage pressure ratio (3:1),
the 'mixed out' gas temperature at exit from the first stage (TEI)was obtained and this was
taken as the gas entry temperature for the second stage (third blade row). The entry
(relative) stagnation temperature for the first stage rotor (the second turbine blade row)
was obtained by interpolation between TEIand Tcot,assuming 50% reaction in the first
stage. The cooling air inlet temperature was taken as the compressor delivery temperature,
Tci = T2 for all three rows. This would have led to the estimation of coolant flow in the
second and third rows being somewhat more than needed as the cooling air could
theoretically be tapped at a lower pressure (and therefore lower cooling temperature). But
in practice the pressure loss through the supply ducts and past the turbine disks can be
substantial and compressor delivery pressure may have to be used anyway. The cooling
fractions thus obtained for the three rows are shown in Fig. 5.5; obviously the first row
requires most cooling, the fractions for the subsequent rows decrease and it is assumed that
the fourth row requires no cooling.
The cycle calculations for this multi-cooling then proceeded in a similar fashion to those
for the single-step cooling calculations of Section 5.4 (full details are given in Ref. [2]).
Chapter 5. Full calculations of plant eflciency 19
0.35
F
0
2 0.3
+
v)
3
2 095
G
U
0.2
0
b 0.15
E
9 0.1
U
i 0.05
0
0
0
0
1000 1200 1400 1600 I800 ZOO0 2200
COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE O C
Fig. 5.5. Calculated coolant air fractions for three step cooling (of first stage and second rotor row)
Fig. 5.6 shows the results of a set of computer calculations for the [CBTIIC3plant in the
form of (arbitrary) overall efficiency (70)against pressure ratio (r) with the combustion
temperature T,, as a parameter. Fig. 5.7 shows vo plotted against Tco, with r as a
parameter and Fig. 5.8 shows a contour plot of 70 against T,,, and r. There is a flat
efficiency plateau around T,,, = 175OoC, less than the maximum value used in these
calculations, which approaches the stoichiometric limit.
The changes in the form of these graphs for three step cooling, compared with those for
single-step cooling (Figs. 5.2 and 5.3), are most significant. They indicate that the overall
efficiency of such a CBT plant may reach a limiting value, just over 44% at T,, = 1750°C
and r = 35 for the assumptions made here (qp= 0.9, (Ap,-,)cc = 0.03, with three rows of
cooling each with compressor delivery air); whereas for single-step cooling the incentive
is to keep raising T,,, together with the corresponding pressure ratio. But it should be
emphasised that this conclusion is much dependent on the estimates for cooling flow
fractions.
Fig. 5.9 shows a carpet plot of thermal efficiency for three step cooling. Now the picture
is different from the corresponding carpet plot of Fig. 5.4 for single stage cooling, with the
overall efficiencies collapsing into a narrow band around 44%, for temperatures T,,,
between 1600 and 2000°C and for pressure ratios 30, 35 and 40.Advantages in thermal
efficiency for both uncooled and single step cooling (at high T,,, and high pressure ratio)
are now negated because of the large cooling flows required for three step cooling.
However, the higher combustion temperature continues to give advantage in the larger
specific work.
tTcot=1200C
+Tcot=1400C
-A-Tcot=IeoOC
fTcot=1800C
+Tcot = 2000 C
15 20 25 30 35 40 4s 50 55
PRESSURE RATIO
Fig. 5.6. Overall efficiency of [CBTIlcs plant with three step cooling (of first stage and second nozzle row) as a
function of pressure ratio with combustion temperature as a parameter (after Ref. [2]).
01
A
E
*0
u
U
u.
w
v
-I
41
40
lo00 I200 1400 1800 1000 2000 ZOO
COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE ' C
Fig. 5.7. Overall efficiency of [CBTIIc1plant with three step cooling (of first stage and second nozzle row) as a
function of combustion temperature with pressure ratio as a parameter.
Chapter 5. Full calculations of plant eficiency 81
50
45
40
[ 35
33 30
(D
pn 25
20
15
10
lo00 I200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE ' C
Fig. 5.8. Contours of overall efficiency for [CBTIIC~plant with three step cooling, against combustion
temperature and pressure ratio.
46
45
41
40
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
SPECIFIC WORK [kJlkg exhaust gas]
Fig. 5.9. Overall efficiency and specific work for [CBT]rc3 plant with three step cooling (of first stage and second
nozzle row), with combustion temperature and pressure ratio as parameters (after Ref. [ 5 ] , Chapter 4).
5.6. A note on real gas effects
The real gas calculations with cooling as described above give indications of maxima in
the plots of thermal efficiency against T3 = T,,, for a given pressure ratio (e.g. Fig. 5.3).
These do not appear in air standard analysis such as that described in Chapter 3. The
calculations of Chapter 4 showed that such maxima can occur not only for cooled but also,
surprisingly, for uncooled calculations. Fig. 4.9 showed such graphs of qo against T,,, to
be very flat, but there was clearly a real gas effect independent of cooling at high T,,,.
Recent detailed investigations of these real gas effects by Wilcock et al. [3]have revealed
that this ‘turnover effect’ on uncooled efficiency at high values of T,,, is related to the
changes in real gas properties (cpgand yg) with both temperature and composition.
5.7. Other studies of gas turbine plants with turbine cooling
There are several studies in the literature which parallel the approach of Horlock et al.
[2] described above. Some of the more important are listed here and briefly discussed.
Perhaps the most comprehensive set of papers were those by El-Masri and his
colleagues in a series of publications in the 1980s. El-Masri describes his methods of
predicting cooling flow requirements in Ref. [4] for combined convection and film
cooling, and in Ref. 151 with thermal barrier coatings. The approach is similar but not
identical to that described above. Following initial cycle calculations with working fluids
with constant properties [6,7] El-Masri developed a computer code-GASCAN [SI-
embracing real gas properties and used this in the second law calculations of air-cooled
Brayton gas turbine cycles [9] and combined cycles [lo]. These calculations presented
details of exergy losses, work output and rational efficiency and gave some indication of an
optimum combustion temperature yielding maximum efficiency (for a given pressure
ratio), along the lines already described in this chapter.
Similarly, comprehensive calculations including turbine cooling were made by Lozza
and his colleagues [ 113. These calculations give results broadly similar to those described
in this chapter but an important feature of this work involved a degree of parameterisation
of the cooling methods--e.g. variation of the allowable blade temperature.
A third set of similar but simpler calculations were described by MacArthur [ 121 who
applied aero-engine cooling technology to obtain improved performance of industrial type
gas turbine power plants.
5.8. Exergy calculations
Once the state points are known round a cycle in a computer calculation of performance,
the local values of availability and/or exergy may be obtained. The procedure for
estimating exergy losses or irreversibilities was outlined in Chapter 2. Here we show such
calculations made by Manfrida et al. [ 131 which were also presented in Ref. [ 141.
Fig. 5.10 shows the exergy losses as a fraction of the fuel exergy (including the partial
pressure terms referred to in Section 2.4) for the General Electric LM 2500 [CBTIrc plant,
Chapter 5. Full calculations of plant eficiency 83
2 0.4000 ,
Fig. 5.10. Calculated exergy losses as fractions of fuel exergy for the General Electric LM 2500 [CBT] plant, for
varying combustion temperatures (K) (after Ref. [13]).
for varying combustion temperatures. For the design T,,, of 1500 K the rational efficiency
was calculated as 0.352 and the sum of all the fractional irreversibilities shown in the figure
plus 0.352 thus gives unity. There are two major irreversibilities-that in combustion and
the (physical) exergy loss in the stack gas due to its high temperature. (The ‘chemical’
exergy loss shown is that associated with the exergy theoretically available in the partial
pressures of the exhaust, relative to atmosphere, as explained in Ref. [ 141.
The exergy losses in the HP turbine, which include losses in turbine cooling, are not
negligible; those in the LP turbine are very small, since there is little or no cooling. Note,
however, that it is the total turbine exergy losses that are shown here; reference should be
made to the work of Young and Wilcock [15] for a detailed breakdown of such cooling
exergy losses, into those associated with heat transfer, coolant throttling and mixing
separately.
Fig. 5.1 1 shows the exergy losses as fractions of fuel exergy for the Westinghouse/
Rolls-Royce WR21 recuperated [CICBTX], plant. Now the stack (physical) exergy loss is
much reduced by the action of the heat exchanger although the unit itself is not highly
irreversible. At the design value of T,,, = 1500 K the rational efficiency is 0.371, which
0.4000
0.2000
0. I owl
0.oooO
Fig. 5.1 1. Calculated exergy losses as fractions of fuel exergy for the WestinghousedRolls-Royce WR21
recuperated [CICBTX] plant, for varying combustion temperatures (K) (after Ref. [13]).
with all the irreversibilities shown sums to unity again. The combustion loss remains high
at some 30%, and the HP turbine loss is not negligible.
5.9. Conclusions
In practice, the attainment of maximum thermal efficiency in a CBT gas turbine plant
will depend on a complex mix of factors in addition to those for an uncooled plant, such as
combustion temperature, pressure ratio and component efficiencies. The factors
introduced by turbine cooling include the number of cooling steps, the quantities of
cooling air required (crucially dependent on stagnation temperature at entry to each step,
the permissible blade temperature and the temperature of the available cooling air), and
the associated mixing losses. In addition, the properties of the working fluids (as real
gases) also play an important part.
References
[ I ] Holland, M.J. and Thake, T.F. (1980). Rotor blade cooling in high pressure turbines, AIAA J. of Aircraft
17(6), 412-418.
[2] Horlock, J.H., Watson, D.T. and Jones, T.V. (2001). Limitations on gas turbine performance imposed by
large turbine cooling flows, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 123.4.
131 Wilcock, R.C., Young, J.B. and Horlock, J.H. (2002), Gas properties as a limit to gas turbine performance,
ASME paper GT-2002-305 17.
[4] El-Masri, M.A. and Pourkey, F. (1986). Prediction of cooling flow requirements for advanced utility gas
turbines, Part 1 : Analysis and scaling of the effectiveness curve, ASME paper 86-WAlHT-43.
[SI El-Masri, M.A. (1986a). Prediction of cooling flow requirements for advanced utility gas turbines, Part 2:
Influence of ceramic thermal barrier coatings, ASME paper 86-WA/HT-44.
[6] El-Masri, M.A. (1986b). On thermodynamics of gas turbine cycles: Part I second law analysis of combined
cycles, ASME J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 107, 880-889.
[7] El-Masri, M.A. (1986~).On thermodynamics of gas turbine cycles: Part 11 Model for expansion in cooled
turbines, ASME J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 108, 15 1 - 159.
181 El-Masri, M.A. (1988). GASCAN-an interactive code for thermal analysis of gas turbine systems, ASME
J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 1 10,201-209.
(91 El-Man, M.A. (1987a). Exergy analysis of combined cycles: Part 1 Air-cooled Brayton-cycle gas turbines,
ASME J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 109, 228-235.
[IO] El-Masri, M.A. (1987b). Exergy analysis of combined cycles: Part 2. Steam bottoming cycles, ASME J.
Engng Power Gas Turbines 109, 237-243.
[I 1 ] Chiesa, P., Consonni, S., Lozza, G. and Macchi, E. ( I 993). Predicting the ultimate performance of advanced
power cycles based on very high temperatures, ASME Paper 93-GT-223.
[ 121 MacArthur, C. D. (1999). Advanced aero-engine turbine technologies and their application to industrial gas
turbines, ISABE Paper No. 99-7 IS I. 14th International Symposium on Air-Breathing Engines, Florence,
Italy, 1999.
[I31 Facchini, B., Fiaschi, D. and Manfrida, G. (2000). Exergy analysis of combined cycles using latest
generation gas turbines, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 122,233-238.
[ 141 Horlock, J.H., Manfrida, G. and Young, J.B. (2000). Exergy analysis of modem fossil-fuel power plants,
ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 122, 1 - 17.
[IS] Young, J.B. and Wilcock, R.C. (2002). Modelling the air-cooled gas turbine. Part I 4 n e r a l
thermodynamics, ASME J. Turbomachinery 124.207-213.
Chapter 6
‘WET’ GAS TURBINE PLANTS
6.1. Introduction
As Frutschi and Plancherel [ I ] have explained, there are two basic gas turbine plants
with water injection; they are illustrated in Fig. 6.1.
Fig. 6. l a shows diagrammatically the steam injection gas turbine (STIG) plant; steam,
raised in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) downstream of the turbine, is injected
into the combustion chamber or into the turbine nozzle guide vanes.
Fig. 6. I b shows diagrammatically the evaporative gas turbine (EGT) in which water is
injected into the compressor outlet and is evaporated there; the mixture may then be
further heated in the ‘cold’ side of a heat exchanger. It enters the combustion chamber and
then passes through the turbine and the ‘hot’ side of the heat exchanger.
There are many variations on these two basic cycles which will be considered later. But
first we discuss the basic thermodynamics of the STIG and EGT plants.
6.2. Simple analyses of STIG type plants
6.2.1. The basic STIG plant
Fig. 6.2 shows a simplified diagram of the basic STIG plant with steam injection S per
unit air flow into the combustion chamber; the state points are numbered. Lloyd [2]
presented a simple analysis for such a STIG plant based on ‘heat input’, work output and
‘heat rejected’ (as though it were a closed cycle air and watedsteam plant, with external
heat supplied instead of combustion and the exhaust steam and air restored to their entry
conditions by heat rejection). His analysis is adapted here to deal with an open cycle plant
with a fuel inputfto the combustion chamber per unit air flow, at ambient temperature To,
i.e. a fuel enthalpy flux of.fifo. For the combustion chamber, we may write
ha2 + f h f O + SA,, = ( 1 +f)hg3 +Sk,, (6.1)
where subscripts a, g and s refer to air, gas (products of combustion) and steam. The
enthalpy of the steam quantity (h,) is at the same temperature as the gas, and for
convenience is carried separately through the analysis, i.e. the total enthalpy is H =
+
( I + f ) h , Sh,. In reality, the steam and gas are fully mixed at all stations downstream of
the combustion process.
86 Adwnced gus turbine cycles
Basic STIG
Water
I/
Air Exhaust
Evaporation plant
Exhaust -
and air
I
Air
Fig. 6.1. Steam injection and water injection plants (after Frutschi and Plancherel [I]).
AIR
’
HRSG
Fig. 6.2. Basic STIG plant (after Lloyd [21).Princeton University Library.
Chapter 6. ‘Wet’ gas turbine plants 87
In an experiment to determine the calorific value of the fuel at temperature To, and for
the same fuel flow the steady flow energy equation would yield
ha0 + . h o =f[cvlo + (1 + f ) h g ~ . (6.2)
Subtracting Eq. (6.2) from Eq. (6.1) yields
ha2 - ha0 + f [ c V l ~= (1 +f)(hg3 -hg~) + S(h,, - kh). (6.3)
If the compressor entry temperature T I is the same as the ambient temperature To then
Eq. (6.3) may be rewritten as
(h,2 - h a l l +f[CVI” =(I + f ) [ ( h g 3 - hg4) + (hg4 - hgs)+ (hgs - hgoll (6.3a)
+ S[(h,, - h,) + ( 4 4 - 4 s ) + (h,S - h\6)1.
But across the HRSG the heat balance is
(1 +f)[(hg4 - hgs) + S(h4 - h.1s)l = S(h,, - ~ U d , (6.4)
in which the pumping work for the water is ignored, and the water enters at ambient
temperature with enthalpy hWo.
Combining this equation with Eq. (6.3a) yields the final energy equation for the whole
plant as
f[cv]o = (WT - WC) + 1 +f)(hg5 - hg0) + S(h55 - hw0>17 (6.5)
in which the terms in brackets correspond to the three terms in Lloyd’s closed cycle
analysis, QB, W, QA, respectively, and
QB = W + QA. (6.6)
The overall efficiency of the plant is
77 = (WT - wC)/f[cvlO
= { 1 +f][hg3 - hg41 + Ih.1, - h d - [hd2 - hail )lf[cvlo. (6.7)

so that
by analogy with the form given by Lloyd,

77 = W/QB = [ I +(QA/~)]-’. (6.9)
Lloyd argues that for a plant with fixed pressure ratio and top temperature, the turbine
work output (and hence the net work output) is increased linearly with the steam quantity S
that is injected, but the QB and QA terms increase more slowly. Thus, the efficiency
similarly increases with S,but also more slowly.
Fig. 6.3, which gives illustrative plots of temperature against the fraction of heat
transferred, shows how the HRSG performs, first at low S (Fig. 6.3a), and then with higher
(optimum) S (Fig. 6.3b). Lloyd concludes that maximum efficiency is reached when
LOW s
T1
3
HEAT TRANSFERRED
OPTIMUM S
Maximum steam exit
temperature
STEAM/ WATER Minimum pinch point
temperature difference
HEAT TRANSFERRED
Fig. 6.3. HRSG performance of STIG plant at different steam/air ratios (after Lloyd [2]). Princeton University
Library.
the superheated steam leaves at its upper temperature limit and when the pinch point
temperature difference is at its minimum, as in diagram Fig. 6.3b.
He gave an example of an industrial gas turbine with a pressure ratio of 12 and a
maximum temperature of 1100°C. For the basic CBT plant the specific work is
approximately W = WT - Wc = 650 - 350 = 300 kJkg (air) and QB = 870, so that
QA = 570 and the efficiency is 300/870 = 0.345. For a STIG plant with S = 0.1, the
turbine work output increases by about 20% to 770 giving a net work output of 420, an
increase of 40%. QB also increases somewhat, by about 23% to about 1070, and QA by
about 14% to 650. The efficiency (7)= 420/1070) therefore increases to nearly 40%,
because the work output increases substantially more than the ‘heat supplied’.
Fig. 6.4 then shows a more complete calculation of plant efficiency for varying S. The
optimum condition of maximum efficiency is reached at S = 0.208. The picture changes
for a gas turbine with a higher pressure ratio, for which the increase to maximum efficiency
is less, as is the optimum value of S [2].
A useful rule of thumb is that the turbine work in a STIG plant is increased by a factor
+
of about (1 2S), since the specific heat of the steam is about double that of the specific
heat of the ‘dry’ gas. This is in agreement with the example given above and with the
earlier detailed calculations by Fraize and Kinney [3]. (Their work was based on the
assumption that the mixture of air and steam in the turbine behaved as a semi-perfect gas,
with specific heats being determined simply by mass averaging of the values for the two
components.)
Finally, it may be noted that there is little or no point in adding steam directly to the
turbine alone-say into the first nozzle guide vane row-because its enthalpy even at best
would only be equal to the enthalpy of the steam leaving the turbine (hs6 5 h&).
0.48
0.46
0.44
*0
z 0.42
w
0
0.4
W P
2I 0.30
$ 0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
STEAM TO AIR RATIOS
Fig. 6.4. Effect of steam air ratio (S) on STIG ‘thermal’ efficiency (after Lloyd [2]). Princeton University Library.
m
W
6.2.2. The recuperative STIG plant
Consider next a recuperative STIG plant (Fig. 6.5, again after Lloyd [2]). Heat is again
recovered from the gas turbine exhaust: but firstly in a recuperator to heat the compressed
air, to state 2A before combustion; and secondly in an HRSG, to raise steam S for injection
into the combustion chamber.
Again we analyse the open cycle version of this plant, but with a fuel inputf' (per unit
air flow) at ambient temperature To, i.e. a fuel enthalpy flux off'hfo. For the combustion
chamber we may now write
ha2A +fhfO + Shlih = (1 +f)hg.l + S h 3 , (6.10)
and for the parallel calorific value experiment, at temperature To = T , ,
ha0 +fho =f[CVI" + (1 +f)h,, (6.1 I )
Subtracting Eq. (6. I 1) from Eq. (6.10) yields
ha2A - ha0 +frcvlo = ( 1 + f M g 3 - hgo) + S ( k 3 - hsfA (6.12)
(6.13)
4
6
AIR
I 1
2 7 RECUPERATOR
STEAM
HRSG
EXHAUST
Fig. 6.5. STIG plant with additional gadair recuperator.

Chapter 6 . ‘Wet’ gas turbine plants 91
and in the HRSG
But of course these two equations may be combined with Eq. (6.12) to give the steady
flow energy equation for the whole plant as
so that
(6.16)
Eq. (6.16) is essentially the same as Eq. (6.8) for the basic STIG plant which, on
reflection, is not surprising. If the states 1,2,3,4 and 5 and the steam quantity S are all the
same then expressions for the work output, the ‘heat input’ (or fuel energy supply) and the
‘heat rejected’ are all unchanged. The total amount of heat transferred from the exhaust is
also unchanged, but two separate flows, of air and of watedsteam, have been raised in
enthalpy before entry to the combustion chamber, rather than one (water/steam) in the
earlier analysis.
However in practice, for the same states 1-5 the steam raised S will be less; hence
there is no advantage in operating a STIG plant in this variation of the basic CBTX
recuperative gas turbine plant. Nonetheless, this form of analysis as developed by
Lloyd will prove to be useful in the discussion of the chemical recuperation plant in
Chapter 8.
6.3. Simple analyses of EGT type plants
63.1. A discussion of dry recuperative plants with ideal heat exchangers
Before considering the effects of water injection in an EGT type plant, it is worthwhile
to refer to the earlier studies on the performance of some dry recuperative cycles. Fig. 6.6
shows the T , s diagram of a [CBTlI[XlRcycle, with a heat exchanger effectiveness of
unity. It is implied that the surface area for heat transfer is very large, so that the outlet
temperature on the cold side is the same as the inlet temperature on the hot side. However,
due to the higher specific heat of the hot gas, its outlet temperature is higher than the inlet
temperature of the cold air.
In their original air standard cycle analysis, using constant specific heats, Hawthorne
and Davis 141 considered the dry [CBT],XR cycle. They assumed a ‘perfect’ heat
exchanger, with the specific heats of gas and air constant and identical, so that T y becomes
equal to T2 in Fig. 6.6. From their examination of the enthalpy-entropy diagram of this
Fig. 6.6. Temperature-entropy diagram for dry [CHTIIXRplant.
cycle they then concluded the turbine work (WT) to be equal to the heat supplied (eB)
so
the efficiency becomes
7 = w/& = ( w -~ wc)/w~= 1 - (wc/w~). (6.17)
Note also that the heat rejected is equal to the compressor work in this case. For this air
standard cycle with constant specific heats, Eq.(6.17) reduces simply to
q = 1 - (x/a), (6.18a)
where a = qc%(T3/Tl),x = r(y-lyyand qc and are isentropic efficiencies.
Consider next a similar recuperative cycle, but one in which the compression process
approximates to isothermal rather than isentropic, with the work input equal to the heat
rejected (this may be achieved in a series of small compressions of polytropic efficiency
qp,followed by a series of constant pressure heat rejections). It may then be shown that the
thermal efficiency of this cycle is given by
77 = 1 - (In #,qe(i - 4-lR>]), (6.18b)
where 6 = T3/TI, 4 = r" and (+=( y - 1)/-yqP. This cycle is more efficient than the
[CBT]& cycle, and this will be important when we consider its evaporative version later
(the TOPHAT or van Liere cycle).
For the (CICBT)IXR, (CBCBT)rXR and (CICBTBT)IXRcycles, with equal pressure
ratios across the 'split' compressors and turbines, it may be shown that the corresponding
expressions for efficiency are
q = 1 - &/a(x'" + 1), (6.18~)
q = 1 - (x'n + x)/2a, (6.18d)
I"
q = 1-x /a, (6.18e)
respectively, indicating that the efficiency increases with a in each of these cycles.
The thermal efficiencies (q) of these five cycles, all with perfect recuperation, are
plotted in Fig. 6.7 against the isentropic temperature ratio x, for %qc = 0.8 and T3/T1= 5
0.8
0.7
0.6
b
0
z
g 0.5
0
LL
LL
w 0.4
2
0.3
W
I
I-
0.2
0.1
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
ISENTROPICTEMPERATURE RATIO
Fig. 6.7. Air standard thermal efficiencies of various dry plants with reversible recuperators.
(a= 4), but with rip = 0.9 for the van Liere cycle. The thermal efficiency 7 of each cycle
is highest for x- 1.0, for which it is equal to [l - (l/a)]. For the [CBT],XR cycle 7
decreases rapidly with increasing pressure ratio; the efficiency of the other cycles drops
less rapidly. Reheating and intercooling raises the efficiency but the thermal efficiency of
the van Liere cycle is highest. It drops slowly with x, but its efficiency is almost matched
by the cycle with both reheating and intercooling.
In practice, however, the heat exchanger effectiveness will not be unity for these dry
cycles, but the above analysis does suggest that for practical plants:
(i) the optimum pressure ratio for a [CBTXII plant will be low (as was illustrated in
Fig. 3.15, for a realistic heat exchanger effectiveness of 0.75);
(ii) the introduction of intercooling and reheating will increase the efficiency in the
recuperative cycles and also raise the optimum pressure ratio.
6.3.2. The simple EGT plant with water injection
The discussion of the last section is then useful in considering the evaporative cycles.
We shall see that the effect of water injection downstream of the compressor (and possibly
in the cold side of the heat exchanger) may lead towards the [CBT]1XR type of plant, with
increased cold side effective specific heat and hence increased heat exchanger
effectiveness. Water injection in the compressor may lead to a plant with isothermal
compression.
Firstly, Fig. 6.8a shows the T, s (air property) diagram for an EGT cycle, a ‘wet’ version
of the CBTX cycle with water injected to cool the compressor discharge air. Frutschi and
Plancherel argued that the virtue of such evaporative cooling before the heat exchanger is
to drop the hot gas temperature at the exchanger exit. A closed cycle version of this EGT
cycle, in which the water injected was condensed after exit from the heat exchanger and
then recirculated to complete the cycle, was initially considered by Horlock [ 5 ] . This
analysis showed that the temperature of the gas at exit from the heat exchanger was indeed
reduced in the wet cycle; the total heat rejected (QA) was unchanged from that in the dry
cycle, because of the condensation of the steam which was necessary to close the wet
cycle. Some of the heat rejected in the dry cycle is simply moved from the gas flow
downstream of the hot side of the heat exchanger to the additional condenser required in
the wet cycle.
However, the turbine work has been increased because of the extra water vapour flow
through the turbine, while the compressor work is unchanged. Thus Eq. (6.17), which is
still valid, with turbine work equal to the heat supplied, shows that the thermal efficiency
increases compared with the dry cycle. It is important to realise that this efficiency is
increased not because of a reduction in the heat rejected (QA) but because of the increase in
WT. The heat rejected is still equal to the compressor work.
+
If, as suggested in Section 6.2.1, the turbine work is increased by a factor (1 2 9 ,
where S is the water vapour flow, then the dry and wet efficiencies may be written as
WRY = 1 - (WC/WT DRY), (6.19a)

