Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
Analytical method for evaluation of gas turbine inlet air cooling in combined
cycle power plant
Cheng Yang a,*, Zeliang Yang a, Ruixian Cai b
a
b
College of Electric Power, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China
Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100080, China
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 November 2007
Received in revised form 21 August 2008
Accepted 27 August 2008
Available online 8 October 2008
Keywords:
Gassteam combined cycle
Inlet air cooling
Applicability
Analytical approach
a b s t r a c t
Gas turbine inlet air cooling technologies (GTIAC), mainly including chilling with LiBr/water absorption
chiller and fogging as well, are being used during hot seasons to augment the power output. To evaluate
the general applicability of inlet air cooling for gassteam combined cycle power plant (GTCCIAC), parameters such as efciency ratio, prot ratio and relative payback period were dened and analyzed through
off-design performances of both gas turbine and inlet air cooling systems. An analytical method for applicability evaluation of GTCCIAC with absorption chiller (inlet chilling) and saturated evaporative cooler
(inlet fogging) was presented. The applicability study based on typical off-design performances of the
components in GTCCIAC shows that, the applicability of GTCCIAC with chilling and fogging depends on
the design economic efciency of GTCC power plant. In addition, it relies heavily on the climatic data
and the design capacity of inlet air cooling systems. Generally, GTCCIAC is preferable in the zones with
high ambient air temperature and low humidity. Furthermore, it is more appropriate for those GTCC units
with lower design economic efciency. Comparison of the applicability between chilling and fogging
shows that, inlet fogging is superior in power efciency at ta = 1520 C though it gains smaller prot
margin than inlet chilling. GTCC inlet chilling with absorption chiller is preferable in the zones with ta
> 25 C and RH > 0.4.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Output of gassteam combined cycle (GTCC) is a strong function
of the inlet air temperature. When the inlet air temperature drops,
GTCC power output increases considerably and heat rate varies
slightly [1]. A simple strategy to improve GTCC performance under
high ambient temperature is to employ GTCC inlet air cooling (IAC)
technologies.
Various inlet air cooling technologies, such as evaporative coolers and refrigeration chillers, have been implemented and operated
widely [2]. Evaporative coolers include: r evaporative media coolers, through which compressor inlet air passes and cools; s water
spray coolers or fogging systems, including saturated evaporative
coolers and overspray or overfogging systems. As far as heavy-duty
gassteam combined cycle power plants are concerned, much effort has been made to evaluate inlet air cooling technologies from
the viewpoint of economics and thermodynamics. Wen and Narula
presented a concise study on economics of gas turbine inlet air
cooling for combined cycle plants [1]. Sutikno et al. optimized inlet
air chillers for combined-cycle operation using mechanical vapor
compression refrigeration systems [3]. Chaker et al. studied gas
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 20 3874 3863; fax: +86 20 8711 0613.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Yang).
0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.08.019
turbine evaporation cooling potential in the USA [4]. Gareta et al.
focused on economic optimization of gas turbine inlet air-cooling
systems in combined cycle applications [5]. The effects of the variable heat to power and inlet air cooling on the operational performance of gas turbine cogeneration plants were evaluated using the
optimization tool by Yokoyama and Ito. It can be appreciated that
the inlet air cooling by the steam absorption refrigeration reduces
the demand charge of purchased electricity and consequently the
operational cost [6]. Inuence of the site climate and thermal storage size on combined cycle power plants was recently investigated
with an in-house developed computational code [7]. A parametric
analysis of an energy storage system was also presented by Arnul
et al., focusing on the effect of price gap, chiller and storage design
parameters and climatic conditions on the optimal sizing of the
plant [8]. An evaporative media coolers installed in a combined cycle power plant were modeled and evaluated with different design
parameters such as inlet air velocity, geometric shape and sizes
and depth of the media considered [9].
When evaluating GTCC inlet air cooling system, more efforts
have been taken to analyze factors such as inlet air temperature,
gas turbine unit runtime, output power increase and fuel consumption variation per temperature depression [5,10]. Some accurate methodologies were developed to analyze and compare the
different alternative inlet air cooling technologies [1113], which
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
849
Nomenclature
c
CAP
COP
d
E
F
G
i
K
p
P
q
Q
r
R
RH
t
u
w
D
g
n
specic heat, (kJ/kg C)
chiller capacity at off-design conditions, (kW)
performance coefcient of chiller
humidity, (g/kgdry air)
heat exchange efciency of air coolers
heat exchange area of air cooler, (m2)
mass owrate, (kg/s)
enthalpy, (kJ/kgdry air)
heat transfer coefcient, W/(m2 C)
price
power output, (kW)
heat rate of GTCC unit, (kJ/kW h)
heat quantity, (kW)
ratio, relative value
load rate
relative humidity
temperature, (C)
approach wind velocity of n-and-tube air coolers, (m/
s)
water velocity, (m/s)
incremental value
power efciency
dehumidifying coefcient
took into account the off-design performances of GTCCIAC components, time-dependent climatic data and GTCC operating parameters as well. These methodologies may be called numerical
integration [1]. A case study on economics of different technologies of inlet air cooling has been carried out through numerical
integration method by Yang et al. [12,13], where a detail simulation of the daily-average off-design performances of GTCC and inlet
air coolers was presented.
