Name: Josh

Date: November 6, 2017

Course: AME 3363 Design of Thermal Fluid Systems
Subject: Combined Gas and Steam Power Cycles (Project 1)
Abstract/Introduction
The following project analyzed a theoretical heat exchanger for a combined power
generation cycle under various set-up combinations. For the purpose of this project, the gas cycle
was considered to be a simple Brayton cycle with a power output of 80MW and the steam power
cycle was considered to be a simple Rankine cycle. These two cycles were subjected to three
different combinations with one another and are as followed; one steam power plant combined
with one gas power, one steam power plant with two gas power plants, and one steam power
plant with four gas power plants. Using applications of thermodynamics, heat transfer and
thermal fluid system design theory, it was found that the efficiency of each combined cycle was
roughly 62.1%. Although there is no efficiency difference between the three different combined
cycles there are significant differences in work output and cost. It was found that the four gas
powered cycles to one steam powered cycle produces the most output work at 3576 (kj/kg), but
would need the most amount of material goods due to the overall length and size of the heat
exchanger. On the other hand, the one gas cycle to one steam cycle yielded the smallest amount
of output work at 894 (kj/kg), but would have the least amount of cost due to the size of the heat
exchanger being fairly small. For the two gas power cycles to one steam power cycle, the output
work was 1788 (kj/kg) and overall size needed is in between the other two designs.
In determining which design would best fit for the power plant manager’s needs, option
number two, one steam power cycle to two gas power cycles, was chosen. The reasoning behind
this is due to the middle ground on cost and output work. With a total output work of 1788
(kj/kg), this combined cycle can provide a significant amount of work and power for certain
needs well using an efficient process. When analyzing this design with respect to materials and
cost of manufacturing, design two would allow for a significantly smaller heat exchanger
resulting in less material cost and labor cost from construction. Along with the analysis over the
various design options mentioned above, an external design option using a regenerator was
contemplated. On reviewing the benefits of a regenerator, it was found that the overall
manufacturing costs would decrease. This is due to a regenerator needing less volume and
surface area, hence, less materials will be needed in construction. Also, regenerator can be
manipulated and designed to increase the overall effectiveness of the system.
Background and Usage
Heat exchangers have been around since the 1800’s to help improve the efficiency of
thermal cycles. Applications of heat exchangers are used in all aspects of businesses such as

1
large corporations, manufacturing plants, power generation plants, cars and other everyday
goods. Using a heat exchanger helps mitigate wasted energy and allows for a process to be more
efficient. The way a heat exchanger works is by using a fluid’s heat or thermal energy, to heat up
a colder fluid through pipes, which generate heat convection and conduction. In the design of a
heat exchanger, there are multiple type of flow options that can be used, counter, parallel flow
and cross flow. For counter flow, the cold fluid is flowing opposite of the hot fluid. This means
that if the cold fluid was flowing left to right, the minimum temperature would be at the inlet
(left) and the maximum temperature would be at the outlet (right). For the hot fluid, the opposite
occurs, the maximum temperature is at the inlet (right) and the minimum temperature is at the
outlet (left). In the second option for fluid flow, parallel flow, both the hot and cold fluid enter on
the same side and exit on the same side, hence, the minimum temperature for cold fluid and the
maximum temperature of the hot fluid, is at the inlet of the heat exchanger. For cross flow heat
exchanger, one fluid flows horizontally and the other fluid flows vertically. Although these are
the main types flow design, heat exchanger design vary significantly. Some common examples
of heat exchanger designs are the shell and tube, double pipe (used for this analysis), and
regenerator.
Theory
For the purpose of this project it is crucial to have a competent understanding of the first and
second laws of thermodynamics, as well as, having the ability to apply applications of heat
transfer and fluid dynamics. To begin, the first law states that energy cannot be created or
destroyed in an isolated system. The second laws states that the entropy of any isolated system
always increases. Using these laws and applying them to both the Gas-Powered plant and the
Steam-Powered plant, the total work output can be found and an efficiency of the combined
system can be determined.
Before finding the overall efficiency of the combined cycle, the characteristics at a particular
state for each cycle must be found using property tables; which can either be found online or in
the back of “Fundamentals of Thermal-Fluid Systems”. To view examples and actual
calculations regarding properties of the states for the simple Brayton cycle and simple Rankine
cycle refer to the Calculated Data section of the appendix.
Once the properties for each state have been found for both the gas and steam cycles, the total
net-work, denoted as wnet, can be found for each cycle independently. The net-work is the
combination of the amount of work consumed by the process and the amount of work produced
by the cycle. For instance, the net-work for the Gas-Powered system is the difference between
the work of the turbine, wt and the work of the compressor, wc. Equation 1 and 2 show how the
work is found for both the turbine and the compressor and equation 3 below shows how the net-
work of the system is calculated.
w t=hEntrance −h exit [1]