and
%ET = - [wC/(I f 2S)(WT DRY], (6.19b)
so that
(WET - T D R Y ) ~-
~ WRY) 2W1 + 2s) (6.19~)
The same expression applies for some of the other variations of the EGT cycle considered
below (e.g. the recuperative water injection (RWI) plant with intercooling).
Horlock then considered a cycle proposed by El-Masri [6] in which the water
evaporation takes place not in an aftercooler but in the cold side of the heat exchanger;
again a cycle in closed form was considered, with injected water finally condensed and
recirculated. The continuing evaporation increases the effective specific heat of the cold
side fluid and can increase the effectiveness of the heat exchanger towards unity [7]. The
Hawthorne and Davis analysis for the dry [CBTIIXRcycle (and also for the other more
complex dry cycles) then becomes relevant. For a ‘perfect’ heat exchanger in the closed
EGT cycle, in which the continued evaporation on the cold side can lead to the hot and
cold side specific heats becoming the same, the heat rejected is now equal to the
compressor work. The temperature-entropy diagram for the ‘carrying’ gas is now shown
in Fig. 6.8b. The expression for the air standard efficiency of the closed dry CBTX cycle
(Eq.(6.17)) is also valid for this EGT cycle, with QA = WC,the value in a dry cycle. But
the turbine work WT (= QB)is increased because of the extra steam passing through the
turbine, with its associated enthalpy drop. Again this is the essence of the EGT cycle where
Chapter 6 . ‘Wet’ gas turbine plants 95
I
S
3 /
T
s
Fig. 6.8. (a) Temperature-entropy diagram for water injection into aftercooler of [CHTIIXRplant (after Ref. 151).
(b) Temperature-entropy diagram for water injection into cold side of heat exchanger of [CHTllXR plant.
(c) Temperature-entropy diagram for water injection into aftercooler and cold side of heat exchanger of
[cHT]& plant (after Ref. [5]).
an increase in turbine work (and heat supplied) with a constant compressor work (and heat
rejected), leads to an increase in efficiency.
A further variation of the El-Masri EGT cycle is one in which the evaporation takes
place both in an aftercooler and within the cold side of the heat exchanger (Fig. 6.8~).
Eq. (6.17) is still valid, but the efficiency is increased because more water can be injected
and the turbine work increased further.
It was shown in Ref. [5] that the arguments given above for the closed EGT cycles also
hold good for open EGT cycles, but this analysis is not repeated here. Some simple
parametric calculations were given to illustrate the increased thermal efficiency of
practical open EGT cycles, corresponding to Fig. 6.8a-c. It was assumed that water
injection was
(a) in the aftercooler (sufficient to saturate the compressor discharge gas),
(b) within the heat exchanger (cold side, to raise the effective specific heat), and
(c) in both aftercooler and heat exchanger (cold side).
Evaporative mixing at low velocity was assumed in the aftercooler, the pressure
remaining constant. Allowance was made for the real gas effects (increased specific heat of
the products of combustion at high temperature), of turbine cooling and intercooling. A
method of calculating the turbine work similar to that developed by Cerri and Arsuffi [8]
for the STIG cycle was used. It was assumed that evaporative cooling was carried out by a
small quantity of water so that the temperatures of the working gas carrying the steam
remain unchanged (except after injection for intercooling and at exit from the hot side of
the heat exchanger). The additional steam in the turbine was assumed to be superheated (at
low partial pressure) and its drop in enthalpy was obtained from steam tables knowing the
original ‘dry’ gas temperature drop.
Plots of efficiency against pressure ratio for the full injection EGT plant, for a
maximum to minimum temperature = 5 , are shown in Fig. 6.9, compared with lower
values of efficiency in the dry CBTX plant. There are several points to be noted: first that
an increase in efficiency is worthwhile, up to 10%;secondly that the total water injection is
up to over 10%of the air mass flow; and thirdly that the optimum pressure ratio increases
to about 8, from about 5 for that of the dry cycle.
Similar calculations (Fig. 6.10) were made for intercooled cycles, without and with
water injection, i.e. comparing the efficiency of the dry CICBTX cycle with an elementary
recuperated water injection plant, now a simple version of the so-called RWI plant (see
Section 6.4.2. I). Again there is an increase in thermal efficiency with water injection, but it
is not as great as for the simple EGT plant compared with the dry CBTX plant; the
optimum pressure ratio, about 8 for the dry intercooled plant, appears to change little with
water injection.
These smaller effects are related to the smaller amount of water that can be
injected for the intercooled cycle. Applying Eq. (6.19~)to the near optimum condition
of Fig. 6.9 ( ~ R = Y 0.5, with S = 0.1) yields (?)wET - ?DRY) = 0.08. Applying the
same equation to the near optimum condition of Fig. 6.10 = 0.53, with
S = 0.04) yields (m- %RY) = 0.035. Both these approximate estimates are very
close to the detailed calculations of the increases in thermal efficiency shown in the
two figures.
0.7
0.6
+
0
0.5
z
w
2
L
0.4
L
W +EFFICIENCY [CBliXr DRY
4
2 Oa3
+-EFFICIENCY [CBTIiXr WET
W
> -A- MASS OF WATER INJECTED
0 0.2 FRACTION OF AIR FLO
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
PRESSURE RATIO
Fig. 6.9. Overall efficiency of dry and wet [CBTIIXRplants for varying pressure ratios (Tcm= 1200°C) (after
Ref. IS]).
All these calculations showed modest increases in specific work, consistent with the
relatively small amounts of water injection.
6.4. Recent developments
Several modifications of the two basic steam and water injection plants (STIG and
EGT) have been proposed in recent years. Rather than analysing all these developments in
detail here, they are first briefly described; subsequently the ‘thermodynamicintentions’ of
these modified cycles are discussed, together with some of the parametric studies which
have been made by other authors.
6.4.1. Developments of the STIG cycle
6.4.1.1. The ISTIG cycle

A development of the STIG cycle is the intercooled steam injection cycle (ISTIG)
shown in Fig. 6.1 1. It involves raising steam through the waste heat of a basic CICBT plant
and injecting it into the combustion chamber; the intercooling may be by surface
intercooling or evaporative intercooling. The essential feature of the ISTIG proposal is to
obtain increased turbine work in a cycle which already has a large specific work because of
the intercooling.
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
-t EFFICIENCY [CICBTJiXrWET
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
PRESSURE RATIO
Fig. 6. IO. Overall efficiency of dry and wet [CICBTIIXRplants for varying pressure ratio (TcM= 1200°C) (after
Ref. [ 5 ] ) .
_Ii WATER
C
]
- -
INTERCOOOLER
f STEAM
WATER
T
1
I
HRSG
EXHAUST
Fig. 6. I I . ISTiG plant.

Chapter 6. ‘Wet’gas turbine plants 99
Combined STIG
Steam
Water
Air
Fig. 6.12. Combined STIG plant (after Frutschi and Plancherel [I]).
6.4.1.2. The combined STIG cycle

The combined STIG cycle (Fig. 6.12) was described by Frutschi and Plancherel [I].
Steam is raised at two pressure levels in the waste heat boiler. Superheated steam at the
higher pressure level expands through a steam turbine before injection into the compressor
discharge air stream. Low pressure steam is injected (STIG fashion) into the combustion
chamber. Attainable efficiency for this plant may in theory reach about 50%. In a variation
of this combined cycle (the Foster-Pegg plant), the steam turbine drives a second high
pressure compressor.
6.4.1.3. The FAST cycle

Another modification of the combined STIG cycle is the so-called advanced steam
topping (FAST) cycle. Now the double steam injection process (before and after
combustion) of the combined STIG cycle of Fig. 6.12 is replaced by a single steam
injection into the combustion chamber, after expansion in the steam turbine and reheating
in the HRSG (Fig. 6.13). In one version the steam turbine and the gas turbine are on the
same shaft, jointly driving the electrical generator. To call this cycle a steam topping cycle
is somewhat misleading, since it is essentially a doubly open combined cycle in that heat
rejection from the (upper) gas turbine is rejected to a (lower) main steam turbine cycle.
This lower cycle now includes reheating, steam leaving the steam turbine being reheated
before a second expansion in the gas turbine. But, of course, the steam is exhausted with
the gas and is not finally condensed, and there is no recirculation of water.
6.4.2. Developments of the EGT cycle
There have been a larger number of proposals for recuperated cycles with water
injection and evaporation, but all these can be interpreted as modifications of the EGT
plant, which is essentially a ‘wet’ CBTX cycle, as explained above.
Advanced gas turbine cycles
HRSG
EXHAUST
Fig. 6.13. Advanced steam topping (FAST) plant.
6.4.2.1. The RWI cycle

Frutschi and Plancherel [ 11 not only described the basic EGT cycle, but also a modified
version with an intercooler added. Macchi et al. [9] called this intercooled EGT the RWI
plant and the simplest version is shown in the top part of Fig. 6.14. Macchi et al. also
considered more complex versions (some with evaporative intercooling and aftercooling),
the performance of which are discussed in Section 6.6.
6.4.2.2. The HAT cycle

A further major innovation is the humidified air turbine (HAT) cycle, which involves
introduction of a humidifier before the combustion chamber, rather than the mixer origin-
ally proposed by Frutschi and Plancherel. The resulting HAT cycle is shown diagramma-
tically, as a modification of the simply intercooled RWT cycle, in the lower part of Fig. 6.14.
There is now a smaller exergy loss in the evaporation process, both from increasing the
water temperature at entry to the humidifier (by using cooling water passing through the
intercoolers between LP and HP compressors and an aftercooler), and from reduction of
the temperature difference between the water and air within the humidifier itself.
6.4.2.3. The REVAP cycle

De Ruyck et al. [IO] proposed another variation of the EGT cycle, in an attempt to
reduce the exergy losses involved in water injection (the REVAP cycle). Rather than
introducing the complication of a saturator, De Ruyck proposed several stages of water
heating (in an economiser, an intercooler and an aftercooler). The efficiency claimed for
this cycle is only a little less than the HAT cycle.
Chapter 6. 'Wet' gas turbine plants 101
Fig. 6.14. Recuperated water injection (RWI) plant and humidified air turbine (HAT) plant compared (after
Macchi et al. [9]).
6.4.2.4. The CHATcycle

A modification of the HAT cycle has been proposed by Nakhamkin [l 11, which is
known as the cascaded'humid air turbine (CHAT). The higher pressure ratios required in
humidified cycles led Nakhamkin to propose reheating between the HP and LP turbines.
Splitting the expansion in this way is paralleled by splitting the compression, and enables
the HP shaft to be non-generating, as indicated in Fig. 6.15. This implies that the capital
cost of the plant can be reduced, but the cycle is still complex.
6.4.2.5. The TOPHAT cycle

Another water injection cycle proposed is the TOPHAT cycle [12] (see Fig. 6.16). As
for the HAT cycle, the purpose is to introduce water into the cycle with low exergy loss
and this is achieved by injecting water continuously in the compressor in an attempt to
HRSG
AIR EXHAUST
SATURATOR
Fig. 6.15. Cascaded humid air turbine (CHAT) plant.
move the compression towards isothermal rather than adiabatic, with the consequence of
reduced work input. Now the claim is for an efficiency higher than that of the HAT cycle,
and this may be expected from the analysis of the dry ‘van Liere’ cycle given in
Section 6.3.1.
AIR
FUEL I
II
C
I
HEAT
-=F@+
EXCHANGER
WATER
CONDENSER *
Fig. 6.16. TOPHAT (van Liere) plant with water injection into compressor.
Chapter 6. ‘Wet’ gm turbine plants 103
6.4.3. Simpler direct water injection cycles
In the search for higher plant thermal efficiency, the simplicity of the two basic STIG
and EGT cycles, as described by Frutschi and Plancherel, has to some extent been lost in
the substantial modifications described above. But there have been other less complex
proposals for water injection into the simple unrecuperated open cycle gas turbine; one
simply involves water injection at entry to the compressor, and is usually known as inlet
fog boosting (IFB); the other involves the ‘front part’ of an RWI cycle, i.e. water injection
in an evaporative intercooler, usually in a high pressure ratio aero-derivative gas turbine
plant.
For the IFB plant the main advantage lies in the reduction of the inlet temperature,
mainly by saturating the air with a very fine spray of water droplets [13]. This, in itself,
results in an increased power output, but it is evident that the water may continue to
evaporate within the compressor, resulting in a lowering of the compressor delivery
temperature. A remarkable result observed by Utamura is an increase of some 8% in power
output for only a small water mass flow (about 1% of air mass flow). However, the
compressor performance may be adversely affected as the stages become mismatched
[ 141, even for the small water quantities injected.
In the second development, the emphasis is on taking advantage of the increased
specific work associated with evaporative intercooling and of the increased mass flow and
work output of the turbine. Any gain on the dry efficiency is likely to be marginal,
depending on the split in pressure ratio.
6.5. A discussion of the basic thermodynamics of these developments
All these cycles involve attempts to improve on the various ‘dry’gas turbine cycles
discussed earlier in Section 6.3.
The basic STIG cycle improves on the dry CBT cycle through an element of
recuperation and by increasing the turbine work [2]. The ISTIG cycle provides a similar
improvement of the dry CICBTX cycle with the extra flow through the turbine. The
combined STIG and FAST cycles involve introducing a steam turbine giving extra
work and move the simple STIG cycle into the realms of the combined cycle plant (see
Chapter 7).
To further understand the ‘thermodynamic philosophy’ of the improvements on the
EGT cycle we recall the cycle calculations of Chapter 3 for ordinary dry gas turbine
cycles-including the simple cycle, the recuperated cycle and the intercooled and reheated
cycles.
Fig. 3.16 showed carpet plots of efficiency and specific work for several dry cycles,
including the recuperative [CBTX] cycle, the intercooled [CICBTX] cycle, the reheated
[CBTBTX] cycle and the intercooled reheated [CICBTBTX] cycle. These are replotted in
Fig. 6.17. The ratio of maximum to minimum temperature is 5: 1 (i.e. T,, = 1500 K); the
polytropic efficiencies are 0.90 (compressor), 0.88 (turbine); the recuperator effectiveness
is 0.75. The fuel assumed was methane and real gas effects were included, but no
allowance was made for turbine cooling.
200 300 400 500 600 700 no0 900
SPECIFIC WORK
Fig. 6.17. Overall efficiency and specific work of dry and wet cycles compared.
To this figure, some of the calculations carried out by various authors for wet cycles
have been added: RWI and HAT [9]; REVAP [lo]; CHAT [ l l ] ; TOPHAT [12].
The assumptions made by the various authors (viz. polytropic efficiencies, combustion
pressure loss and temperature ratio, etc.) are all roughly similar to those used in the
calculations of uncooled dry cycles. Some modest amounts of turbine cooling were
allowed in certain cases [9] but the effect of these on the efficiency should not be large at
T,,, = 1250°C (see later for discussion of more detailed parametric calculations by some
of these authors).
The RWI and HAT cycles may then be seen as ‘wet’ developments of the intercooled
regenerative dry cycle. These evaporative cycles show an increase in efficiency on that
of the dry CICBTX cycle-largely because of the increased turbine work (still approxi-
mately the same as the ‘heat supplied’) which is not at the expense of increased
compressor work. The HAT cycle then offers an appreciable reduction in the exergy loss
in the evaporative process compared with RWI, thus providing an added advantage in
terms of the thermal efficiency. REVAP also provides a similar advantage on efficiency.
The TOPHAT cycle has the advantage of increased turbine work together with reduced
compressor work.
The CHAT cycle may be seen as a low loss evaporative development of the dry
intercooled, reheated regenerative cycle [CICBTBTX]. It offers some thermodynamic
advantage-increase in turbine work (and ‘heat supplied’) with little or no change in the
compressor work, leading to an increased thermal efficiency and specific work output.
In summary, all these ‘wet’ cycles may be expected to deliver higher thermal
efficiencies than their original dry equivalents, at higher optimum pressure ratios. The
specific work quantities will also increase, depending on the amount of water injected.
6.6. Some detailed parametric studies of wet cycles
The general thermodynamic conclusions given above are confirmed by more

detailed parametric studies which have been made by several authors of various wet
cycles.
Macchi et al. [9] made an extensive study of water injection cycles in their two classic
papers and their results are worth a detailed study. Some of their calculations (for ISTIG,
RWI and HAT) are reproduced in Figs. 6.18-6.20, all for surface intercooling (parallel
calculations for evaporative intercooling are given in the original papers).
For the ISTIG cycle, Fig. 6.18 shows thermal efficiency plotted against specific work
for varying overall pressure ratios and two maximum temperatures of 1250 and 1500°C.
Peak efficiency is obtained at high pressure ratios (about 36 and 45, respectively), before
the specific work begins to drop sharply. Note that the pressure ratios of the LP and HP
compressors were optimised within these calculations.
Macchi et al. provided a similar comprehensive study of the more complex RWI cycles
as illustrated in Fig. 6.19, which shows similar carpet plots of thermal efficiency against
specific work for maximum temperatures of 1250 and 150O0C, for surface intercoolers.
The division of pressure ratio between LP and HP compressors is again optimised within
these calculations, leading to an LP pressure ratio less than that in the HP. For the RWI
cycle at 1250°C the optimisation appears to lead to a higher optimum overall pressure ratio
(about 20) than that obtained by Horlock [5], who assumed LP and HP pressure ratios to be
same in his study of the simplest RWI (EGT) cycle. His estimate of optimum pressure ratio
54
53
52
E
*y 51
!!!
$50
W
A
J 49
O48
47
46
450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
SPECIFIC WORK [kJlkg AIR]
Fig. 6.18. Overall efficiency and specific work of ISTIG plant (after Macchi et al. A).
55.5
55
54.5
E 4
!
Gz
;
Y
55.5
Y
y 53
52.5
>
0
52
51.5
51
400 450 500 550 600 850 700 750
Fig. 6.19. Overall efficiency and specific work of RWI plant (after Macchi et al. [9]).
was in the region of 10, but the efficiency plot against pressure ratio was very flat, and of
course the calculation method much simplified.
Macchi et al. presented similar calculations for the HAT cycle based on comparable
assumptions (Fig. 6.20). As to be expected, they obtain efficiencies about 2% higher
57.5
57
56.5
*
0
z
w 5 6
u
LL
Y
W
-I 55.5
i
w
55
54.5
54
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
Fig. 6.20. Overall efficiency and specific work of HAT plant (after Macchi et al. [9]).
Chapter 6. ‘Wet’gas turbine plants I07
than the RWI calculations, peaking at even higher pressure ratios (27 at 1250°C, 50 at
15Oo0C).
Macchi et al. did not undertake parametric studies of the CHAT cycle and there appears
to be no comparably thorough examination of this cycle in the literature; but Nakhamkin
describes a prototype plant giving a thermal efficiency of some 55% at a very high pressure
ratio,Le. about 70, compared with the dry CICBTBTX cycle optimum of about 40 shown
in Fig. 6.17.
van Liere’s calculations for the TOPHAT cycle, also shown in Fig. 6.17, show a
remarkably flat variation in efficiency for a wide variation in specific work.
6.7. Conclusions
The main conclusions from the work on water injection describes in this chapter are as
follows:
the well established STIG cycle shows substantial improvement on the dry CBT
cycle, mainly in specific work but also in thermal efficiency;
the simple EGT plant (a ‘wet’ CBTX cycle) cycle gives an increase in the thermal
efficiency; the optimum pressure ratio is still quite low, but a little above that of the
dry CBTX cycle;
the intercooled RWI, HAT, REVAP and TOPHAT cycles give increases of efficiency
and specific work on the dry CICBTX cycle, at the expense of the added complexity,
optimum conditions occumng at higher pressure ratios;
the CHAT cycle, interpreted as an evaporative modification of the ‘ultimate’ dry
CICBTBTX plant, appears to yield high efficiency at an even higher pressure ratio.
References
[I] Frutschi, H.U. and Plancherel, A.A. (1988). Comparison of combined cycles with steam injection and
evaporation cycles, Proc. ASME COGEN-TURBO 11, pp.137- 145.
121 Lloyd, A. (1991). Thermodynamics of chemically recuperated gaq turbines. CEES Report 256, Centre For
Energy and Environmental Studies, University Archives, Department of Rare Books and Special
Collections, Princeton University Library.
131 Fraize, W.E. and Kinney, C. (1979). Effects of steam injection on the performance of gas turbines and
combined cycles, ASME J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 101.217-227.
[4] Hawthorne. W.R. and Davis, G.de V. (1956). Calculating gas turbine performance, Engineering 181,
361 -367.
151 Horlock, J.H. (1998). The evaporative gas turbine, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 120.336-343.
[61 El-Masri, M.A. (1988). A modified high efficiency recuperated gas turbine cycle, J. Engng Gas Turbines
Power 1 IO, 233-242.
[71 Horlock, J.H. (1998). Heat exchanger performance with water injection (with relevance to evaporative gaq
turbine (EGT) cycles), Energy Conver Mgmt 39(16-18). 1621-1630.
[SI Cem, G. and Arsuffi, G. (1986). Calculation procedures for steam injected gaq turbine cycle with
autonomous distilled water production, ASME Paper 86-GT-297.
[91 Macchi, E., Consonni, S., Lozza, G. and Chiesa. P. (1995). An assessment of the thermodynamic
performance of mixed gas-steam cycles, Parts A and B, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 117,
489-508.
[lo] De Ruyck J., Bram, S. and Allard, G. (1997). REVAF' cycle: A new evaporative cycle without saturation
tower. ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 119,893-897.
[ l l ] Nakhamkin, M., Swensen, E.C., Wilson, J.M., Gaul, G. and Polsky, M. (19%), The cascaded humidified
advanced turbine (CHAT), ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 118,565-571.
[12] van Liere, J. (2001), The TOPHAT turbine cycle. Gas turbine technology, Modem Power Systems April,
35-37.
[ 131 Utamura, M., Takaaki, K.,Murata,H.and Nobuyuki, H. (1999), Effects of intensive evaporative cooling on
performance characteristics of land-based gas turbine, PWR-Vol. 34, Joint Power Generation Conference,
pp. 321-328.
[14] Horlock J.H. (2001). Compressor performance with water injection, ASME Paper 2001-GT-343.
Chapter 7
THE COMBINED CYCLE GAS TURBINE (CCGT)
7.1. Introduction
The modification to single cycles described earlier may not achieve a high enough
overall efficiency. The plant designer therefore explores the possibility of using a
combined plant, which is essentially one plant thermodynamically on top of the other, the
lower plant receiving some or all of the heat rejected from the upper plant. If a higher mean
temperature of heat supply and/or a lower temperature of heat rejection can be achieved in
this way then a higher overall plant efficiency can also be achieved, as long as substantial
imversibilities are not introduced.
In this chapter, a short review of the thermodynamics of CCGTs is given. However, the
author recommends readers to refer to two books which deal with combined plants in
greater detail [1,2].
7.2. An ideal combination of cyclic plants
Consider a combined power plant made up of two cyclic plants (H, L) in series
(Fig. 7.1). In this ideal plant, heat that is rejected from the higher (topping) plant, of
thermal efficiency w, is used to supply the lower (bottoming) plant, of thermal efficiency
w, with no intermediate heat loss and supplementary heating.
The work output from the lower cycle is
but
QHL = Q B < ~- TI+),
where QB is the heat supplied to the upper plant, which delivers work
wH = %&?Be (7.3)
Thus, the total work output is
W = WH + WL= VHQB +~ ( 1 TI+)QB
- +
= QB(TI+ TL - TI+%). (7.4)
The thermal efficiency of the combined plant is therefore
W
-
TCP = - = %I+% (7.5)
QB
109
QHR = QL
I QLR‘ QA
Fig. 7.1. Ideal combined cycle plant.
The thermal efficiency of the combined plant is greater than that of the upper cycle
alone, by an amount ~ ( - lw).
7.3. A combined plant with heat loss between two cyclic plants in series
Consider next two cyclic plants operating in series, but with unused heat QuN (or heat
+
‘loss’) between the two plants, so that QHR= Q L em. as shown in Fig. 7.2.
The overall thermal efficiency of the combined plant is by definition
Wn + WL
TCP =
QB ’
and the efficiencies of the higher and lower plant, respectively, are
Wn WL
w=-9 % = - e
QB QL
However, the heat supplied to the lower cycle is now