Similarly, Kakaras et al. used numerical integration method to
compare evaporative cooling, refrigeration cooling, and evaporative cooling of compressor inlet air on a yearly basis of operation,
taking into account the time-varying climatic conditions [14].
Although evaluation of inlet air cooling using numerical integration method can get accurate results, its calculation is very
comprehensive since enormous data of daily or hourly climatic
parameters, gas turbine operating power and fuel owrate have
to be read and input from a specic GTCC power plant.
The objective of this paper is to present an analytical method for
evaluating the applicability of GTCCIAC and obtain generic comparison results of different inlet air cooling technologies, i.e.,
absorption chiller and saturated evaporative cooler. This method
takes the off-design performances of GTCCIAC components into
consideration; besides, it uses annual average climatic data, needs
no historical data of GTCC operation. Thus, the evaluation of GTCCIAC through the analytical method provides generic results for
common gassteam combined power plants; and also, it is meaningful for primary engineering analysis of GTCC inlet air cooling.
2. Description of the inlet air cooling systems
Two groups of inlet air cooling technologies are to be evaluated
in this paper. One is GTCCIAC with absorption chillers (inlet chilling for short); and the other is GTCCIAC with saturated evaporative
coolers (inlet fogging for short).
The inlet chilling system and the cooling process are presented
in Fig. 1, where the system is mainly composed of a GTCC unit,
twin sets of single-effect hot-water driven water/LiBr absorption
chillers, and air coolers. Inlet air cooling process is shown in
design economic efciency, i.e. power-fuel price ratio
divided by fuel owrate
Subscripts
a
the ambient, air
B
prot margin
c
cooling
cc
combined cycle
cr
return chilled water
cs
supply chilled water
D
dew point
e
power efciency
f
fuel
I
investment
p
price of power or fuel
T
payback period
w
wet bulb
wi
inlet cooling water
0
design value
1
compressor inlet
Superscript
divided by design value
Fig. 1b, where the inlet air temperature is cooled from the ambient
temperature ta to t1. The point B refers to the apparatus dew point
of air coolers and its relative humidity is generally assumed as
0.95. The point D is dew point of the ambient. When the chilled
water temperature tcs < tD, condensed water separates out from
humid air and the air coolers operates under wet conditions.
Three GTCCIAC schemes with inlet chilling are to be compared
from the viewpoint of applicability, i.e., r Scheme 1, where GTCC
inlet air chilling with single effect LiBr/water absorption chiller is
designed to cool GTCC inlet air from ta = 30 C and RH = 0.75
t1 = 20 C and RH = 0.95; the design cooling capacity per mass owrate is 26.76 kJ/kg; s Scheme 2, where GTCC inlet air temperature
is designed to be cooled to t1 = 15 C and RH = 0.95 with inlet chilling; the design cooling capacity per mass owrate is 40.29 kJ/kg; t
Scheme 3, where GTCC inlet air temperature is designed to be
cooled to t1 = 10 C and RH = 0.95 with inlet chilling; the design
cooling capacity per mass owrate is 55.50 kJ/kg. The ratio of the
cooling capacity in the three Schemes is 1:1.5:2.1.
The inlet fogging system is schematically described as Fig. 2a.
And the corresponding cooling process is presented in Fig. 2b. It
is assumed that, r GTCC inlet fogging is adiabatic humidifying
process; s the capacity (or number of high-pressure pumps) of inlet fogging system is designed large enough; t the fogdrop diameter is small enough and heat exchange efciency of fogging
approximates 100%. Thus, GTCC inlet air temperature can be cooled
to wet bulb temperature by fogging, i.e., t1 = tw. Inlet air cooling
process through evaporative media coolers is similar to the inlet
fogging process, except that compressor inlet air can not reach saturated state.
3. Parameters for GTCCIAC applicability evaluation
3.1. Denitions of the parameters
Main factors inuencing economics of GTCC inlet air cooling include: r the incremental power output DPcc and fuel owrate
DGfcc. They are determined by the off-design performances of GTCC
unit and inlet air cooling system, and the local climatic parameters
850
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
chilled water
flue gas
steam
hot water
8
7
4
air
enthalpy, kJ/kg dry air
5
1
ta
3
6
2
RH=1
B
t1
tD
RH=0.95
t2
fuel
1-compressor; 2-combustor; 3-turbine;
4-HRSG; 5-steamturbine; 6-condenser;
7-absorptionchiller; 8-air cooler
humidity, g/kg dry air
Schematic of GTCCIAC with absorption chiller
Cooling process of chilling
Fig. 1. Schematic of GTCCIAC with absorption chiller.
air filter
b
silencer
pump
nozzle
enthalpy, kJ/kg dry air
ta
A
B
tw
isoenthalpy line
compressor inlet
schematic of fogging system
RH=1
humidity, g/kg dry air
Cooling process of fogging
Fig. 2. Schematic of GTCC inlet air fogging system.
as well. s Price of electric power pe and fuel pf. t Power load and
runtime of GTCC unit. In this paper, some parameters are dened
to evaluate the applicability of GTCCIAC.
