Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Efficiency improvement of thermal power plants through specific entropy T

generation
Y. Haseli
School of Engineering and Technology, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48858, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Numerous studies have indicated that when neither the rate of heat input nor the power output in a thermal
Thermal efficiency power plant is treated as a fixed parameter, minimizing the entropy generation does not lead to an improved
Entropy generation thermal efficiency. This article presents a unified approach to resolve this issue by introducing specific entropy
Gas turbine cycle generation defined as the total entropy generation rate per unit flowrate of the fuel. A regenerative gas turbine
Thermodynamic modeling
and a combined cycle power plants are chosen for the purpose of discussion. It is found that the thermal effi-
Combined cycle power plant
ciency inversely correlates with specific entropy generation, and minimization of specific entropy generation is
identical to maximization of thermal efficiency. An illustrative example is presented to show how specific en-
tropy generation can be applied to improve the efficiency of an integrated cycle. The results reveal that 85% of
the inefficiencies of the combined cycle studied takes place in the gas turbine cycle. Recovering the thermal
energy of the flue gases for both preheating the air and producing the steam within heat recovery steam gen-
erator yields 3.5 percentage points more efficiency than the case in which the heat of flue gases is only recovered
for producing steam. With this modification, minimum specific entropy generation is dropped from 1489 to 1391
(J/K·mole fuel).

1. Introduction Haseli [5,6] investigated the operation of various configurations of

Entropy-based analysis is used as a tool to identify inefficiencies,
measured in terms of entropy generation or exergy destruction, in
power generating systems. There has been arguments in the scientific
literature whether minimizing the entropy generation may lead to a
maximum thermal efficiency in a heat-power converting device. In
1975, Leff and Jones [1] investigated possibility of any relation be-
tween the thermal efficiency and entropy generation in an irreversible
engine. They argued that unless the heat input to the engine or the heat
rejected by the engine is fixed, an increase in the thermal efficiency of
an irreversible heat engine would not necessarily lead to a decrease in
its entropy generation.
In 1996, Bejan [2,3] presented models of power plants that would
operate at maximum power while producing minimum entropy gen-
eration rate. The heat input to the heat engines examined by Bejan was
explicitly assumed constant. Argued by Bejan was that to accurately
determine the rate of total entropy generation associated with the op-
eration of a power plant, one must also account for the entropy gen-
eration term due to the heat rejected by the engine to the surrounding
environment. Salamon et al. [4] discussed that maximum power output
and minimum entropy generation rate may become equivalent under
certain design conditions.
Brayton cycle at the condition of minimum entropy generation and
found that for the case of fixed heat input, maximum thermal efficiency,
maximum work output and minimum entropy generation are coin-
cident. Further, for the case of fixed work output, minimization of en-
tropy generation rate is identical to maximization of thermal efficiency.
On the other hand, for an endoreversible power cycle experiencing only
the external irreversibilities due to the heat transfer processes to and
from the cycle, the thermal efficiency inversely correlates with entropy
generation irrespective of whether heat input or power output is fixed
[7]. Haseli [8] has also shown that minimization of entropy generation
in irreversible standard thermodynamic cycles is neither equivalent to
maximization of thermal efficiency, nor to maximizing the work output.
Cheng and Liang [9] investigated the entropy generation rate of a
one-stream heat exchanger network (HEN) with the Carnot engines.
They found that the minimum entropy generation rate corresponds to
the maximum power output from the one-stream HEN when the heat
capacity flow rate and the inlet temperature of the hot stream were
fixed. Sun et al. [10] analyzed a reheat Rankine cycle and a single-stage
steam extraction regenerative Rankine cycle by optimizing the oper-
ating conditions at varying steam mass flow rate, the combustion
temperature and the flow rate of the flue gas. The results indicated that
the minimum exergy destruction rate would lead to a maximum output