QL = QHR - QUN = Q B ( ~ - TH) - Q U N ~
so that
M ~+B%[QB(~ - w) - Qml = + m - %TL -V U N ~ , (7.6)
TCP =
QB
where vW = em&. Thus there is a loss in efficiency of vuN%, in comparison with the
‘ideal’ cycle with no heat loss between plants H and L.
Chapter I. The combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) 111
QLR QA
.c
Fig. 7.2. Combined cycle plant with heat loss between higher and lower plants.
Ekj. (7.6) can be written in another form, defining
rlB=--
QL
QHR
-I--
QHR = -[ (1 - vUN%) 1 (7.7)
as the fraction of the total heat rejected by the higher cycle which is supplied to the lower
cycle, a form of ‘boiler efficiency’ for the heat transfer process. The combined plant
efficiency may be written as
TLQL QHR
VcP= % + -= %+TIL%-- = %+%TL - %%%. (7.8)
QB QB
or
rlCP = % + (rl0)L - VH(rlO)L, (7.9)
where (7)o)L is the overall efficiency for the lower cycle, equal to the product of thermal
efficiency and ‘boiler efficiency’, T L ~ B .
7.4. The combined cycle gas turbine plant (CCGT)
The most developed and commonly used combined power plant involves a
combination of open circuit gas turbine and a closed cycle (steam turbine), the so-called
CCGT. Many different combinations of gas turbine and steam turbine plant have been
proposed. Seippel and Bereuter [3] provided a wide-ranging review of possible proposed
plants, but essentially there are two main types of CCGT.
In the first type, heating of the steam turbine cycle is by the gas turbine exhaust with or
without additional firing (there is normally sufficient excess air in the turbine exhaust for
additional fuel to be burnt, without an additional air supply). In the second, the main
combustion chamber is pressurised and joint ‘heating’ of gas turbine and steam turbine
plants is involved.
Most major developments have been of the first (exhaust heated) system, with and
without additional firing of the exhaust. The firing is usually ‘supplementary’-burning
additional fuel in the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) up to a maximum
temperature of about 750°C. However, full firing of exhaust boilers is used in the
repowering of existing steam plants.
7.4.1. The exhaust heated (unjred) CCGT
Exhaust gases from the gas turbine are used to raise steam in the lower cycle without
the burning of additional fuel (Fig. 7.3); the temperatures of the gas and waterkteam flows
are as indicated. A limitation on this application lies in the heat recovery system steam
generator; choice of the evaporation pressure (p,) is related to the temperature difference
(T6 - T,) at the ‘pinch point’ as shown in the figure, and a compromise has to be reached
between that pressure and the stack temperature of the gases leaving the exchanger, TS
(and the consequent ‘heat loss’).’
We first consider how the simple analysis of Section 7.3, for the combined doubly
cyclic series plant, is modified for the open circuitlclosed cycle plant. The work output
from the gas-turbine plant of Fig. 7.3 is
WH = (7)O)HFt (7.10)
(70)His the (arbitrary) overall efficiency and F is the energy supplied in the fuel,
F = M,[CV],, where [CV], is the enthalpy of combustion of the fuel of mass flow Mf. The
work output from the steam cycle is
WL = NQL. (7.1 1 )
in which is the thermal efficiency of the lower (steam) cycle and QL is the heat
transferred from the gas turbine exhaust.
Thus, the (arbitrary) overall efficiency of the whole plant is
(7.12)
But if combustion is adiabatic, then the steady flow energy equation for the open-circuit
gas turbine (with exhaust of enthalpy (Hp)s leaving the HRSG and entering the exhaust
stack with a temperature Ts greater than that of the atmosphere, TO)is
HRO= HPS+ WH + QL? (7.13)
’ Note that in Fig. 7.3, the steam entropy is scaled by a factor p = Ms/Mg,obtained from the heat balance,
M,(h4 - h6) = MgI: Tdr, = M,(h, - h,) = M, Tds,. Point c is then vertically under point 6 (but point 6 may
not be precisely vertically below point S).
Chapter I. The combined cycle gar turbine (CCGT) 113
cc
1 “4 ,;
2
C
H, \
/ : 4
8 L QL
b ,,M*
T
a \ wL
, CON , r
,
0 sp. P*
Fig. 7.3. Open circuit gas turbindclosed steam cycle combined plant (CCGT). No supplementary firing
(after Ref. [I]).
so that
= F - [Hps - Hw]- WH, (7.14)

where Hpo is the enthalpy of products leaving the calorimeter in a ‘calorific value’
experiment, after combustion of fuel M fat temperature TO.
The arbitrary overall efficiency of the combined plant (Eq.(7.12)) may then be written
as
(7.12a)
(7.12b)
(7.12~)
Expression (7.12a) for overall efficiency is similar to that for the combined doubly
cyclic plant; the term %[Hps - Hw]/F corresponds to the ‘heat loss’ term of Section 7.3.
The extent of this reduction in overall efficiency depends on how much exhaust gases can
be cooled and could theoretically be zero if they emerged from the HRSG at the (ambient)
temperature of the reactants. In practice this is not possible, as corrosion may take place on
the tubes of the HRSG if the dew point temperature of the exhaust gases is above the feed
water temperature. We shall find that there may be little or no advantage in using feed
heating in the steam cycle of the CCGT plant.
7.4.2. The integrated coal gasijication combined cycle plant (IGCC)
A current development of the exhaust heated plant (unfired) is the integrated coal
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant. One of the earliest of these IGCCs was the Cool
Water pilot plant built by the General Electric company, using a Texaco gasifier. This
complex plant is shown in Fig. 7.4, after Plumley [4]. The gas turbine, HRSG and steam
turbine components were standard so it was the performance of the gasifier which was
critical for new development and close integration between the gasifier and the HRSG was
important.
In the plant, coal is ground and mixed with water to form a slurry and this is fed to the
gasifier through a burner, in which partial combustion takes place with oxygen (supplied
from a separate plant). During gasification the coal ash is melted into a slag, quenched with
water and removed as a solid.
Following the high temperature reactions of coal and water with oxygen, the raw
synthetic gas (syngas), consisting mainly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (about
40% each by molal concentration) is water-cooled in radiant and convection coolers,
generating saturated steam. The gas is then passed through a particulate scrubber, further
cooled to near ambient temperature prior to sulphur removal, and then saturated to reduce
the subsequent combustion temperature and NO, production.
The syngas then enters the conventional exhaust heated CCGT plant, being burnt in the
gas turbine combustion chamber with air from the compressor. The combustion gas
supplies the gas turbine, driving the compressor and a generator, and then exhausts into the
HRSG (unfired), which raises superheated steam. By-product steam from the gasifier
coolers (some 40% of the total steam supply) is also superheated in the HRSG and the two
streams of steam enter the steam turbine which drives its own generator.
Some 20 IGCC plants, in various forms, some with other gasifiers but most using
oxygen, are now operating or are in the process of construction. Modificationsof the IGCC
plant to sequestrate the carbon dioxide produced will be discussed in Chapter 8.
I
- 1 7 Sulphur
-
I I
worn I *
P(.nt v Qrmch Claua Tail gar Clew vent
I gulfier @ant
---c treating gar to
incinerator
I
-1000- - - - - - - - I 11 Alternate
- 1 1
to exlrtlng
tonuday boiler
-
cod cod cad
8110
grindlng G8aiR.r
rtorage
1
I
Wane
bat
boilerr
- Parnculate
raubbing
and renling
I S1ao +1 a
I
I Saturated
Recycle unconverted
coal urd water
I
8
Y
Alr
T TOCOWLMM~
Fig. 7.4. Cool water IGCC plant (after Plumley [4]).

7.4.3. The exhaust heated (supplementary$red) CCGT
The exhaust gases from a gas turbine contain substantial amounts of excess air, since
the main combustion process has to be diluted to reduce the combustion temperature to
well below that which could be obtained in stoichiometric combustion, because of the
metallurgical limits on the gas turbine operating temperature. This excess air enables
supplementary firing of the exhaust to take place and higher steam temperatures may then
be obtained in the HRSG.
The T, s diagram for a combined plant with supplementary firing is illustrated in Fig. 7.5
(again the steam entropy has been scaled). Introduction of regenerative feed heating of the
water is of doubtful value, as will be discussed later. Supplementary heating generally
lowers the overall efficiency of the combined plant. Essentially this is because a fraction of
the total heat supplied is utilised to produce work in the lower cycle, of lower efficiency
than that of the higher cycle.
",
M'
,
, CON , f
0 Sgr P'ss
Fig. 7.5. Open circuit gas turbindclosed steam cycle combined plant (CCGT). With supplementary firing (after
Ref. [ 11).
Chapter 7 . The combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) 1 I7
For a mass flow of air (Ma) to the compressor of the gas turbine plant, a mass flow Mf
of fuel (of specific enthalpy b)is supplied to the two combustion chambers (Mf =
(Mf)H + The overall efficiency of the combined plant is then
(7.15)
Eq. (7.15) may be written as
(7.16)
+ +
where HPt = [Ma (Mf)H (Mf)L]hp~,and P‘ indicates products after supplementary
combustion.
Eq. (7.16) may be written in terms of ‘heating’ quantities as
QH = (Mf)H[cvlO and QL = (Mf)L[cvlO
and a ‘heat loss’
QUN = [Ma (Mf)H - (~P’IoI
(M~)LI[(~P’)s
Then with vL = QL/(QL + QH)and vUN = Qm/(QL + QH), it follows that
(Mfh/(Mf)H = vL/(1 - VL)r (7.17)
and
= V U N / ( ~ - VL).
QUN~[(M~)H[C~IOI (7.18)
so that Eq. (7.16) becomes
(7)O)CP = (7)O)H + Ih - (7)O)Hrh- %VUN - (7)0)H(l - ‘I)L)vL* (7.19)
7.5. The efficiency of an exhaust heated CCGT plant
The expression for the combined cycle efficiency

7)= (7)O)H + (7)O)L[1 - (7)O)HI (7.20)
is always valid for CCGT exhaust heated (unfired) cycles. The parametric calculation of
the efficiency of the upper open gas turbine plant (7)o)H is discussed in detail in Chapters 4
and 5 . The overall efficiency of the lower steam cycle (qo)Lis the product of the lower
thermal efficiency and the ‘boiler’ efficiency of the HRSG, m.
Within the steam plant % depends on several factors:

the boiler and condenser pressures;
0 the turbine and boiler feed pump efficiencies;
0 whether or not there is steam reheat;
0 whether or not there is feed heating and whether the steam is raised in one, two or three
stages.
On the other hand 778 depends on some of the following features of the gas turbine
plant:
the gas turbine final exit temperature;
0 the specific heat capacity of the exhaust gases; and
0 the allowable final stack temperature.
The interaction between the gas turbine plant and the steam cycle is complex, and has
been the subject of much detailed work by many authors [5-81. A detailed account of
some of these parametric studies can be found in Ref. [l], and hence they are not discussed
here. Instead, we first illustrate how the efficiency of the simplest CCGT plant may be
calculated. Subsequently, we summarise the important features of the more complex
combined cycles.
7.5.1. A Parametric calculation
We describe a parametric ‘point’ calculation of the efficiency of a simple CCGT plant,

firstly with no feed heating. It is supposed that the main parameters of the gas turbine upper
plant (pressure ratio, maximum temperature, and component efficiencies) have been
specified and its performance (T& determined (Fig. 7.3 shows the T , s diagram for the
two plants and the various state points).
For the steam plant, the condenser pressure, the turbine and pump efficiencies are also
specified; there is also a single phase of watedsteam heating, with no reheating. The feed
pump work term for the relatively low pressure steam cycle is ignored, so that hb = ha.For
the HRSG two temperature differences are prescribed:
(a) the upper temperature difference, AT& = T4 - T,; and
(b) the ‘pinch point’ temperature difference, ATk = T6 - T,.
With the gas temperature at turbine exit known (T4),the top temperature in the steam
cycle (T,) is then obtained from (a). It is assumed that this is less than the prescribed
maximum steam temperature.
If an evaporation temperature (p,) is pre-selected as a parametric independent variable,
then the temperatures and enthalpies at c and e are found; from (b) above the temperature
T6 is also determined. If there is no heat loss, the heat balance in the HRSG between gas
states 4 and 6 is
(7.21)
where Mgand M,are the gas and steam flow rates, respectively. Thus, by knowing all the
enthalpies the mass flow ratio p = MJMg can be obtained. As the entry water temperature
Tb has been specified (as the condenser temperature approximately), a further application
Chapter 7. The combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) 119
of the heat balance equation for the whole HRSG,
(h4 - hS) = p(he - hb), (7.22)

yields the enthalpy and temperature at the stack, (hs,Ts).
Even for this simplest CCGT plant, iterations on such a calculation are required, with
various values of p c , in order to meet the requirements set on Te, the steam turbine entry
temperature, and Ts (the calculated value of Ts has to be such that the dewpoint
temperature of the gas (Tdp)is below the economiser water entry temperature (Tb)and that
may not be achievable). But with the ratio p satisfactorily determined, the work output
from the lower cycle WL can be estimated and the combined plant efficiency obtained from
770 = (WH + wL)/Mf[cvlO, (7.23)

as the fuel energy input to the higher cycle and its work output is already known.
This is essentially the approach adopted by Rufli [9] in a comprehensive set of
calculations, but he assumed that the economiser entry water temperature Tb is raised
above the condenser temperature by feed heating, which was specified for all his
calculations. The T , s diagram is shown in Fig. 7.6; the feed pump work terms are
neglected so that ha = hb' and hat = hb.
Knowing the turbine efficiency, an approximate condition line for the expansion
through the steam turbine can be drawn (to state f' at pressure pb') and an estimate made of
the steam enthalpy hp. If a fraction of the steam flow in, is bled at this point then the heat
balance for a direct heater raising the water from near the condenser temperature T, to Tb is
(7.24)
=g v P%
Fig. 7.6. CCGT plant with feed water heating by bled steam (after Ref. [11).
and m, can be determined. The work output from the steam cycle can then be obtained
(allowing for the bleeding of the steam from the turbine) as
where feed pump work terms have been neglected (the feed pumping will be split for the
regenerative cycle with feed heating).
With the fuel energy input known from the calculation of the gas turbine plant
performance, F = Mf[CVl0, the combined plant efficiency is determined as
The reason for using feed heating to set the entry feed water temperature at a level Tb
above the condenser temperature T, is that Tbmust exceed the dewpoint temperature Tdpof
the exhaust gases. If Tb is below Tapthen condensation may occur on the outside of the
economiser tubes (the temperature of the metal on the outside of the tubes is virtually the
same as the internal water temperature because of the high heat transfer on the water side).
With Tb > Tdppossible corrosion will be avoided.
Some of Rufli’s calculations for ( T ~ )for~ a, single boiler pressure pc, are shown in
Fig. 7.7a. There are two important features here:
(a) as expected, the overall CCGT efficiency increases markedly with gas turbine
maximum temperature; and
(b) the optimum pressure ratio for maximum efficiency is low, relative to that for a
simple CBT cycle. We return to this point below in Section 7.6.
Similarly comprehensive calculations were carried out by Cerri [ 101:
(a) with and without feed heating, and
(b) with supplementary heating.
For (a), calculations showed that the presence of feed heating made little difference to
the overall efficiency. Essentially, this is because although feed heating raises the thermal
efficiency x, it leads to a higher value of TS and hence a lower value of the boiler
efficiency, 778. The overall lower cycle efficiency (qoh= 7)~- may be expected to
change little in the expression for combined cycle efficiency (vo)cp,Eq.(7.12~).However,
as pointed out before, feed heating can be used to ensure that Tb is higher than the
dewpoint temperature of the exhaust gases, Tdprto avoid corrosion of the economiser water
tubes.
For (b), Cerri assumed that the supplementary ‘heat supplied’ was sufficient to give a
maximum temperature equal to the assumed maximum steam entry temperature T,. In
general, it was shown that for the higher values of T3 now used in CCGT plants there was
little or no benefit on overall efficiency associated with supplementary heating.
Rufli also investigated whether raising the steam at two pressure levels showed any
advantage. Typical results obtained by Rufli are also given in Fig. 7.7b. It can be seen that
there is an increase of about 2-3% on overall efficiency resulting from two stages of
heating rather than a single stage.
Results similar to the calculations of Rufli and Cerri have been obtained by many
authors [5-81.
0.51
0.5 1- I
T3/T1 = 4.0
-- T31Tl = 4.5
- * T W l= 5.0
.
0 10 12 14 16 10 20 22
(a) PRESSURE RATIO
0.53
0.52
0.51
c
*0 0.5
z
;
U
0.49
U
2 0.40
-I
;
>
0.47
0
0.46
0.45
0.44
0 10 12 14 16 10 20 22
(b) PRESSURE RATIO
Fig. 7.7. (a) Overall efficiency of CCGT plant with feed water heating by bled steam and single pressure steam
raising (after Rufli [9]). (b) Overall efficiency of CCGT plant with feed water heating with bled steam and dual
pressure steam raising (after Rufli A).
7.5.2. Regenerative feed heating
For a comprehensive discussion on feed heating in a CCGT plant, readers may refer to
Kehlhofer’s excellent practical book on CCGTs [ 2 ] ;a summary of this discussion is given
below.
Kehlhofer takes the gas turbine as a ‘given’ plant and then concentrates on the
optimisation of the steam plant. He discusses the question of the limitation on the stack and
water entry temperatures in some detail, their interaction with the choice of p , in a single
pressure steam cycle, and the choice of two values of pc in a dual pressure steam cycle.
Considering the economiser of the HRSG he also argues that the dewpoint of the gases at
exhaust from the HRSG must be less than the feed-water entry temperature; for sulphur
free fuels the water dewpoint controls, whereas for fuels with sulphur a ‘sulphuric acid’
dewpoint (at a higher temperature) controls. Through these limitations on the exhaust gas
temperature, the choice of fuel with or without sulphur content (distillate oil or natural gas,
respectively) has a critical influence ab initio on the choice of the thermodynamic system.
For the simple single pressure system with feed heating, Kehlhofer first points out that
the amount of steam production (M,) is controlled by the pinch point condition if the steam
pressure (p,) is selected, as indicated earlier (Eq. (7.21)). However, with fuel oil
containing sulphur, the feed-water temperature at entry to the HRSG is set quite high (Tbis
about 130°C), so the heat that can be extracted from the exhaust gases beyond the pinch
point [M,(h, - hb)]is limited. As shown by Rufli, the condensate can be brought up to Tb
by a single stage of bled steam heating, in a direct contact heater, the steam tapping
pressure being set approximately by the temperature Tb.
Kehlhofer then suggests that more heat can be extracted from the exhaust gases, even if
there is a high limiting value of Tb (imposed by use of fuel oil with a high sulphur content).
It is thermodynamically better to do this without regenerative feed heating, which leads to
less work output from the steam turbine. For a single pressure system with a pre-heating
loop, the extra heat is extracted from the exhaust gases by steam raised in a low pressure
evaporator in the loop (as shown in Fig. 7.8, after Wunsch [ll]). The evaporation
temperature will be set by the ‘sulphuric acid’ dewpoint (and feed water entry temperature
Tb = 130°C). The irreversibility involved in raising the feed water to temperature Tb is
split between that arising from the heat transfer from gas to the evaporation (pre-heater)
loop and that in the deaeratodfeed heater. It is shown in Ref. [ I ] that the total
irreversibility is just the same as that which would have occurred if the water had been
heated from condenser temperature entirely in the HRSG. Thus, the simple method of
calculation described at the beginning of Section 7.5.1 (with no feed water heating and
Tb = T,) is valid.
Kehlhofer explains that the pre-heating loop must be designed so that the heat extracted
is sufficient to raise the temperature of the feed water flow from condenser temperature T,
to T,!(see Fig. 7.6). The available heat increases with live steam pressure (pc),for selected
Tb(= T,) and given gas turbine conditions, but the heat required to preheat the feed water is
set by (T,! - T,). The live steam pressure is thus determined from the heat balance in the
pre-heater if the heating of the feed water by bled steam is to be avoided; but the optimum
(low) live steam pressure may not be achievable because of the requirement set by this
heat balance.
Exhaust DtFH
Fig. 7.8. Single pressure steam cycle system with LP evaporator in a pre-heating loop, as alternative to feed
heating (after Wunsch [ I 11).
Kehlhofer regards the two pressure system as a natural extension of the single pressure
cycle with a low pressure evaporator acting as a pre-heater. Under some conditions more
steam could be produced in the LP evaporator than is required to pre-heat the feed water
and this can be used by admitting it to the turbine at a low pressure. For a fuel with high
sulphur content (requiring high feed water temperature (Tb) at entry to the HRSG), a dual
pressure system with no low pressure water economiser may have two regenerative
surface feed heaters and a pre-heating loop. For a sulphur free fuel (with a lower Tb),a
dual pressure system with a low pressure economiser may have a single-stage
deaeratoddirect contact feed heater using bled steam.
7.6. The optimum pressure ratio for a CCGT plant
Rufli’s calculations (Fig. 7.7a, b), indicated that the optimum pressure ratio for a CCGT
plant is relatively low compared with that of a simple gas turbine (CBT) plant. In both
cases, the optimum pressure ratio increases with maximum temperature. Davidson and
Keeley [6] have given a comparative plot of the efficiencies of the two plants (Fig. 7.9),
showing that the optimum pressure ratio for a CCGT plant is about the same as that giving
maximum specific work for a CBT plant.
The reason for this choice of low pressure ratio is illustrated by an approximate analysis
[ 121, which extends the graphical method of calculating gas turbine performance
described in Chapter 3. If the gas turbine higher plant is assumed to operate on an air
standard cycle (Le. the working fluid is a perfect gas with a constant ratio of specific heats,
y), then the compressor work, the turbine work, the net work output and the heat supplied
may be written as
m w = w:: = ( x - l)/q(-(O - I), (7.27)

Turbine inlet
temperature
-
OY
0.36
0.34
1400 "C
-
I
2
Q
0.32 -Turbine inlet
c temperature
$ 0.30 1400 '
C
E a
1300 "C
ZI
0
c 1400 ' C Y
.-
0)
0 Y
1200 "C
$ 3
- 0
2 1100°C
Q) 0
6 Q
1000 "C
1000 "C
10 15 20 30
u
10 15 20 30
Pressure ratio Pressure ratio
Gas turbine plant Combined plant
(non-reheat)
Fig. 7.9. Overall efficiency of CCGT plant compared with overall efficiency and specific work of CBT plant
(after Davidson and Keeley [6]).
NDTW = W; = we(n - i ) / ~ (-
e I), (7.28)
I
NDNW = W'H = W'T - wc, (7.29)
NDHT = dH= (1 - Wk), (7.30)
respectively, where the primes indicate that all have been made non-dimensional by
dividing by the product of the gas flow rate and c (T - Tl). These quantities are plotted
p.
against n = r-(y-')'y in Fig. 7.10, constant values being assumed for 8 = (T3/Tl)= 5.0 and
compressor and turbine efficiencies (qc = 0.9, = 0.889, ww = 0.8).
Timmermans [ 131 suggested that the steam turbine work output (per unit gas flow in the
higher plant) is given approximately by
WL = KcP(T4 - T6) (7.31)
where T4 is the temperature at gas turbine exit, T6 is the temperature in the HRSG at the
lower pinch point and K is a constant (about 4.0). The (non-dimensional) steam turbine
work can then be written as
NDsTW = d L = K(T4 - T6)/(T3 - TI) (7.32)
and the total (non-dimensional) work output from the combined plant becomes
NDCPW = wbp = (1 - K)wh + Kqh - k (7.33)
where k = K[(T6/T,)- 1]/(8 - 1) is a small quantity and for an approximate analysis may
be taken as constant (k = 0.06).
1.2
- X- - NDCW FOR GAS TURBINE
1
+NDNW FOR COMBINED
PLANT
0.8
-
4- NDHT FOR GAS TURBINE
AND COMBINED PLANT
-X- NDTW FOR GAS TURBINE
0.6
-t COMBINED PLANT
EFFICIENCY
0.4
TANGENT TO NET WORK

0.2 (COMBINED PLANT)
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
ISENTROPIC TEMPERATURE RISE
Fig. 7.10. Graphical plot showing determination of pressure ratio for maximum efficiency of CCGT plant (after Ref. [ll]),
It can be seen from Fig. 7.10 that the curve for dcplies above that for dH. As for the gas
turbine cycle the pressure ratio for maximum efficiency in the combined plant may
be obtained by drawing a tangent to the work output curve from a point on the x-axis where
+
x = 1 q c ( O - I), i.e. x = 4.6 in the example. The optimum pressure ratio for the
combined plant (r = 18) is less than that for the gas turbine alone (r = 30) although it is
still greater than the pressure ratio which gives maximum specific work in the higher plant
(r = 1 I). However, the efficiency qcPvaries little with r about the optimum point.
It may also be noted that by differentiating Eq. (7.9) with respect to r (or x), and putting
the differential equal to zero for the maximum efficiency, it follows that
(7.34)
and
(7.35)
since (qo)H and (qo)Lare little different in most cases. Hence, the maximum combined
cycle efficiency ( 7 , 1 ~ occurs
) ~ ~ when the efficiency of the higher cycle increases with r at
about the same rate as the lower cycle decreases. Clearly, this will be at a pressure ratio
less than that at which the higher cycle reaches peak efficiency, and when the lower cycle
efficiency is decreasing because of the dropping gas turbine exit temperature.
This approach was well illustrated by Briesch et al. [14], who showed separate plots of
~ , and (qo)cp against pressure ratio for a given T,,, and Tmin(Fig. 7.1 I),
( T ~ )(qo)L
illustrating the validity of Eq. (7.35). But note that the limiting allowable steam turbine
entry temperature also influences the choice of pressure ratio in the gas turbine cycle.
7.7. Reheating in the upper gas turbine cycle
The case for supplementary heating at the gas turbine exhaust has already been
considered; Cem [IO] showed that it leads to lower overall combined plant efficiency,
except at low maximum temperature. Although there is a case for supplementary heating
giving higher specific work, the modem CCGT plant with its higher gas turbine inlet
temperature does not in general use supplementary heating. However, there is an argument
for reheating in the gas turbine itself (Le. between HP and LP turbines), which should lead
to higher mean temperatures of supply and high overall efficiency.
Rice [ 151 made a comprehensive study of the reheated gas turbine combined plant. He
first analysed the higher (gas turbine) plant with reheat, obtaining (qo)H,turbine exit
temperature, and power turbine expansion ratio, all as functions of plant overall pressure
ratio and firing temperatures in the main and reheat burners. (The optimum power turbine
expansion ratio is little different from the square root of the overall pressure ratio.) He then
pre-selected the steam cycle conditions rather than undertaking a full optimisation.
Rice argued that a high temperature at entry to the HRSG (resulting from reheat in the
gas turbine plant) leads via the pinch point restriction to a lower exhaust stack temperature
and ‘heat loss’, in comparison with an HRSG receiving gas at a lower temperature from
I
6-
5: CHANGE IN COMBINED CYCLE EFFICIENCY
0
z
w -10.
a simple gas turbine plant. But there are additional complications, of higher irreversibility
in the HRSG (because of higher temperature differences), the possibility of regenerative
feed heating and the limitation on the temperature of the water at entry to the HRSG
economiser.
Rice found high CCGT efficiencies with gas turbine reheat at optimum pressure ratios
even higher than those discussed above.
The latest ABB GT24/36 CCGT plant ([16], see also Ref. [l] for a brief description)
employs reheating between the HP and LP turbines and a relatively high pressure ratio of
30. There are two thermodynamic features of this type of design. Firstly, the expansion
through the larger pressure ratio, but taken in separate HP and LP turbines with reheating
between them, means that the temperature leaving the LP turbine is not increased
substantially in comparison with non-reheated plants (about W " C , cf. 530-500°C); and
secondly that the pressure ratio for maximum (71)~~ becomes closer to that for the
maximum efficiency in the higher plant alone.
An extension of the approximate analysis of Section 7.6 suggests that the pressure ratio
for both the combined and higher level plants, for the example given there, should be about
48 which is higher than that used in the ABB plant (about 30).
Most modem CCGT plants use open air cooling in the front part of the gas turbine. An
exception is the GE MS9001H plant which utilises the existence of the lower steam plant
to introduce steam cooling of the gas turbine. This reduces the difference between the
combustion temperature T,,, and the rotor inlet temperature Tht The effect of this on the
overall combined plant efficiency is discussed in Ref. [l] where it is suggested that any
advantage is small.
7.8. Discussion and conclusions
It has been shown that the CCGT plant achieves a much higher overall efficiency
than the simple CBT plant, but the maximum efficiency is achieved at a substantially
lower pressure ratio than that giving optimum conditions in the latter plant.
With modem gas turbine inlet temperatures there is no advantage in supplementary
heating. However, reheating in the gas turbine may give high efficiency, but at a
higher optimum pressure ratio.
Irreversibility in the HRSG may be reduced by introducing dual pressure level steam
raising. This may increase the overall efficiency by about 2-3%, but going to triple
pressure levels adds relatively little further gain.
The introduction of feed heating into the steam cycle of a CCGT plant is a complex
matter and the following points are relevant.
(i) The simplest recuperative plant, with no regenerative feed heating and all the
feed water heated directly in the HRSG may not be feasible because of the limits
that have to be placed on the temperature Tbof the feed water entering the HRSG
(in order to avoid corrosion of the metal surfaces). However, a thermodynamic
performance the same as this simplest plant (no regenerative feed heating) can be
achieved by extracting from the exhaust gases the heat required to raise the feed
water from condenser temperature (Ta to the prescribed minimum temperature

