Thermodynamics Optimization of GARRI (1) Combined Cycle Power Plant by Using ASPEN HYSYS Simulation

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication
Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thermodynamics Optimization of GARRI (1) Combined Cycle Power Plant by

Using ASPEN HYSYS Simulation
AbdAllah Mokhtar.Mb ,Mohammed Elayeb.Ma, Tawfiag Ahmed .Jb,Ala,a eldinb,Abdalrahimb,Hamdnallab
a
Mechanical Engineering Department,Collage of Engineering,Karry University SUDAN

Department of Power Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, Collage of Engineering, Sudan University of Science and
Technology, SUDAN.
Abstract: - The study aims to simulate GARRI (1) combined cycle power plant by using ASPEN HYSYS. It aims to conduct a detailed
thermodynamic analysis for combined cycle power plant and optimization to attend maximum efficiency by dissertating different scenarios of
operating parameters. The study examined the operational side by passing through all the components of the combined cycle power plant and the
mechanism of the system. Block 1 in GARRI (1) combined cycle power plant is used. The results efficiency obtained from ASPEN HYSYS
simulator is 31.89%, while that of GARRI (1) is 27.4%. The effect of each operating parameter on the efficiency and power output was
extracted by using Microsoft excel in form of graphical charts resulted from the thermodynamic analysis done by using ASPEN HYSYS
simulator. The maximum efficiency in the optimum operating parameters is about 33.88% by using different scenarios
Keyword:-Energy, efficiency, Pressure,Gas cycle,Garri(1), Steam cycle, Air inlet temperature ,compressor pressure ratio
,steam temperature ,steam pressure ,efficiency curve.
__________________________________________________*****_________________________________________________
I.
Introduction:
The generation of electric power has become even

important over recent years. Due to the rising consumption
and growing environmental awareness, new requirements
have to be met. The power supply has to be constantly
adapted to the stochastic requirements of the consumers.
Differences between generation and consumption result in
deviations from the adjusted target values of the network
frequency and power delivered to customers.
The continued quest for higher thermal efficiencies
has resulted in rather innovative modifications to
conventional power plants, which is called the combined
gasvapor cycle, or just the combined cycle. Efficiencies
ranging depending on the lay-out and size of the installation
and vary from about 40-66% for large new natural gas-fired
stations. Developments needed for this type of energy
conversion is only for the gas turbine. Both waste heat
boilers and steam turbines are in common use and welldeveloped, without specific needs for further improvement.
II.
Objectives:
The purpose of this study is to develop a model as a part

of the general combined cycle power plant by:
1. Simulation of combined cycle power plant with ASPEN
HYSYS simulator.
2. Detailed thermodynamics analysis for plant will be
conduct.
3. Different scenarios will be considered for optimum
power plant efficiency.
III.
ASPEN HYSYS Simulation Software:
HYSYS is powerful engineering simulation tool, has

been uniquely created with respect to/w.r.t the program
architecture, interface design, engineering capabilities, and
interactive operation. The integrated steady state and
dynamic modeling capabilities, where the same model can
be evaluated from either perspective with full sharing of
process information, represent significant advancement in
the engineering software industry. The various components
that comprise HYSYS provide an extremely approach to
steady state modeling. The comprehensive selection of
operations and property methods allow modeling a wide
range of processes with confidence. Perhaps even more
important how the HYSYS approach modeling maximizes
your return on simulation time through increased process
understanding.
3.1Assumptions:
The fowling assumptions are purposed:
Camera of combustion of the process from GARRI
(1) station as a conversion100% reactor in the
HYSYS.
Compressor and turbines the efficiencies are

adiabatic.
Components of the natural gas are: methane, ethane
and nitrogen.
The natural gas in the feed comes directly at the

pressure of 23 bars.
Neglect mechanical losses and losses in each unit

(turbine, compressor, boiler and HRSG adiabatic).
3.2 Constraints:
69
IJRITCC | January 2016, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The constraints of the process are
Associated information is defined in a single location,
allowing for easy creation and modification of the
Temperature combustion
< 1500o C
information.
Fluid packages can be exported and imported as
Temperature steam turbine
< 600o C
completely defined packages for use in any simulation.
This simplifies the task of making small changes to a
Pressure cycle steam
< 170 bars
complex Fluid package.
Multiple Fluid Packages can be used in the same
3.4 Fluid Packages:
simulation; however; they are all defined inside the
In HYSYS, all necessary information pertaining to
common Simulation Basis Manager.
pure component flash and physical property calculations are
defines inside a single entity with the following advantages
as below:
Table (3.1): Temperature and Pressure data for each fluid package tested.
Properties
SRK(Soave- Redlich-
GARRI(1)
Kwong)
T(
C) exit compressor
384.5
364
KW compressor
2.88x104
2,66x104
T(OC) combustion
1271
1280
MW net gas turbine
95.83
60
T(OC) exit gas turbine
913
913
T(OC) exit gases HRSG
594.7
571
T(OC) exit steam turbine
109.3
150
MW steam turbine
21.33
30
T(OC) exit pump HP
104
100
According to the results of temperatures, pressures and