E-mail address: hasel1y@cmich.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.01.001
Received 9 July 2017; Received in revised form 24 December 2017; Accepted 1 January 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Haseli
Nomenclature
cp specific heat, J/mol·K
h enthalpy, J/mol
H enthalpy per mole of fuel, J/mol fuel
HV heating value, J/mol
k specific heat ratio
n molar flowrate, mol/s
p pressure, Pa
QL rate of heat rejected per unit molar flowrate of fuel, J/mol
fuel
R universal gas constant, J/mol·K
s specific entropy, J/mol·K
S entropy per unit molar flowrate of fuel, J/K·mol fuel
SEG specific entropy generation, J/K·mol fuel
T temperature, K
TIT turbine inlet temperature, K
power if the combustion temperature and heat capacity flow rate of the
flue gas were fixed.
Feidt et al. [11] presented models of the irreversible Carnot engine
with finite heat transfer areas and speed of the engine through the
entropy ratio method of irreversibility and the method of entropy
production rate. Their results showed that the maximum power output
of the engine did not systematically correspond to the minimum en-
tropy production rate. Li et al. [12] calculated the thermal efficiency,
power output and the rate of entropy generation for an Organic Rankine
Cycle. They concluded that minimizing the entropy generation rate did
neither correspond to maximum thermal efficiency, nor to maximum
power output. Zhou et al. [13] reports that the minimum entropy
generation rate corresponds to the maximum output power in a closed
Brayton cycle if the inlet conditions of the hot and cold streams are
fixed.
Klein and Reindl [14] investigated minimum entropy generation
rate for a refrigeration cycle using a vapor compression cycle model.
They found that minimizing the entropy generation rate does not al-
ways result in the same design as maximizing the COP of the re-
frigeration cycle unless the refrigeration capacity is fixed. Cheng and
Liang [15] analyzed a refrigeration cycle and reported that minimiza-
tion of entropy generation could lead to a maximum coefficient of
performance (COP) if the temperature of heat source is fixed.
It can be concluded from the above survey that a reduction in the
entropy generation rate in an irreversible power cycle does not always
lead to an increase in thermal efficiency unless either the rate of heat
input or the net power output is kept constant. In practice, a power
plant is designed and constructed to meet a certain power requirement.
In this case (fixed power output), a design based on minimum entropy
generation rate would lead to exactly a design that corresponds to
maximum thermal efficiency. We will get back to this case latter in
Section 4. However, if the power output is unknown and treated as a
varying parameter, for instance, when investigating the feasibility of a
new integrated system, minimization of entropy generation rate may
not lead to a maximum thermal efficiency. This will be demonstrated in
Section 4.
This article presents a unified approach to show how an entropy-
based analysis should be performed to gain useful information for de-
sign purposes even when the rate of heat input or the power output is
not a fixed parameter in thermal power plants. It is important to realize
that the combustion of fuel is the major driver to operate a heat engine
such as steam and gas turbine power plants. So, it is also appropriate to
systematically account for the amount of fuel burnt when applying an
entropy analysis. Conventionally, the entropy generation in a power
cycle is calculated regardless of how much fuel is consumed. In contrast
to the previous works on this subjects; e.g. [5,9,15], the present article
110
Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120
W power per unit molar flowrate of fuel, J/mol fuel
y mole fraction
Greek letter
ε heat exchanger effectiveness
η efficiency
λ stoichiometric coefficient
Subscripts
c compressor
cc combined cycle
com combustor
g combustion gases
t turbine
th thermal
will take into account the overall combustion reaction of fuel.
It is proposed to compute the rate of entropy generation per unit
flowrate of fuel, which will be called specific entropy generation (SEG)
throughout this article. As the gas turbine and combined cycle power
plants are popular means of power generation, the specific entropy
generation will be determined for a regenerative gas turbine cycle and a
combined steam/gas turbine power plant. Both of these power cycles
have received tremendous attention from the scientific community and
many articles have been published on the performance modeling of
these power generating systems.
For instance, Sánchez-Orgaz et al. [16] developed a model for a
multi-step regenerative Brayton cycle with reheating and intercooling
intermediate processes. They have also presented a multi-objective and
multi-parametric optimization analysis for a recuperative multi-step
solar-driven Brayton thermo-solar plant [17]. Cao et al. [18] in-
vestigated the optimum design and thermodynamic performance of a
gas turbine and organic Rankine combined cycle. Polyzakis et al. [19]
investigated various configurations of a gas turbine cycle combined
with a steam power plant. Adams and Mac Dowell [20] presented a
detailed model of a 420 MW combined cycle power plant integrated
with an amine based carbon dioxide capture and storage.
Unlike past studies, this article does not intent to present a con-
ventional thermodynamic analysis to determine the efficiency and
power output. Rather, the objective is to show how a specific entropy
generation analysis can be useful to enhance the overall thermal effi-
ciency when neither the power output nor the rate of heat input is
treated as a fixed parameter. Following the work of Bejan [2,3], the
entropy generation due to the rejection of heat from the power plants
will be accounted for in the calculation of the total entropy generation
rate.
2. A regenerative gas turbine power cycle
A schematic of a regenerative gas turbine power cycle is depicted in
Fig. 1. It consists of a compressor, a heat exchanger, a combustor, and a
turbine. Air consisting of 21% oxygen and 79% nitrogen (mole basis) is
supplied form the ambient. The combustion gases are assumed to
consist of carbon dioxide, steam, oxygen and nitrogen. For simplicity of
the analysis, the pressure drop on the path of the working fluid is ne-
glected and all gaseous species are treated like ideal gases.
2.1. Thermodynamic analysis
The thermodynamic analysis will be performed per unit molar
flowrate of the fuel assumed to be methane in this work. Within the
combustor, methane is burnt in air according to the following reaction.
Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

The flue gases existing the heat exchanger are discharged to the
ambient.
The hot combustion products leaving the combustor are expanded
within the turbine to the ambient pressure; i.e. p5 = p1. The tempera-
ture at the outlet of the turbine is determined as [5,21]
kt − 1
⎡ p kt ⎤
T5 = T4−T4 ηt ⎢−⎛⎜ 5 ⎞⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎝ p4 ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (13)
where
Fig. 1. Schematic of a regenerative gas turbine cycle. kt = cp,g /(cp,g−R) (14)

CH 4 + λ (O2 + 3.76N2) → CO2 + 2H2 O+ (λ−2)O2 + 3.76λ N2 (1)
It is assumed that the fuel enters the combustor at the same pressure
and temperature of air. The combustion products comprising carbon
dioxide, steam, oxygen and nitrogen leave the combustor at T4, which is
the turbine inlet temperature (TIT). The molar flowrate of the air re-
quired per unit molar flowrate of fuel is obtained by applying a con-
servation of energy to the combustor. Hence,
cp,g = ∑ yi cp,i i = CO2, H2 O, O2, N2 (15)
Also, ηt is the isentropic efficiency of the turbine, and yi denotes the
mole fraction of component i in the combustion gases.
The turbine power production and the entropy generation due to the
expansion process are obtained using Eqs. (16) and (17), respectively.
Wt = [hCO2 + 2h H2O + (λ−2) hO2 + 3.76λh N2 ]4

hCH4 + λh3,O2 + 3.76λh3,N2 = h4,CO2 + 2h4,H2O + (λ−2) h4,O2 + 3.76λh4,N2 −[hCO2 + 2hH2O + (λ−2) hO2 + 3.76λh N2 ]5 (16)