(Tb) by a pre-heating loop. This modified plant should give higher efficiency
than a plant which uses bled steam to heat the feed water to Tb.
(ii) The two pressure steam cycle using fuel containing sulphur may require the
introduction of substantial feed heating and a pre-heating loop. In practice, this
appears to provide the highest overall efficiency of the combined plant [2].
References
[l] Horlock, J.H. (2002), Combined Power Plants, 2nd edn, Krieger, Melbourne, USA.
[2] Kehlhofer, R. (1991). Combined Cycle Gas and Steam Turbine Power Plants, Fairmont F'ress, Lilburn, GA.
[3] Seippel. C. and Bereuter, R. (1 960).The theory of combined steam and gas turbine installations, Brown
Boveri Review 47,783-799.
[4] Plumley, D.R. (1985). Cool water coal gasification 1-A progress report, ASME J. Engng Power Gas
Turbines 107(4), 856-860.
[5] Bolland, O.A. (1991). Comparative evaluation of advanced combined cycle alternatives, ASME J. Engng
Gas Turbines Power 113(2), 190-195.
161 Davidson, B.J. and Keeley, K.R. (1991). The thermodynamics of practical combined cycles, Proc. Instn.
Mech. Engrs. Conference on Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, 28-50.
[71 Finckh, H.H. and Pfost, H. (1992). Development potential of combined cycle [GUD] power plants with and
without supplementary firing, ASME J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 114(4), 653-659.
[SI Jerica, H. and Hoeller, F. (1991), Combined cycle enhancement, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power
113(2), 198-202.
[9] Rufli, P.A. (1987). A systematic analysis of the combined gas-steam cycle, Proc. ASME COGEN-Turbo
I, 135-146.
[IO] Cem, G. (1987), Parametric analysis of combined cycles, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 109(1),
46-55.
[ I l l Wunsch, A. (1978), Combined gadsteam turbine power station-e present state of progress and future
developments, Brown Boveri Review 65(10), 646-655.
[I21 Horlock, J.H. (1995). The optimum pressure ratio for a CCGT plant, Proc. Insm. Mech. En@. 209,
259-264.
[I31 T i m m e m s , A.R.J. (1978), Combined Cycles and Their Possibilities. In Von Karman Institute for Fluid
Dynamics, Lecture Series 6, Vol. 1.
[I41 Briesch, M.S., Bannister, R.L., Dinkunchak, 1.S. and Huber, D.J. (1995), A combined cycle designed to
achieve greater than 60% efficiency, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 117(1), 734-741.
[ 151 Rice, I.G. ( I 98011 99 I ), The combined reheat gas turbindsteam turbine cycle, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines
Power, 102, 1, Part I, 35-41, Part II,42-49; 13, 2, 198-202.
[I61 ABB Power Generation (l997), The GT24/26 gas turbines, ABB Brochure PGT2186.
Chapter 8
NOVEL GAS TURBINE CYCLES
8.1. Introduction
In the previous chapters, we have been concerned mainly with the thermodynamics of
‘standard’ gas turbine cycles, in a variety of forms. In this chapter, we consider some
novel types of gas turbine cycles recently proposed, most of which have not yet been
built.
So far, we have focussed on the achievement of maximum thermal efficiency and
maximum specific work in power producing plants (or maximum energy utilisation and
fuel savings in cogeneration plants). Practical gas turbines built up to the present time have
been mainly based on those cycles already described, with designers seeking higher
efficiency through
(a) advancing the basic thermodynamic parameters (such as turbomachinery polytropic
efficiency, turbine inlet temperature, and compressor pressure ratio);
(b) use of better materials able to withstand higher temperatures; and
(c) introducing additional features, such as recuperation, intercooling, reheating, water
injection, etc.
But for power station applications, the thermal efficiency is not the only measure of
the performance of a plant. While a new type of plant may involve some reduction in
running costs due to improved thermal efficiency, it may also involve additional capital
costs. The cost of electricity produced is the crucial criterion within the overall
economics, and this depends not only on the thermal efficiency and capital costs, but also
on the price of fuel, operational and maintenance costs, and the taxes imposed. Yet
another factor, which has recently become important, is the production by gas turbine
plants of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) which contribute to global warming.
Many countries are now considering the imposition of a special tax on the amount of
C 0 2 produced by a power plant, and this may adversely affect the economics. So
consideration of a new plant in future will involve not only the factors listed above but
also the amount of C 0 2 produced per unit of electricity together with the extra taxes that
may have to be paid.
A brief and simplified description of how electricity price may be determined is given
in Appendix B, giving some comparisons between different basic plants. We also describe
there how the economics of a new plant may be affected by the imposition of an extra
carbon tax associated with the amount of carbon dioxide produced.
Thus there are now three objectives for the plant designer:
131
(i) high efficiency

(ii) low capital cost; and
(iii) a low quantity of carbon dioxide discharged to the atmosphere (either
intrinsically low production or sequestration, liquefaction, removal and disposal
of that produced by the plant).
In some of the plants proposed these objectives are attained simultaneously.
8.2. Classification of gas-fired plants using novel cycles
Against this background of the changed economics of plant performance, we consider

some of the many new gas turbine plants that have been proposed over the past few
years. In this section, we first formulate a list and classify these plants (and the ‘cycles’
on which they are based), as in Tables 8.1A-D, noting that most but not all use natural
gas as a fuel.
8.2.1. Plants ( A ) with addition of equipment to remove the carbon dioxide produced
in combustion
These cycles allow sequestration and disposal of C02 as a liquid, rather than
allowing it to enter the atmosphere. They involve the introduction of additional
equipment for the C02 removal but little or no modification of the basic CBT or CBTX
plant itself.
Three such plants are:
A1 An open CCGT plant with ‘end of pipe’ removal of C02;
A2 A ‘semi-closed’ CCGT plant, involving recirculation of part of the exhaust gases,
enabling the C 0 2 to be separated more easily; and
A3 A ‘semi-closed’ CBTX plant, involving recirculation of part of the exhaust gases
downstream of the heat exchanger, which also enables the C 0 2 to be separated
more easily.
Use of similar removal equipment in a simple CBT cycle is also possible but the
exhaust gas from the turbine would require cooling before sequestration.
Table 8.1A
Cycles A with addition of CO, equipment
Description Type Special features FueVoxidant CO, removal Comment
AI ‘End of pipe’ OpedCCGT - Natural gadair LP (chemical) Simple C02 removal,

CO, removal but large C 0 2 plant
AZSemi&xed, SUCCGT - Natural gadair LP (chemical) Simple C q removal,
CO, removal smaller CO, plant
A3 Recuperative, SUCBTX Recuperator Natural gaslair LP (chemical) Simple CO, removal
CO2 removal
Chapter 8. Novel gas turbine cycles 133
Table 8.1B
Cycles B with combustion modification (fuel)
Description Type Special features FueVoxidant C@ removal Comment

BI Steam/TCR OpedCBT CH.,/steam Naturalgadair None Attractive simplicity
reforming and efficiency
B2 S t e d C R OpedCCGT CH.,/steam Natural gadair LP (chemical) Increased complexity
plus water shift reforming
reactions
B3FGRCR SUCBT CH.,/steam Natural gadair None Little efficiency gain
reforming
8.2.2. Plants ( B ) with modifcation of the fuel in combustion-chemically reformed gas

turbine (CRGT) cycles
These cycles involve modification of the combustion process, and employ thermo-
chemical recuperation (TCR) to produce a fuel of higher hydrogen content. Three simple
CRGTs are:
B1 the steam/TCR plant-mixing the fuel with steam raised in a heat recovery steam
generator;
B2 the steam/TCR plant, with additional equipment for C 0 2 removal;
B3 the Flue GasmCR cycle-mixing the fuel with partially recirculated exhaust gases
containing water vapour.
In these CRGT plants, efficiency increase is obtained mainly through the abstraction of
more heat from the exhaust gases rather than reduction in combustion irreversibility.
8.2.3. Plants (C) using non-carbon fuel (hydrogen)
Obviously the availability of a non-carbon fuel, usually hydrogen, would obviate the
need for carbon dioxide extraction and disposal, and a plant with combustion of such a fuel
becomes a simple solution (Cycle C1, a hydrogen burning CBT plant, and Cycles C2 and
C3, hydrogen burning CCGT plants).
Table 8. IC
Cycles C with combustion using non-carbon fuel
Description Type Special features FueVoxidant CO2 removal Comment

C1 Hydrogen or OpedCBT None Hydrogedair None Nitrogen
hydrogednitrogen compression
required
C2 Hydrogen CCGT Closed upper None Hydrogedair None High efficiency
cycle CCGT
C3 Rankine type double Closed upper None Hydrogedair None High efficiency
steam cvcle cvcle
All depend on hydrogen availability.
Table 8.1D
Cycles D with combustion modification (oxidant)
Description Type Special features FueYoxidant CO, removal Comment

k
D1 Partial oxidation CBT
D2 Partial oxidation CCGT
OpenlCBT
OpedCCGT
PO/steam reforming
PO/steam reforming
Natural gadair
Natural gadair
None
HP (physical absorption)
Efficiency gain via reheat
Efficiency gain via reheat s8
D3 Partial oxidation SCKICBTBTX Multi-PO, steam reforming Natural gadair None Very high efficiency complex
VQ
D4 Full oxidation CBT SUCBT None Natural gadoxygen LP liquid extraction Easy C02 removal e
D5 Full oxidation CBT SUCBT None Natural gadoxygen HP (physical absorption) - r"
D6 Matiant complex cycle Almost closed Reheat, recuperator Natural gadoxygen HI' (liquid extraction) Complex but high efficiency $.a
vapourfliquid
compression train 92
8.2.4. Plants (0)

with modijication of the oxidant in combustion
In conventional cycles, combustion is the major source of irreversibility, leading to

reduction in thermal efficiency. Some novel plants involve partial oxidation (PO) of the
fuel in two or more stages, with the temperature increased before each stage of
combustion, and the combustion irreversibility consequently reduced. In other plants full
oxidation is employed which makes C 0 2 removal easier.
Six cycles with oxidant modification are listed as
D1 the simple PO open CBT cycle-involving staged combustion of the fuel;
D2 the Po open CCGT cycle-involving staged combustion of the fuel and low pressure
C02 removal;
D3 the semi-closed CICBTBTX cycle-involving staged partial combustion of the fuel,
intercooling, recuperation and low pressure C 0 2 removal;
D4 the ‘semi-closed’ CBT or CCGT plant with full oxidation-oxygen supplied to the
combustion chamber instead of air, with C 0 2 removal at low pressure level;
D5 the ‘semi-closed’ CBT plant with full oxidation-oxygen supplied to the combustion
chamber instead of air, with C02 removal at high pressure level;
D6 the Matiant cycle-an almost closed CICBTBTX cycle using full oxidation and full
COz removal.
8.2.5. Outline of discussion of novel cycles
Below we describe
(i) the additional equipment that is required for plants with C 0 2 sequestration and
liquefaction, at high or low pressure (in Section 8.3);
(ii) the concept of the ‘semi-closed’ cycle which features in some of the proposed plants
(in Section 8.4); and
(iii) the various chemical reactions involved in combustion modification, through
chemical recuperation, PO, etc. (in Section 8.5).
We then discuss in more detail the individual cycles listed above (in Section 8.6).
We also give calculations of the performance of some of these various gas turbine
plants. Comparison between such calculations is often difficult, even ‘spot’ calculations at
a single condition with state points specified in the cycle, because of the thermodynamic
assumptions that have to be made (e.g. how closely conditions in a chemical reformer
approach equilibrium). Performance calculations by different inventodauthors are also
dependent upon assumed levels of component performance such as turbomachinery
polytropic efficiency, required turbine cooling air flows and heat exchanger effectiveness;
if these are not identical in the cases compared then such comparisons of overall
performance become invalid. However, we attempt to provide some performance
calculations where appropriate in the rest of the chapter.
Finally, in Section 8.7, we describe some modifications of the integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) which enable COz to be removed (Cycles E).
8.3. C02 removal equipment
There are two main schemes proposed for sequestration of carbon dioxide. The first
(referred to as a chemical absorption process), suitable for use at low pressures and tem-
peratures, is usually adopted where the COZ is to be removed from exhaust flue gases. The
second (usually referred to as aphysical absorption process), for use at higher pressures, is
recommended for separation of the COz in syngas obtained from conversion of fuel.
8.3.1. The chemical absorption process
Fig. 8.1 shows a diagram of a chemical absorption process described by Chiesa and
Consonni [l], for removal of COz from the exhaust of a natural gas-fired combined cycle
plant (in open or semi-closed versions). The process is favoured by low temperature which
increases the C 0 2 solubility, and ensures that the gas is free of contaminants which would
impair the solvent properties.
Exhaust gas is fed to an absorber where the solvent (a blend of ethanol amines, mono-
ethanolamine and diethanolamine) absorbs the carbon dioxide, and a COZ free stream is
discharged to the atmosphere from the top of the absorption tower. Condensate is fed via a
heat exchanger to a stripper from which the solvent is drained into a re-boiler (heat is
supplied by steam fed from the HRSG of the combined cycle). Carbon dioxide and water
leave the top of the stripper, passing through a cooler and separator, from which water is
drained. Gaseous C 0 2 leaves the top of the separator to enter an intercooled compressor;
the compressed COz is also aftercooled, and liquid carbon dioxide is discharged ready for
disposal.
The negative aspects of the system on the combined cycle efficiency lie in the steam
consumption for the stripping process, and the extra work inputs, to the C 0 2 compressor
and to the fans required to circulate the gases, through a system with non-negligible
pressure losses. Corti and Manfrida [2] have considered in some detail the losses involved
and argue that by careful optimisation of the composition of the amines blend in the
solvent (50% di-ethanolamine in the aqueous solution containing the amine blends), the
heat required for regeneration of the scrubbing solution can be limited. They have also
drawn attention to the advantages of recovering combustion generated water into the lower
steam cycle.
8.3.2. The physical absorption process
Fig. 8.2 shows a diagram of the physical absorption process suggested by Chiesa and
Consonni [3] for an IGCC plant, with the absorption taking place from the syngas after its
discharge at high pressure from the gasification and HZS cleansing process. The C02 fed to
the absorber is of a high concentration and flows upward, counter current to the GO2 lean
solvent (Selexol is proposed, which is soluble in COz but not in nitrogen).
The COz rich solvent is drained from the bottom of the tower, and led first to a hydraulic
turbo-expander and then to four flash drums connected in series, where COz is de-absorbed
as the pressure is lowered. Lean solvent is pumped back to the top of the absorber tower
A -ABSORBER
-
ST STRIPPER LIQUID C02
-
S SEPARATOR 4
-
C COOLERS ELECTRIC
-
P PUMP
4 QRNE
--
X HEAT EXCHANGER
RB REBOILER
COz FREE GAS TO
ATMOSPHERE
IC - INTERCOOLED
COMPRESOR
AC- AFTER COOLER
Fig. 8.1. The chemical absorption process (after m e s a and Consonni [I]).
IDC02
A -ABSORBER
--
FD FLASH DRUMS
C COMPRESSORS
SATURATOR
+
-
IC INTERCOOLED
DRIVE
COMPRESSORS
-
P PUMP CO, LEAN SOLVENT
-
T HYDRAULIC
TURBINE
-
D DEHYDRATOR
AC -AFTER
COOLERS
X- THROTTLE
G -GENERATOR
\' 'I
Fig. 8.2. The physical absorption process (after Chiesa and Consonni [3]).
rl:
Chapter 8. Novel gas turbine cycles I39
from the last drum; carbon dioxide is collected from the other drums and compressed and
intercooled for final discharge.
Manfrida [4] argues that the heat demand and the substantial power loss associated with
‘presssure-swing’ physical absorption makes it less attractive than chemical absorption,
even for high pressure sequestration. The expansion work in the former is difficult to
recover as several expanders are needed.
8.4. Semi-closure
Most of the novel cycles considered later in this chapter involve ‘semi-closure’, Le.
recirculation of some part of the exhaust gases into the compressor as indicated in the
simplest example shown in Fig. 8.3. In effect, the exhaust products stream becomes an
oxygen carrier.
Here, we first discuss whether such semi-closure (which is introduced so that CO2
separation can be undertaken more easily) is likely to lead to higher or lower thermal
efficiency, and in this discussion it is helpful to consider recirculation in relation to an
air standard cycle (see Fig. 8.4). Fig. 8.4a shows a closed air standard cycle with unit air
flow; Fig. 8.4b shows an open cycle similarly with unit air flow and an air heater rather
than a combustion chamber. The cycles are identical in every respect except that in the
former the turbine exhaust air from the turbine is cooled before it re-enters the
compressor. In the latter, the turbine exhaust air is discharged to atmosphere and a fresh
charge of air is taken in by the compressor. The quantities of heat supplied and the work
output are the same for each of the two cycles, so that the thermal efficiencies are
identical.
FUEL (METHANE)
AIR
I
1 COOLER
EXHAUST TO STACK
Fig. 8.3. A semi-closed CBT plant.

Advanced gas turbine cycles
IL
CLOSED
CYCLE
T
+ pj
q CYCLE
COOLER v
A
3,
\ SEMI-CLOSED ’+
CYCLE T
COOLER 1r
+
Fig.8.4. Addition of a closed and an open cycle plant to form a semiclosed plant.
We can then add the two cycles together as shown in Fig. SAC, to form a semi-closed
plant. There is double the flow through this new plant, double the heat supply and double
the work output. Strictly, the total heat rejected is not doubled; half the turbine exhaust is
now discharged to the atmosphere and half the heat rejected into a cooler before it is
recirculated into the compressor. The thermal efficiency of this ‘double’ semi-closed plant
is unchanged from that of the original closed cycle and the original open cycle. So there is
apparently no thermodynamic advantage in semi-closure; it is undertaken for a different
purpose.
A similar argument can be used for a fuelled semi-closed cycle, assuming that it can be
regarded as the addition of an open CBT plant and a closed CHT cycle with identical
working gas mass flow rates (and small fuel air ratios). Suppose the latter receives its heat
supply from the combustion chamber of the former in which the open cycle combustion
takes place. If the specific heats of air and products are little different, then the work output
is doubled when the two plants are added together, but the fuel supply is also
approximately doubled. The efficiency of the combined semi-closed plant is, therefore,
approximately the same as that of the original open cycle plant.
8.5. The chemical reactions involved in various cycles
8.5.1. Complete combustion in a conventional open circuit plans
In the conventional gas turbine plant, a hydrocarbon fuel (e.g. methane CI&) is burnt,
usually with excess air, i.e. more air than is required for stoichiometric combustion.
COYBUSTlON
7.52 N,
Fig. 8.5. Chemical reactions involved in various cycles.
Hence, all the carbon and hydrogen is used resulting in maximum formation of C02 and
H 2 0 (complete combustion).
For a complete stoichiometric combustion of methane (Fig. Ma),
C b + 202 + 7.52N2 * C02 + 2H20 + 7.52N2.
For combustion with say 200% excess air,
CH4 + 6 0 2 + 22.56N2 * C 0 2 + 2H20 + 402 + 22.56N2.
Nitrogen is carried through the combustion unchanged and forms a large part of the
‘carrying’ gas for any unused oxygen. Supplementary combustion (or reheat) can then take
place if more fuel is supplied to the products of primary combustion.
But in some of the novel cycles we shall consider that there may be
(i) reforming of the fuel (into what is effectively a new fuel containing combustible CO
and H2); or
(ii) PO (i.e. incomplete combustion as insufficient air is available). We describe below
the chemical reactions which may be involved in (i) and (ii).
8.5.2. Thermo-chemical recuperation using steam (steam-TCR)
The basic idea of using TCR in a gas turbine is usually to extract more heat from the
turbine exhaust gases rather than to reduce substantially the irreversibility of combustion
through chemical recuperation of the fuel. One method of TCR involves an overall
reaction between the fuel, say methane ( C h ) , and water vapour, usually produced in a
heat recovery steam generator. The heat absorbed in the total process effectively increases
I42 Advanced gas turbine cycles
the ‘heating value’ of the fuel before it is burnt in the combustion chamber. This does not
necessarily mean that the calorific value is increased, but that the mass of the new fuel
(syngas) may be increased so that the overall ‘heating value’ is also increased.
For the steam-TCR process, within a so-called ‘Van’t Hoff box’ containing the total
reaction process (Fig. 8.5b). there are two stages:
A : CH4 + H20 w CO + 3H2;
and
B : CO+H20*CO2+H2.
The so-called Boudouard reaction involving solid carbon is ignored here.
Stage A, the steam reforming reaction, is highly endothermic and stage B, usually
known as the water gas shift reaction, is exothermic, so the overall reaction (A B) +
requires heat to be supplied. If this overall reaction is in equilibrium then the resulting
mixture is made up of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, water vapour and
remaining methane. Thus, if a moles of methane are converted (per mole supplied), and P
moles of hydrogen are formed then the overall reaction may be written as
CH4 + nH2O * (4a - P)CO + (P - 3a)C02 + PH2
+ (n + 2a - P)H20 + (1 - a)CH4,
+ +
where the total moles of the mixture are N = (n 1 2a).
The net heat input that is required depends on the pressurep and the temperature T, and
hence the equilibrium constants KPA(T)and KPB(T),respectively, which can be calculated
as
With (&)A and (K,), known from tables of chemical data, then the various mole fractions,
a, P, etc. may be determined if T and p are known.
Assuming that C& and H20 are supplied at T, the temperature at which TCR takes
place, the heat required to produce the overall change (AHTCR)is given by
=(4a- P)(hco)T +(P- 3 a)(hco,)T +(P~H,