2
 w c =h Exit −hentrance [2]

w net =wt −wc [3]

Here, hentrance is the enthalpy of the fluid at the entrance with respect to either the turbine or
compressor and hexit is the enthalpy of the fluid at the exit side with respect to either the turbine or
compressor. For the simple Rankine Steam-Powered system, the same method mentioned above
can be applied. However, the difference is that the steam powered system uses a pump instead of
a compressor, hence, the work input is based off the pump. Applying the method from above
yields the following equations.
w t=hEntrance −h exit [4]

w p=V f (h Exit −hEntrance ) [5]

w net =wt −w p [6]

Where wp is the work for the pump and Vf is the specific volume of the fluid based off of its
environmental conditions; which were found using thermodynamic tables. On completion of the
calculation for net-work of each system, the efficiency, η, of the combined cycle was calculated
using the following equation.
W net , combined
η= [7]
Q¿
Where Wnet, combined is the summation of the total net-work of gas-powered cycle and the steam-
powered cycle. However, before the final calculation of the overall efficiency can be computed,
the mass flow rates of the gas-powered cycle and steam-powered cycle need to be found.
Since the problem statement gives a power output, Ẇ , for the gas-powered cycle of 80MW, the
mass flow rate for the gas, Ṁ g , can be found using the following equation.
Ẇ
Ṁ g = [8]
wnet ,gas

Where wnet, gass is the net-work of the gas cycle. After calculating the value of the mass flow rate
for the gas, the application of conservation of energy is applied to find the mass flow rate of the
water for the steam-powered cycle.

∑ Ṁ steam (∆ hsteam )=∑ Ṁ gas(∆ h gas ) [9]

Here Ṁ steam is the mass flow rate of the steam-powered cycle and Δh is the change in the exit
enthalpy value minus the entrance enthalpy value. Rearranging equation 9 above yields:
Ṁ gas ( ∆ h gas )
Ṁ steam = [10]
∆ hsteam

3
On completion of finding the mass flow rate of both the gas and steam powered cycle, a
relationship between the mass flow rate, density, and volumetric flow rate was established to
determine the average velocity of the fluid in the pipe. Using the general equation for mass flow
denoted as equation 11 below, can be manipulated by plugging in equation 12 for the volumetric
flow rate and equation 13 for the area to find the average velocity of the fluid.
Ṁ =ρ∗V̇ [11]

V̇ =Ú∗A [12]

π∗r 2
A= [13]
4
Plugging in the equations 12 and 13 into equation 11 and rearranging for Ú , the average velocity
of the fluid, yields equation 14.
Ṁ
Ú =
π r2 [14]
( )∗ρ
4
Now that the average velocity of the fluid has been calculated, Reynold Number, which is a
value that determines if the fluid flow is laminar or turbulent, is equated and used to help
determine the Nussle Number, Nu.

Ú∗D
ℜ=
μ [15]
ρ
For general applications of the Nussle Number the equation below can be used.
h∗D
Nu= [16]
kf

Where h is the heat transfer coefficient of the fluid, D is the diameter of the pipe, and K f is the
thermal conductivity of the fluid. However, due to certain assumptions related to fluid flow and
environmental conditions for this particular problem, the Nussle Number was configured and
arranged to incorporate the Reynold number and Prandtl number, Pr, yielding equation [17] also
known as the Colburn Equation

Nu=.023 ℜ.8 Pr .4 [17]

Setting equation 16 and 17 equal to one another and rearranging for h, allows for the heat
transfer coefficient to be found for a particular fluid.

4
 h∗D
=.023 ℜ.8 Pr .4 [18]
kf

.023 ℜ.8 Pr .4∗k f

h= [19]
D
At this point, the method and equations used in finding a fluids characteristics have been
documented. It is important to note that each fluid will have its’ own characteristics, hence,
equation 11-19 will be used for both active fluids in this problem. Once the heat transfer
coefficients for both fluids have been calculated, applications of heat transfer can be used to find
L, the length of the heat exchanger needed to ensure a complete transfer of heat between the two
fluids. Equation 20 represents the heat transfer equation.
Q=U∗A s∗LMTD [20]

Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient of the heat exchanger, A s is the surface area of the
internal pipe, and LMTD is the logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference. Q for this particular
project is the heat added into the combustions chamber for the gas powered cycle, which was
found to be roughly 185,000 Watts. Since the main priority of this calculation is to find L, the
length of the pipes, U, As and LMTD are defined by the following equations
1 1 1
= + [21]
U hi ho

A s=π∗D∗L [22]

LMTD=¿ ¿ [23]
Here hi and ho represent the heat transfer coefficients of the internal fluid and external fluid
respectfully, D is the diameter of the interior pipe, and L is the length of the pipe. For the LMTD
equation, TH, in and TH, out represents the inlet and outlet temperature of the hot fluid respectfully.
On the other hand TC, in and TC, out represents the inlet and outlet temperatures of the cold fluid
respectfully. Plugging in equations 21-23 into equation 20 and solving for L, yields:
Q
L= [24]
( LMTD)∗π∗D∗U

Now that the method for solving a heat exchanger problem has been devised, comparisons of
different size pipes, or physical characteristics of the pipe can be compared. This will allow for
an analysis to be completed to see which physical characteristics, diameters and lengths, are the
best to use for this given problem and result in the most cost effect design.
Assumptions
To get a tangible result for the surface area and length of the heat exchanger used in the
combined cycle of this problem, a few assumptions were made to ensure a realistic result while

5
maintaining the principles of heat transfer and internal flow. First, the temperature of exit outlet
of the Gas Power Cycle was taken to be 450 K to ensure that the worst case scenario of the heat
transfer was accounted for instead of assuming it exits the heat exchanger at 300 K. Next in the
sequence of calculations, The Nusselt number was found using equation [17] because of the
assumption of a smooth pipe and fully developed turbulent flow due to the Reynolds Number
being greater than 10000. It is important to note that turbulent flow is commonly unutilized in
practice because of the higher heat transfer coefficients associated with it [2]. However, for this
particular project, a higher heat transfer coefficient is needed to help mitigate costs. Lastly,
assuming a thin walled pipe allowed for the overall Heat Transfer Coefficient to be found using
equation [21]. With a thin wall the heat transfer comes from the convection of the two moving
fluids and not the conduction of the pipe.
Results and Discussion
The objective of this problem is to determine the best orientation of a combined cycle, either in a
one gas to one steam, two gas to one steam, or four gas to one steam set-up. When considering
this combine cycle, it is important to understand that the efficiencies found using equation [7] are
the same despite the number of gas power cycles. The amount of work done by the system is
doubled and quadrupled in the cases of two and four gas power cycles as shown in Table 1
below. This is due to the doubling and quadrupling of the mass flow rate of gas.
Table 1: Thermal Efficiency and Net Work

Number of Gas Power Thermal Efficiency Net Work

Cycles (%) (kJ/kg)
1 62.1 894
2 62.1 1788
4 62.1 3576

With the efficiencies being the same, it would be beneficial to have the extra work with the four
gas cycles but as shown in Table 2 below, the amount of heat transfer is dependent on the length
of the double pipes and the total surface area of the pipe. The more pipe there is the more money
it takes to make it. This problem becomes a cost effective analysis of the net work vs the surface
area of the pipes in the heat exchanger. The only variable that can change considering that the
temperatures are set is the diameters of the inner and outer pipe. The smaller the diameter of the
inner pipe the faster the velocity throughout the pipe. Finding a balance of the diameters that
allow for the best heat transfer coefficient while maintaining low cost is the overall goal.
Table 2: One Gas Cycle to One Steam Cycle