The ratio of GTCC efciency at the ambient temperature ta to
that at compressor inlet air temperature t1, i.e., re is dened as
re
gt1 qcc ta
gta qcc t1
where, qcc is heat rate, (kJ/kW h); superscript represents relative
value, i.e., the off-design value divided by the design value. It is
worth pointing out that the efciency in Eq. (1) ignores the parasitical power consumption by inlet air cooling systems. The parasitical
power consumption includes the power consumed by water pumps
of inlet air cooling systems. In addition, when saturated steam is extracted from HRSG to drive absorption chillers, there will be a considerable power loss of steam turbine unless waste heat is reused
[15]. This power loss as a result of steam extraction is also included
in parasitical power. Thus, re is a bit higher than its actual value
according to Eq. (1). Khaledi et al. studied the effect of inlet air cooling by absorption chiller on gas turbine and combined cycle performance and conclude that, absorption chillers driven with internal
steam source (or extracted steam) causes a decrease in both power
production and efciency of combined cycle [16]. In this paper,
waste heat is reused to drive the absorption chillers.
rB, the ratio of GTCC prot margin with inlet air cooling to that
without inlet air cooling, can be expressed as
rB
cc t1 r p g q
cc t1
Pcc t 1 pe Gfcc t 1 pf P
cc0
r
Pcc t a pe Gfcc t a pf P
g
t
p
cc a
cc0 qcc t a
where rp stands for the ratio of electric power price to fuel price,
(kg/kW h), Pcc stands for GTCC power output, kW; gcc stands for fuel
rate (kg/kW h). The subscript 0 stands for design value without inlet
air cooling. Obviously, rB 1 approximates the ratio of the prot
margin with GTCCIAC to that without GTCCIAC.
Let rp/Gfcc0 = f, where f is design economic efciency, and rp/
Gfcc0 indicates the ratio of power sales to fuel cost of GTCC power
plant. Apparently, for those GTCC power plants with positive prot
from electric power production, f > 1. Thus, Eq. (2) can be expressed as,
cc t 1 f q
cc t1
P
rB
cc ta
Pcc t a f q
In Eqs. (1)(3), when GTCCIAC system is specied, inlet air temperature t1 is determined by the climatic parameters, off-design performances of both chillers and air coolers.
Efciency ratio re is actually used to evaluate the energy conservation of GTCCIAC, which indicates the degree of efciency
improvement or depression after GTCC inlet air cooling is applied.
Prot ratio rB approximately evaluates the economics of GTCCIAC.
Accordingly, these parameters are used to evaluate the applicability of the GTCCIAC in this paper.
In order to compare GTCCIAC scheme m with n in payback period, dene rI as GTCCIAC investment ratio. rIm/n means the relative
investment of scheme m to scheme n. Thus, the GTCCIAC relative
payback period ratio is expressed as
rTm=n r Im=n
rBn 1
rBm 1
851
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
where, rTm/n means relative payback period of the scheme m to that
of scheme n; rBm and rBn mean prot ratio of scheme m and scheme
n respectively. It is obvious that GTCCIAC scheme m is superior to n
in payback period if rTm/n < 1.
In the analysis of GTCCIAC applicability infra, the ambient temperature ta = 1535 C, relative humidity RH = 2085%. The inlet
cooling water temperature twi of single effect water/LiBr absorption chiller approximately equals the wet-bulb temperature tw.
3.2. Calculation method for evaluation parameter
The key point for obtaining the evaluation parameters, i.e., re, rB
and rT, is to calculate GTCC inlet air temperature t1 at given climatic
conditions. t1 is determined by off-design performances of GTCC
unit and chiller, heat transfer characteristics of inlet air cooler,
and state equations of humid air as well.
The typical off-design performance of a heavy-duty GTCC unit
can be obtained by the typical analytical solutions [17]. The typical
performance of a GTCC unit at the condition of t1 is generally expressed as
cc Pcc =Pcc0 Ft1 ; Rcc
P
qcc qcc =qcc0 Ft 1 ; Rcc
5
6
where, Rcc is power load rate of GTCC unit; F means function; subscript 0 stands for the design value. Generally, the absolute variation rate of power Pcc with t1 is slightly smaller at lower power
load (or turbine inlet gas temperature T3) of GTCC unit. Fig. 3 presents Pcc t 1 and qcc t 1 curves of a GTCC unit at Rcc = 1 as an
example, where GTCC stands for gas-steam combined unit, GT for
gas turbine and ST for steam turbine. [1] presented some approximate economics of GTCCIAC; every 1 C depression in inlet air temperature roughly results in 0.45% power increase of GTCC and slight
variation in heat consumption rate.