[WTCR )T +@a- P ) ( ~ H ~ o
-)QT( ~ C H>T~
=(4Q-P)[hco+O.5ho2 - k 0 2 IT+PihHz +0*5hO,-hHzOl
The ‘heating value’ of the resultant syngas mixture per mole of methane supplied, but
now containing ( 1 - a) moles of C&, /3 moles of hydrogen and (4a - P) moles of
Chapter 8. Novel gas mrbine cycles I43
carbon monoxide, is
1T +(1 - a)[AHc&1 ~ + ( 4 a -P)[Affcol~=[AHIcH~ [AHITcR,
[AH1S y N =P[AHH~ +
This is thus greater than the heating value of the original unit mole of methane supplied but
is contained in a larger number of moles of syngas (N).
8.5.3. Partial oxidation
In the second chemical reaction to be considered, insufficient oxygen is supplied to the

fuel for stoichiometric combustion (50%), but steam is also supplied (Fig. 8 . 5 ~ )Now
. the
chemical reactions involved in the partial combustion are:
A : CH4 + H20 * CO + 3H2,
the steam reforming reaction;
B : CO+H20*C02+HZ,
the water shift reaction; and
C : CH, + 0.502 H CO + 2H2,
the PO reaction.
As in the steam/TCR analysis the Boudouard reaction is ignored here, together with
direct methane decomposition.
The PO reaction, leading to five constituents, is now
2CH4 + $2 + n H 2 0
=+(I -y)CH4+6C02+(y-6+1)CO+(3y+6+2)H2+(n- y-6)H20
The solution then follows along the same lines as for TCR; if the temperature and pressure
are known then y, 6 and the resulting mole fractions can be determined from the
equilibrium constants. The temperature change between inlet and outlet is now likely to be
higher than in the TCR reactions, so the determination of the Kps as functions of a single
mean temperature for the reaction is more difficult.
8.5.4. Thermo-chemical recuperation using flue gases @ue gas/TCR)
Another approach which has been suggested for thenno-chemical reforming can now
be considered. It involves recirculation of exhaust gas from the turbine, which already
contains some C 0 2 and H20, to mix with the fuel in a reformer; the resulting syngas is then
supplied to the main combustion chamber. The combustion process producing the flue gas
is assumed to be virtually stoichiometric, with a small amount of excess air. The flue gas
thus contains a small amount of oxygen and Po of the fuel (CH4) may take place, together
with the steam reforming and water shift reactions.
The ‘Van’t Hoff box’ for this process will produce five components+arbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, water vapour and hydrogen, and unconverted methane. Again if
144 Advanced gas turbina cycles
the temperature T and pressure p are prescribed the mole fractions may be determined
from the equilibrium constants, as described in the last section. The overall process is
endothermic.
8.5.5. Combustion with recycledjue gas as a cam‘er
To complete the set of possible chemical reactions, consider the combustion of a fuel
such as methane with a recirculated flue gas containing m moles of carbon dioxide, but
assuming that water vapour has been removed from the recycling flue gas. If the additional
air supply (n moles) is assumed to be sufficient for complete combustion, then
CH4 + mC02 + no2+ 3.76nN2 3 (m + 1)C02+ 2H20 + (n - 2)02 + 3.76nNz.
From the products of combustion, C 0 2 and 2H20 may be removed subsequently within the
recirculation cycle before the remaining mCOz, reinforced with additional oxygen within
the air supply, are fed back to the combustion chamber. Essentially, the complete
combustion process described in Section 8.5.1 remains undisturbed by the ‘carrying’
recirculating flue gas.
8.6. Descriptions of cycles
With this background of how combustion may be modified we now study in some detail
a number of novel cycles previously listed.
8.6.1. Cycles A with additional removal equipmentfor carbon dioxide sequestration
We consider first Cycles A of Table 8.lA and the associated Figs. 8.6-8.8. These are
cycles in which the major objective is to separate or sequestrate some or all of the carbon
dioxide produced, and to store or dispose it. This can be achieved either by direct removal
of the C 0 2from the combustion gases with little or no modification to the existing plant; or
by modest restructuring or alteration of the conventional power cycle so that the carbon
dioxide can be removed more easily.
8.6.1.1. Direct removal of COz from an existing plant

Fig. 8.6 shows an example of the first type of plant having an ‘end of pipe’ solution in
which the C 0 2 is removed from the exhaust of a standard CCGT plant, in an additional
chemical absorption plant (Cycle AI). The products of combustion downstream of the
HRSG (usually oxygen rich) are scrubbed by aqueous or organic based mixtures of
amines. C 0 2 in the exhaust gases is first absorbed and rich Cop liquid is then pumped to
the stripper. The exhaust from the stripper is separated into water and gaseous Cop, which
is then compressed, intercooled and aftercooled before disposal as liquid COz at high
pressure and atmospheric temperature. A reasonably COz free stream is passed to the stack
and hence to the atmosphere.
Chiesa and Consonni [ 11 presented a detailed analysis of this type of plant. They found
that the ner efficiency of the plant dropped by about 5.5%below that of a basic CCCT plant
FUEL (METHANE)
f AIR 7,
HRSG
[ J T z gCYCLE
: -0
4
COZ CHEMICAL
ABSORPTION,
STRIPPING
-1 COOLER
7,
WAER
CONDENSATE
.’
Fig. 8.6. Cycle AI. Direct removal of (2%from an existing plant (after Chiesa and Consonni [l]).
with some 56% efficiency, through addition of the absorption equipment. They also
performed a detailed estimate of the extra capital cost, and found that the cost of electricity
increased by some 40%, from 3.6 ckWh for the basic plant to 5 c/kWh, due to the
combined effect of lower efficiency and higher capital cost.
FUEL (METHANE)
AIR I
t
HRSG r$ - z E - ~
,
CYCLE
.
I
COOLER
L A . WATER
LPSTW I
ABSORPTION,
LIQUEFACTION LIQUID C02
Fig. 8.7. Cycle A2. Semi-closed plant plus COz removal (after Chiesa and Consonni [ 11).
FUEL (METHANE)
1
\
ABSORPTION,
ILIQUEFACTION
STRIPPING,
r A J
H E A T ~ N HEAT EXCHANGER
1
LIQUID COz
Fig. 8.8. Cycle A3. Semi-closed recuperative plant with COz removal (after hkdnfrida 141).
8.6.I .2. Mod$cations of the cycles of conventional plants using the semi-closed gas
turbine cycle concept
Fig. 8.7 shows a second example (Cycle A2) of carbon dioxide removal by chemical
absorption from a CCGT plant, but one in which the semi-closed concept is introduced-
exhaust gas leaving the HRSG is partially recirculated. This reduces the flow rate of the
gas to be treated in the removal plant, so that less steam is required in the stripper and the
extra equipment to be installed is smaller and cheaper. This is also due to the better
removal efficiency achievable-for equal reactants flow rate-when the volumetric
fraction of C 0 2 in the exhaust gas is raised from the 4-6% value typical of open cycle gas
turbines to about 12% achievable with semi-closed operation.
Chiesa and Consonni [I] gave another detailed analysis for this plant in comparison
with Cycle AI. They found that the efficiency dropped by 5% from that of the basic CCGT
plant; this is somewhat surprising as the absorption plant is smaller than that for Cycle A1
and it might have been expected that the penalty on efficiency of introducing the
absorption plant would have been much less than that of Cycle Al. With this calculated
efficiency and a detailed estimate of capital cost, the price of electricity was virtually the
same as that of Cycle A l , Le. 40% greater than that of the basic CCGT plant.
Corti and Manfrida [2] have also done detailed calculations of the performance of
plant A2. They drew attention to the need to optimise the amines blend (including
species such as di-ethanolamine and mono-ethanolamine) in the absorption process, if a
removal efficiency of 80% is to be achieved and in order to reduce the heat required
for regenerating the scrubbing solution. Their initial estimates of the penalty on
efficiency are comparable to those of Chiesa and Consonni (about 6% compared
with the basic CCGT plant) but they emphasise that recirculation of water from
Chapter 8. Novel gas turbine cycles I47
the scrubbing process to intercool and aftercool the compression in the gas turbine
cycle can restore about half the loss in thermal efficiency. After a very careful
optimisation, and by including amine regeneration, Corti and Manfrida estimated the
cost of electricity generated by this plant, including COz disposal, to be about 4.7 c/
kWh. This is slightly less than the estimate of Chiesa and Consonni who based their
calculations on different sources.
Fig. 8.8 shows yet another example (Cycle A3) of the use of the semi-closed cycle
concept, suggested by Manfrida [4], in which a recuperative CBTX plant is modified. Now
the exhaust gas from the gas turbine is cooled in a heat exchanger (rather than the HRSG of
a CCGT plant). It then enters the chemical absorption plant where some C 0 2 is
sequestrated and liquefied before disposal. The remainder of the exhaust gas is recirculated
into compressor inlet after additional cooling. Manfrida finds slightly lower efficiency in
the plant A3 compared with plant A2, but argues that it may prove simpler and more
economic than the semi-closed IGCC plant.
8.6.2. Cycles B with modijication of the fuel in combustion through thermo-chemical

recuperation [TCR]
We consider next the cycles B of Table 8.1B and the associated Figs. 8.9-8.12; these
cycles involve modification of the fuel used in the combustion process by TCR. There are
two basic types of chemically recuperated gas turbine (CRGT) cycle:
(i) recuperative ‘STIG type’ cycles (Bl, B2) in which the exhaust gas is used to raise
steam in an HRSG, which is not then fed directly to the combustion chamber but first
mixed with the fuel in a chemical reactor or reformer, the process described in
Section 8.5.2 (in practice, the HRSG and the reformer may be combined in a single
unit to form the syngas fuel);
FUEL
(METHANE)
\
I
AIR
FUELGAS
1 HEAT
EXCHANGER
I HRSG
WATER
-
STACK
Fig. 8.9. Cycle B1. Chemically recuperated cycle with steam reforming.
50
- 4
E
*0
z
w
0
k4JJ
LLI
J
i
9
O 35
30
STEAM TO AIR RATIO

Fig. 8.10. Overall efficiencies of a s t e a f l C R plant and a basic STTG plant, as functions of the steadair ratio
-0 W = 507kJkg AIR
5960c
1.06 BAR
M = 1.154
7 ELANGER
1.04 BAR
1
485%
465°CM=0.143 ~
M = 1.154
HRSG
WATER Ah
1.01 BAR
1400c
M = 1.154
Fig. 8.1 1. Detailed calculation of a s t e a f l C R plant (after Lloyd [SI). Princeton University Library.
41 -
(ii) a semi-closed cycle (B3) in which part of the exhaust gas is recirculated to the
reformer, together with the fuel supply, to form a new syngas fuel (the process
described in Section 8.5.4).
In both cases heat is taken from the exhaust gases to ‘feed’ the reaction process,
enhancing the ‘heating value’ of the resulting modified fuel, which is then fed to the
combustion chamber. But the main thermodynamic feature is that the exergy loss in the
final exhaust gas is thus reduced and the efficiency increased.
8.6.2.1. The steanuTCR cycle

Fig. 8.9 shows a chemically recuperated cycle [Bl] of the first type, i.e. chemical
recuperation with steam reforming (steam/TCR).
We first refer back to Section 6.2.2, which gave a simplified first law of analysis of a
modified STTG type cycle presented by Lloyd [ 5 ] . He described an additional heat
exchanger in the STIG cycle raising the enthalpy of the air entering the combustion
chamber. The exhaust gas from the turbine thus first passed through this recuperator,
effectively reducing the external ‘heat supplied’ to the combustion chamber. Lloyd argued
that the heat transferred in the reformer of the steam/TCR plant performs a similar function
to that of the recuperator in the modified STIG cycle. Lloyd’s point is illustrated in
Fig. 8.10, which shows that for a given S, the efficiency of the modified cycles is higher,
the amount of steam taken out of the turbine exhaust being greater.
Lloyd’s detailed computation for a steam/TCR cycle is shown in Fig. 8. I 1. Here the
main thermodynamic parameters have been specified: pressure ratio 15, turbine entry
temperature 1 250°C (after turbine cooling), which with the selected turbomachinery
efficiencies leads to a recuperation temperature and a pressure level of about 600°C and
15 bar, respectively. These enable the molal concentrations after reforming to be
calculated, as explained in Section 8.5.2. a (the conversion rate) is determined as 0.373
and p as 0.190, so the concentrations after reforming are as follows: CI-L,, 8.1 %; CO, 0.4%;
H2, 19%; C02, 4.5%; H20, 68%. Thus, with 37.3% of the CH4 converted, it follows that
the heat transferred from the exhaust gas is about 110 kJ and the heating value of the
resultant reformed syngas is 0.164 [CV], = 1.15 MJ, where [CV], = 7.02 MJkg is the
syngas calorific value. Calculation of the remaining part of the cycle is straightforward.
The heating value of the gas supplied for combustion is enhanced by about 10%
(although the calorific value is substantially reduced compared to the methane supplied,
from some 50 to 7 MJkg). This is mainly due to the large concentration of hydrogen, as
indicated in the equilibrium concentrations of the gases following the reforming.
However, the thermal efficiency of the cycle is given by the work output divided by the
calorific value of the original methane fuel supplied and is 47.6%.
Lloyd carried out a range of similar calculations, for differing thermodynamic
parameters; the results are presented in Fig. 8.12 in comparison with those for a basic
STIG cycle with the same parameters of pressure ratio and maximum temperature. There
is indeed similarity between the two sets, with the TCR plant having a higher efficiency.
It is noteworthy that both cycles obtain high thermal efficiency at quite low pressure
ratios as one would expect for what are essentially CBTX recuperative gas turbine
cycles.
Newby et al. [6] also studied a s t e a f l C R cycle with similar parameters and steadair
ratio. They calculated an efficiency of 48.7%, compared with 35.7% for a comparable CBT
plant, 45.6% for a STIG plant and 56.8% for a CCGT plant, all for similar pressure ratios
and top temperatures.
Fig. 8.13 shows Cycle B2, a development of Lloyd’s simple steam!TCR cycle for C 0 2
removal, as proposed by Lozza and Chiesa [7]. However, this is a CCGT plant in which the
syngas produced by the steam reformer is cooled and then fed to a chemical absorption
process. This enables both water and C 0 2 in the syngas to be removed and a hydrogen rich
syngas to be fed to the combustion chamber.
After allowing for the performance penalties arising from the C 0 2 removal, Lozza and
Chiesa estimated an efficiency of 46.1%, for a maximum gas turbine temperature of
1641 K and a pressure ratio of 15 (compared with the basic CCGT plant efficiency of
56.1%). They concluded that the plant cannot compete, in terms of electricity price, with a
semi-closed combined cycle with C02 removal (Cycle A2).
8.6.2.2. The Jlue gas thermo-chemically recuperated (FGITCR) cycle

A second type of CRGT plant involving modification of the fuel before combustion
(Cycle B3) is shown in Fig. 8.14. Now some part of the exhaust from the turbine (which
contains water vapour) is recirculated to the reformer where the fuel is modified. Thus this
FG/TCR cycle has an element of the semi-closed cycle plus modification of the
combustion process. The chemical process involved in this cycle has been described in
Section 8.5.4, but there is now no simple comparison that can be made between the FG/
TCR cycle and the basic STIG cycle, as described in Section 8.6.2. I.
ABSORPTION,
C02FREE EXHAUST
EXCHANGER
EXHAUST TO
Fig. 8.13. Cycle 92. Complex steam/TCR plant with COl removal (after Lozza and Chiesa [7]).
A discussion of the merits of this cycle was given by Rabovitser et al. [8] who suggested
that the reforming rate of the natural gas can be increased by low oxygen content in the
reacting mixture, so that the gas turbine combustor has to operate just above the
stoichiometric air fuel ratio. They also suggested that for natural gas/FGR reforming
the recycling coefficient (recycled stream to non-recycled stream) should be greater
than unity. They quote a cycle calculation for reforming at 20 bar and 900K with a
recycling coefficient of 1.2; the reformed fuel contains only 14.2% of combustible gas
(8.4% hydrogen, 2.4% CO and 3.4% C h ) . Its calorific value is only about 2.7 MJkg
STACK L w STEAM
TURBINE
CYCLE
Fig. 8.14. Cycle B3. Chemically recuperated plant with flue-gas reforming (after Newby et al. [SI).
compared with 50MJkg for methane itself, but of course there is now an even larger
flow of combustible gas that goes to the combustor so the ‘heating value’ is slightly
increased.
In another example Newby et al. [6] calculated a cycle with the reformer operating at
comparable pressure and temperature but with a higher recycling rate of 1.7, leading to a
conversion rate of a = 0.56 (this is closer to the conversion rate of Lloyd’s steam/TCR
cycle, a = 0.373, described in the last section). A thermal efficiency of 38.7% is claimed
for this FG/TCR cycle, slightly greater than the simple CBT cycle efficiency of 35.7% but
much less than the calculated efficiency for the steam/TCR cycle (48.7%) and a
comparable STIG cycle (45.6%).
Clearly, these figures suggest that the plant is very sensitive to the amount of flue gas
recycled. There appears to be no full parametric or economic calculation published in the
literature for this FG/TCR cycle, which suggests that it has not been considered as an
attractive option.
8.6.3. Cycles C burning non-carbonfuel (hydrogen)
Obviously, use of a non-carbon fuel-usually containing hydrogen4bviates the need

for any carbon dioxide extraction and disposal. These cycles are listed in Table 8. lC, and
the associated Figs. 8.15-8.17.
Fig. 8.15 shows a simple gas turbine plant (Cycle C1) supplied with a mixture of
hydrogen and nitrogen for combustion in air; a cooler is shown but a bottoming steam
cycle may be added (see later, C2, C3).
Jackson et al. [9] have presented calculations of thermal efficiency for this simple
hydrogen fuelled CBT cycle, first with very low nitrogen content in the fuel and secondly
with 50/50 hydrogednitrogen. For the first case they find relatively little change in
FUEL (HYDROGEN)
PLUS NITROGEN
AIR
COOLER
WATER
VAPOUR, N2
Fig. 8.15. Cycle C1. CBT plant with non-carbon fuel (hydrogednitrogen mixture).
HYDROGEN
I I OXYGEN
C T
WORKING
FLUID 7,
STEAM
HRSG TURBINE
CYCLE
COOLER
4 FOR WATER v
REMOVAL COMBUSTION
PRODUCED WATER
Fig. 8.16. Cycle C2. Hydrogen fuelled CCGT plant with closed upper cycle (after Bannister et al. [IO]).
efficiency from that of a reference engine with the same pressure ratio and maximum
temperature and burning natural gas. For the second case, with a substantial extra nitrogen
flow through the turbine-giving extra turbine work-the question of whether the fuel is
supplied at combustion chamber pressure becomes critical, i.e. whether the cycle has to be
debited with the nitrogen compression work.
HYDROGEN I I OXYGEN
H SUPERHEATED
7,
STEAM
HRSG
1L
WATER WET STEAM
Bannister et al. [ 101 made a study of the hydrogen fuelled CCGT plant (Cycle C2),
with a closed upper ‘gas turbine’ cycle (Fig. 8.16). A number of different working
fluids were used in the latter, the water produced in combustion being separated and
extracted downstream of the HRSG. Again there is relatively little variation of
efficiency with choice of the upper cycle working fluid, each of which has some
practical limitations, but that with steam as the working fluid offers highest efficiency,
approaching 60% (HHV).
Bannister et al. then considered a novel ‘Rankine’ type hydrogen fired cycle (Cycle
C3), as shown in Fig. 8.17. Low pressure wet steam leaving the turbine in the ‘gas
turbine’ upper cycle then enters the hot side of the HRSG. After leaving the HRSG as
wetter steam this mainstream flow enters the condenser. After condensation, some
water, equal in mass flow to that produced in combustion (m per unit flow at entry), is
then discharged. The rest (unit) flow is pumped back into the cold side of the HRSG to
+
receive heat from the (1 m) wet steam stream. Within the HRSG, this unit water flow
passes through
(a) an economiser,
(b) an evaporator to leave as saturated steam, and
(c) a superheater to impart a margin of superheat before entry to the combustion
chamber.
This superheated steam then acts as a moderator for the hydrogedoxygen combustion,
which takes place at high pressure, 166 bar in the original study. Two subsequent
reconfigurations of the cycle changed this high pressure to 365 and 250 bar, respectively,
the same general cycle approach being followed but with some added cooling streams. The
Westinghouse group concluded that a cycle efficiency of 60% (HHV) could be achieved
with this Rankine type cycle.
Further detailed studies of several complex hydrogen fuelled cycles, including the
‘Rankine’ cycle C3, have been made by Japanese authors, e.g. Sugisita et al. [l I].
Their preference is for a ‘topping/extraction’ cycle. In this cycle, the mainstream flow
from the combustor in the upper cycle, after passing through an HP steam turbine, gets
cooled in the first of the two heat exchangers, from a superheated state to the saturation
condition. The flow is then split, one stream expanding further to condenser pressure,
with the combustion product water flow (m)being discharged. The remainder of this
stream is pumped up, recuperated by the second of the two heat exchangers, expanded
again in another turbine and then mixed with the remaining topping cycle flow. Sugisita
et a]. claim over 60% efficiency for this so-called Jericha cycle.
8.6.4. Cycles with modiJcation of the oxidant in Combustion
We next consider a number of plants in which the combustion process is modified by

changing the oxidation of the fuel, Table 8.ID and Figs. 8.18-8.20. The first group (DI,
D2 and D3) are plants with G i n s u f f i c i e n t air is supplied to the Po reactor, less than that
required to produce stoichiometric combustion. The second group (D4, D5 and D6) are
plants where air is replaced as the oxidant by pure oxygen which is assumed to be available
from an air separation plant.
Chapter 8. Novel gus turbine cycles 155
EXHAUST
HRSG
AIR
v
Fig. 8.18. Cycle DI. Simple partial oxidation plant (after Newhy et al. [12]).
8.6.4.1. Partial oxidation cycles

A simple POplant (DI). Fig. 8.18, after Newby et al. [ 121, shows a simple PO plant, of the
type listed as D1 in Table 8. ID. In this plant insufficient air is supplied to the PO reactor,
less than that required for producing stoichiometric combustion. After expansion in the PO
turbine the fuel gas is fed to the main turbine combustor where additional air is also
supplied for complete combustion.
H2SO Hz, COZ

'SHIFT
[COOLER+ REACTORS, +
-
Hz RICH SYNGAS
LIQUID CO,
AIR
Fig. 8.19. Cycle D2.Partial oxidation CCGT plant with CO2 removal (after Lozza and Chiesa [ 131).
I
C
FUEL -
METHANE
EVAP EVAP CH4
IC AC
t '' TCR
1
HEAT
EXHAUST EXCHANGER
TO STACK
[COz,Nz,0zJWl
1
WATER
Fig. 8.20. Cycle D3. Complex cycle with PO and reforming (after Harvey et al. [14]).
A feature of this cycle is the reduction in compressor air flow for the same size of main
expansion turbine. The figure shows air for the PO turbine taken from the discharge of the
main compressor, but it may be taken straight from atmosphere. Note also that steam is
raised for injection into the PO reactor and Newby et al. suggested that some of the steam
raised in the HRSG may also be used to cool the PO turbine. The chemical reactions for the
PO reactor of this case were described in Section 8.5.3.
Newby and his colleagues provided some calculations of the performance of this partial
oxidation cycle. They show that a major parameter in the performance of the PO cycle is
the Po turbine inlet pressure, and listed calculations for three values of this pressure:
45 bar, 60 and 100 bar. Their results for the composition of the gas streams round the plant
(from the 60 bar calculation, which gave 49.3% for 335 M W ) are given in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2
Newby's calculations
Stream PO reactor outlet PO turbine outlet Combustion turbine outlet Stack

Temperature ("C) 1316 773 608 98
Pressure (bar) 59.3 15.9 1.05 1.01
Mole fractions
0 2 0 0 0.0571 0.0574
Nz 0.4646 0.3002 0.5421 0.5426
co 0.0780 0.0504 0 0
coz 0.0430 0.0276 0.0444 0.0443
H20 0.2529 0.5173 0.3498 0.349I
HZ 0.1588 0.1006 0 0
CH4 0 0 0 0
Mass flow k g h 0.56 X 10' 0.81 X 10' 1.77 X IO6 1.77 X 10'
Of course, there is no methane at exit from the PO reactor, and no oxygen. The
hydrogen content is quite high, over 15% and comparable to that in Lloyd’s example of the
steam/TCR cycle, but the CO content is also nearly 8%. It is interesting to note that
the calculated equilibrium concentrations of these combustible products from the reactor
are reduced through the PO turbine (because of the fall in temperature) before they are
supplied to the gas turbine combustor where they are fully combusted, but it is more likely
that the concentrations would be frozen near the entry values.
Newby et al. found that increasing the PO turbine pressure resulted in higher steam flow
(for a given pinch point temperature difference in the HRSG), increased PO turbine power
and overall plant efficiency. However, at the highest pressure of 100 bar attempts to
increase the steam flow further resulted in incomplete combustion in the main combustor
and the overall thermal efficiency did not increase substantially at this pressure level.
PO plant with Cot removal ( 0 2 ) . Lozza and Chiesa [I31 have proposed a partial
oxidation CCGT plant with carbon dioxide removal, Cycle D2 of Table 8. lD, and this is
shown in Fig. 8.19. Now the syngas from a first PO reactor is cooled and fed to an
additional shift reactor and then to a chemical or physical absorption plant. C 0 2 can thus
be removed and hydrogen rich syngas fed to the main combustion chamber of the gas
turbine plant, the exhaust gases from which pass through an HRSG, producing steam for a
bottoming steam cycle and the Po reactor. Lozza and Chiesa calculated a hydrogen molal
fraction of nearly 50% after the shift reaction and CO2 removal. The plant efficiency drops
to 48.5% from the figure of 56.1% for a basic CCGT plant. The cost of electricity produced
was estimated to be comparable to that of the semi-closed plant of Cycle A2, i.e. an
increase of about 40% on that of the electricity produced by the basic CCGT plant.
Complex cycle with partial oxidation and reforming (03). An ingenious cycle has been
proposed by Harvey et al. [I41 which combines both successive PO and chemical
recuperation in a semi-closed cycle, as illustrated in Fig. 8.20. Recycled exhaust gases
containing C02, H20 and N2 act as oxygen camers. Partial combustion (or oxidation)
takes place in successive combustors to which air is admitted (three in the proposed cycle,
but only two, for illustration, in the figure). Expansion downstream of the combustors
takes place through successive turbines. The exhaust gas from the last turbine is then
recycled to a ‘FG’ reformer to which methane is admitted (the gas has been compressed
and evaporatively water-cooled in three stages). However Rabovitser et al. 171, in a
discussion of this cycle, argued that since the water content of the exhaust gas streams is
high (5.25 mol of H20, 1 mol of C 0 2 and 7.52 mol of N2 per mole of C b supplied) the
reformer is more a steam reformer than a FG reformer.
The cycle is complex but highly efficient. This high efficiency comes from the
nature of the cycle (essentially a complex version of the intercooled, reheated,
recuperative CICICIBTBTBTX plant described in Chapter 3). As Harvey et al. argue,
the combustion irreversibility is reduced in the successive partial combustion steps, a
move towards reversible isothermal combustion.
Harvey et al. gave a parametric calculation of the thermal efficiency of this plant, as a
function of turbine inlet temperature, the reformer pinch point temperature difference
and the pressure level in the reformer (the compressor overall pressure ratio, r).
Their calculations show remarkably high overall efficiency, ranging from 56% at 1300 K
to over 64% at 1500 K (with r between 20 and 25).
8.6.4.2. Plants with combustion modifcation (full oxidation)