(2) St = [sCO2 + 2sH2O + (λ−2) sO2 + 3.76λsN2 ]5

nair = 4.76λ (3) −[sCO2 + 2sH2O + (λ−2) sO2 + 3.76λsN2 ]4 (17)
The entropy generation due to the combustion process is
The net power output of the cycle per unit molar flowrate of the fuel
Scom = [sCO2 + 2sH2O + (λ−2) sO2 + 3.76λsN2 ]4 −(sCH4 + λs3,O2 + 3.76λs3,N2) is
(4) Wnet = Wt −Wc (18)
The air temperature at the outlet of the compressor is determined by Thus, the thermal efficiency of the cycle is obtained as
[5,21]
Wnet
kc − 1 ηth =
HV (19)
T ⎡ p kc ⎤
T2 = T1 + 1 ⎢ ⎛⎜ 2 ⎞⎟ −1⎥
ηc ⎢ ⎝ p1 ⎠ ⎥ where HV denotes the heating value of methane.
⎣ ⎦ (5) The entropy generation due to the combustion, compression, heat
where kc = cp,c /(cp,c−R) , cp,c is the average specific heat of the air across transfer and expansion processes are described by Eqs. (4), (7), (11) and
the compressor, R is the universal gas constant, and ηc is the isentropic (17), respectively. According to the arguments of Bejan [2,3], we need
efficiency of the compressor. to also account for the entropy generation term due to the cooling of the
The power requirement of the compressor is obtained as flue gases after they are dumped to the ambient. The amount of heat
rejected by the cycle to the ambient is determined by
Wc = (λhO2 + 3.76λh N2 )2−(λhO2 + 3.76λh N2 )1 (6)
QL = HV −Wnet (20)
The entropy generation due to the compression process is
Thus, the entropy generation due to the cooling process of the flue
Sc = (λsO2 + 3.76λsN2 )2−(λsO2 + 3.76λsN2 )1 (7) gases from temperature T6 to the ambient temperature is
The pressurized air is preheated in the heat exchanger by recovering QL
SL = + S7−S6
a portion of the thermal energy of the exhaust flue gases leaving the T1 (21)
turbine. So, the conservation of energy for the heat exchanger is written
as where S7 denotes the entropy of the combustion gases at ambient
temperature and pressure; i.e., T1 and P1, which can be determined
H3−H2 = H5−H6 (8) using Eq. (12) with j = 1.
where Because the entropy generation terms in Eqs. (4), (7), (11), (17) and
(21) are calculated per unit molar flowrate of the fuel, the specific
Hj = [hCO2 + 2hH2O + (λ−2) hO2 + 3.76λh N2 ]j j = 5,6 (9) entropy generation of the cycle may now be computed by simply
The effectiveness of the heat exchanger defined as summing these terms. Hence,
H3−H2 SEGRGT = Sc + Sh + Scom + St + SL (22)
∊=
H5−H2 (10) where SEGRGT denotes the specific entropy generation of the re-
relates the enthalpies of the air at states 2 and 3 to the enthalpy of the generative gas turbine cycle. Note that the unit of each term on the
flue gases at state 5. right-hand-side of Eq. (22) is J/K·mol fuel.
The entropy generation due to the heat transfer process in the heat
exchanger is determined as 2.2. Numerical results
Sh = (S3−S2) + (S6−S5) (11)
Let us assume that T1 = 300 K and p1 = 101.3 kPa, ηc = 0.8, ε = 0.8
where and ηt = 0.9. The objective is to determine the optimum pressure ratio
(PR) of the cycle by maximizing the thermal efficiency, Eq. (19), and
Sj = [sCO2 + 2sH2O + (λ−2) sO2 + 3.76λsN2 ]j j = 5,6 (12)
minimizing the specific entropy generation, Eq. (22).

111
Y. Haseli
0.45
1373 K
0.4
1273 K
1173 K
η th
0.35
0.3
0.25
1 3 5 7
PR
Fig. 2 shows the variation of the thermal efficiency and specific
entropy generation with the pressure ratio (p2/p1) at three different
values of TIT. The thermal efficiency attains its maxima at PR = 4.8 for
TIT = 1373 K. On the other hand, the specific entropy generation
reaches its minima at the same pressure ratio of 4.8. The maximum
thermal efficiency and minimum specific entropy generation at
PR = 4.8 are ηth = 0.428 and SEGRGT = 1566 J/K·mol fuel. As shown in
Fig. 2, the maximum thermal efficiency and the minimum specific en-
tropy generation are also coincident at TIT = 1273 K and TIT = 1173 K.
The optimization with respect to either thermal efficiency or specific
entropy generation leads to PR = 4.4 and PR = 3.8 when TIT is 1273 K
and 1173 K, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the optimization results.
It is obvious from Fig. 2 and Table 1 that a higher TIT yields a higher
thermal efficiency but a lower specific entropy generation.
Fig. 3 depicts the thermal efficiency and the specific entropy gen-
eration of the cycle versus the pressure ratio for three different values of
the heat exchanger effectiveness at TIT = 1200 K. Similar to the graphs
in Fig. 2, an inverse relation between the thermal efficiency and the
specific entropy generation is evident in Fig. 3. A higher effectiveness of
the heat exchanger leads to a higher thermal efficiency and a lower
specific entropy generation. The maximum thermal efficiency and the
minimum specific entropy generation take place at the same pressure
ratio for each value of the effectiveness. The numerical values of the
optimum pressure ratio and the corresponding maximum thermal effi-
ciency and minimum specific entropy generation are given in Table 2.
The main conclusion is that the thermal efficiency correlates inversely
with the specific entropy generation.
Fig. 4 represents the contribution of each irreversible process to the
specific entropy generation at optimum pressure ratio when
TIT = 1200 K and ε = 0.8. The combustion process is the main con-
tributor to the entropy generation, a well-known fact noted in past
studies [22–24], followed by the cooling of the flue gases and
Table 1
The maximum thermal efficiency and minimum specific entropy generation obtained
with respect to the pressure ratio at three turbine inlet temperatures.
TIT [K] 1373 1273 1173
Optimum PR 4.8 4.4 3.8
ηth 0.428 0.405 0.38
SEGRGT [J/K·mol fuel] 1566 1633 1707
112
Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120
2050 Fig. 2. Thermal efficiency (black lines) and specific
entropy generation (blue lines) of the regenerative
gas turbine cycle versus the pressure ratio (p2/p1) at
three different turbine inlet temperatures. (For in-
terpretation of the references to color in this figure
1950
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
SEG RGT [J/K.mole fuel]
this article.)
1850
1750
1650
1550
9 11
compression processes. As discussed by Petrakopoulou et al. [24] and
Cziesla et al. [25] some portion of the irreversibilities and thus the
entropy generation due to various processes is unavoidable because of
technological and economic constraints. For instance, one way to de-
crease the combustion-related portion of the specific entropy genera-
tion is to increase TIT; see Fig. 2 and Table 1. However, due to the
limited durability of the turbines blades at higher temperatures, TIT can
not be increased beyond a certain temperature.
3. A combined gas/steam turbine power cycle
We now extend the analysis presented in Section 2 for a combined
gas/steam turbine power cycle as schematically shown in Fig. 5. It
consists of a gas turbine cycle, and a steam cycle with a deaerator as the
bottoming cycle. The flue gases leaving the gas turbine (state 4) are
directed to a heat recovery stream generator (HRSG) where incoming
pressurized preheated water (state 9) is superheated to state 10. The
flue gases are then discharged to the ambient.
To preheat the water before entering the HRSG, steam is extracted
from the steam turbine (state 11), which is mixed with the water (state
7) in the deaerator. As seen in Fig. 5, two pumps are used in the steam
cycle. The condensate pump (CP) located downstream of the condenser
pressurizes the condensate to the steam extraction pressure; i.e.
p7 = p11. The second pump, feed pump (FP), further increases the
pressure of the preheated water leaving the deaerator to 3 MPa.
The steam leaving the last stage of the steam turbine (state 12) is
condensed at a constant pressure within the condenser. The con-
densation heat is then transferred to the cooling water, which after
cooling to a desired temperature is recirculated to the condenser. In
fact, the cooling water is a medium between the condenser and the
ambient. It first absorbs the condensation heat and then rejects it to the
ambient.
3.1. Thermodynamic analysis
For simplicity of the analysis, the pressure drop is neglected on the
path of the working fluid. The thermodynamic analysis is only focused
on the components of the steam cycle since we have previously dis-
cussed the thermodynamic modeling of the compressor, combustor and
the gas turbine in Section 2. Table 3 provides the equations for the
conservation of energy and entropy generation per unit molar flowrate
of the fuel burnt in the combustor for the components of the steam
cycle. In Table 3, ncw denotes the flowrate of the cooling water required
Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

0.46 2200 Fig. 3. Thermal efficiency (black lines) and specific

entropy generation (blue lines) of the regenerative gas
turbine cycle versus the pressure ratio at three dif-
0.9 2100 ferent values of the heat exchanger effectiveness
0.41 (TIT = 1200 K). (For interpretation of the references
to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
0.8

SEG RGT [J/K.mole fuel]

2000 the web version of this article.)
0.36 0.7
1900
η th

0.31
1800

0.26
1700

0.21
1600

0.16 1500
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PR

Table 2 To accurately compute the total entropy generation of the combined

The maximum thermal efficiency and minimum specific entropy generation obtained
with respect to the pressure ratio at three values of the heat exchanger effectiveness
(TIT = 1200 K).
ε 0.7 0.8
cycle, we need to account for the irreversible processes due to the re-
jecting the heat from the power cycle to the ambient through the flue
gases and the cooling water, denoted by Qg,L and Qc,L, respectively; see
0.9 Fig. 5.

Optimum PR 5 4.1 2.9 Qc,L = n6 (h12−h6) (25)

ηth 0.355 0.387 0.44
SEGRGT [J/K·mol fuel] 1774 1686 1541 Qg,L = HV −Wnet,cc−Qc,L (26)
The entropy generation due to rejecting the condensation heat by
1,000 the cooling water to the environment is determined as
Qc,L
Sc,L = + ncw (scw,in−scw,out )
T1 (27)
Entropy generation [J/K.mol]

800
Likewise, discharging the heat of the flue gases to the environment
generates entropy. Hence,
600
Qg,L
Sg,L = + S13−S5
T1 (28)
400
where S13 is the entropy of the flue gases at ambient pressure and
temperature.
200 As the entropy generation due to the different processes discussed
above is described per unit molar flowrate of the fuel, the specific en-
tropy generation of the combined cycle is obtained as
0
Compressor Heat Combustor Turbine Flue gases
SEGcc = (Sc + Scom + St ) + (SHRSG + Sst + Scon + Sdea + Scp + Sfp)
exchanger cooling + (Sg,L + Sc,L) (29)
Fig. 4. Illustration of how the specific entropy generation at optimum design point
(PR = 4.1) is distributed throughout the gas turbine cycle of Fig. 1 (TIT = 1200 K,
ε = 0.8). 3.2. Typical results

The operating parameters of the combined cycle are given in

to condense the steam existing the last stage of the turbine. Also, the Table 4. The objective is to find the optimum pressure ratio across the
isentropic efficiencies of the condensate and feed pumps are denoted by compressor (p2/p1) and the optimum steam extraction pressure (p11) at
ηcp and ηfp, respectively. Note that the mass conservation requires maximum thermal efficiency and minimum specific entropy generation.
n8 = n9 = n10, n6 = n7 = n12, and n10 = n11 + n12. The variation of the thermal efficiency and the specific entropy
The net power output of the combined cycle per unit molar flowrate generation of the combined cycle versus the compressor pressure ratio
of the fuel burnt is determined as follows. is depicted in Fig. 6 assuming that the steam extraction pressure is
600 kPa. The thermal efficiency peaks at the pressure ratio of 9.6 at
Wnet ,cc = (Wt −Wc ) + (Wst −Wcp−Wfp) (23)
which the specific entropy generation reaches its minimum value. At
Thus, the thermal efficiency of the cycle is obtained by this pressure ratio, the maximum thermal efficiency is 0.46, and the
minimum specific entropy generation is 1490 J/K. mol fuel.
Wnet,cc
ηth,cc = Taking the pressure ratio of 9.6 as the design value, the effect of the
HV (24)
steam extraction pressure on the thermal efficiency and the specific

113
Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

Fig. 5. Schematic of a combined gas/steam turbine

power cycle.

entropy generation is investigated. As shown in Fig. 7, there exists an
optimum extraction pressure which maximizes the thermal efficiency
and minimizes the specific entropy generation. This optimum pressure
happens at 416 kPa, at which the thermal efficiency is 0.465 and the
specific entropy generation is 1489 J/K·mol fuel.
Fig. 8 depicts the effect of the gas turbine inlet temperature on the
thermal efficiency and the specific entropy generation at the optimum
values of the pressure ratio and extraction pressure. A higher turbine
inlet temperature boosts the thermal efficiency and reduces the specific
entropy generation. The conclusion from Figs. 6–8 is that a design on
the basis of maximum thermal efficiency is identical to that based on
minimum specific entropy generation, and that the thermal efficiency
correlates inversely with the specific entropy generation. We reached
the same conclusion in Section 2 for the regenerative gas turbine power
cycle.
The contribution of each irreversible process to the specific entropy
generation at the optimum pressure ratio and optimum extraction
pressure is illustrated in Fig. 9. The largest source of the specific en-
tropy generation is the combustion process followed by the compressor
and the gas turbine. The entropy generation of the pumps are com-
paratively negligible so they are excluded in Fig. 9. The share of the gas
turbine cycle and the steam cycle to the specific entropy generation at
the design point is 85% and 15%, respectively.
3.3. Design improvement
The results in Fig. 9 reveal that the components of the gas turbine
cycle significantly contribute to the specific entropy generation com-
pared to those of the steam cycle. Thus, in order to improve the effi-
ciency of the combined cycle, one must focus on enhancing the design
of the topping cycle. For example, a higher turbine inlet temperature
could boost the thermal efficiency of the combined cycle (see Fig. 8).

Table 3
The energy and entropy balance equations for the components of the steam cycle.

Component Energy conservation Entropy generation rate

HRSG H4−H5 = n10 (h10−h9) SHRSG = (S5−S4 ) + n10 (s10−s9)

Steam turbine Wst = n10 h10−n11 h11−n12 h12 Sst = n11 s11 + n12 s12−n10 s10
Deaerator n11 h11 + n7 h7 = n8 h8 Sdea = n8 s8−n7 s7−n11 s11
Condenser n6 (h12−h6) = ncw (hcw,out −hcw,in) Scon = n6 (s6−s12) + ncw (scw,out −scw,in)
Condensate pump Wcp = n6 v6 (p7 −p6 )/ ηcp Scp = n6 (s7−s6 )
Feed pump Wfp = n8 v8 (p9 −p8 )/ ηcp Sfp = n8 (s9−s8) )

114
Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

Table 4 the combined cycles of Figs. 5 and 10 are compared in Table 5.

The operating parameters of the combined cycle used in the numerical analysis. The results suggest that recovering the thermal energy of the ex-
haust gases is more efficient in the modified cycle than the original
Parameter Quantity
design shown in Fig. 5. The modified cycle produces 28.1 kW more
Gas cycle power per unit molar flowrate of the fuel, and its efficiency is 3.5
Ambient temperature, T1 300 K percentage points higher than the original design. Table 5 reveals that
Ambient pressure, p1 101.3 kPa
the power output of the topping cycle is higher whereas that of the
Gas turbine inlet temperature, T3 1200 K
Compressor isentropic efficiency ηc 0.80 bottoming steam cycle is lower in the modified design compared to the
Gas turbine isentropic efficiency, ηt 0.90 original design. It can be concluded that the capital cost of the topping
Steam cycle
cycle (bottoming cycle) of the modified design will be higher (lower)
Steam turbine inlet pressure, p10 3 MPa than that in the original design.
Steam turbine inlet temperature, T10 673 K
Condenser pressure, p6 10 kPa
4. Discussion
Cooling water inlet temperature, Tcw,in 310 K
Cooling water outlet temperature, Tcw,out 320 K
Exhaust temperature of flue gases, T5 400 K Two important issues surrounding the entropy-based analysis of
Steam turbine isentropic efficiency, ηst 0.88 power plants need to be addressed. First, conventionally, the entropy
Condensate pump isentropic efficiency, ηcp 0.65 generation due to the rejection of heat by a power cycle is overlooked in
Feed pump isentropic efficiency, ηfp 0.65
many past studies. Despite Bejan [2,3] addressed this issue over two
decades ago, many studies only account for the entropy generation
However, as discussed previously, turbine inlet temperature is con- associated with the operation of the components of a power plant. If we
strained due to the limited durability of the turbine blades. Improving had ignored the entropy generation terms due to the heat rejection in
the isentropic efficiencies of the compressor and the gas turbine can the thermodynamic analysis presented in Sections 2 and 3, the max-
alternatively enhance the overall thermal efficiency. imum thermal efficiency and the minimum specific entropy generation
A further approach is to alter the design of the combined cycle by would not coincide. Second, if the total entropy generation rate is
including a heat exchanger between the gas turbine and HRSG to pre- calculated per unit molar flowrate of the air, the maximum thermal
heat the air before entering the combustor; see Fig. 10. In this case, the efficiency design will be different from that of the minimum entropy
thermal energy of the flue gases is not only recovered within the HRSG generation.
but also in the heat exchanger. Assuming PR = 9.6 and that the tem- To clarify the latter issue, an illustrative example is presented in
perature of the flue gases at the outlet of HRSG in Fig. 10 is the same as Fig. 12 which compares the specific entropy generation and the total
in Fig. 5 (see Table 4), a thermal efficiency of 0.486 is calculated for the entropy generation per unit molar flowrate of the air (Sgen) at varying
modified combined cycle of Fig. 10. So, the heat recovery from the flue compressor pressure ratio for the power cycles of Figs. 1 and 5. It was
gases to preheat air and to produce steam yields 2 percentage points shown in Sections 2 and 3 that there exists a pressure ratio which
higher efficiency compared to the case that the thermal energy is re- minimizes the specific entropy generation at which the thermal effi-
covered only in HRSG. ciency attains its maxima. However, as seen in Fig. 12, the total entropy
Calculations show that the thermal efficiency can further be im- generation per unit molar flowrate of the air monotonically declines for
proved by reducing the pressure ratio; see Fig. 11. On the other hand, the combined cycle, whereas it increases for the gas turbine cycle as the
the temperature difference between the steam and the flue gases, i.e. pressure ratio increases.
ΔT = T6 − T12, decreases as the pressure ratio reduces. So, the com- In many practical applications, a power plant is designed and con-
pressor pressure ratio is constrained by ΔT as depicted in Fig. 11. As an structed to meet a certain electrical power requirement. As discussed in
example, taking ΔT = 20 K as a design constraint, Fig. 11 gives a detail elsewhere [6], for the case of fixed power output, maximization
pressure ratio of 8 at which the thermal efficiency of the combined of thermal efficiency is equivalent to minimization of entropy genera-
cycle is 0.50. The performance and some of the operating parameters of tion rate. For further clarification, assume that a power output of 1 MW
is required. In this case, we can calculate the rate of total entropy

0.47 1850 Fig. 6. Thermal efficiency (black line) and specific

entropy generation (blue line) of the combined cycle
p11 = 600 kPa versus the compressor pressure ratio (p2/p1). (For in-
terpretation of the references to color in this figure
0.45 legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
1750
SEG cc [J/K.mole fuel]

0.43

0.41
ηcc

1650

0.39
1550
0.37

0.35 1450
0 5 10 15 20 25
PR

115
Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

0.466 1525 Fig. 7. Thermal efficiency (black line) and specific

entropy generation (blue line) of the combined cycle
PR = 9.6 versus the steam extraction pressure. (For inter-
0.464 pretation of the references to color in this figure le-
gend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
1515
0.462

SEG cc [J/K.mole fuel]

0.46
ηcc

1505
0.458

0.456
1495

0.454

0.452 1485
0 500 1000 1500 2000
p11 [kPa]

0.5 1700 Fig. 8. The effect of the gas turbine inlet temperature
on the thermal efficiency (black line) and the specific
PR = 9.6, p11 = 416 kPa entropy generation (blue line) of the combined cycle.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this
1650 figure legend, the reader is referred to the web ver-
0.48
sion of this article.)

SEG cc [J/K.mole fuel]

1600
0.46
ηcc

1550

0.44
1500

0.42
1450

0.4 1400
1023 1073 1123 1173 1223 1273 1323
T3 [K]

generation associated with the operations of the power cycles of Figs. 1 1,000
and 5. Fig. 13 shows the trends of the SEG and total entropy generation
Entropy generation [J/K.mol]

rate varying with the pressure ratio for both the regenerative gas tur- 800
bine and combined cycles. From Fig. 13, it is evident that the minimum
entropy generation rate occurs at exactly the same pressure ratio at
600
which the SEG is minimized. In other words, as the power output is
fixed (i.e., 1 MW), minimizing the entropy generation rate and max-
imizing the thermal efficiency lead to an identical optimum pressure 400
ratio.
As discussed in Section 1, minimizing the entropy generation rate 200
does not necessarily lead to maximum thermal efficiency if both the
power output and the heat input are allowed to vary. An illustrative
example is shown in Fig. 14 in which the results are obtained by as- 0
suming a constant mass flowrate of 1 kg/s for the air in the power cycles
of Figs. 1 and 5. It can be readily observed that a reduction in the en-
tropy generation rate does not always correspond to an increase in the
thermal efficiency. The entropy generation rate monotonically in-
Fig. 9. Illustration of how specific entropy generation at optimum design point
creases for the regenerative gas turbine cycle whereas it decreases for
(PR = 9.6, p11 = 416 kPa) is distributed throughout the combined cycle of Fig. 5.