works, thermodynamic model SRK is chosen. HYSYS in
stationary state mode, problems appear, since none of the
thermodynamic models resembled the results of the process

of GARRI (1) station, as obtaining liquid in the exit of the
reactor, leading to discarded the thermodynamic package.
3.5 Fluid Package:

The components of the package are shown composition of the Fuel (LPG) in (table 3.2) below
Component
% (Mass)
Butane
Butene
Propane
Propene
Ethane
Nitrogen
0.265
0.1885
0.3456
0.1798
0.0027
0.0184
70
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.6 Combustion Reaction:
The reaction takes place in the combustion, where it mixes the natural gas with the air:
(C4H10 + C4H8 + C3H8 + C3H6 + C2H6 + N2) + 25.5(O2 + 3.76 N2) 16 CO2 + 19 H2O + 96.88 N2
Compare to that In the HYSYS software
Figure (3.1): Definition of the combustion reaction in HYSYS

turbines is less than that consumed by the pump and
compressor.
The results of the simulated cycle, the global
efficiency of the plant is obtained as table (3.3-3.5)
3.7 Results of the Steady-State simulation with

HYSYS:
Calculation of efficiency of the combined cycle,
the net work corresponds to the one generated by the
Table (3.3): Energy Streams result
Heat Flow
Heat Flow
Unit
GT
HP ST
LP ST
COMP
Q add
MW
132.8346
17.06678
13.44931
68.55338
296.5855
Unit
Q rej
Q Dearator
W HPP
W FP
MW
70.16702
1.177066
0.187663
0.015327
Table (3.4): Efficiencies of turbines, compressors and the pump

Efficiency
Works(MW)
Efficiency (%)
Compressor
68.55338
83 %
Gas Turbine
132.8346
83 %
HP Steam Turbine
17.06678
83 %
LP Steam Turbine
13.44931
83 %
Pumps
0.20299
75 %
71
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.8 Comparison results of the simulated plants:
Table (3.5) represents HYSYS simulation analysis, analysis and the real data of GARRI (1) power plant.
Table (3.5): comparison between simulation results and GARRI (1) data
GARRI(1) plant
HYSYS simulated plant
Net Work (MW)
58.220
94.59432
Heat (combustion) (MW)
212.482
296.5855
Combined Cycle efficiency
27.4 %
31.89 %
Result shown that HYSYS simulated plant efficiency

is near to the actual efficiency of GARRI (1) plant which
calculated. HYSYS simulator used as an optimize technique
of combined cycle by making different scenario to calculate
the optimum value of parameters to give maximum
efficiency of combined cycle power plant.
IV.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Optimization 0f Combined Cycle Power Plant:
Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of

combined cycle power plant depending on the operating
parameters as takes
1.
Air inlet temperature (ambient temperature)
Air mass flow rate