A number of plants have been proposed in which pure oxygen is used for combustion,
usually in combination with the concept of cycle semi-closure.
CBT ana' CCGT plants with full oxidation ( 0 4 , 0 5 ) . We next consider two semi-closed
cycles for C 0 2 removal (Cycles D4 and D5) with air replaced as the oxidant for the fuel,
by pure oxygen supplied from an additional plant.
In cycle D4 [ 151, since the fuel is burnt with pure oxygen, the exhaust gases contain
C02 and H 2 0 almost exclusively (Fig. 8.21). Cooling the exhaust below the dew point
enables the water to condense and the resulting COz stream is obtained without the need
for chemical absorption. The expensive auxiliary plant involved in direct removal of the
COz is not needed, but of course there is now the additional expense of an air separation
plant to provide the pure oxygen for combustion.
Cycle D5 is another variation of a CCGT plant with full oxygenation of the fuel as
shown in Fig. 8.22; again it is a semi-closed cycle using pure oxygen. But now the C 0 2 is
abstracted after compression, which may require the use of physical absorption plant.
For cycle D4 it may be expected that the thermal efficiency will be close to that of the
open CBT plant with the same pressure ratio and top temperature. For cycle D5 there will
be a penalty on efficiency imposed from the extra compression of COz before extraction.
The Matiant cycle ( 0 6 ) . Fig. 8.23 shows a more complex and ingenious version of the
semi-closed cycle burning fuel with oxygen-the so-called Matiant plant [ 161. A stage
FUEL (METHANE)
LIQUEFACTION
WATER
Fig. 8.21. Cycle D4.Simple CCGT plant burning methane with oxygen, and with low pressure COz removal.
OXYGEN FUEL (METHANE)
LIQUEFACTION
HRSG
COOLER
of reheat and three stages of compression are involved together with a recuperator. Carbon
dioxide and water vapour are the working gases but both the COz and H 2 0 formed in
combustion are removed, the former through a complex compression and liquefaction
process. The multiple reheating and intercooling implies that such a cycle should attain
high efficiency, with ‘heat supplied’ near the top temperature and ‘heat rejected’ near the
bottom temperature, coupled with C 0 2 removal.
Manfrida [4] calculated a thermal efficiency of 55% for this cycle at a maximum cycle
pressure of 250 bar and a combustion temperature of 1400°C.
FUEL (METHANE)
HEAT EXCHANGER
X
-
r WATER
SEPARATOR
LIQUID
coz
Fig. 8.23. Cycle D6. Matiant closed CICICBTBTBTX cycle burning methane with oxygen, and with COz
removal (after Manfrida 141).
8.7. IGCC cycles with C02 removal (Cycles E)
The IGCC cycle was described in Section 7.4.2. Obviously, there is an attraction in
burning cheap coal instead of expensive gas, but the IGCC plant will discharge as much
carbon dioxide as a normal coal burning plant unless major modifications are made to
remove the C 0 2 (Table 8.1E).
As for the conventional methane burning cycles the IGCC plants can be modified
(a) for addition of C 0 2 absorption equipment in a semi-closed cycle (Cycle El);
(b) for combustion with fuel modification with extra water shift reaction downstream of
the syngas production plant (Cycle E2); and
(c) for combustion with full oxidation of the syngas (Cycle E3).
Fig. 8.24 shows an example of a semi-closed plant (Cycle El) as studied by Chiesa and
Lozza [ 171.The C 0 2 absorption takes place downstream of the HRSG after further cooling
with water removal.
Fig. 8.25 shows an example of the second open type of IGCC plant proposed (Cycle E2)
with an additional shift reactor downstream of the gasifier and syngas cooling and cleansing
plant. Absorption of the C 0 2 is at high pressure which may require physical absorption
equipment of the type described in Section 9.2.2 [3]. However, Manfrida [4] argued that it is
still possible to use chemical absorption at moderately high pressure in this IGCC plant.
Finally, Fig. 8.26 shows Cycle E3-a semi-closed IGCC plant with oxygen fed to the
main syngas combustion process in a semi-closed cycle [18]. Now the exhaust from the
HRSG is cooled before removal of the C 0 2 at low pressure, without need of complex
equipment.
AIR STEAM
SEPARATION
UNIT
T
AIR
AIR
v
STEAM
CYCLE
WATER
LIQUEFACTION
LIQUID COz
Fig. 8.24. Cycle E l . Semi-closed IGCC plant with C02 removal (after Chiesa and Lozza [17]).
Table 8.1E
Cycles E with modifications of IGCC plants using syngas Po
Comment 2
Description Type Special features FueVoxidant CO, removal
E
El Semi-closed IGCc/C02 removal SCAGCC - Syngdair LP physical absorption Expensive 00
E
E2 (i) IGCc/shift/COz removal Open/IGCC Extra water shift Syngdair HP physical absorption Radiation or quench cooling i
E2 (ii) IGCUshiWCOz removal
E3 Oxygen blown IGCC
OpedGCC
SUIGCC
Extra water shift
Extra oxygen plant
Syngadair
Syngadoxygen
HP chemical absorption
LP extraction plus
Quench cooling
Large oxygen consumption
g
(D
compressiodliquefaction RF
AIR STEAM
SEPARATION FEED WATER
UNIT
4 TOSTACK
"CHEMICAL [MANFRIDA] OR
PHYSICAL [ CHIESA, LOZZA]
Fig. 8.25. Cycle E2. Open IGCC plant with shift reactor and C02 removal (after Chiesa and Consonni 131).
8.8. Summary
The performance of these novel plants may be assessed in relation to two objectives-
the attainment of good performance (high thermal efficiency and low cost of electricity
produced) and the effectiveness of CO2 removal, although the two may be coupled if a
C 0 2 tax is introduced.
OXYGEN
AIR T
,I
I I
4 COOLER
1
Fig. 8.26. Cycle E3. Semi-closed IGCC plant with oxygen feed and C 0 2 removal (after Chiesa and Lozza [ 181).
Few of these novel cycles can be compared with good modem CCGT plants operating
at high turbine entry temperatures, with very high overall efficiencies approaching 60%.
Some of the new cycles requiring modification of the basic CBT plant (TCR or PO) cannot
match the high efficiency of the CCGTs; those that can match the overall efficiency usually
involve additional processes and equipment and therefore incur an increased capital cost.
In particular, the cycles involving fuel or oxidant modification do not look sufficiently
attractive for their development to be undertaken, with the possible exception of the
multiple PO combustion plant proposed by Harvey et al. [14J.The Matiant plant has the
advantage of relatively simple COz removal and high efficiency and may prove to be
attractive, but it again looks complex and expensive.
Modifications of the existing plants to sequestrate and dispose of the COz will lead to a
reduction in net thermal efficiency and an increase in capital cost; both these features will
lead to increased cost of electricity generation. Whether these plants will be economic in
comparison with conventional plants of higher efficiency and less capital cost will be
determined by how much the conventional plants will have to pay in terms of a carbon tax.
Chiesa and Consonni [ 1,3] have made detailed studies of how a COz tax would affect
the economic viability of several of these cycles when a tax and C 0 2 removal are
introduced. Fig. 8.27 shows their results on the cost of electricity for natural gas-fired
plants plotted against the level of a carbon tax (in c/kg COz produced), for two of the novel
cycles studied here, in comparison with an existing CCGT plant with natural gas firing.
zz 5
AZ
I-
z
W
0
k 4
rn
0
0
c0 3
E
Y2
4
W 5 X X C G T PLUS C02 REMOVAL
1
OPEN CCGT PLUS C02
REMOVAL
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CARBON DIOXIDE TAX CENTSkg -
Fig. 8.27. Electricity price variation with carbon tax for (i) CCGT plant, (ii) semi-closed CCGT plant with C 0 2
removal, (iii) open CCGT plant with CO2 removal (after Chiesa and Consonni [I]).
14
12
0
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9
CARBON DIOXIDE TAX CENTSlkg -
Fig. 8.28. Electricity price variation with carbon tax for (i) IGCC plant and (ii) IGCC plant with extra shift and
C 0 2 removal (after Chiesa and Consonni [3]).
The novel cycles are:

(i) a natural gas-fired open CCGT plant with ‘end of pipe’ C 0 2 removal at low pressure
(Cycle Al); and
(ii) a natural gas-fired semi-closed CCGT plant with C02 removal by chemical
absorption at low pressure (Cycle A2).
Fig. 8.28 shows a similar plot for coal fired IGCC plant with and without C02 removal
(by extra shift reaction and C 0 2 removal at high pressure (Cycle Fl)).
Clearly, the carbon dioxide tax will be a dominant factor in future economic analyses
of novel cycles. It would appear that a tax of about 3 c/kg of C 0 2 produced would make
some of the C 0 2 removal cycles economic when compared to the standard basic cycles.
References
111 Chiesa, P. and Consonni, S. (2000). Natural gas fired combined cycles with low C 0 2 emissions, ASME J.
Engng Gas Turbines Power 122(3), 429-436.
[21 Corti, G. and Manfrida G. (1998). Analysis of a semi-closed gas turbindcombined cycle (SCGTKC) with
CO2 removal by amines absorption, International Conference On Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
Interlaken.
131 Chiesa, P. and Consonni, S. (1999). Shift reaction and physical absorption for low emission IGCCs, ASME
J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 121(2), 295-305.
[4] Manfrida, G. (1999). Opportunitiesfor high-efficiency electricity generation inclusive of C02 capture, Int. J.
Appl. Thermodyn. 2(4), 165-175.
[5] Lloyd, A. (1991). Thermodynamics of chemically recuperated gas turbines, CEES Report 256, Centre For
Energy and Environmental Studies, University Archives Department of Rare Books and Special
Collections, Princeton University Library.
[a] Newby, R.A., Yang, W.C. and Bannister, R.L. (1997), Use of thermochemical recuperation in combustion
turbine power systems, ASME Paper 97-GT-44.
[7]Lozza, G. and Chiesa, P. (2001). Natural gas decarbonisation to reduce COz emission from combined
cycle-Part 11: steam-methane reforming, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 124(1), 89-95.
[8] Rabovitser, J.K., Khinkis. M.J., Bannister, R.L. and Miao, F.Q. (1996). Evaluation of thermochemical
recuperation and partial oxidation concepts for natural gas-fired advanced turbine systems, ASME paper 96-
GT-290.
191 Jackson, A.J.B., Audus, H. and Singh, R. (2000), Gas turbine requirement for power generation cycles
having C 0 2 sequestration, ISABE-2001-1176.
[IO] Bannister, R.L., Huber, D.J., Newby, R.A. and Paffenburger J.A. (2000). Hydrogen-fuelled combustion
turbine cycle, ASME paper 96-GT-246.
[I I] Sugisita, H., Mori, H. and Uematsu, K. (1996). A study of advanced hydrogedoxygen combustion turbines,
Unpublished MHI report.
[I21 Newby, R.A., Yang, W.C. and Bannister, R.L. (1997). An evaluation of a partial oxidation concept for
combustion turbine power systems, ASME Paper 97-A4-24.
[I31 Lozza, G. and Chiesa, P. (2002), Natural gas decarbonisation to reduce C02 emission from combined
cycle-Part I: Partial oxidation, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 124(1), 82-88.
[ 141 Harvey, S.P., Knoche, K.E. and Richter, H.J. (1995), Reduction of combustion irreversibilityin a gas turbine
power plant through off-gas recycling, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 117(1), 24-30.
[I51 Ulizar, I. and Pilidis, P. (1996), A semi-closed cycle gas turbine with carbon dioxide-argon as working
fluid, ASME paper 96-GT-345.
[ 16) Mathieu, P. and Nihart, R. (1999). Zero-emission MATIANT cycle, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power
121(1), 116-120.
[I71 Chiesa, P. and Lozza, G. (1999). C 0 2 emission abatement in IGCC power plants by semi-closed cycle-
Part B-with air blown combustion and CO2 physical absorption, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power
121(4), 642-648.
[I81 Chiesa, P. and Lozza, G. (1999). COz emission abatement in IGCC power plants by semi-closed cycles-
Part A with oxygen-blown combustion, ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 121(4), 635-641.
Chapter 9
THE GAS TURBINE AS A COGENERATION (COMBINED HEAT

AND POWER) PLANT
9.1. Introduction
The thermodynamics of thermal power plants has long been a classical area of study for
engineers. A conventional power plant receiving fuel energy ( F ) ,producing work ( W ) and
rejecting ‘non-useful’ heat (eA)to a sink at low temperature was illustrated earlier in
Fig. I. 1. The designer attempts to minimise the fuel input for a given work output because
this will clearly give economic benefit in the operation of the plant, minimising fuel costs
against the sales of electricity to meet the power demand.
The objectives of the designer of a combined heat and power plant are wider, for both
heat and work production. Fig. 9.1 shows a CHP or cogeneration (CG) plant receiving fuel
energy (FCG)and producing work (WcG). But useful heat as well as non-useful
heat (eNu),-- is now produced. Both the work and the useful heat can be sold, so the CHP
designer is not solely interested in high thermal efficiency, although the work output
commands a higher sale price than the useful heat output. Clearly, both thermodynamics
and economics will be of importance and these are developed in Ref. [I]. A much briefer
discussion of CHP is given here.
Fig. 9.2 shows how a simple open circuit gas turbine can be used as a cogeneration
plant: (a) with a waste heat recuperator (WHR) and (b) with a waste heat boiler (WHB).
Since the products from combustion have excess air, supplementary fuel may be burnt
downstream of the turbine in the second case. In these illustrations, the overall efficiency
of the gas turbine is taken to be quite low ((q&-= WcG/FcG = 0.25), where the
subscript CG indicates that the gas turbine is used as a recuperative cogeneration plant.
In Fig. 9.2a, the work output from the unfired plant is shown to be equal to unity and the
heat supply FCG = 4.0. Further, it is assumed that the useful heat supplied is = 2.25
and the unused non-useful heat is (QNu)cc = 0.75. An important parameter of this CHP
plant is the ratio of useful heat supplied to the work output, ,bG = (Qu)cc/Wcc = 2.25.
For a plant with a fired heat boiler, as in Fig. 9.2b, both the work output WCGand the
main heat supply FCG = F , are assumed to be unaltered at 1.0 and 4.0, respectively, but
supplementary fuel energy is supplied to the WHB, F2 = I S F , = 6.0. The useful heat
supplied is then assumed to increase to 7.2 and the non-useful heat rejected to be 1.8. Thus
the parameter h changes to 7.2.
For a site with a fixed power demand throughout the year, the unfired plant
illustrated in Fig. 9.2a is suitable for summer operation when the heat load is light.
I67
COGENERATION
USEFUL HEAT
REJECTED(Qu)co 1 (CHP) PLANT
1 t
WORK WCG
I NONUSEFUL HEAT
REJECTED (Q&G
Fig. 9. I. Cogeneration (CHP) plant.
It could then be supplementarily fired in the winter when the heat load is heavier, as
in Fig. 9.2b.
9.2. Performance criteria for CHP plants
9.2.1. Energy utilisation factor
For an open circuit power plant, an (arbitrary) overall efficiency has been defined as
To= -.W
F
(9.1)
This criteria of performance has less relevance to a combined heat and power plant
which provides heat and generates electrical power. For an open circuit gas turbine plant, a
more logical criterion is the energy utilisation factor (EUF) which can be calculated as
(9.2)
where (Qu)cG is the useful heat rejected to meet the required heat load, at a temperature Tu
higher than To, the temperature of the environment. It is preferable not to use the term
efficiency for EUF, to avoid confusion with the thermal or overall efficiency.
+
For the unfired example, Fig. 9.2a, the efficiency is 0.25, and EUF = (W Qu)/F =
+
( 1 2.25)/4 = 0.8125. For the supplementary fired example of Fig. 9.2b, the efficiency
remains at 0.25 but the EUF becomes
It must be remembered that work is difficult to produce and highly priced, whereas the
useful heat is a lower grade, lower priced product from the plant. The energy utilisation
Chapter 9. The gas turbine as a cogeneration (combined hear and power) plant 169
Fj = FCG= 4
[a] COGENERATION
PLANT WITH WASTE
"Q" =3 HEAT RECUPERATOR
(QU)CG +j?
12.25
4 (QNU)CG 0.75
[b]COGENERATION
PLANT WITH WASTE
"QI3 HEAT BOILER
T=6
Qu =7.2
QNU 1.8
Fig. 9.2. Cogeneration plants (a) with waste heat recuperator (WHR) and (h) with waste heat boiler (WHB).
factor is thus not entirely satisfactory as a criterion of performance as it gives equal weight
to W and QU. A 'value-weighted' EUF is therefore sometimes used, accounting for the
different pricing of electrical power and heat load. If the sale price of electrical power is YE
(EkWh), that of the heat load is YH(UkWh) and the price of fuel is 6 (EkWh) then the
'value-weighted' EUF can be calculated as
(9.3)
9.2.2. Artijicial thermal eflciency
A second criterion of performance sometimes used is an ‘artificial’ thermal efficiency

(vA) in which the energy in the fuel supply to the CHP plant is supposed to be reduced by
that which would be required to produce the heat load (eu) in a separate ‘heat only’ boiler
of efficiency (VB), i.e. by ( Q U / v B ) . The artificial efficiency (vA)is then given by
(9.4)
where is the overall efficiency of the CHP plant.

For the unfired plant of Fig. 9.2a and taking 178 = 0.90, the artificial efficiency would be
0.25 -
0.25
7)A = -- = 0.666.
2.25 0.375
I--
(0.9)4
For the supplementary fired plant of Fig. 9.2b, the artificial efficiency would be
9.2.3. Fuel energy saving ratio
A third performance criterion developed for combined heat and power plant involves
comparison between the fuel required to meet the given loads of electricity and heat in the
CHP plant with that required in a ‘reference system’. The latter involves conventional
plants that meet the same load demands (indicated by subscript D), for example, in a
conventional electric power station and in a ‘heat only’ boiler.
Such a ‘reference system’ is shown in Fig. 9.3a. The overall efficiency of the
conventional electric power plant is 7)c (for simplicity the subscript 0 for overall
efficiency is dropped from here onwards); the (demand) electrical load is unity. The ratio
of heat to electrical demands is AD, so that the demand heat load is taken as AD. The
efficiency of the ‘heat only’ boiler is vB so the fuel energy required for the boiler is
(AD/%), i.e. there are heat losses AD[(l/vB) - 11 involved before heat is delivered to
district or process heating.
A CHP system meeting the same power and heat demands (1, AD) is shown in Fig. 9.3b;
it is implied that this cogeneration plant is perfectly matched, delivering the required
(1, AD) precisely, using a WHR.
The total fuel energy required in the reference system is
Chapter 9. The gus turbine us u cogeneration (combined heat und power) plant 171
CONVENTIONAL
POWER PLANT
1
'
[a1 1 [bl
(QNU)C
PLANT WITH
CONVENTIONAL WASTE HEAT
BOILER RECUPERATOR
@)CG ('")D
I (QNu~
(QNU~CG
MATCHED
PLANT WITH
WASTE HEAT
BOILER
4 QNU
Fig. 9.3. (a) Reference system, (b) matched CHP plant with WHR, and (c) matched CHP plant with WHB.
and the fuel saving in using a CHP plant is therefore

(9.6)
The fuel energy savings ratio (FESR) is then defined as the ratio of the saving ( A F )to the
fuel energy required in the conventional plants,
F E S R = - -AF
F U E F -C
:(
-+--- 1
7)CG
-+-
:C>/( :)
=I- ( 7)C/r)CG)
1 (AD~C/~)B)+
(9.7)
'
The above simple analysis has to be modified for a supplementary fired CHP plant such as
that shown in Fig. 9.3c, meeting a unit electrical demand and an increased heat load Af,.
The ‘reference system’ fuel energy supplied is now
F’kEF = -
1
77c
+ -.Af,
778
The CHP plant now requires a fuel energy supply of
F’ = F1 + F2 = ( l / ? c ~+) F2, (9.9)
where F2 = Ab/+ is the Supplementary fuel energy supplied to the WHB, so that
(9.10)
The quantity $ requires discussion. The steady flow energy equation for the WHB is
M&o + Hp4 = A b + Hps, (9.1 1)

where 4 and S are the entry and exit states, P refers to products entering (i.e. at exit from
the turbine), P‘ refers to products after the supplementary combustion and MEhm is the
enthalpy flux of the entering fuel. For a corresponding calorific value experiment at
temperature TO,again with products P entering and products P‘ leaving,
Mf2hfO + Hpo = n/r,,[CVIo + HPO. (9.12)
(9.13)
(9.14)
where (HPSt- HpO)is the new ‘heat loss’ in the stack (Q)/Nu,and this will usually be less
than (Hp4 - Hw),so that +will be greater than unity (it is not a boiler efficiency). We shall
not determine $ here but give it parametric values of 1.2 and 1.5 in the later calculations.
The fuel savings for the supplementary fired plant are given by
(9.15)
and the fuel savings ratio is
(9.16)
By way of numerical illustration of the fuel savings ratio, we consider the two plants
illustrated in Fig. 9.2. For the unfired plant of Fig. 9.2a, taking vC = 0.4 and 778 = 0.9 and
Chapter 9. The gas turbine as a cogeneration (combined heat and power) plant 173
with AD = &G = 2.25,
(0.4/0.25)
FESR= 1 - = 0.2.
1 + (2.25 X 0.410.9)
For the supplementary fired plant of Fig. 9.2b with AD = 7.2 and with the parameter J,
taken as 1.2, so that F2 = 6, the fuel energy savings ratio is
FESR’= 1 - (4 + 6)/(2.5 + 7 3 0 . 9 ) = 0.048.

Thus the FESR is less attractive when there is a large heat load and a WHB with
supplementary firing is used. In general, the FESR is probably the most useful of the CHP
plant performance criteria as it can be used directly in the economic assessment of the
plant [ I].
93. The unmatched gas turbine CHP plant
In general, a gas turbine CHP plant may not exactly match the electricity and heat
demands. A plant with a recuperator may meet the heat load (Qu)cG = AD but not the
power load (WcG < WD = 1) so extra power from the grid is required (W,) as illustrated
in Fig. 9.4. Following a procedure similar to that given in Section 9.2.3 it may be shown
[ 11 that the performance parameters for the total plant are then
Fig. 9.4. Unmatched CHP plant laking power from the grid.
FESR’ = 1 - (z)
FREF
I J
(eN&- is usually limited by the allowable stack temperature Ts. As a fraction of the heat
supplied to the cogeneration plant it remains constant in this application.
For an unmatched gas turbine CHP plant, meeting a power load (WCG = WD = 1) but
not the heat load ( Q u ) c G < AD, increased useful heat may be obtained by firing the WHB,
as explained in Section 9.2.3, and illustrated in Fig. 9 . 3 ~ .
9.4. Range of operation for a gas turbine CHP plant
We now illustrate numerically the full range of operation of a gas turbine CHP plant,
(i) with a recuperator (unfired) and
(ii) with a WHB (fired).
A gas turbine plant with an overall efficiency qcG= 0.25 matching a heat load
kG= 2.25 is again considered as the ‘basic’ CHP plant; also implied is a non-useful heat
+
rejection ratio ( Q N u ) c G / F c G = [l - ( q c ~ ) ( & G l)] = 3/16. For FESR calculations, we
again take the conventional plant efficiency as 0.4 and the conventional boiler efficiency as
0.9. At the fully matched condition these assumptions previously led to EUF = 0.8 125 and
FESR = 0.2.
We next calculate EUF and FESR over a range of heat to power ratios AD # kG.
(i) For the plant with a WHR only, for AD < kG, the power is taken via the grid from a
conventional power plant. Thus Eqs. (9.17) and (9.18) yield
(EUF) =
+
0.3(1 AD)
(9.19)
+
0.75 0.2A~’
0.12h~
(FESR) = (9.20)
+
0.675 0.3AD ’
EUF and FESR are plotted against AD on the left hand side of Fig. 9.5. (QNu)CG/FCG
is constant at 3/16 over the range from AD = 0 to 2.25, since the operation of the CG
plant remains the same.
(ii) For the plant with a WHB, and for the demand Ab exceeding 2.25, Eqs. (9.10) and
(9.16) give the values of EUF’ and FESR’as follows:
+
for = 1.2,
EUF‘ =
1.2(1 + Ab) (9.21)
4.8+ Ab ’
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9
B
f
HEAT TO WORK RATIO
Fig. 9.5. Performance of unmatched CHP plants. with WHR and with WHB, for varying heat to work ratio (after Ref. [l]).
(O.lA', - 0.54)
FESR' = (9.22)
+
(0.9 0.4A',) '
and for $ = 1.5,
EUF' =
+
1.5(1 A',)
(9.23)
6+Ab '
(0.24Ab - 0.81)
FESR' = (9.24)
+
(1.35 0.6A',)
The values of EUF' and FESR' under the conditions of A', greater than 2.25 are plotted
on the right hand side of Fig. 9.5. Now fuel savings appear for A', > 5.4 with $ =
&IF2 = 1.2, and for A', > 3.375 with $ = A',/F2 = 1.5.
But the amount of unused heat now varies with AD and is given by
(QNU)CG/FCG
= (314) + &[(W- 1l/4,
(QNU)CG/FCG = (1 8 - A',)/24 for = 1.2,
(QN")cG/Fcc = (9 - &)/12, for $ = 1.5.
These are plotted against

- AD in Fig.
- 9.6. Clearly, the calculations lose validity when
A', = 18 for $ = 1.2, and when A', = 9 for $ = 1.5. However, if the exhaust stack
0 2 4 6 a IO 12 14 16 la 20
(HEAT DEMAND)/(WORK DEMAND)
Fig. 9.6. Unused heat as a function of (heavwork) demand.

Chapter 9. The gas turbine as a cogeneration (combined heat and power) plant 177
temperature is limited, at the level corresponding to (QNU)CG/FCG = 3/16 as in the basic

+
plant, then corresponding limits on A’, are 27/4 for = 1.5 and 27/2 for = 1.2. +
9.5. Design of gas turbines as cogeneration (CHP) plants
Both the heat to work ratio kGand the various performance parameters such as
EUF and FESR are affected by the choice of design parameters within a gas turbine.
However, for the gas turbine with a WHR, the range of &-G that can be achieved by
varying these parameters is not large and operation may have to involve firing a WHB,
or running in parallel with conventional plants, as explained earlier. But some variation
in kc can be achieved by varying the ‘internal’ design parameters (e.g. pressure ratio
and turbine inlet temperature), achieving matched operation for each of the different
designs, i.e. by varying kGto match AD. Porter and Mastanaiah [2] calculated kcfor
a gas turbine with a WHR supplying process steam at p p , Tp. Plots of the heat to work
ratio A,-G against Tp are shown in Fig. 9.7, for a maximum temperature of 1200 K and
various pressure ratios, and with a limit on the stack temperature and compressor and
turbine efficiencies of 0.9.
The EUF and FESR are then simple to derive and typical area plots of the range of EUF
and FESR against the derived &G, for gas turbines with varying practical design
parameters, are illustrated in Fig. 9.8.
It is concluded that such simple gas turbines with WHRs have good energy utilisation at
kc= I with respectable FESR. The introduction of a WHB will move the operable area
to higher values of A, usually with comparable EUFs but lower FESRs, as has been
illustrated in the examples calculated in Section 9.2.
9.6. Some practical gas turbine cogeneration plants
There are many gas turbine CHP plants in operation for a range of purposes and
applications. Here we describe the salient features of two such plants, each operating with
a WHR but also with supplementary firing which can be introduced to meet increased heat
demands.
9.6.1. The Beilen CHP plant
A gas turbine CHP scheme, with a heat recovery steam generator producing process
steam, operates at the DOMO plant at Beilen in the Netherlands. The plant, which
produces dairy products, originally took its electric power (up to 3.2 MW) from the grid
and its heat load was met by two gas-fired boilers with a steam production of 25 t/h at
13 bar.
The CHP plant which replaced these two separate energy supplies is based on a
Ruston TB gas turbine (rated at 3.65 MW) which can meet the electrical demand of
3.2 M W and is connected to the grid so that excess electrical power can be sold. By
providing full gas power, up to 12 t/h of saturated steam can be produced at 191°C
and 13 bar. Five supplementary gas burners can be engaged to increase the steam
e
m
4
1.8
1.6
1.4
zi 1
p! 1.2
I
J 0.8
3
LL
w
2 0.6
I I I I 1 1
0.4 - .r=10
0.2
- r=14
0
I00 125 150 175 200 225 250
PROCESS STEAM TEMPERATURE Tp (" C) -

Fig. 9.7. (Useful heat)/work as a function of process steam temperature (after Porter and Mastanaiah [2]).
U
3
W
production to 3 5 t h . Gases leave the exhaust stack at 138°C under maximum load
conditions.
For the first operating condition (HRSG unfired) the heat load is estimated at 7.5 MW.
For the second condition (HRSG fired) when 35 t/h of saturated steam is raised, the heat
load is 23 MW. The values of heat to work ratios (AD) are thus
(=)
7.5
= 2.34, and ($) = 7.19, respectively.
Other parameters for the plant operating condition-f HRSG unfired (WHR) and
HRSG fired (WHB)-are as follows:
Alternator power output 3.2 MW
Airmass flow rate 20.45 kg/s
Pressure ratio 7: 1
Maximum temperature 890°C
Thermal efficiency 0.23
Heat recovery steam generator
Unfired Steam (saturated) mass flow rate 12 t/h
Steam pressure 13 bar
Fired Steam (saturated) mass flow rate 35 t/h
Steam pressure 13 bar
WHR WHB ($= 1.34)
A 2.34 7.19
EUF 0.77 0.85
FESR 0.147 O.O75(7C = 0.4, VB = 0.9)
A full description of this plant is given in Ref. [l].
9.6.2. The Liverpool University CHP plant
A gas turbine CHP scheme which operates at Liverpool University, UK, consists of a
Centrax 4 MW (nominal) gas turbine with an overall efficiency of about 0.27, exhausting
to a WHB. The plant meets a major part of the University’s heat load of about 7 MW on a
mild winter’s day. Supplementary firing of the WHB (to about 15 MW) is possible on a
cold day. Provision is also made for by-passing the WHB when the heat load is light, in
spring and autumn, so that the plant can operate very flexibly, in three modes viz., power
only, recuperative and supplementary firing.
The major performance parameters at design operating conditions are as follows:
Electrical power output 3.8 MW
Heat output (normal load) 6.6 MW
(with supplementary firing) 15.0 MW
Gas fuel energy supply 14.95 MW
Thermal efficiency 0.27
Chapter 9. The gas turbine as a cogeneration (combined hear and power) plant 181
Headwork ratio 1.7

Water supply temperature (TB) 150°C
Water return temperature (TA) 128°C
Exhaust gas flow (MG) 15.3 kgls
Water flow (Mw) 150 t/h
For WHR operation EUF = 0.73 0.4 X 0.9
(&G = I .7, vc = 0.4, vc = 0.9) FESRZ1- = 0.155
0.27(0.9 +1.7 X 0.4)
A full description of the economics of operating this plant over a complete year is given
by Horlock [I].
References
[I ] Horlock, J.H.(1997). Cogeneration-Combined Heat and Power Plants, 2nd edn, Krieger, Malabar, Florida.
[2] Porter, R.W. and Mastanaiah, K. (1 982), Thermal-economics analysis of heat-matched industrial
cogeneration systems, Energy 7(2). 171 - 187.
Appendix A
DERIVATION OF REQUIRED COOLING FLOWS
A.1. Introduction
The stagnation temperature and pressure change in the cooling mixing process have
been shown to be dependent on the cooling air flow (w,) as a fraction of the entering gas
flow (w,),i.e. on JI = wc/wg. In this Appendix, an analysis by Holland and Thake [l],
which allows external film cooling (flow through the blade surface) as well as internal
convective cooling (flow through the internal passages), is summarised (see also Horlock
et al. [2] for a full discussion). It is based mainly on the assumption that the external
Stanton number (Sr,), which is generally a weak function of the Reynolds number, remains
constant as engine design parameters (Tco, and r) are changed.
A.2. Convective cooling only

A simple heat balance for a typical convectively cooled blade (as illustrated in
Fig. A. 1a, which shows the notation) is
It is assumed that the temperature of the coolant does not fully reach the temperature of the
metal before it leaves the blade, i.e. Tc, < Thus, the concept of a cooling efficiency is
introduced
so that
The exposed area for heat transfer (Asg) is then replaced on the premise that, for a set of
similar gas turbines, there is a reasonably constant ratio between A,, and the cross-
sectional area of the main hot gas flow Axg. Thus, writing A, = hixg = Awg/p,Vg in
Eq. (A3) gives
183
-
(a) CONVECTIVE COOLING NOTATION
%= hgAsg(Tg-Tbl) I-- wg + wc
(b) FILM COOLING NOTATION
1
'
%t = 'fg (Taw- Tbl )

Fig. A. 1. Notation for turbine blade cooling. (a) Convective cooling and (b) film cooling (after Ref. [2]).
so that
(WclWg) = A(cpg/c,)(hg/cp,pgVg)(T,i - TbI)/%ool(Tbl - Tci)
= A(cpg/c,)Sfg(Tgi - Tbl)/'?/cooI(Tbl - (A41

where Stg = hg/(cpgpgVg) is the external Stanton number.
For a row in which the blade length is L, the blade chord is c, the spacing is s and the
flow discharge angle is a,the ratio h is given approximately by
h = A,,/A,, = 2Lc/(Ls COS a) = 2c/(s COS a).
With s/c = 0.8 and a = 75", the value of A is then about 10. The total cooled surface area
is found to be greater than the surface area of the blade profiles alone because of the
presence of cooled end-wall surfaces (adding another 30-40% of surface area), complex
trailing edges and other cooled components. It would appear from an examination of
practical engines that h(cpg/c,)could reasonably be given a value of about 20. Eq. (A4)
then provides the basic form on which a cooling model can be based.
The external Stanton number is assumed not to vary over the range of conditions being
studied. Considering (cp,/c,)(A,,/A,,)Stg as a constant C, Eq. (A4) then becomes
$h = W c / W g = cw+ = C&"/7)coo,(
1 - E"), (A5)
Appendix A. Derivation of required cooling Jows I85
where w+ is the 'temperature difference ratio' given by
and eo is the overall cooling effectiveness, defined as

80 = (Tgi - Tbl)/(Tgi - Tci).
Tgi and Tci are usually determined from and/or specified for cycle calculation so that the
cooling effectiveness .zO implicitly becomes a requirement (subject to Tbl which again can
be assumed for a 'level of technology'). If r)cool and C are amalgamated into a single
constant K,then
l+b = K&"/(1 - Eo), (A8)
for convective cooling, as used by El-Masri [3].
A.3. Film cooling
The model used by Holland and Thake [11 when film cooling is present is indicated in
Fig. A.lb. Cooling air at temperature Tc, is discharged into the mainstream through the
holes in the blade surface to form a cooling film. The heat transferred is now
Qnet = Asghg(Taw - Tbl) = Wccpc(Tco - Tcih 649)
where Tawis the adiabatic wall temperature and hfg is the heat transfer coefficient under
film cooling conditions. The film cooling effectiveness is defined as
EF = (Tgi - Taw>/(Tgi - Ted. ('410)
Then a new 'temperature difference ratio' W + may be written as
w+= (Taw - Tbl)/(Tco - Tci)

= [EO - (1 - r)cool)&F - &O&F~c0011/r)cool(l - E O ) . ('411)
It can be argued that cF should be independent of temperature boundary conditions and
in the subsequent calculations it is taken as 0.4, based on the experimental data.
It follows from Eqs. (A9) and (AlO) that
l+b = (wc/wg>= (c,g/c,)(Asgs~,/A,g>~w+, (A 12)
+
where p = hfg/[kg( 1 B)] in which hf, is the heat transfer coefficient under film cooling
conditions and B = hfgt/k is the Biot number, which takes account of a thermal barrier
coating (TBC) of thickness r and conductivity k.
+
In practice, hfg increases above h,, and (1 B) is increased as TBC is added. For the
purposes of cycle calculation, p is therefore taken as unity and
l+b = cw+, ('41 3)
where C is the same constant as that used for convective cooling only.
A.4. The cooling efficiency
The cooling efficiency can be determined from the internal heat transfer. If Tbl is taken
to be more or less constant, then it may be shown that
where 6 = (h,A,/w,c,) = (St,A,/A,,), St, is now the internal Stanton number, and A,
and A,, refer to surface and cross-sectional areas of the coolant flow.
Experience gives values of 8 for various geometries, but Sr, is also a weak function of
Reynolds number and so, in practice, there is relatively little variation in cooling efficiency
(0.6 < cool < 0.8). In the cycle calculations described in Chapter 5, cool was taken as
0.7, and assumed to be constant over the range of cooling flows considered.
AS. Summary
Since ‘open’ film cooling is now used in most gas turbines, the form of Eq. (AI 3) was
adopted for the cycle calculations of Chapter 5, i.e.
Taking (cpg/cF)(As,/Ag)= 20 as representative of modern engine practice, and

Sr, = 1.5 X a value of C = 0.03 is obtained. The ratio (cpg/cF)should then increase
with Tg (but only by about 8% over the range 1500-2200K). This variation was,
therefore, neglected in the cycle calculations described in Chapter 5 .
However, it was found that the cooling flows calculated from these equations were less
than those used in recent and current practices in which film cooling is employed. This is
for two main reasons:
(i) designers are conservative, and choose to increase the cooling flows
(a) to cope with entry temperature profiles (the maximum temperature being well
above the mean) and local hot spots on the blade and
(b) locally, where cooling can be achieved with relatively small penalty on mixing
loss (and hence on polytropic efficiency), so regions remote from these injection
points are cooled with this low loss air;
(ii) in practice, some surfaces in a turbine blade row will be convectively cooled with no
film cooling. The use of Eq. (A15) with Eq. (AI 1) for the whole blade row assembly
therefore leads to the total cooling flow being underestimated. Film cooling leads to
more efficient cooling, which is reflected in W + being much less than w + ;for the
NGVs of a modem gas turbine W + may take a value of about 2 but w about 4. +
In the calculations described in the main text, allowance was made for such practical
issues by increasing the value of the constants C by a ‘safety factor’ of 1.5. Thus, cooling
flows were determined from
Appendix A. Derivation of required cooling j b w s 187
with
w+ = [EO - (1 - r]cool)&F - EOEFr]~ooll/r]cool(~- (A 17)
in which EF was taken as 0.4and r]cool as 0.7, so that
W + = [EO - 0.12 - 0.28~,]/0.7( I - E O ) . (A181
In any particular cycle calculation, with the inlet gas temperature Tg known together
with the inlet coolant temperature Tci, and with an assumed allowable metal temperature
Tbl, cO was determined from Eq. (A7). W + was then obtained from Eq. (A18) and the
cooling flow fraction $ from Eq. (A16).
References
[ I ] Holland, M.J. and Thake. T.F. (1980). Rotor blade cooling in high pressure turbines, AlAA J. Aircraft 17(6),
412-418.
[2] Horlock, J.H., Watson, D.E. and Jones, T.V. (2001). Limitations on gas turbine performance imposed by
[3] El-Masri, M.A. (1987). Exergy analysis of combined cycles: Part 1 Air-cooled Brayton-cycle gas turbines,
ASME J. Engng Power Gas Turbines 109.228-235.
Appendix B
ECONOMICS OF GAS TURBINE PLANTS
B.l. Introduction
The simplest way of assessing the economics of a new power plant is to calculate the
unit price of electricity produced by the plant (e.g. $/kWh) and compare it with that of a
conventional plant. This is the method adopted by many authors [1,2]. Other methods
involving net present values may also be used [3,4].
B.2. Electricity pricing

The method is based on relating electricity price to both the capital related cost and the
recurrent cost of production (fuel and maintenance of plant):
PE= Pco + M + (OM), 03.1)
where PEis the annual cost of the electricity produced (e.g. $ p.a.), Co is the capital cost of
plant (e.g. $), P(i,N) is a capital charge factor which is related to the discount rate (i) on
capital and the life of the plant (Nyears) (see Section B.3 below), M is the annual cost of
fuel supplied (e.g. $ p.a.), and (OM) is the annual cost of operation and maintenance (e.g. $
p.a.).
The ‘unitised’ production cost (say $kWh)for the plant is
Y E = - =pE
- PCO M
+-+- (OM)
WH WH WH WH
where is the rating of the plant (kW) and H is the plant utilisation (hours per annum).
The cost of the fuel per annum, M , may be written as the product of the unit cost of fuel
&$/kWh), the rate of supply of energy in the fuel &kW) and the utilisation, H , i.e.
M = lFH. 03.3)
Thus the unitised production cost is
where (v0)= W/F is the overall efficiency of the plant. Alternatively, the unit cost of fuel
4‘may be written as the cost per unit mass S (say $/kg) divided by the calorific value [CV],
189
(kWh/kg), so that
In a comparison between two competitive plants, one may have higher efficiency (and
hence lower fuel cost) but may incur higher capital and maintenance costs. These effects
have to be balanced against each other in the assessment of the relative economic merits of
two plants.
B.3. The capital charge factor
The capital charge factor (P) multiplied by the capital cost of the plant (CO)gives the
cost of servicing the total capital required. Suppose the capital costs of a plant at the
beginning of the first year is COand the plant has a life of N years so an annual amount
+
must be provided which is (Coi B). The first term (COi) is the simple interest payment
and the second (B) matures into the capital repayment after N years (i.e. interest added to
the accumulated sum at the end of each year), thus
+(I +i)+(l+i)2+...+(1+i)N-']=~0,
so that
C0i
B=
(1 +i)N - 1
where it has been assumed that the annual payments are made at the end of each year.
Hence the total annual payment is
where the capital charge factor P is sometimes referred to as the annuity present worth
factor and is given as
In arriving at an appropriate value of p, the choice of interest or discount rate (i) is

crucial. It depends on:
the relative values of equity and debt financing;

whether the debt financing is less than the life of the plant;
tax rates and tax allowances (which vary from one country to another);
inflation rates.
In comparing two engineering projects the practice is often to use a 'test discount rate',
applicable to both projects.
An American approach has been outlined by Williams [l]. He elaborates the simple
expression for P to take account of many other factors beyond a simple single interest (or
Appendix E. Economics of gas turbine plants 191
discount) rate. He defines a discount rate as

i = ‘Yere + (1 - T)(Ydrd, (B.8)
where ae,ad are the fractions of investment from equity and debt, re, rd are the
corresponding annual rates of return and T is the corporate tax rate.
B.4. Examples of electricity pricing

In the unit price of electricity (YE) derived in Section B.2, the dominant factors are the
capital cost per kilowatt (Co/m,which generally decreases inversely as the square root of
the power (i.e. as Win), the fuel price [, the overall efficiency T ~the, utilisation (H hours
per year) and to a lesser extent the operational and maintenance costs (OM).
Fig. B. 1 shows simply how YE,minus the (OM)/WH component, varies with Co/Wand
m,for H = 4ooo h and 6 = 1 c k w h . Horlock [4] has used this type of chart to compare
three lines of development in gas turbine power generation:
(i) a heavy-duty simple cycle gas turbine, of moderate capital cost, with a relatively low
pressure ratio and modest thermal efficiency (e.g. 36%);
(ii) an aero-engine derivative simple cycle gas turbine, usually two-shaft and of high
pressure ratio, the capital cost per kilowatt of this plant being surprisingly little
different from (i) in spite of it being derived from developed aero-engines, but
thermal efficiency being slightly higher (e.g. 39%);
(iii) a heavy-duty CCGT plant, based on (i), which has a high thermal efficiency but
0 zoo0 4ooo m 1 m 12OOo 14000 18ooo

HEAT RATE (kJkWh)
Fig. B. 1. Electricity price as a function of capital cost and plant efficiency (after Ref. [4]).
Rough locations for types (i), (ii) and (iii) are given in the electricity price charts of
Figs. B.2 and B.3; for 8000 and 4ooo h utilisation, respectively. For 8000 h, the CCGT
plant type (iii) has a clear advantage in spite of increased capital costs. At 4OOO h, the
CCGT plant loses this advantage over the aero-engine derivatives because of the increase
in the capital cost element (Hhas been decreased).
However, more direct comparisons should include factors of operation and main-
tenance, the cost of which have been omitted in the presentations of Figs. B.2 and B.3.
B.5. Carbon dioxide production and the effects of a carbon tax
As pointed out in Chapter 7, the amount of C02 produced by a thermal plant is now a
major criterion of its performance, for environmental and therefore economic reasons.
In electrical power stations a new measure of the performance is the amount of C 0 2
produced per unit of electricity generated, i.e. A = kg(C0,)kWh; this quantity can be
non-dimensionalised by writing A’ = A( 16/44)(LCV) where (16/4) is the mass ratio of
fuel to C 0 2 for methane and (LCV) in its lower heating value. However, presenting the
plant’s ‘green’ performance in terms of A directly allows the cost of any tax on the carbon
dioxide to be added to the untaxed cost of electricity production most easily.
Fig. B.4 (after Davidson and Keeley [ 5 ] ) shows values of A plotted against thermal
efficiency for a high carbon fuel (coal) and a lower carbon fuel (natural gas). It illustrates
that one obvious route towards a desired low production of this greenhouse gas is to seek
high thermal efficiency (another is to use lower carbon fuel).
In future, the economics of electric power generation is likely to be affected
considerably by the amount of C 0 2 produced and the level of any environmental penalty
0
0 2MH) 4000 Boo0 8OOo lo000 12OOo 14000 18ooo
HEAT RATE (kJ/kWh)
Fig. B.2. Electricity price for typical gas turbine plants-running hours 8000 p.a. (after Ref. [41).
193
0 ZOO0 4000 6OQO 8MH) loo00 12000 14000 16000

HEAT RATE (kJ/kWh)
Fig. B.3. Electricity price for typical gas turbine plants-running hours 4000 p.a. (after Ref. [4])
imposed by a carbon or carbon dioxide tax. For example, a CCGT plant of 54% thermal
efficiency, delivering electricity at a generating cost of 3.6 ckWh can produce C02 at a
rate of 0.3 kg/kWh, as indicated in Fig. B.5. If the carbon dioxide tax is set at $50/tonne of
C02 (5 c k g C02), then there is an additional amount of (0.3 x 5) = 1.5 ckWh to be
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Od5 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
OVERALL EFFICIENCY [LHV]
Fig. B.4. Carbon dioxide emissions for various power plants as a function of overall efficiency (after Davidson
and Keeley [5]).
0 50 loo 150 200 250

CARBON DIOXIDE TAX $/TONNE
Fig. B.S. Effect of carbon dioxide tax on electricity price for a combined cycle gas turbine plant.
added to the cost of generation, making it 5.1 c/kWh. This may make the plant
uneconomic when compared to a nuclear station or even windmills. This point is
illustrated in Fig. B.5 which shows how the generation cost for this CCGT plant would
vary with the tax level and how other plants might then come into competition with it.
If however, the original CCGT plant was modified to reduce the amount of C 0 2
entering the atmosphere from the plant (say to 0.15 kg/kWh) at an additional capital cost it
may lead to an increase in the untaxed cost of electricity (say from 3.6 to 4.2 c/kWh).
Then the effect of a carbon dioxide tax of 5 c k w h would be to increase the electricity
+
price to (4.2 0.15 X 5) = 4.95 ckWh and this is below the ‘taxed’ cost of the original
plant. In fact, the new plant would become economic with a carbon dioxide tax of T c k g
+ +
C 0 2 , which is given as (3.6 T X 0.3) = (4.2 T X 0.IS), i.e. when T = 4 c/kg C02.
References
11 I Williams, R.H. (1978). Industrial Cogeneration, Annual Review of Energy 3, 313-356.
121 Wunsch, A. (1985). Highest efficiencies possible by converting gas turbine plants, Brown Boveri Review 1,
455-456.
I31 Horlock, J.H. (1997). Cogeneration-Combined Heat and Power Plants, 2nd edition, Krieger, Malabar,
Florida.
[41 Horlock. J.H. (1997), Aero-engine derivative gas turbines for power generation: thermodynamic and
economic perspectives, ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power I 19(I), 119- 123.
[SI Davidson, B.J. and Keeley, K.R. (1991), The thermodynamics of practical combined cycles. Roc. Instn.
Mech. Engrs., Conference on Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, 28-SO.
SUBJECT INDEX
ABB GT24/36 CCGT plant, 128 Capital charge factor, 189, 190-191
Absorption, 136- 139 Capital cost per kilowatt, 191
Adiabatic combustion, 23 Capital costs, 131, 132, 189, 190- 192
Adiabatic mixing, 5 I Carbon dioxide, 131, 192, 193
Adiabatic wall temperature, 185 Carbon dioxide removal, 144-145, 146, 157
Advanced steam topping (FAST), 99, 100 Carbon tax, 163-164, 192-194
Aero-engine derivative, 191 Carnot cycle, 7, 8, 9, 20
Aftercooler, 94-96 Carnot efficiency, 7, 9
Air recuperation, 90 Carnot engines, 7-9, 16- 17, 20
Air standard cycles, 28, 33, 48, 68 Cascaded humid air turbine (CHAT) cycle, 101,
Allowable stack temperature, 118, 174 102, 104, 107
Ambient temperatures, 13- 14, 24 CBT and CCGT plants with full oxidation,
Annual cost, 189 158
Annual payments, 190 CBT open circuit plant, 39
Annuity present worth factor, 190 CCGT (combined cycle gas turbines), xiv, 109,
Arbitrary overall efficiency, 6-7, 40-42, 66, 111, 112, 116, 117, 123
112-1 13, 168 CCGT plant with feed water heating by bled
Area for heat transfer, 183 steam, 119
CCGT plant with full oxygenation, 158
Area plots of the range of EUF and FESR,
Change in overall efficiency, 2 1-22, 127
179
Change in total pressure, 62
Artificial efficiency, 170
Centrax 4 MW gas turbine, 180
Arbitrary overall efficiency, 41
CHAT (cascaded humid air turbine) plant, 101,
Artificial thermal efficiency, 170
102, 104, 107
Chemical absorption, 137
Basic power plant, 2 Chemical absorption process, 137
Basic STIG plant, 85 Chemical reactions, 22, 141- 145
Basic gas turbine cycles, 27-46 reforming, 143, 148, 157
Beilen CHP plant, 177, 180 Chemically reformed gas turbines (CRGT), 133,
Biot number, 185 147-153
Bled steam feed water heating, 1 19- 120. CHP see combined heat and power
121 CHP plant, 3, 167, 174, 177
Boiler efficiency, 5, 11 I , I 17 Classification of gas-fired plants, 132
Boiler pressure, 1 18 Classification, gas-fired cycles, 132- 136
Boudouard reaction, 143 Closed circuit gas turbine plant, 2, 4
Closed cyclic power plant, 1
Calculated exergy losses, 83 Closed cycles
Calculating plant efficiency, 7 1 -84 air standard, 33
Calorific value experiment, 5, 14, 41, 87, 90 efficiency, 4-6
Calorific value, 5-6, 14, 41, 87, 90, 189-190 exergy flux, 19-22
195
196 Subject Index
power generation, I Computer calculations, 43-45,65-68,75-81

steady-flow energy equation, 13 Constant pressure closed cycle
C 0 2 produced per unit of electricity, 192 see Joule-Brayton cycle
C 0 2 removal at high pressure level, 135 Convective cooling, 7 1-72, 183- 185
C 0 2 removal at low pressure level, 135 Conventional power plant, 1
COz removal equipment, 136 Cool Water IGCC plant, 115
Coal fired IGCC, I 15, 164 Cool Water pilot plant, 114
Cogeneration plant, 3, 4, 167, 168 Coolant air fractions, 74, 79
Cogeneration plants see combined heat and Cooled efficiency, 56, 58
power plants Cooling air flow, 183
Combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT), 109, Cooling
112-129 air fractions, 57, 65, 71-84, 184- 187
Combined heat and power plant, 3, 167, 174, air-standard cycles, 48-55, 5 I, 54-59
177 effectiveness, 185
Combined power plant, 2, 4, 109 efficiency, 72-73, 183, 186
Combined STIG cycle, 99 flow fraction, 60,65, 187
Combined heat and power (CHP) plants flows, 47-68,71-73, 183-187
operation ranges, 174- 177 mixing processes, 183
performance criteria, 168-173 plant efficiency, 71 -73
power generation, I reversible cycles, 49-54
unmatched gas turbines, 173- 174, 175 thermal efficiency, 47-68
Combined heat and power (CHP) plants, xi, turbine blade rows, 59-65, 186
167-181 Cooling of internally reversible cycles, 49
Combined plants, 109- 113 Cooling of irreversible cycles, 55
efficiency, 11 I Corporate tax rate, 191
power generation, 1 Cost of electricity, 131, 163
steam injection turbines, 99 Costs, 131, 132, 190-192
see also combined cycle gas turbines; CRGT (chemically reformed gas turbines), 133,
combined heat and power 148-153
Combustion temperature, 48, 56 Cycle ...
Combustion with fuel modification, 160 analysis parameters, 8-9, 20-21
Combustion with full oxidation, 160 calculations, 65-68
Combustion with recycled flue g a , 144 efficiency see thermal efficiency
Combustion with excess air, 141 widening, 9, 2 1
Combustion Cycles burning non-carbon fuel (hydrogen),
complete, 140- 141 I52
fuel modification, 133, 134, 147-153 Cycles with modification of the oxidant in
open circuit plants, 39-42 combustion, 154
oxidant modification, 135, 154- 161 Cycles with perfect recuperation, 92
recycled flue gases, 144
temperatures, 47-57, 65-68, 73-81 Dead state, 15, 22
Combustor outlet temperature, 47 Debt financing, 190
Complete combustion, 140- 141 Delivery work. 22
Completely dead state, 22 Demand loads, 170- 173
Complex cycle with partial oxidation and Derivation of required cooling flows, 183- 187
reforming, 157 Design, combined heat and power plants, 177
Complex RWI cycles, 105 Development of the gas turbine, xi
Component performances, 33-34 Dewpoint temperature, 1 14, I 19. 122
Compressor water injection, 101- 102 Direct removal of C02, 145
Subject Index 197
Direct removal, carbon dioxide, 144- 145 Entropy, 9, 16-17,24,64-65,91-92

Direct water injection cycles, 103 see also temperature-entropy diagrams
Discount rate, 190- 191 Entropy generation, 65
Disposal, carbon dioxide, 132 Entry feed water temperature., 1 19, 120
Dry and wet cycles, 104 Equilibrium constants, 143
Dry efficiency, 94 Equipment to remove carbon dioxide, 132
Dry recuperative cycles, 91 Equity and debt financing, I 9 0
Dual pressure systems, 121, 123, 129 EUF see energy utilisation factor
Dual pressure system with no low pressure water Evaporative gas turbines (EGT), 85,9 I -98,
economiser, 123 99- 102
Dual pressure system with a low pressure Exergy flux, 19
economiser, 123 Exergy losses, 25, 83
Exergy, 13, 15, 82-83
Economic viability, 163 equation, 23
Economics of a new power plant, 189 flux, 19-21,23,25
Economics, 131, 132, 163-164, 189-194 losses, 83-84, 100-102
Economiser water entry temperature, I 19, 120 Exhaust, 112-14, 116-122, 140-141
Effect of carbon dioxide, 194 Exhaust heated (supplementary fired) CCGT, 1 16
Effect of steam air ratio, 89
Exhaust heated (unfired) CCGT, 1 I2
Effectiveness (or thermal ratio), 33
Exhaust irreversibility, 14, 19, 83
Efficiency, 4
Exit turbine temperature, 59
Efficiency
External irreversibilities,8
closed circuit plants, 4-6
External Stanton number, 184- 185
combined cycle turbines, 126
Extraction work. 22
dry, 94
exhaust heated combined cycles, 1 12- 1 14
fired combined cycle turbines, 116 FAST cycle, 99, 103
Joule-Brayton cycle, I , 3, 9, IO, 20, 28 Feed heating, 114, 116, 119-123, 128, 129
maximum, 35,38,66,81, 126 Feed water temperature, 1 14, 120, 122, I23
open circuit power plants, 6-7 FESR, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 181
plants, 7 1 -84 see fuel energy saving ratio
power generation, 9 (FGiTCR) cycle, 152
rational, 6, 22, 24-25 see Flue Gas thermo-chemical recuperation
steam injection turbine, 87-89 Film cooling, 72-73, 183, 184, 185
water injection evaporative turbines, 94-98 Fired combined cycle gas turbines, 116- 123,
see also plant efficiency; thermal efficiency 174-177
EGT see evaporative gas turbines First industrial gas turbine, xiii
Electricity pricing, 131, 163-164, 189-192 Flows
El-Masri EGT cycles, 96 cooling, 47-68,7 1-73, 183- I87
End of pipe C02 removal, 132, I 6 4 mainstream, 71 -72
Energy equations, 13, 85, 87, 91, 172 massflow,42,71-72, 117-118
Energy utilisation factor (EUF), 7, 168-169, work, 14- 18
174-177, 178-179 see also steady-flow
Enthalpy, 13- 14, 33-34 Flue Gas thermo-chemical recuperation
changes, 43, 6 1-62 (FGiTCR), 133, 144-145, 151-153
entropy diagrams, 9 1 -92 Fluid mechanics, 59-65
flux, 13.90 Foster-Pegg plant, 99
specific, 24 Fuel ...
steam, 119-120, 121 air ratio, 41 -42
198 Subject Index
energy saving ratio (FESR), 170-177, Heating value, 143, 150, 152
179-180 Heavy duty CCGT plant, 191
modification, 133-135, 147-152 Heat Recovery Steam Generator HRSG, 1 12,
per annum costs, 189 114, I I6
price, 191 Humidified air turbine, 100, I O I, 104
saving, 170-173 Hydrogen burning CBT, 133
Full oxidation, 134-135, 158-160 Hydrogen burning CCGT, 133, 154
Hydrogen plants, 133, 153-154
Gas supplied for combustion, 150
Gas turbine jet propulsion, xiii ICAR (irreversible Carnot), 22
Gas turbine, xiii Ideal (Carnot) power plant, 7-8
Gaseous fuel, 23 Ideal combined cycle plants, 109- 1IO
Gasifier, 114 Ideal heat exchangers, 91
GEM9001H plant, 128 IFB plant, 103
General electric LM 2500 [CBT] plant, 83 IFB see inlet fog boosting
General Electric company, 114 IGCC cycles with COz removal, 160
Gibbs function, 22 IGCC see integrated coal gasification cycles
Graphical method, 35-36, 123-125 Integrated coal gasification combined cycle
Global warming, 131 plant (IGCC), 114, I15
Greenhouse gases, 131 IJB scc irreversible Joule-Brayton
see also carbon dioxide removal Inlet fog boosting (IFB), 103
Gross entropy generation, 64-65 Integrated coal gasification cycles (IGCC),
114-115, 136, 161-162, 164
HAT cycle, 100, 106 Intercooled cycle, 32, 96
HAT see humidified air turbines Intercooling and reheating, 39, 93
Heat balance in the HRSG, 1 I8 Intercooled steam injection turbine plants
Heat ... (ISTIG), 97-98, 103, 105
balance, 90, 118-1 19, 183 Intercooling, IO- 1 1
electrical demand ratio, 170-173, 176-177 Interest rates, 190-191
engines see closed cyclesfcircuits lnternal irreversibilities, 8-9, 16, 19, 24
exchange (or recuperation), 10, 9 1-92, Internal irreversibility, 16, 19, 24
94-98, 133, 147-150 Internal Stanton number, I86
exchanger, 11, 32,96 Internal thermal efficiency, SO
exchanger effectiveness, 37, 93 Internally reversible cycles, cooling, 49-55
loads, 170- 174 Irreversible Carnot (ICAR) cycles, 22
loss in the exhaust stack, 172 Irreversible Joule-Brayton (IJB) cycle, 9, 21
loss, 1 IO- I 12 Irreversible processes
rate, 7 air standard cycles, 33-39, 5 1, 54-59
recovery steam generator (HRSG), 85 power generation, 8-9
combined cycle gas turbines, 1 12, steady flow, 14, 17-18
114-115, 118-121, 126-128 Irreversibility, 14, 17
combined heat and power plants, 180 Irreversible Joule-Brayton (LIB) cycle, 9, 20
steam injection turbine plants, 87-88 Irreversible simple cycle, 34
rejection, 8-9, 18 Isentropic efficiency, 33
SUPPIY,8-9, 37 Isentropic ...
transfer, 5, 14-17, 183-185, 186 efficiency, 33-34
transfer coefficient, 185 expansion, 53-54
to work ratio, 175, 176-177, 179, 180 temperature ratio, 35-39, 43, 66-67,
Heating device (or boiler) efficiency, 5, 1 1 1, I 17 92-93
Subject Index 199
IS0 firing temperature, 47 Multi-step cooling, 52-54, 59, 7.5, 78-81

Isothermal compression, 93 Multiple PO combustion plant, 163
ISTIG plant, 98, 103, 105
see intercooled steam injection turbine Natural gas reforming, 133-134
plants Natural gas-fired plants, 164
NDCW see non-dimensional compressor work
Joint heating of gas turbine and steam turbine NDHT see non-dimensional heat transferred
plants, 112 NDNW see non-dimensional net work
Joule-Brayton cycle, 1, 3, 20, 28 NDTW see non-dimensional turbine work
Joule-Brayton (JB) cycle Nitrogen, 133, 153
air standard, 28-29, 46 Non-carbon fuel plants, 133, 153-155
efficiency, 9, I O Non-dimensional heat supplied, 41
exergy flux, 20-22 Non-dimensional net work output, 40
power generation 1-2, 3 Nondimensional.. .
compressor work (NDCW), 35, 124
Linearised analyses, 42 heat transferred (NDHT), 3, 122
Liquefaction, 134 net work (NDNW), 35-37,40, I23
Liquid fuel, 23 turbine work (NDTW), 35, 124
Live steam pressure, 122 Notation, turbine cooling, 184
Liverpool University plant (CHP), 180- 181 Novel gas turbine cycles, 131- 164
Loss in efficiency, 58, 1 IO Nozzle guide vane rows, 60,63, 65,73-75, 78
Lost work, 16, 17-18, 20-21
Lower heating value thermal efficiency, 124 Open circuit gas turbine plant, 2, 6, 13, 24, 39,
43
Mach numbers, 62 Open circuit gas turbindclosed steam cycle, 1 13
Mainstream gas mass flow, 71 -72 Open cooled blade row, 61,62
Maintenance costs, 191 Open cooling, 59-65, 186
Massflow,42,71, 117-118 Operating conditiondranges, 180- 181
Mass flow ratio, 118 Operational costs, 191 - 192
Matched CHP plant with WHB, 171 Operation and maintenance, 192
Matched CHP plant with WHR, 171 Optimum pressure ratios, 44-45, 123- 126
Matched plants, 171 Overall cooling effectiveness, 185
Matiant cycle, 134-135, 158-160 Overall efficiency and specific work, 66, 78, 8 I
Maximum combined cycle efficiency, 126 Overall efficiency of CCGT plant, 12 I , 124
Maximum efficiency, 35, 38. 66, 82, 126 Overall efficiency
Maximum efficiency, 126 closed circuit power plants, 6
Maximum (reversible) work, 17 cogeneration plants, 167- 169
Maximum specific work, 35 combined cycles, I 12, 1 18. 128. 129, 130
Maximum work, 15, 22 electricity pricing, 189- 190
Maximum work output. 22, 24-25 fired combined cycles, 1 16
Maximum temperature, 47 open circuit plants, 43-46
Mean temperatures 8-9, 21 open circuit power plants, 6-7
Methane, 141-143, 145, 192 recuperation, 92, 149- 151
Mixing of cooling air with mainstream flow, 61 steam injection turbine plants, 85, 86
Modifications steam-thermo-chemical recuperation, 33,
fuels, 133-135, 148-153 141, 143, 147
oxidants, 134-135, 155-161 three step cooling, 79-81
turbine cycles, 9- 1 1 water injection evaporative turbines,
Modified polytropic efficiency, 59 94-98
200 Subject Index
wet gas turbine plants, 85, 87- 107 stagnation, 60,61-65, 183
see also arbitrary... steam raising, 119-120, 121
Oxidant modification, 135, 163 two step cooling, 5 1-52
Oxygen blown integrated coal gasification Process steam temperatures, 177, 178
cycles, 161, 162 Product of thermal efficiency and boiler
efficiency, 6, 1 1 I
Parallel expansions, 5 1
Parametric calculations, 1 18- 121 Range of EUF and FESR, 177, 179
Parametric studies, 97, 105, 107 Range of operation, 174
Partial oxidation (PO), 134-135, 143, 155- 157 Rankine type cycles, 133, 154- 155
Partial oxidation cycles, 155 Ratio of entropy change, 9
Partial oxidation reaction, 143 Rational efficiency, 6, 22, 24-26, 42,
Performance criteria, 33, 168 51, 60
Performance of unmatched CHP plants, 175 Rayleigh process, 62
Physical absorption process, 136, I38 Real gas effects, 39,43, 45, 46,48, 65,
Physical absorption, 137, 139- 140 71,82
Pinch point temperature difference, 88, 118 Recirculating exhaust gases, 140- 141
Plant with a WHB, 174 Recuperated water injection (RWI) plant,
Plant with supplementary firing, 116 100-101, 104, 106-107
Plants with combustion modification, 158 Recuperation (heat exchange), 10- 1 1,90-92,
PO open CBT cycle, 135 133, 147- 150
PO plant with C02 removal, 157 Recuperative CBTX plant, 147
PO, 141, 143, 154, 155 Recuperative cycle, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 92
Plant efficiency Recuperative STIG plant, 90
calculations, 71 -83 Recuperative STIG type cycles, 148
electricity pricing, 189, 191 - 194 Recycled flue gases, 144
exergy, 82-83 Reference systems, 170- 173
turbine cooling, 68 Reforming reactions, 143, 148, 157, 158-159
PO see partial oxidation Regenerative feed heating, 1 16, 122, 128
Polytropic efficiency, 34, 59, 64 Reheat and intercooling, IO, I 1
Polytropic expansion, 53, 59 Reheating in the upper gas turbine, 126
Power Reheating, 31, 39, 44, 45, 46, 126-128
generation thermodynamics, I - 1 1 Rejection, heat 8-9, 18
loads, 173- 174 REVAP cycle, wet gas turbine plants, 100-101,
plant performance criteria, 4 104,108
station applications, 131 Reversed Camot engine, 18
Practical gas turbine cogeneration plants, 177 Reversibility and availability, 13-26
Pre-heating loops, 122- 123 Reversible closed recuperative cycle, 30
Pressure Reversible processes
change, 62 air standard cycles, 28-33, 46,49
dual systems, 123 ambient temperature, 14- 15
live steam, 122- 123 availability, 13-26
losses, 33, 39, 75, 78 heat transfer, 15-17
ratios Reynolds number, 183, 186
optimum, 44-45, 123- 126 Rolls-Royce, plc, xiii-xv, 83-84
turbine cooling, 66-68 Rotor inlet temperatures, 47-54, 56-57, 60,
water injection evaporative gas turbines, 65-68
96-98 Running costs, 131
Subject Index 20 I
Ruston TB gaq turbine, 177, 180 injection turbine plants (STIG), 85-86
RWI cycle, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106 intercooled, 97-98, 103, 105
RWI see recuperated water injection recuperation, 91 -94, 133, 149- 150
thermodynamics, 103
Safety factor (cooling), 186 reforming reactions, 143, 144, 148
Scrubbing process, 147- 148 thermo-chemical recuperation, 133, 143,
Semi-closure cycles, 134, 140- 141, 146- 148, 149, 150
157, 159-162 turbines, 128
Semi-closed CBT or CCGT, 134 Steam cooling of the gas turbine, 128
Semi-closed CCGT plant with C02 removal, Steam injection and water injection plants,
163, 164 86
Semi-closed CICBTBTX cycle, 135 STIG and EGT, 85,97, 103
Semi-closure, 139, 140, 158 STIG cycle, 96, 97, 99, 103, 107
Sequestration, 132, 134, 145-148 Stoichiometric limit, 47
Shift reactor, 161-162 STIG see steam injection turbine plants
Simple CHT cycle, 34 Sulphuric acid dewpoint, 122
Simple EGT, 93, 96, 107 Supplementary combustion, 172
Simple PO plant, 155 Supplementary firing, 116, 173
Single pressure system, 122- 123 Supplementary fired CHP plant, 172
Simple single pressure system with feed heating, Supplementary ‘heat supplied’, 120
122 Surface intercoolers, 105
Simple single pressure system without feed Syngas, 114-115, 136, 143-144, 161-162
heating, 118
Single pressure steam cycle with LP evaporator Taxes, 131, 162-164, 191, 192-194
in a pre-heating loop, 123 Tax rates, 190
Single pressure steam raising, 121 TBC (Thermal barrier coating), 185
Single-step turbine cooling, 49-5 1, 55-57, TCR, 133, 141-143, 147-152, 157
73-75,76-78 TCR see thermo-chemical recuperation
Specific enthalpy, 24 Temperature
Specific entropy, 24 adiabatic wall, 185
Specific heat, 35,41-42, 43, 88 ambient, 13-14, 24
Specific work changes, 39,42-43
closed air standard cycles, 35 combustion, 47-49,55-57,68,73-84
combined cycles, 123-124 dewpoint, 114, 119, 122
open circuit plants, 45-46 difference ratio, 71-72, 185, 187
steam-thermo-chemicalrecuperation, 150, economiser water entry, 119
151 exit turbine, 59
wet gas turbine plants, 104-107 isentropic ratio, 35-39, 43, 66-67,
Stack temperature, 1 19 92-93
Stagnationpressurdtemperature,60,61-65,183 IS0 firing, 47
Stanton numbers, 183, 184-185, 186 mean, 8, 21
Stationary entry nozzle guide vane row, 60-65 pinch point, 1 18
Steady-flow, I , 13 power generation, 8-9
availability function, 14, 15, 23, 24 process steam, 177, 178
energy equation, 13, 85, 87, 91, 172 rotor inlet, 47-54, 56-57, 65-68
Steam stack, 118
air ratios, 87-89, 150 stagnation, 60,61 -65, I83
enthalpy, 119 turbine entry, 50, 58
202 Subject Index
Temperature-entropy diagrams Total pressure loss, 63-65

air standard cycles, 28, 33 Turbine
combined cycle efficiency, 117 cooling, 47-69, 184, 186- 187
evaporative gas turbines, 91, 92 entry temperature, 47, 50, 56, 58, 119
fired combined cycles, 1 16 exit condition, 54-55
ideal (Carnot) power plants, 7 mass flow, 42
intercooling, 32-33 pressure, 157- I58
Joule-Brayton cycles, I , 3, 28 work, 88, 94, 96
multi-step cooling, 52 Turbo jet engines, xiii
single-step cooling, 49-50, 55 Two pressure systems, 121, 123, 129
thermal efficiency, 6- 1I Two-step cooling, 5 I -52, 58
two-step cooling, 5 1, 58
water injection evaporative gas turbines,
94 -96 Ultimate reversible gas turbine cycle, 33
Temperature -entropy diagrams, xi v Uncooled and cooled efficiencies, 57
Texaco gasifier, 114 Unfired plant, 1 12- 1 14, 167, 170,
Thermal barrier coating (TBC), 185 174-177
Thermal efficiency Unit costs, 189
air standard cycles, 30-31, 35-37 Unit price of electricity, 189, 191 - 192
artificial, 168 Unitised production costs, I89
closed circuit power plants, 3-6 Unmatched gas turbines, 173- 174, 175
combined heat and power plants, 1 10- 1 I I , Unused heat, 1 IO, 176- 177
I68 Upper gas turbine cycles, 126-128
cooling flow rates, 47-68 Useful heavwork, 177, 178
evaporative gas turbines, 85
fired combined cycles, 117- 126 Value-weighted energy utilisation factor, 169
ideal (Camot) power plants, 7 Van Liere cycle, 92, 101-102, 107
ideal combined cyclic plants, 109- I IO Van’t Hoff box, 142, 143
internal, 50
irreversible Joule-Brayton cycle, 20
modifying turbine cycles, 9- 1 1 Waste heat boilers (WHB), 167-177, 180
open circuit power plants, 6 Waste heat recuperators (WHR), 167-77,
recuperative evaporative gas turbines, 180- 181
92-93 Water
steam injection turbine plants, 89 entry temperature, 1 14, 1 19, 122
three step cooling, 79, 81 gas shift reactions, 142-144
turbine cooling, 47-68 injection, 85-107
Thermal energy, 18, 24 evaporative gas turbines, 94-98
Thermal or cycle efficiency, 5, 7 Water injection into aftercooler, 95
Thermal ratio, 33 Water injection into aftercooller and cold side of
Thermo-chemical recuperation (TCR), 133, 134, heat exchanger, 95
142-144, 148-153 Water injection into cold side of heat exchanger,
Thermodynamics 95
open cooling, 59-65 Westinghouse, 83-84
power generation, 1 - 1 1 WestinghouseRolls-Royce WR2 I recuperated
wet gas turbine plants, 103- 105 [CICBTX], plant, 83
Three step cooling, 78-79, 80-81 Wet and dry cycles compared, 104, 105
Throttling, 52, 58 Wet efficiencies, 94
TOPHAT cvcle. 101-102. 104. 107 Wet gas turbine plants, 85- 107
Subject Index 203
WHB see waste heat boilers open circuit plants, 39-42

Whittle laboratory, xv output, 22, 24-26
WHR see waste heat recuperators potential, 18, 19, 24
Work reversible flow, 14, 16
irreversible flow, 15, 17 turbine, 88, 94, 96
lost, 16, 17-18, 20-21 see also specific work
Primarily this book describes the thermodynamics of gas turbine cycles. The search for high
gas turbine efficiency has produced many variations on the simple "open circuit" plant,
involving the use of heat exchangers, reheating and intercooling, water and steam injection,
cogeneration and combined cycle plants. These are described fully in the text.
A review of recent proposals for a number of novel gas turbine cycles is also included. In the
past few years work has been directed towards developing gas turbines which produce less
carbon dioxide, or plants from which the C02 can be disposed of; the implications of a
carbon tax on electricity pricing are considered.
In presenting this wide survey of gas turbine cycles for power generation
the author calls on both his academic experience (at Cambridge and Liverpool Universities,
the Gas Turbine Laboratory at MI1 and Penn State University) and his industrial work
(primarily with Rolls Royce, plc). The book will be essential reading for final year and masters
students in mechanical engineering, and for practising engineers.
About the author
Sir John Horlock is an authority on turbomachinery and power plants and his books on axial
compressors, axial turbines, actuator disk theory, combined heat and power and combined
power plants are widely used and cited.
He founded the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge in 1973 and acted as its first Director. He
was then Vice-Chancellor firstly of Salford University and subsequently of the Open
University.
Sir John has been an advisor to Government and industry for forty years and has been
a non-executive director of several UK companies. He was recently Treasurer and
Vice-president of the Royal Society and was knighted for services to science, engineering and
education in 1996.

Advanced Gas Turbine Cycles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Gas Turbine Cycles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Gas Turbine Cycles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Gas

Corn bined STlG

J. H. Horlock F.R.Eng., F.R.S.

0 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Electronic Storage or Usage

First edition 2003

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Chapter 1 . A brief review of power generation thermodynamics. . . . . 1

Chapter 2 . Reversibility and availability...................... 13

2.1. Introduction .................................. 13

Chapter 3 Basic gas turbine cycles ......................... 27

3.1. Introduction .................................. 27

3.2. Air standard cycles (uncooled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 4 . Cycle efficiency with turbine cooling (cooling flow

4.4. Cycle calculations with turbine cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Chapter 5 . Full calculations of plant efficiency ................. 71

Chapter 6 . ‘Wet’ gas turbine plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

6.5. A discussion of the basic thermodynamics of

Chapter 7 . The combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Chapter 8 . Novel gas turbine cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

8.5.4. Thermo-chemical recuperation using flue gases

CHAPTER 9 . The gas turbine as a cogeneration 167

9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

A.l. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

B.I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Index ................................................... 195

Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.7 and 9.8

Symbol Meaning Typical Units

Symbol Meaning Typical Units

The nomenclature originally introduced by Hawthorne and Davis is followed, in which

A BRIEF REVIEW OF POWER GENERATION

Fig. 1.1. Basic power plant.

I HEAT RWECTED Qr,

Fig. 1.5. Combined power plant.

1.2. Criteria for the performance of power plants

1.2.1. Eficiency of a closed circuit gas turbine plant

USEFUL HEAT WORK OUTPUT W

is simply the thermal or cycle efficiency,

1.2.2. Eficiency of an open circuit gas turbine plant

1.2.3. Heat rate

1.2.4. Energy utilisationfactor

13. Ideal (Carnot) power plant performance

It has three features which give it maximum thermal efficiency:

1.4. Limitations of other cycles

For the Carnot cycle u = 1, 8 = 1 and p = 1, so that qcAR= 1 - T.

1.5. Modifications of gas turbine cycles to achieve higher thermal efficiency

Fig. 1.9. Irreversible Joule-Brayton cycle.

Fig. 1.10. Temperature-entropy diagram showing reheat, intercooling and recuperation.

REWERSIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY

2.2. Reversibility, availability and exergy

2.2.1. Flow in the presence of an environment ut To (not involving chemical reuction)

[<QO>REVli= TdSX - SY). (2.8)

[(WCV)REVIi = (BX - BO) - (BY - B O ) = (EX - EY). (2.10)

Wcvli = (Hx- H Y ) - [Qoli, (2.1 1)

2.2.2. Flow with heat transfer at temperature T

Consider next the case where heat [eREv]:

The lost work due to irreversibility within the control volume CV is