116
Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

Fig. 10. The modified layout of the combined gas/steam turbine power cycle.

0.51 60 Fig. 11. Variation of the thermal efficiency (black

line) and the temperature difference (blue line) of the
modified combined cycle (Fig. 10) versus the com-
0.505 pressor pressure ratio. (For interpretation of the re-
50 ferences to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
0.5
40
T 6 - T12 [K]

0.495
ηth

30
0.49

20
0.485

10
0.48

0.475 0
6 7 8 9 10 11
PR

117
 Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

Table 5 this case, the chemical energy of the fuel is not fully released and the
Performance comparison of the combined cycles of Fig. 5 and Fig. 10. work output of the cycle per unit mole of the fuel will be lower com-
pared to the case when the fuel is completely combusted.
Parameter Combined cycle Modified combined cycle
Although the case of incomplete combustion may happen in a power
Pressure ratio 9.6 9.6 8.0 plant after being operated for a period of time, it should be noted that
Steam extraction pressure [kPa] 416 416 416 during the design stage of a power plant a complete combustion of fuel
HRSG inlet temperature [K] 750.6 665.8 644.7
is assumed by considering an excess air well-above the theoretical
Steam temperature [K] 673 623 623
Specific entropy generation [J/ 1489 1430 1391 stoichiometric air [20]. The results support the conclusion that a design
K·mole fuel] based on maximum thermal efficiency is equivalent to that obtained by
Efficiency of combined cycle 0.465 0.486 0.50 minimization of SEG. The effect of incomplete combustion on the per-
Efficiency of topping cycle 0.278 0.325 0.347 formance and entropy generation of thermal power plants may be in-
Efficiency of bottoming cycle 0.322 0.315 0.315
vestigated in a future study.
Power output [kW/mole fuel/s] 373.4 390.4 401.5
Power output of topping cycle [kW/ 223.1 260.5 278.5
mole fuel/s]
Power output of bottoming cycle 150.3 129.9 123 5. Conclusion
[kW/mole fuel/s]
Molar flowrate of aira [mole/s] 41.95 49.6 51.2
Molar flowrate of steama [mole/s] 9.92 9.16 8.68 The results reveal that the thermal efficiency inversely correlates
with the specific entropy generation defined as the total entropy gen-
a
Note: Molar flowrate of air/steam is per unit molar flowrate of the fuel. eration rate associated with the operation of a power plant per unit
flowrate of the fuel burnt in the combustor. Maximization of thermal
the combined cycle as the pressure ratio increases. On the other hand, efficiency and minimization of specific entropy generation lead to an
there exists an optimum pressure for the thermal efficiency. As shown identical design. An emphasis is placed on the entropy generation term
in Sections 2 and 3, the maximum thermal efficiency and minimum SEG due to the rejection of heat to the environment from a power plant
take place at the same pressure for both the gas turbine cycle and which should be accounted for in the calculation of the total entropy
combined cycle. generation rate.
The results presented in this article are obtained based on certain An example is presented to show how the specific entropy genera-
simplifying assumptions which are common in thermodynamic mod- tion can be useful to improve the thermal efficiency of a combined
eling of power cycles; e.g. see Refs. [9,10,12,13,15]. The key assump- cycle. It is found that the gas turbine cycle contributes to 85% of the
tions employed in this study are (1) all components operate adiabati- specific entropy generation. Recovering the thermal energy of the flue
cally, (2) air consists of O2 and N2, (3) combustion products contain gases in a heat exchanger to preheat air before combustor and to pro-
CO2, H2O, O2 and N2, (4) pressure drop is neglected, (5) ideal gas be- duce steam in the HRSG is found to be more efficient than recovering
havior of gaseous species. The results show that the SEG method can be the heat within the HRSG only. This modification led to 3.5 percentage
employed as a useful tool to detect inefficiencies in a power plant. It is points increase in the thermal efficiency of the combined cycle.
important to recognize the difference between SEG (J/K·mole fuel) and The total entropy generation rate calculated per unit flowrate of the
the entropy generation rate (W/K). The former accounts for the amount air does not correlate with the specific entropy generation or thermal
of fuel burnt in the combustor whereas the latter does not. efficiency in the power cycles studied. If a thermal power plant is de-
One may decide to use a more complex approach (e.g. a non-stoi- signed to meet a given net power (i.e., fixed power output), mini-
chiometric model) to reexamine the findings of this study. It can also be mization of entropy generation rate would lead to a design identical to
argued, for instance, that the fuel combustion may not be entirely that obtained by maximization of thermal efficiency. However, if the
complete in practice. If the amount of oxygen is insufficient to com- power output is unknown, for instance, when analyzing the feasibility
pletely burn the carbon and hydrogen contents of the fuel, the com- of a new integrated power cycle, it is suggested to apply the specific
bustion products may also contain carbon monoxide and hydrogen. In entropy generation method.

2050 70 Fig. 12. Comparison of the trends of the specific en-

SEG (gas turbine cycle)
1950 Sgen (gas turbine cycle)
SEG (combined cycle)
tropy generation (solid lines) and the entropy gen-
eration per unit molar flowrate of the air (dashed
lines) varying with the compressor pressure ratio for
the gas turbine and combined cycles of Figs. 1 and 5.
60 TIT = 1200 K in both cycles, p11 = 416 kPa in the

Sgen (combined cycle) combined cycle.