Fuel mass flow rate
Air/fuel ratio
Compressor pressure ratio
Gas turbine inlet temperature
Live steam pressure
Live steam temperature
Condenser pressure
Mass flow rate of steam
Extraction mass flow rate
Pinch point temperature difference
Hyses simulation with Microsoft excel are used for
optimization the efficiency and the result are shown
below:
32.8
104
32.7
102
100
32.5
32.4
98
32.3
96
32.2
32.1
94
Power output (MW)
Thermal net efficiency (%)
32.6
Power output
Efficiency
32
92
31.9
31.8
90
0
10
20
30
40
Air inlet temperature (C)
Figure (4.1): Effect of Air inlet temperature on plant efficiency and output power
72
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
34.5
34
110
33.5
33
32.5
100
105
95
90
32
31.5
31
85
80
Power output (MW)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Efficiency
Power output
75
30.5
30
70
190
210
230
270
air
mass250
flow (Kg/s)
290
310
Figure (4.2): Effect of air mass flow on plant efficiency and output power
95
33.5
94.5
33
94
32.5
93.5
32
93
31.5
Power output (MW)
34
Power output
Efficiency
92.5
31
92
0
2
3
4
Fuel mass flow (Kg/s)
36
120
35
100
34
80
33
60
32
40
31
30
20
29
0
0
10
20
30
40
Air/Fuel)
ratio
50
60
Power output (MW)
Figure (4.3): Effect of Fuel mass flow on plant efficiency and output power
Efficiency
Power output
70
Figure (4.4): Effect of Air/ Fuel ratio on plant efficiency and output power
73
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
32
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
31.5
31
30.5
8
8.5
9.5
10
10.5
Power output (MW)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Power output
Efficiency
11
34
120
33.5
110
33
100
32.5
90
32
80
31.5
31
70
30.5
60
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Power output (MW)
Figure (4.5): Effect of compressor pressure ratio on plant efficiency and output power
Power output
Efficiency
1500
Turbine inlet temperature (C)
Figure (4.6): Effect of turbine inlet temperature on plant efficiency and output power
95.8
32.3
Power output (MW)
32.2
95.4
32.15
95.2
32.1
32.05
95
32
94.8
31.95
94.6
31.9
94.4
4000
32.25
95.6
Power output
Efficiency
31.85
5000
6000
Live steam prssure (KPa)
Figure (4.7): Effect of Live steam pressure on plant efficiency and output power
74
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
33
97.5
32.8
97
32.6
96.5
32.4
96
32.2
95.5
32
95
94.5
31.8
94
31.6
93.5
31.4
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Power output (MW)
98
Power output
Efficiency
560
Live steam temerature (C)
99
33.4
98.5
33.2
98
33
97.5
97
32.8
96.5
32.6
96
32.4
95.5
32.2
95
32
94.5
94
Power output (MW)
Figure (4.8): Effect of Live steam temperature on plant efficiency and output power
Power output
Efficiency
31.8
10
11
Condenser pressure (KPa)
103
102
101
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
35
34.5
34
33.5
33
32.5
32
Power output (MW)
Figure (4.9): Effect of Condenser pressure on plant efficiency and output power
Power output
Efficiency
31.5
30
35 mass flow (Kg/s)

40
Steam
45
Figure (4.10): Effect of Steam mass flow on plant efficiency and output power
75
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
Power output (MW)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
32.2
95.4
95.3
32.15
95.2
32.1
95.1
32.05
95
Power output
94.9
32
Efficiency
94.8
31.95
94.7
31.9
94.6
31.85
94.5
1
1.5Extraction
2 mass flow
2.5 (Kg/s) 3
3.5
Figure (4.11): Effect of Extraction steam mass flow on plant efficiency and output power
103
102
34.5
101
34
100
33.5
99
33
98
97
32.5
96
32
Power output (MW)
35
Power output
Efficiency
95
31.5
94
300
320 340 360 380 400 420 440

pinch point temperature difference (C)
Fig (4.12): Effect of pinch point temperature difference on efficiency and output power
Efficiency %
4.2 Optimization process:

For optimization we make different scenario of
working plant that we change in different parameters and
focus on its effect on efficiency. Different scenarios
represented in table that shown below.
4.3 Result of optimization:

The figure below explains the curve between
scenarios and efficiency which explain the maximum
efficiency is equal 33.88%.
34
33.8
33.6
33.4
33.2
33
32.8
32.6
32.4
32.2
32
31.8
31.6
31.4
Efficiency
10
12
Scenario
Figure (4.13): efficiency curve with numbers of scenario

76
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table (4.2): Comparison of optimized solution to the study
Air inlet temperature) ( C )

Fuel mass flow rate (Kg/s)
Air mass flow rate (Kg/s)
Gas turbine inlet temperature ( C )
steam pressure (KPa)
steam temperature ( C )
Condenser pressure (KPa)
Project
work
38
5.16
249.2
1271
4300
465
10
Optimized
solution
28
5.5
260
1300
5500
520
11
Absolute
difference
-10
+0.35
+10.8
+29
+1200
+55
+1
Relative
difference
-26.31%
+6.78%
+4.33%
+2.28%
+27.9%
+11.83%
+0.1%
Mass flow rate of steam (Kg/s)