DOE-2 model for building consumption analysis and energy
efciency evaluation presents a model for the typical off-design
performance of chillers [18]. Its validity has been tested as an
approximate, general and typical model for predicting the chiller
performance [19]. The temperature parameters in DOE-2 chiller
models have the dimensions of Fahrenheit. In DOE-2 model for
the performance of absorption chillers, the adjustment to energy
consumption rate due to the changes in twi and Rc (cooling load
rate) is presented. However, chillers in gas turbine inlet air cooling
systems generally operate at variable chilled water temperature so
as to produce lower but safe inlet air temperature and to gain more
incremental power output. As a result, a modied DOE-2 model for
the performance of absorption chillers needs to be developed,
where the temperature parameters are expressed as centigrade
and the adjustment to energy consumption rate at full cooling load
due to the changes in both twi and tcs is proposed [20]. The typical
performance of a single-effect absorption chiller can be expressed
as
Rc Q c =CAP
CAP Q c0 Ft cs ; twi
COP COP0 Ft cs ; t wi
where, Rc is cooling load rate of chiller; Qc is GTCC inlet air cooling
load, kW; CAP is the available capacity at the ambient conditions,
kW; COP is the coefcient of performance. Fig. 4 shows typical performances of a single effect water/LiBr absorption chiller, where the
curves of off-design capacity and part-load COP at design chilled
water temperature are derived from DOE-2 model. In Fig. 4, the design condition is specied as twi0 = 32 C and tcs0 = 7 C.
Inlet air coolers often operate under wet conditions in the case
of low ambient air temperature and high ambient humidity. The
heat transfer coefcient of a n-and-tube cooler with specic
structure can be expressed as
1.2
1.08
1.06
1.1
GT
1.04
ST
0.9
1.02
1
GTCC
GT
0.8
0.7
GTCC
0.98
0.96
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
t1/ C
Infulence of t1on power output
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
t1/ C
Influence of t1 on heat consumption rate
Fig. 3. Pcc t1 and qcc~t 1 curves of a GTCC unit at full power load.
1.4
24
28
1.2
COP/COP0
CAP/CAP 0
32
1
twi=36
1.1
tcs=9 C
tcs=7 C
tcs=5 C
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
5
11
13
t cs/ C
Off-design cooling capacity
15
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Rc
Part-load coefficient of performance
Fig. 4. Typical off-design performance of single effect water/LiBr absorption chiller.
Ks
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
1
1
Anm un Bwp C
1
;
W=m2 C
1.012
10
where, n is the average dehumidifying coefcient in heat exchange
process, which is dened as the ratio of total heat transfer to sensible heat transfer. u is approach wind velocity, m/s. w is water ow
velocity inside the tubes, m/s. According to our design calculations
of n-and-tube air coolers, B = 201.918, C = 0.00389, n = 0.718,
p = 0.8. A = 27.217 and m = 0.808 for the air cooler with larger cooling capacity in cooling Scheme 2 and Scheme 3; A = 26.765 and
m = 0.830 for the air cooler with smaller cooling capacity in cooling
Scheme 1.
The heat exchange by air coolers is calculated according to the
following equation:
Q c F K s ta tcr t1 t cs =lnt a tcr =t1 t cs
1.008
re
852
1.004
1
0.996
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
RH
ta=15c;
ta =20c;
ta=25c;
ta =30c;
ta =35c;
11
Fig. 5. Effect of climatic parameters on GTCCIAC efciency ratio.
where, F is total area of the n-tube heat exchanger, m . tcr is
returning chilled water temperature or outlet water temperature
of air cooler, C.Heat equilibrium equation,
12
where Gw and Ga are mass owrate of chilled water and GTCC inlet
air, respectively, kg/s. cw and ca are average specic heat of chilled
water and GTCC inlet air respectively, kJ/kg.For a certain air cooler,
its off-design heat exchange efciency approximates to the design
value if the variation of GTCC inlet air mass owrate and density
is ignored. This is quite reasonable for gas turbine with axial compressor and constant speed.
E2 ta t1 =t a t 2 E20
13
where, t2 is apparatus dew point in Fig. 1b.
The ratio of heat to humidity in the cooling process from A to B
is equal to that from A to C in Fig. 1b, i.e.,
ia i1 =da d1 ia i2 =da d2
14
where, ia, i1 and i2 are humid air enthalpy of the respective points,
kJ/kgdry air. da, d1 and d2 are humidity of the respective points, g/
kgdry air.
When the ambient air temperature ta, relative humidity RH and
ambient air pressure are given, the parameters t1, tcs, n, Qc, R and
COP, etc. can be worked out through Eqs. (7)(14). According to
Eqs. (5) and (6), the evaluation parameters of GTCCIAC, i.e., re, rB
and rT can be further calculated.
4. Effect of climatic parameters on GTCCIAC applicability
4.1. Effect of climatic parameters on GTCCIAC efciency ratio
The effect of RH and ta on GTCCIAC efciency ratio re is
shown in Fig. 5. When RH remains the same, GTCCIAC efciency
ratio increases with the rise of ambient air temperature ta. It is
worth pointing out that GTCCIAC efciency decreases in the case
of ta < 15 C or so due to the inlet air temperature characteristics
of GTCC. As inlet air temperature drops to a certain degree, the
effect of the increase in gas turbine exhaust gas owrate on
HRSG steam parameters cannot compensate for that of the decrease in exhaust gas temperature. In GTCCIAC Scheme 1, where
the inlet air temperature is designed to cool from ta = 30 C and
RH = 0.75 to t1 = 20 C and RH = 0.95, GTCCIAC efciency ratio
re approximates 1 when ta = 20 C, i.e., GTCC efciency varies
slightly.
There is a comparatively comprehensive inuence of RH on re.
Whether GTCCIAC efciency improves or not depends on the level
of inlet air temperature t1, i.e., t1 > t1opt or t1 < t1opt (see Fig. 6).
When ta P 30 C, t1 > t1opt and re drops with the increase in RH.
Chilled water temperature tcs increases with RH because GTCCIAC
30
ta =35C ;
tcs
t 1;
25
ta =30C ;
ta =25C
20
t1 , t cs / c
Q c Gw cw t cr t cs Ga ca t a t 1
t 1o pt
15
10
5
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
RH
Fig. 6. t1 and tcs At different climatic conditions.
cooling load rises due to the increase in RH; and chiller capacity decreases due to the increase in chiller cooling water temperature twi.
Therefore, GTCC inlet air temperature t1 increases.
When ta < 30 C, re rises with the increase in RH because
t1 < t1opt and t1 increases.
In the case of low RH at a certain ta, on the one hand, absorption
chiller operates at the limit condition of twi = 18 C if wet-bulb
temperature or chiller cooling water temperature is below 18 C;
in that case, The chiller operates at the condition of minimum constant chilled water temperature, i.e. tcs = 5 C, and meets the cooling load demand of GTCCIAC. This results in a stable chiller
capacity. On the other hand, if chilled water temperature tcs is
higher than the dew point temperature tL (see Fig. 1b), GTCC inlet
air cooler runs under dry condition and the heat transfer coefcient
is almost invariant. Thus, GTCC inlet air temperature t1 remains
invariant and GTCCIAC efciency ratio re is independent of RH in
the case of low RH at a certain ta.
4.2. Effect of climatic parameters on GTCCIAC prot ratio
The Effect of ta and RH on GTCCIAC prot ratio rB is shown in
Fig. 7, where GTCC design economic efciency f = 1.2. It can be
seen from the gure that, rB increases with the rise of ta and
rB < 1 at ta < 20 C or so. The effect of RH on rB is quite different
from that of ta. At a certain ambient air temperature, rB decreases
with the increase in RH especially at high ta and high RH. It should
be noted that when RH > 0.77 or so, rB at ta = 35 C is lower than
that at ta = 30 C. Fig. 5 also shows there is a slight inuence of
RH on rB at low ta and low RH.
853
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
1.2
1.13
1.16
1.11
rB
rB
1.12
RH =0.2;
RH=0.6;
RH=0.4;
RH=0.8
1.09
1.08
1.07
1.04
1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.05
1.2
0.9
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
RH
ta=15C;
ta =20C;
ta=25C;
ta =30C;
ta =35C;
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.4
Fig. 9. Effect of GTCC design economic efciency on prot ratio (ta = 30 C).
Fig. 7. Effect of climatic parameters on GTCCIAC prot ratio (f = 1.2).
Since the prot ratio and the design economic efciency indicate the economics of GTCCIAC systems, the above results and
analysis show that GTCC inlet air cooling is more suitable for:
r zones with higher ambient temperature and lower relative
humidity, for example, the zone with ta > 20 C and RH < 0.77; s
GTCC unit with lower design economic efciency, for example,
GTCC unit with 1 < f 61.6.
5. Effect of the design economic efciency on GTCCIAC
applicability
According to Eq. (3):
cc t 1 q
cc t 1 q
cc ta
or B P
of
cc t a 2
Pcc t a f q
15
thus, effect of GTCC design economic efciency f on prot ratio rB is
determined by characteristics of GTCCIAC components and climatic
parameters. At a certain ta, if GTCC heat rate reduces (efciency increases correspondingly) after inlet air cooling, rB/o f < 0 and prot
ratio rB rises with the decrease in f and vice versa.
The effect of GTCC design economic efciency f on GTCCIAC
prot ratio rB is shown in Fig. 8, where RH = 0.7. When ta > 20 C,
rB reduces with the increase in GTCC design economic efciency
f, because GTCC heat rate drops after inlet air cooling resulting
from t1 < t1opt. At the condition of f > 1.6 or so, there is a slight
inuence of f on rB. The reason is that, at ta = 18.7 C and
RH = 0.7, GTCC inlet air temperature t1 = 11.0 C in GTCCIAC
Scheme 1, and relative heat ratio,
cc t1 11:0 q
cc ta 18:7 1:00125
q
at this point, orB/o f = 0, prot ratio rB = 1.041, efciency ratio re = 1.
When the ambient air temperature ta = 30 C, the inuence of
GTCC design economic efciency f on GTCCIAC prot ratio rB at different relative humidity RH is shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen from
the gure that, RH has great inuence on GTCCIAC prot ratio rB.
With the increase of GTCC design economic efciency at a certain
RH, GTCCIAC prot ratio decreases; meanwhile, GTCCIAC prot ratio varies slightly at f > 1.61.8 or so.
6. Applicability comparison of GTCCIAC schemes with chiller
6.1. Comparison of the GTCCIAC efciency ratio
Comparison of GTCCIAC efciency ratio among the three cooling schemes is presented in Fig. 10. It is shown that, the scheme
with lower cooling capacity has a higher efciency ratio at the conditions of high ta and low RH. For example, when ta = 35 C and RH
6 0.37, Scheme 1 is superior in efciency ratio; in the case of
0.37 < RH 6 0.64, Scheme 2 has highest efciency ratio; while
RH > 0.64, Scheme 3 is the best in efciency ratio. When the ambient air temperature ta < 25 C, the cooling scheme with smallest
capacity, i.e. Scheme 1, is superior in efciency ratio at any RH condition. Therefore, in order to enhance GTCC efciency with inlet air
cooling, small-capacity cooling system is preferable in the zones
with low ambient air temperature (ta 6 25 C) or the zones with
high ambient air temperature and low relative humidity.
6.2. Comparison of the GTCCIAC prot ratio
Comparison of the prot ratio among the different inlet air cooling schemes is presented in Fig. 11. It is obvious that inlet air cooling systems with larger capacity is superior in prot ratio.
Meanwhile, the difference between the cooling schemes is quite
small at low ambient air temperature. The reason is inlet air cool-
1.1
1.012
1.08
1.01
1.06
1.008
1.04
1.006
re
rB
1.12
ta =30C; ta =35C;
scheme 2;
scheme 3;
1.004
1.02
1
1.2
ta=25C;
scheme1;
1.002
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.4
ta=15C;
ta =20C;
ta=25C;
ta =30C;
ta =35C;
Fig. 8. Effect of GTCC design economic efciency on prot ratio (RH = 0.7).
1
0.998
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
RH
Fig. 10. Comparison of efciency ratio among the inlet air chilling schemes.
854
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
ta=25C;
1.25
ta =30C;
scheme1;
1.4
ta =35C;
scheme 2;
ta =20C;
scheme 3;
ta =30C;
ta =35C;
1.3
rT2/1
rB
1.2
ta =25C;
1.15
1.2
1.1
1.05
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.5
1.7
1.9
RH
Fig. 11. Comparison of prot ratio among the inlet air chilling schemes.
ing systems with larger capacity produce lower temperature of
chilled water and inlet air; GTCC efciency varies slightly while
output power enhances considerably. At the condition of low
ambient air temperature, there is a cooling capacity margin between the design value and cooling load demand. Therefore, the
supply chilled water temperature tcs approaches the minimum
5 C and the inlet air temperature t1 almost remains constant for
different cooling schemes. As a result, GTCCIAC prot ratio in the
different cooling schemes is almost the same at low ambient air
temperature.
6.3. Comparison of the GTCCIAC relative payback period
2.5
2.7
rI2/1 = 1.77. In a typical south China area, the annual average ambient air temperature ta = 23.8 C and average relative humidity
RH = 0.75. For a GTCC power plant located in south China area,
the design fuel owrate Gfcc0 = 2.75 kg/s, thus, the design economic
efciency f = 1.75 when power price is 12 cent/kW h and fuel price
is $0.36/kg. The corresponding relative payback period rT2/1 = 1.28
read from Fig. 13. The payback period of cooling Scheme 1 is
approximately 2.7 years evaluated by numerical integration method [12,13]. Therefore, the payback period of GTCCIAC Scheme 2
equals 1.28 2.7 = 3.46, which is approximate to the result by
numerical integration method with a relative error of 4.5%.
7.1. Comparison of efciency ratio between chilling and fogging
The ambient air pressure equals 101.3 kPa infra. Efciency ratio
comparison between GTCCIAC Scheme 1 with chilling and inlet
fogging is presented in Fig. 14. It is shown that, GTCC inlet air cooling with absorption chiller is superior to inlet fogging in efciency
ratio at the climatic conditions of RH > 0.4 and ta > 25 C. With the
decrease in the ambient air temperature ta, the efciency ratio of
inlet air fogging begins to be higher than that of chilling; and the
range of RH that inlet air fogging is superior becomes wider. For
example, at ta = 20 C, inlet air fogging is superior in efciency ratio
when 0.26 < RH < 0.77; while at ta = 15 C, inlet air fogging is superior in efciency ratio when RH > 0.32. To improve GTCC efciency,
inlet air fogging is preferable at ta = 1520 C; while inlet chilling is
superior to fogging at RH > 0.4 and ta > 25 C.
7.2. Comparison of prot ratio between chilling and fogging
Comparison of the prot ratio between inlet chilling and fogging is presented in Fig. 15. Generally speaking, GTCC inlet chilling
rT3/1 ;
r T2/1
ta=25C; ta =30C; ta =35C;
t a=15C; t a=20C; t a=25C;
scheme 1 with chilling;
fogging
1.004
1.002
1.4
re
rT
2.3
Fig. 13. Relative payback period of Scheme 2 to Scheme 1 (rI = 1.77, RH = 0.75).
1.6
0.998
1.2
1
2.1
7. Applicability comparison between chilling and fogging
To compare the applicability of the three schemes with inlet
chilling in payback period, it is assumed that the investment ratio
is approximate to the design cooling capacity ratio, i.e., rI2/1 = 1.5
and rI3/1 = 2.1. The comparison of relative payback period between
Schemes 2 and 3 is presented in Fig. 12. It can be seen that, r at a
certain ambient air temperature ta, rT3/1 > rT2/1 > 1. This proves that
inlet air cooling systems with larger capacity is inferior in payback
period. s In the range of climatic parameters except low RH
(RH < 0.20.35), the GTCCIAC payback period is generally better
at higher ambient air temperature. When RH < 0.20.35, the inlet
air coolers operates under dry or wet condition and the curves
intersect at low RH. t The curves of rT2/1 are denser and less gradient than that of rT3/1. This proves that the effect of climatic
parameters on GTCCIAC payback period is weaker in the case of
smaller-capacity inlet air cooling systems. u Relative payback period is lower at higher value of RH; and the difference between rT3/1
and rT2/1 is reduced at the same time. This indicates that highcapacity inlet air cooling systems are preferable in high-humidity
zones.
The change of relative payback period rT2/1 with design economic efciency f is presented in Fig. 13, where RH = 0.75 and
1.8
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
RH
Fig. 12. Comparison of relative payback period (f = 1.2).
0.9
0.996
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
RH
Fig. 14. Comparison of efciency ratio between chilling and fogging.
0.9
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
t a=15C; t a=20C; t a=25C;
scheme 1 with chilling;
fogging
1.1
855
back period of GTCC inlet fogging is greater than the case of
rI = 0.15. In the case of rI = 0.4, GTCC inlet air fogging is inferior to
cooling Scheme 1 with chilling at the condition of RH > 0.70.8
since rT > 1.
1.08
1.06
rB
8. Conclusions
1.04
1.02
1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
RH
Fig. 15. Comparison of prot ratio between chilling and fogging (f = 1.2).
0.7
ta =20C;
ta =25C;
ta =30C;
ta =35C;
rT
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
RH
Fig. 16. Relative payback period of GTCC inlet air fogging (f = 1.2, rI = 0.15).
is superior to fogging in prot ratio, especially at the condition of
ta > 25 C or so. However, GTCC inlet chilling becomes inferior in
prot ratio in the dry and low-temperature zones.
7.3. Comparison of relative payback period between chilling and
fogging
The investment of GTCC inlet air fogging system depends on its
design capacity. The relative payback period of the cooling scheme
with fogging to Scheme 1 with chilling is presented in Figs. 16 and
17, where the investment ratio rI equals 0.15 and 0.4, respectively.
When the investment ratio rI = 0.15 and the design economic
efciency f = 1.2, Fig. 16 shows that relative payback period of
GTCC inlet air fogging is less than 1; this means that GTCC inlet
fogging is preferable to chilling in payback period. For example,
at the climatic conditions of ta = 30 C and RH = 0.75, the payback
period of GTCC inlet fogging is about 41.1% of that of chilling.
When rI = 0.4 and f = 1.2, the relative payback period of GTCC
inlet air fogging is presented in Fig. 17. It is obvious that the pay-
ta =20C;
ta =25C;
ta =30C;
ta =35C;
rT
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
RH
Fig. 17. Relative payback period of GTCC inlet air fogging (f = 1.2, rI = 0.4).
This paper presents an analytical method to evaluate the general applicability of gas turbine inlet air cooling systems in combined power plant (GTCCIAC), including inlet air cooling with
absorption chiller (inlet chilling) and inlet air saturated evaporative cooling (inlet fogging) as well. Parameters for applicability
evaluation such as efciency ratio, prot ratio and relative payback
period are dened and discussed.
GTCCIAC applicability depends on the design economic efciency (dened as power-fuel price ratio divided by GTCC design
fuel rate) of GTCC power plant, and strongly on the climatic data
and the design capacity of inlet air cooling systems. Generally,
GTCCIAC with chilling and fogging is preferable in the zones with
high ambient air temperature and low humidity. In addition, it is
more appropriate for those GTCC units with lower design economic
efciency.
Small-capacity inlet air cooling systems are superior to largecapacity ones in payback period; while large-capacity inlet air
cooling systems are preferable in high-humidity zones.
Comparison of the applicability between GTCC inlet chilling and
fogging shows that, GTCC inlet fogging is superior in power efciency at ta = 1520 C though it gains smaller prot margin than
inlet chilling. GTCC inlet chilling is preferable in the zones with
ta > 25 C and RH > 0.4.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the projects supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract Nos.
90210032 and 50576097, and thank Dr. F. Wei and Dr. Sh. Tang
for the revision.
References
[1] Wen H, Narula RG, Economics of gas turbine inlet air cooling for combined
cycle plants. In: Proceedings of the American power conference, Chicago, USA;
2000. p. 100105.
[2] Jonsson M, Yan J. Humidied gas turbines-A review of proposed and
implemented cycles. Energy 2005;30(7):101378.
[3] Sutikno T. Optimizing inlet air chillers for combined-cycle operation. Power
Eng 2001;105(2):468.
[4] Chaker M, Meher-Homji CB, Mee III, Nicholson A. Inlet fogging of gas turbine
engines detailed climatic analysis of gas turbine evaporation cooling potential
in the USA. J Eng Gas Turbine Power 2003;125(1):3009.
[5] Gareta R, Romeo LM, Gil A. Economic optimization of gas turbine inlet air
cooling systems in combined cycle applications. In: Proceedings of
ECOS. Berlin: ECOS; 2002. p. 40915.
[6] Yokoyama Ryohei, Ito Koichi. Evaluation of operational performance of gas
turbine cogeneration plants using an optimization: OPS-operation. J Eng Gas
Turbine Power 2004;126(10):8319.
[7] Palestra N, Bariqozzi G, Perdichizzi A. Inlet air cooling applied to combined
cycle power plants: inuence of site climate and thermal storage systems. In:
Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo. Canada: Montreal; 2007. p. 58392.
[8] Arnul GL, Croce G, Marini M. Parametric analysis of thermal energy storage
for gas turbine. In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo. Montreal: Canada;
2007. p. 2318.
[9] Hosseini R, Beshkani A, Soltani M. Performance improvement of gas turbines of
Fars (Iran) combined cycle power plant by intake cooling using a media
evaporative cooler. Energ Convers Manage 2007;48(4):105564.
[10] Chiang HW, Wang PY. Power augmentation study of a combined cycle power
plant using inlet fogging. JSME Int J, Ser B: Fluid Therm Eng 2007;49(4):
127181.
[11] Gareta R, Romeo LM, Gil A. Methodology for the economic evaluation of gas
turbine air cooling systems in combined cycle applications. Energy
2004;29(11):180518.
[12] Yang C, Yang ZL, Cai RX. Economic evaluation on GTCC inlet air cooling with
absorption chiller. In: Proceedings of the ASME power conference, Chicago,
USA; 2005. p. 128590.
856
C. Yang et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 848856
[13] Yang C, Yang ZL, Cai RX. Realization of the economical evaluation system for
GTCC inlet air cooling based on numerical integration. Gas Turbine Technol
2005;18(2):631 [in Chinese with English abstract].
[14] Kakaras E, Doukelis A, Prelipceanu A, Karellas S. Inlet air cooling methods
for gas turbine based power plants. J Eng Gas Turbine Power 2006;128(4):
3127.
[15] Yang C, Yang ZL, Cai RX. Analytical characteristics of HRSG with steam
extraction. Proc CSEE 2007;27(29):16 [in Chinese with English abstract].
[16] Khaledi H, Zomorodian R, Ghofrani MB. Effect of inlet air cooling by absorption
chiller on gas turbine and combined cycle performance. In: Proceedings of the
ASME advanced energy systems division, Orlando; 2005. p. 50715.
[17] Zhang N, Cai RX. Analytical solutions and typical characteristics of part-load
performances of single shaft gas turbine and its cogeneration. Energ Convers
Manage 2002;43(912):132337.
[18] Simulation Research Group, DOE-2 engineering manual version 2.1A.
California: Lawarence Berkeley National Laboratory; 1982.
[19] Sullivan R, Winkelmann F. Validation studies of the DOE-2 building energy
simulation program nal report. California: Ernest Orlando Lawarence
Berkeley National Laboratory; 1998.
[20] Yang C, Yang ZL, Cai RX. A modied DOE-2 model for typical performance of
absorption chillers and its application. J Refrigerat 2007;28(6):516 [in
Chinese with English abstract].