SEG [J/K.mole fuel]

1850
S gen [J/K.mole air]

50

1750

40
1650

30
1550

1450 20
0 5 10 15 20 25
PR

118
 Y. Haseli Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120

2050 10500 Fig. 13. Comparison of the trends of the specific en-
tropy generation and the entropy generation rate
SEG (gas turbine cycle) varying with the compressor pressure ratio for the gas
Sgen (gas turbine cycle) 9500 turbine and combined cycles of Figs. 1 and 5.

Entropy generation rate [W/K]

1950 TIT = 1200 K and the power output is 1 MW in both
SEG (combined cycle)
cycles.
Sgen (combined cycle)
SEG [J/K. mole fuel]

8500
1850

7500
1750
6500

1650
5500

1550
4500

1450 3500
0 5 10 15 20 25
PR

0.48 2300 Fig. 14. An illustrative example showing that the

entropy generation rate does not always correlate
with the thermal efficiency. The mass flowrate of air
2100 is 1 kg/s and TIT = 1200 K in both cycles.

Entropy generation rate [W/K]

0.44
1900
0.4
1700

η th (gas turbine cycle)

ηth

0.36 1500
Sgen (gas turbine cycle)
η th (combined cycle) 1300
0.32 Sgen (combined cycle)
1100
0.28
900

0.24 700
0 5 10 15 20 25
PR

Acknowledgment
The research fund provided by Central Michigan University is
gratefully acknowledged. The author wishes to thank the reviewers for
their constructive comments.
References
[1] Leff HS, Jones GL. Irreversibility, entropy production, and thermal efficiency. Am J
Phys 1975;43:973–80.
[2] Bejan A. Models of power plants that generate minimum entropy while operating at
maximum power. Am J Phys 1996;64:1054–9.
[3] Bejan A. The equivalence of maximum power and minimum entropy generation rate
in the optimization of power plants. J Energy Res Technol 1996;118:98–101.
[4] Salamon P, Hoffmann KH, Schubert S, Berry RS, Andresen B. What conditions make
minimum entropy production equivalent to maximum power production. J Non-
Equilib Thermodyn 2001;26:73–83.
[5] Haseli Y. Optimization of regenerative Brayton cycle by maximization of a newly
defined second law efficiency. Energy Convers Manage 2013;68:133–40.
[6] Haseli Y. Efficiency of irreversible Brayton cycles at minimum entropy generation.
Appl Math Model 2016;40:8366–76.
[7] Haseli Y. The equivalence of minimum entropy production and maximum thermal
efficiency in endoreversible heat engines. Heliyon 2016;2:e00113.
[8] Haseli Y. Performance of irreversible heat engines at minimum entropy generation.
Appl Math Model 2013;37:9810–7.
[9] Cheng XT, Liang XG. Heat-work conversion optimization of one-stream heat ex-
changer network. Energy 2012;47:421–9.
[10] Sun C, Cheng XT, Liang XG. Output power analyses for the thermodynamic cycles of
thermal power plants. Chin Phys B 2014;23:050513.
[11] Feidt M, Costea M, Petrescu S, Stanciu C. Nonlinear thermodynamic analysis and
optimization of a Carnot engine cycle. Entropy 2016;18:243.
[12] Li T, Fu W, Zhu J. An integrated optimization for organic Rankine cycle based on
entransy theory and thermodynamics. Energy 2014;72:561–73.
[13] Zhou B, Cheng XT, Wang WH, Liang XG. Entransy analyses of thermal processes
with variable thermophysical properties. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2015;90:1244–54.
[14] Klein SA, Reindl DT. The relationship of optimum heat exchanger allocation and
minimum entropy generation rate for refrigeration cycles. J Energy Res Technol
1998;120:172–8.
[15] Cheng XT, Liang XG. Discussion on the applicability of entropy generation mini-
mization to the analyses and optimizations of thermodynamic processes. Energy
Convers Manage 2013;73:121–7.
[16] Sanchez-Orgaz S, Medina A, Hernandez A Calvo. Thermodynamic model and op-
timization of a multi-step irreversible Brayton cycle. Energy Convers Manage
2010;51:2134–43.
[17] Sánchez-Orgaz S, Pedemonte M, Ezzatti P, Curto-Risso PL, Medina A, Hernández A
Calvo. Multi-objective optimization of a multi-step solar-driven Brayton plant.
Energy Convers Manage 2015;99:346–58.
[18] Cao Y, Gao Y, Zheng Y, Dai Y. Optimum design and thermodynamic analysis of a gas
turbine and ORC combined cycle with recuperators. Energy Convers Manage

119
Y. Haseli
2016;116:32–41.
[19] Polyzakis AL, Koroneos C, Xydis G. Optimum gas turbine cycle for combined cycle
power plant. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:551–63.
[20] Adams T, Mac Dowell N. Off-design point modelling of a 420 MW CCGT power
plant integrated with an amine-based post-combustion CO2 capture and compres-
sion process. Appl Energy 2016;178:681–702.
[21] Haseli Y. Thermodynamic optimization of power plants. Eindhoven (The
Netherlands): Eindhoven University of Technology; 2011.
[22] Chen L, Ni D, Zhang Z, Sun F. Exergetic performance optimization for new
120
Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 109–120
combined intercooled regenerative Brayton and inverse Brayton cycles. Appl Therm
Eng 2016;102:447–53.
[23] Woudstra N, Woudstra T, Pirone A, van der Stelt T. Thermodynamic evaluation of
combined cycle plants. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51:1099–110.
[24] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Carassai A. Conventional and advanced
exergetic analyses applied to a combined cycle power plant. Energy
2012;41:146–52.
[25] Cziesla F, Tsatsaronisa G, Gao Z. Avoidable thermodynamic inefficiencies and costs
in an externally fired combined cycle power plant. Energy 2006;31:1472–89.