Diameter (inside) Diameter (Outside)

Work kJ/kg Surface Area m2 Ratio
m m
0.0158 0.02134 894 0.001212542 737293.7715
0.02664 0.0334 894 0.002860684 312512.7066

6
 0.0525 0.06033 894 0.009054244 98738.22674
0.07793 0.0889 894 0.018353497 48710.06201
0.10226 0.1143 894 0.029599228 30203.49011
0.1282 0.1413 894 0.044168177 20240.8174
0.1541 0.1683 894 0.061270653 14590.99846
0.2027 0.2191 894 0.099953738 8944.137718
0.2545 0.2731 894 0.150172378 5953.158726
0.3032 0.3239 894 0.205506469 4350.228027

Table 3: Two Gas Cycles to One Steam Cycle

Diameter (Inside)
Diameter (Outside) m Work kJ/kg Surface Area m2 Ratio
m
0.0158 0.02134 1788 0.003901718 458259.7158
0.02664 0.0334 1788 0.009502756 188155.9404
0.0525 0.06033 1788 0.030931099 57805.89928
0.07793 0.0889 1788 0.062814065 28464.96227
0.10226 0.1143 1788 0.101773994 17568.33866
0.1282 0.1413 1788 0.152293366 11740.49828
0.1541 0.1683 1788 0.211611925 8449.429305
0.2027 0.2191 1788 0.345797794 5170.651836
0.2545 0.2731 1788 0.520094176 3437.83892
0.3032 0.3239 1788 0.712176397 2510.613954

Table 4: Four Gas Cycles to One Steam Cycle

Diameter (Inside) m Diameter (Outside) m Work kJ/kg Surface Area (m2) Ratio
0.0158 0.02134 3576 0.012945369 276237.7827
0.02664 0.0334 3576 0.032173072 111148.8505
0.0525 0.06033 3576 0.106513123 33573.32776
0.07793 0.0889 3576 0.21653823 16514.40487
0.10226 0.1143 3576 0.351804622 10164.73285
0.1282 0.1413 3576 0.527297984 6781.744113
0.1541 0.1683 3576 0.733385762 4876.015035
0.2027 0.2191 3576 1.199615182 2980.955937
0.2545 0.2731 3576 1.80540028 1980.724186
0.3032 0.3239 3576 2.473064872 1445.979052

For this problem ten common pipe sizes found in heat exchangers were chosen for analysis.
From Tables (2-4) a ratio of work over surface area was developed to select the most cost
efficient setup of the 30 available options. For each configuration the best option is highlighted
in yellow. The overall best configuration was found to be the heat exchanger of the two gas
power cycle and one steam power cycle configuration with an inner diameter of 0.0158 m and
outside of 0.02134 m. For the complete calculations refer to the data sheets in the Appendix as
well as the sample calculations for the one to one cycle and the first pipe diameters. The

7
corresponding length of the best pipe was found to be 0.224 m which is a reasonable length for a
heat exchanger.
Conclusion
Overall the idea of this problem is to identify the proper configuration of a gas and steam
combined cycle that can do the most work but also maintain minimal cost. While assuming a
counter double pipe heat exchanger with thin walls and smooth surfaces, a diameter 0.0158 of
the inside pipe and an outer diameter of 0.02134 was found to be the most cost efficient while
maintaining proper heat transfer. Running the water through the inner pipe also allowed for an
insulation of the hot gas to have a better heat transfer rate than if it was the surrounding fluid.
References
[1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-chemistry/chapter/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/
[2] Cengel, Yunus A, et al. Fundamentals of Thermal Fluid Sciences. Fourth ed., McGgraw-Hill, 2012.

Appendix

8
9