Extraction mass flow rate (Kg/s)
33.917
3
9.11
32
2.8
9.52
-1.917
-0.2
+0.41
-5.65%
-6.66%
+4.5%
Parameters
V.
9.
Conclusion:
A simulation of the operating system in GARRI1

combined cycle station was done by ASPEN HYSYS
simulator which show the simulation, is close to the actual
efficiency for GARRI(1). The comparison between the
designed cycles based on the thermal net efficiency
produced and the thermal net efficiencies calculated were
shown in table (501) below:
Table (5.1) efficiency values
GARRI (1) combined cycle station efficiency
27.4%
efficiency obtained from ASPEN HYSYS simulator
31.89%
Optimum efficiency obtained ASPEN HYSYS

simulator
33.88%
10.
The maximum efficiency of GARRI (1) was

calculated. And by changing those operating parameters, the
efficiencies through assuming different scenarios under
different operating parameters was calculated. As maximum
efficiency equals 33.88%. From calculating the maximum
efficiency, the optimum operating parameters were derived,
which are as table below:
Table (5.2) optimum operation parameters
Parameter
Air inlet temperature (ambient
temperature)
Mass flow rate of fuel (LPG)
Air mass flow rate
Compressor pressure is
Turbine inlet temperature
Live steam pressure
The effects of major operating parameters can be

summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The decrease in air inlet temperature (ambient

temperature) will make an increase in efficiency and
power output.
The decrease in fuel mass flow rate will make a
decrease in efficiency and increase in power output.
The compressor pressure ratio should be optimum
for maximum performance of combined cycle.
The turbine inlet temperature should be kept on
higher side for maximizing power output, but in
other side it minimizes the thermal net efficiency.
The increase in live steam pressure will make an
increase in efficiency and power output.
The increase in live steam temperature will make an
The decrease in condenser pressure will make an
The increase in steam mass flow will make an
The decrease in extraction steam mass flow will

make an increase in efficiency and power output.
The decrease in pinch point temperature improves
the combined cycle performance by increasing the
efficiency and power output.
Live steam temperature

Mass flow rate of steam
Extraction mass flow rate
Condenser pressure
VI.
1.
2.
3.
value
28 C
5.5 Kg/s.
260 Kg/s
920 KPa
1300 C
5500
KPa
520 C
32 Kg/s
2.8 Kg/s
11 KPa
Recommendation:
Designing simulation software by using a specific

programming language for studying thermal power
plants.
Applying simulation by using MATLAB program for
its precise numerical analysis.
Applying different operation research methods for
calculating the optimum operating parameters due to
its accuracy in extracting the optimum values for the
77
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 4 Issue: 1
ISSN: 2321-8169
69 - 78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
operating parameters which leads to the highest
efficiency.
4.
Extending the research domain to include all GARRI
(1) combined cycle power plant blocks.
5.
Possibility of redesigning GARRI (1) combined cycle
power plant to appropriate the different results of this
study to increase its efficiency.
VII.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Referncess:
Mohagheghi M, Shayegan J. Thermodynamic optimization

of design variables and heat exchangers layout in HRSGs
for CCGT, using genetic algorithm. Appl Therm Eng 2009.
Aspen hysys plus simulation program.
. R. Yokoyada, S. Takeuchi, K. Ito, Thermoeconomic
Analysis and Optimization of a Gas Turbine Cogeneration
Unit by a Systems Approach, Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo 2005, Power of Land, Sea, and Air, June 6-9,
2005, Reno, Nevada, USA.
E.T. Bonataki, A.P. Giotis and K.C. Giannakoglou, Multi
Objective Design of Optimal Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Power Plants with Supplementary Firing, EUROGEN 2003,
Barcelona, Spain, 2005.
E.T. Bonataki, L.S. Georgoulis, H. Georgopoulou and K.C.
Giannakoglou, Optimal Design of Combined Cycle Gas
Turbine Power Plants based on Gas Turbine Performance
Data,ERCOFTAC Design Optimization: Methods &
Applications, Athens,Greece, March 2004.
E.T. Bonataki and K.C. Giannakoglou, An Automated Tool
for Single and MultiObjective Optimization for
Redesigning Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants,
Proceedings of the Fourth GRACM Conference on
Computational Mechanics, Patras,Greece, June 2002.
78
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thermodynamics Optimization of GARRI (1) Combined Cycle Power Plant by Using ASPEN HYSYS Simulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thermodynamics Optimization of GARRI (1) Combined Cycle Power Plant by Using ASPEN HYSYS Simulation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Thermodynamics Optimization of GARRI (1) Combined Cycle Power Plant by Using ASPEN HYSYS Simulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication