Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Thermodynamic performance analysis and algorithm model
of multi-pressure heat recovery steam generators (HRSG)
based on heat exchangers layout
Hongcui Feng, Wei Zhong ⇑, Yanling Wu, Shuiguang Tong
Institute of Thermal Science and Power System, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 4 November 2013
Accepted 24 February 2014
Available online 15 March 2014
Keywords:
Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)
Heat exchanger
Layout analysis
Thermodynamic performance

a b s t r a c t
Changes of heat exchangers layout in heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) will modify the amount of
waste heat recovered from flue gas; this brings forward a desire for the optimization of the design of
HRSG. In this paper the model of multi-pressure HRSG is built, and an instance of a dual pressure HRSG
under three different layouts of Taihu Boiler Co., Ltd. is discussed, with specified values of inlet temperature, mass flow rate, composition of flue gas and water/steam parameters as temperature, pressure etc.,
steam mass flow rate and heat efficiency of different heat exchangers layout of HRSG are analyzed. This
analysis is based on the laws of thermodynamics and incorporated into the energy balance equations for
the heat exchangers. In the conclusion, the results of the steam mass flow rate, heat efficiency obtained
for three heat exchangers layout of HRSGs are compared. The results show that the optimization of heat
exchangers layout of HRSGs has a great significance for waste heat recovery and energy conservation.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, with soaring energy price and increasing
demand for reducing fuel consumption, much attention has been
paid to the utilization of industrial waste heat. Different grades
of waste heat are commonly available in metallurgy, oil, petrochemicals and other industries. The main carrier of waste heat resources is sensible heat in the flue gas, and the most frequent
approach for recovery is to produce steam that can be used directly
or further used to generate electricity. The design of HRSGs is organized at three levels: first it put forward the overall strategy for
heat recovery, which enables to obtain pressure levels and the
main operating parameters of the HRSG; the second step involves
a general layout to meet the process requirements, including the
layout of heat exchangers and the net absorbed heat of each heat
exchanger; the third step leads to the detailed design of the geometric variables of the heat exchangers, such as tube types and
diameters, the number of tubes per row. The main goal is to increase heat efficiency and decrease the equipment cost with the
prerequisite of guaranteeing safety and reliability. For specific values of the flue gas parameters, many different choices are possible
regarding the heat recovery scheme and the general layout of heat

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13989882228; fax: +86 571 87951058.
E-mail address: wzhong@zju.edu.cn (W. Zhong).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.060
0196-8904/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

exchangers. Therefore, the effects of heat exchangers layout are of
great importance to optimize the utilization of waste heat
resources.
A lot of efforts have been dedicated to the analysis and optimization of HRSG thermodynamic performance. Ahmadi et al. [1]
modeled the comprehensive thermodynamic modeling of a dual
pressure HRSG. They carried out a multi-objective optimization
to find the best design parameters for that HRSG. Bassily [2,3]
modeled a dual and a triple pressure reheat Combined Cycle Power
Plant (CCPP) for changes of the minimum pinch point temperature
difference, temperature difference of the superheat approach, temperature and pressure of the steam turbine, gas outlet temperature
etc. Reddy et al. [4] used non-dimensional operating parameters to
analyze the entropy generation and to calculate the entropy generation number for single pressure HRSG heat exchangers. Based on
the second law of thermodynamics, Butcher et al. [5] presented the
effects of pinch point temperature difference and flue gas composition on the entropy generation rate and the second law efficiency.
Valdes et al. [6–8] proposed a method for thermo-economic optimization of combined cycle gas turbine power plants based on
the application of influence coefficients and genetic algorithm.
Sanjay [9] investigated the effect of HRSG configuration on exergy
destruction of bottoming cycle components and concluded that the
distribution of exergy destruction is sensitive to the type of
bottoming cycle configuration. Woudstra et al. [10] performed
a thermodynamic evaluation of CCPP with different steam

the results show that the use of several pressure levels in HRSGs increases the power production in the steam cycle. Through exergy analysis. triple pressure with and without reheat has been reported. For example. energy balance equations for each heat exchanger are established. In [16] a complete economic and thermodynamic study for dual pressure. the flue gas composition. HPB. The researches listed above mainly Tacid T0 gh Q acid dew point (K) ambient temperature (K) efficiency of HRSG heat rate (kJ/Nm3) Subscripts and abbreviations HRSG heat recovery steam generator HPS high pressure superheater HPB high pressure evaporator HPE high pressure economizer LPS low pressure superheater LPB low pressure evaporator LPE low pressure economizer ECO economizer EVA evaporator SH superheater PH preheater PECO public economizer RH reheater HE heat exchange PPTM method of pinch point temperature difference GOTM method of gas outlet temperature DSA dichotomous search algorithm focused on the analysis and optimized design of HRSG operating parameters. examples for dual pressure HRSGs are analyzed. In [14] a CCPP with a supplementary firing system is analyzed through energy and exergy. it is shown that important relationships among optimal objective functions and decision variables can be discovered consequently. 2. In this paper [12]. LPS). a radiant heat exchanger can be placed Fig.H. 1a. [13] studied thermodynamic optimization based on the minimization of the total HRSG cost. Behbahani-nia et al. they investigated the effect of the pressure levels of steam generation in HRSG on exergy efficiency of combined cycle. [18. In practical cases. in which the minimum temperature difference of each heat exchanger will replace the constraint of pinch point temperature difference. the reference ambient conditions for air is P0 = 0. 1a. LPE.i Tg gas steam the ith heat exchanger the jth pressure level inlet outlet flue gas mass flow rate (kg/s) total steam mass flow rate of public economizer (kg/s) steam mass flow rate of the jth pressure level (kg/s) specific heat at constant pressure (kJ/kg K) working fluid enthalpy (kJ/kg) ambient pressure (MPa) working fluid pressure (MPa) pinch point temperature difference of the jth pressure level (K) water saturation temperature of the jth pressure level (K) gas outlet temperature of the evaporator of the jth pressure level (K) minimum temperature difference (K) temperature difference of the ith heat exchanger (K) the minimum temperature difference of the ith heat exchanger (K) gas outlet temperature at the outlet of the economizer (K) bottoming cycles. the heat transfer to the surrounding is negligible. the heat exchangers layout will change due to some factors. [21] considered a small cogeneration system including a gas micro turbine and a fire tube HRSG. 1b. the exergy of the exhaust streams and the irreversibility of each component in the cycle are determined. the water/steam temperature and the pressure are given.101 MPa and T0 = 293. and the T–Q profile is shown in Fig. Mohagheghi and Shayegan [17] combined with the genetic algorithm calculated the optimal thermodynamic performance conditions for HRSGs. the mass flow rate. after the reduction to a common monetary base of the costs of exergy losses and of installation. In reference [11]. The flue gas inlet temperature. In conclusion. and there is limited research on heat exchangers layout. Then. This article presents a general model for analyzing the thermodynamic performance of a multi-pressure HRSG based on heat exchangers layout. Ahmadi et al. LPB. a comprehensive thermodynamic modeling of a dual pressure CCPP is performed. Problem model As shown in Fig. / Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289 283 Nomenclature g s i j i o Mg Ms M js cpg hs P0 Ps DT jpp DT jsatw DT jgo. a combined power cycle with HRSG is analyzed. an optimization study to find the best design parameters is carried out. Casarosa et al. In this study [20]. they showed that reducing the irreversibility of an HRSG increases the steam cycle efficiency due to increasing the produced steam temperature. Therefore. the optimal design of operating parameters of the plant is then performed by defining an objective function and applying a generic algorithm (GA) type optimization method. Schematic diagram of dual pressure HRSG 1.15 K. the results show that the thermodynamic optimization does not lead to major improvement of the total cost of the HRSG due to decrease in the pinch point. This paper [15] shows a methodology to achieve thermoeconomic optimizations of CCGT power plants taking into account the frequent off-design operation of the plant. a dual pressure HRSG model is considered. and there is no extraneous heat loss. It is assumed that the HRSG is at steady state. HPS. consisting of six heat exchangers (HPE. . Feng et al.B DTmin DTi DTmin.19] performed the exergoenvironmental optimization of a CHP system. According to the first law of thermodynamics. The evaluation showed that the increasing number of pressure levels of steam generation will reduce the losses due to heat transfer in the HRSG.

Model of the ith heat exchanger. . . Control equations of the unit model Fig. . 3b. k = 1. 2b. . water/steam temperature and pressure. 2. mass flow rate. Mg is given. on the flue gas side. SH. . . composition of flue gas. (2) There are two meanings of heat exchanger number: for a m-pressure (1. Schematic diagram of dual pressure HRSG 2. the feed water flow rate of LPE could be the sum of the feed water flow rate at different pressure levels. 2.284 H. Here a general calculation model for thermodynamic performance of a m-pressure HRSG composed of n heat exchangers is built. . Fig. For a given flue gas inlet temperature. the feed water flow rate of LPE is the sum of feed water flow rate in different pressure levels and LPE is a public economizer. Besides. EVA. the water/steam parameters are constant.i and different thermodynamic performance. the heat exchanger types include: ECO. then they can be numbered as: 1. 3b. Schematic diagram of dual pressure HRSG 3. . by applying the energy balance for flue gas and water/steam in each heat exchanger of the HRSG. Taking Fig. (3) As shown in Fig. on water/steam side and on its flow direction. . 1b. to decrease the gas outlet temperature of multi-pressure HRSG. 2b. 2. Model equations 3. as shown in Fig. As depicted in Fig. The T–Q profile of dual pressure HRSG 1. heat balance calculation model could be built for each heat exchanger.s. so that results in the changes of DTmin. 1a as example. different heat exchangers layout brings forward changes in DTi. The T–Q profile of dual pressure HRSG 2. cpg is assumed as constant in given temperature zone. and the T–Q profile is shown in Fig. . heat exchangers could be numbered as: 1. an optimized design of HRSG heat exchangers layout is of great importance for maximizing waste heat recovery. 4. Moreover. and also RH and PH. it is a dual pressure (m = 2) HRSG with 6 heat exchangers (n = 6). .k.1.i. Feng et al. . 3. 2a. and evaporator would be placed before superheater to protect it from high temperature. The T–Q profile of dual pressure HRSG 3. as shown in Fig. Therefore.j. on the flue gas side and on its flow direction. The control equation is the fundamental equation of any heat balance calculation. its T–Q profile is shown in Fig. / Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289 Fig. Fig. assume there are s heat exchangers under jth pressure level. . .m) HRSG with n heat exchangers. . . based on the first law of thermodynamics [22]. . when the flue gas and Fig.n. it can be numbered as i = 4 and on water/steam side as j = 2. 4. 2b. the flue gas temperature and water/steam properties will be calculated by the following equations: Fig. 3a. 2a. 3a. it follows that: (1) In general. . in multi-pressure HRSG. in a high temperature zone. .

in the case with public economizer. Model of a public low pressure economizer.Pjsi.i. 3.ð1 6 j 6 m. (b) The acid dew point temperature: the gas outlet temperature would be checked with Eq. 1b for example. the initial values of Mjs would be adjusted. Pjso.kþ1 ¼ f ðT jsi.k Þ ð1Þ n equations could be built for n heat exchangers.k  T jsi.pub Þ ¼ M 1s ðhso. slopes of each section in T–Q profile are the reciprocal of Mjs times cjp. the ith heat exchanger heat is equal to the kth heat exchanger under jth pressure level: Q i ¼ Q jk ¼ Mg cpg ðT gi. when Tg is lower than Tacid.n P T acid ð9Þ Under high flue gas temperature.k ð12Þ In T–Q profile. but constraints such as acid dew point temperature and pinch point temperature are not considered.P so.B  T jsatw 285 ð7Þ As mentioned above. so that Q3 decreases.k . (8). Mathematical solution Correlate equations describe the logical relationship of flue gas and water/steam flow through HRSG heat exchangers.1.k ¼ Pjsi. temperature difference of each heat exchanger between the flue gas inlet temperature and water/steam outlet temperature are different between different heat exchanger type and actual production requirements. we assume Tg is equal to Tacid. and the outlet temperature of ith heat exchanger is the inlet temperature of (i + 1)th heat exchanger: There are m steam mass flow rates M js and n gas outlet temperatures Tgo. DTi and Tgi.1  hsi. we can get the gas outlet temperature based on Eq.k1 . which called the minimum temperature difference. Especially.k ¼ T jso.kþ1 T jsi.2. when the temperature difference of heat exchanger 4 increases.i need to be increased with Eq.kþ1 . Therefore.k1 Þ si. as described in Fig. the minimum temperature differences of each heat exchanger are the constraints: DT i ¼ ðT gi.kþ1 Þ j j : hj ¼ f ðT j .pub Þ M s ¼ M 1s þ    þ M js þ    þ M m s ð2Þ ð3Þ ð8Þ 3. Take Fig. 5.i ¼ T go. the energy balance equation on flue gas side is given by: 1 j M g cpg ðT gi. (7): ð4Þ On water/steam side.k Þ P DT min.i  T jso.1  hsi. (4). 3.i Þ ¼ M js cjp.i  T go.i are calculated by Eq.k  hsi.k so. 5.i and Eq.k  T jsi. parameters are unchanged.k . (8).k1 8 < hj so. Correlate equations 4. (9). and the flue gas inlet temperature Tgi.k =Q jk ¼ 1=M js cjp. gas outlet temperature could reach a low level. m M js and (nm) Tgo. and the steps for calculating the (m + n) unknowns are as follow: T gi.3.k ðT jso. 1 6 k 6 sÞ ð6Þ 3. gas outlet temperature is the flue gas outlet temperature of the nth heat exchanger: T g ¼ T go. If Tg is lower than Tacid. (2) The verification of constraints: (a) Temperature difference: DTi would be checked based Tgi. and the outlet temperature of kth heat exchanger is the inlet temperature of (k + 1)th heat exchanger: ( T jso. the slope . the minimum temperature difference is the difference between the flue gas outlet temperature and the feed water temperature under given pressure.i by the equations listed above.k ¼ Pjso. Complementary equations Heat balance calculation results can be obtained based on the equations above. so that complementary equation are increased to verify and validate the results.Pjso. called pinch point temperature difference: (1) Calculation of the initial values (PPTM): T jgo.i  T go.ðiþ1Þ It is assumed that m pinch point temperature differences DT jpp are the minimum temperature difference. when DTi is lower than DTmin.3. M1s could be decreased. in order to make Tg higher than or equal to Tacid.k1 .k Assume is specific heat at constant pressure in each heat exchanger. The minimum value of each heat exchanger temperature difference between the flue gas inlet temperature and water/steam outlet temperature.1  hsi.H. Tacid would constraint Tg.i ¼ T gi. The minimum temperature difference In HRSG.k Þ ð11Þ cjp.pub Þ þ    þ M js ðhso. Feng et al.k . Tg need to be adjusted in step (3b).i Þ ¼ Mjs ðhso.Pj Þ ¼ hj si. on flue gas side. which can be written as:   T jso.k1 ¼ f ðT so.k si. / Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289 DTjpp ¼ T jgo. 1 6 k 6 sÞ ð5Þ j ¼ f ðT jso.B ¼ DT jpp þ T jsatw ð10Þ For m steam outlet temperatures of evaporator and n energy balance equations. otherwise the calculation process would complete.pub Þ þ  þ m Mm s ðhso. For evaporator under each pressure level.kþ1 . Pjsi. On the flue gas side. the inlet temperature of ith heat exchanger is the outlet temperature of (i1)th heat exchanger. Gas outlet temperature Gas outlet temperature should be higher than acid dew point temperature to prevent corrosion of heat exchangers.k Þ ¼ hsi.k .i are calculated. ð1 6 j 6 m. which is shown in step (3a) in detail.i Fig.pub  T go. the inlet temperature of kth heat exchanger is the outlet temperature of (k1)th heat exchanger.k ¼ T jsi. could be set to achieve the maximum steam mass flow rate. the temperature difference between the flue gas inlet temperature and water/steam outlet temperature would be changed with the change of heat exchanger layout.ði1Þ . under jth pressure level.3.2. j j M g cpg ðT gi. otherwise Tg would be checked. if it does not satisfy the constraints. (3) Adjustment of the initial value: (a) The minimum temperature difference (method of iteration): according to the energy balance equations. T go.

As mentioned above.g. Assuming the flue gas to be an ideal gas and the values of cpg the same in different temperature zone. The effects of heat exchangers layout on HRSG efficiency Fig. the slopes of LP heat exchangers all become bigger and the gas outlet temperature increases. mass flow rate. 7 shows the comparative analysis of steam mass flow rate in different pressure levels in three heat exchangers layout. 6. there are little differences between them. thermodynamic performance for dual pressure HRSG based on three different heat exchangers layout are shown in Tables 2–4. Feng et al.1. The effects of heat exchangers layout on HRSG thermodynamic performance Given three examples of dual pressure HRSG based on different heat exchangers layout. 5.) until it meets the demand of constraints. the water/steam temperature and pressure in three examples are the same. while in layout 2 and layout 3 other factors such as the practical factors were considered.) from LP in sequence. heat balance calculation would be a system of linear equations. steam mass flow rates of layout 1 and layout 2 in different pressure levels are nearly the same. . then M jþ1 would be adjusted and the steps are the same as s adjusting Mjsn . Flue gas inlet temperature Gas mass flow rate (Nm3/h) Heat loss (%) Dust content (g/Nm) Flue gas composition (%) CO2 H2O N2 O2 350 1. it has the highest efficiency. DSA would be used for M jsn : MjsD1 ¼ ðM js þ M js2 Þ=2 ð14Þ iii. or decreasing M jsn for certain percent (10% e.286 H. Schematic diagrams of three dual pressure HRSGs are shown in Figs. then:       1 1 j j M g cpg T g1i  T g ¼ M1s hso  hsi þ    Mjs hso  hsi  m m þ    Mm s hso  hsi ð15Þ To ensure the amount of HP Ms. The specific steps of HRSG heat balance calculation are shown in Fig.1. In which the total steam mass flow rate Ms. based on the laws of thermodynamics. and the new steam mass flow rate would be: Mjs2 ¼ ð1—10%ÞMjs ð13Þ ii.5 9 0 0 75. Put into energy balance equations for verification. the layout of heat exchangers in layout 1 adherence to this principle better.1. and by Eq. and temperature difference under 1st pressure level would be changed. If it could not meet the demand to adjust M jsn . and the verification steps are the same as above mentioned.58 5. Flow chart of HRSG heat balance calculation. other steam mass flow rates are calculated by the minimum temperature difference constraint. other parameters of dual pressure HRSG are shown in Table 1. The effects of heat exchangers layout on HRSG steam mass flow rate Fig.1.g. 1a–3a and corresponding T–Q profiles are Figs. assume M 1s is unknown. The efficiency of HRSG is: gHRSG ¼ ðT g1i  T g Þ=ðT g1i  T 0 Þ ð16Þ 5. M 1s could be calculated.42 24. / Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289 of Section 3 becomes bigger and it gets shorter. to get new flue gas inlet temperature. 1b–3b. Table 1 Parameters of a dual pressure HRSG. The reason is because of the principle of cascade utilization of energy. DSA would be used for M jsn : DSA would be used if the results calculated meet the requirement. According to the general model for thermodynamic performance of multi-pressure HRSG based on heat exchangers layout mentioned above. composition of flue gas.000. the steps are given as: i. if the results obtained satisfy the constraints. (16). For given water/steam parameters and Tg. high pressure steam mass flow rate M 1s and low pressure steam mass flow rate M 2s are all different with different heat exchangers layout: dual pressure HRSG with public economizer in layout 3 has the maximum M 1s . the efficiency of layout 2 and layout 3 are nearly the same.000 0. Other parameters are given. if the results obtained satisfy the constraints. 5. (b) The gas outlet temperature (GOTM): In step (2). the gas outlet temperature Tg under layout 1 is the lowest. 8 presents the efficiencies of HRSG in three different heat exchangers layout HRSGs. we first assume Tg is equal to Tacid. Plug the new steam mass flow rate into energy balance equations to get new flue gas inlet temperature. M js calculated in step (1) would be decreased for certain percent (10% e. We can use dichotomous search algorithm to adjust the results. and the small differences of heat efficiency in three different layouts illustrate the parameters would be the main factors for heat efficiency of HRSG. Results and discussion Fig. Tacid would be the constraint when Tg calculated is lower than Tacid. while its M 2s and Ms are the smallest. then verify the constraint. flue gas inlet temperature.2. in Tables 2–4. 6.

2. according to the second law of thermodynamics.06 20.i (°C) Mg (kg/s) Q (kJ/Nm3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 218.4 267 204.24 Table 3 Gas and water/steam properties of HRSG 2.6 218.6 161. The effects of heat exchangers layout on HRSG absorbed heat rate of each heat exchanger Figs. the exergy would not be the limitation.6 19.i (MPa) M js.03 172.1 272.6 176. HE-No.8 156.5 267.i (°C) Tgo.40 35.i (kg/s) Tgi.24 Table 4 Gas and water/steam properties of HRSG 3. The effects of parameters on HRSG thermodynamic performance Except for the effect of heat exchangers layout.5 326.i (°C) P js.2 271.92 11.6 21.72 37. the effect of heat exchangers layout is obvious.8 334.i (°C) Mg (kg/s) Q (kJ/Nm3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 218.8 156.64 154.47 12.5 350 340.01 83.7 176.6 230 213.5 272.6 161.8 218.63 5.6 161.37 0.63 6.i (MPa) M js.19 31.12 Fig. 9–11 depicts absorbed heat rate of each heat exchanger in three different heat exchangers layout HRSGs.1.6 230 213. Fig. the practical conditions should be considered to decide whether the optimization of heat exchangers layout is feasible.75 62.55 0.2 266.i (°C) Tgo.6 218.92 10 22.2 271.37 0.55 0.1 176.4 267 204. we could choose the optimum heat exchangers layout for HRSG to meet the demand of practical production.8 127.53 127. if the gas temperature is high enough.03 171.i (°C) T jso.6 218. in practical application.77 72.83 22. so that heat exchangers layout may not have a significant effect on HRSG thermodynamic performance. Heat efficiency of three different heat exchangers layout.8 110 161.8 129.55 2. HE-No.i (°C) Tgo. 5.67 350 335.i (°C) T jso.8 110 161.03 173.i (kg/s) Tgi.63 83.96 83.61 153.i (°C) Mg (kg/s) Q (kJ/Nm3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 218.16 2. absorbed heat rate would be different in three different heat exchangers layout.16 0. The flue gas temperature in the above example is relatively low.8 2.8 2.7 176.89 12.55 20.1 272.3 205 176.11 154.9 204.i (°C) T jso.36 153.53 169.5 267.6 230 213.33 350 334.06 135.64 12.55 2.2 266.75 62.63 6.i (MPa) M js. Therefore.03 135.72 37. HE-No.30 19.6 161.75 64.1 176.7 176.37 0.8 156. 5.16 2.16 0.75 154.5 326.3 205 340.36 127.8 110 320 218.i (°C) P js.89 12. to decrease the irreversibility of the heat transfer process. to get the same steam. / Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289 Table 2 Gas and water/steam properties of HRSG 1.16 2.5 272. Under .30 21.287 H.16 0.6 218.9 204.14 153. T jsi.76 19. 7.47 19.8 161.89 20.49 12.8 335. T jsi.8 110 320 218.6 320 218.6 161. To match the minimum temperature difference of HRSGs heat exchangers under given water/steam parameters.28 135.06 20. Feng et al.6 161.8 2. T jsi.65 85.i (kg/s) Tgi.77 85.55 2. 8.3.16 2. Therefore. parameter is another key factor on HRSG thermodynamic performance.89 20.i (°C) P js.3 176. Steam mass flow rate in each pressure level of three heat exchangers layout.

Take HP superheated steam pressure and temperature for example. Fig.2. a general model for analyzing the thermodynamic performance of multi-pressure HRSG based on heat exchangers layout is built based on the laws of thermodynamics. 6. hs rises and M 2s decreases by Eqs. and in T–Q profile it is shown as cd becomes longer to c0 d0 . Absorbed heat rate of HRSG 3. which are shown as e0 f0 and j0 k. Feng et al.1. and three different heat exchangers layout of dual pressure HRSGs models are analyzed. feed water pressure and temperature in HRSG. the heat balance calculation results prove that the selection of heat exchangers layout has significant effects on the thermodynamic performance of HRSGs. Q2 decreases for decreasing M 2s . and the slopes of sections ef and jk become bigger. gas mass flow rate. Absorbed heat rate of HRSG 2. In this article. and in T–Q profile it is shown as ij gets shorten to i0 j0 .2. Conclusions Fig. The T–Q profile of the increasing of HP superheated steam pressure. M 1s increases and the slopes of sections ab and gh become smaller. 2 when T 2s increases.288 H. by equations of each heat exchanger and Eq. 5. The effect of HP superheated steam temperature T 2s As presented in Fig. (8). superheated steam pressure and temperature. (1) and (7). (8). so that choosing the optimal layout of HRSGs based on the practice . 5. the quantity of waste heat recovery in flue gas is different. M1s increases and the slopes of sections ab and gh become smaller. (1) and (7). which are shown as a0 b0 and g0 h0 . Q5 increases for increasing M 1s . other parameters are constant. 13. 12. 9. and the slopes of sections ef and jk become bigger. 11. The effect of HP superheated steam pressure P2s As shown in Fig. other parameters remain unchanged. 10. to analyze their effects on HRSG thermodynamic performance. in which the minimum temperature difference of each heat exchanger is introduced to replace the constraint of pinch point temperature difference. Absorbed heat rate of HRSG 1.2. by equations of each heat exchanger and Eq. hs rises and M 2s decreases by Eqs. which are shown as a0 b0 and g0 h0 . / Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289 Fig. which are shown as e0 f0 and j0 k. flue gas composition. 13. when P 2s in2 creases. with the variation of flue gas temperature. Fig. Fig. The T–Q profile of the increasing of HP superheated steam temperature. 12. given HRSG layout.

References [1] Ahmadi P. Hajabdollahi H. 289 [11] Marrero AM. using genetic algorithms.58:149–56. Valdés M. / Energy Conversion and Management 81 (2014) 282–289 requirements will of great significance for waste heat recovery for better energy conservation. [12] Pouraghaie M. Ramkiran G. Feng et al. Energy Convers Manage 2010. Oxford. Almasi A. Dincer I. Kim KJ. Energy 2011.28:1243–54. Energy 2010. [19] Ahmadi P. Muñoz M. [22] Tosun I.H. Modeling. and irreversibility reduction of a dual-pressure reheat combined cycle. [20] Ghazi M. [18] Ahmadi P. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2007.81:127–51. .32:778–94. [5] Butcher CJ.35:5161–72. Appl Therm Eng 2010. Int J Green Energy 2011. An exergy-based multi objective optimization of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) in a combined cycle power plant (CCPP) using evolutionary algorithm. Investigation of effect of variation of cycle parameters on thermodynamic performance of gas-steam combined cycle.45:1807–14. Woudstra T. Exergetic and economic evaluation of the effect of HRSG configurations on the performance of combined cycle power plants. Ahmadi P. Energy Convers Manage 2012. Energy Convers Manage 2011. 1st ed. Bagheri M. Kaviri AG. [13] Casarosa C. Energy Convers Manage 2010. numerical optimization. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2002. The thermodynamics of phase and reaction equilibria. Reddy BV. Donatini F. [17] Mohagheghi M. In the following work. Optimization of heat recovery steam generators for combined cycle gas turbine power plants. Modeling.52:1840–9.50:2355–63. Second law analysis and optimization of a combined triple power cycle. Influence of the heat recovery steam generator design parameters on the thermoeconomic performances of combined cycle gas turbine power plants. Bahrampoury R. and irreversibility reduction of a triple-pressure reheat combined cycle. Thermodynamic optimization of design variables and heat exchangers layout in HRSGs for CCGT. Thermoeconomic optimization of heat recovery steam generators operating parameters for combined plants. Appl Therm Eng 2009. Rapun JL. Appl Energy 2005. Besarati SM. Shayegan J. Rovira A. van der Stelt T. 2013.36:157–67.58:47–58. [2] Bassily AM.29:290–9. Sotoodeh AF. numerical optimization. Duran MD. [16] Tajik Mansouri M. [6] Valdes M. Rovira A. Int J Energy Res 2004. Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic optimization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with a supplementary firing unit. [7] Valdes M. Ahmadi P. Sánchez C.23:2169–82. Thermodynamic performance optimization of a combined power/cooling cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2012. Thermoeconomic optimization of combined cycle gas turbine power plants.51(1):204–11. Int J Energy Res 2012. Atashkari K. Nag PK. Thermodynamic evaluation of combined cycle plants.30:2378–85. Energy 2004. Shahriyari M. Pirone A.21:1149–59.51:1099–110. Energy 2007. Thermoeconomic optimization of heat recovery steam generators of combined cycle gas turbine power plants considering off-design operation. Franco A. Durán MD. [3] Bassily AM. Energy Convers Manage 2011. Second law analysis of a waste heat recovery steam generator. Appl Therm Eng 2003. Lefsaker AR. Duran MD. and the genetic algorithm could be used to find the optimum solution of the whole system to save more energy. parameters and layout could be considered together. [8] Valdes M.8:44–64. [14] Ahmadi P.36:46–63. Multi-objective optimization of a combined heat and power (CHP) system for heating purpose in a paper mill using evolutionary algorithm. Second law analysis of a waste heat recovery based power generation system. Appl Therm Eng 2001. Dincer I. Energy Convers Manage 2002.52(5):2296–308. [21] Behbahani-nia A.29(3):389–414. Dincer I. [4] Reddy BV. [10] Woudstra N. Dincer I.43(4):557–73. Kumar KA. [9] Sanjay. using genetic algorithm. Mohd Jaafar MN. Exergoenvironmental analysis and optimization of a cogeneration plant system using multimodal genetic algorithm (MGA). Taherkhani A. [15] Rovira A. Nariman-zadeh N. Optimization of fire tube heat recovery steam generators for cogeneration plants through genetic algorithm. Modeling and thermoeconomic optimization of heat recovery heat exchangers using a multimodal genetic algorithm.