Degradation Effects on Combined

Cycle Power Plant Performance—

A. I. Zwebek
P. Pilidis
Department of Power Engineering and
Propulsion,
School of Engineering,
Cranfield University,
Bedford MK43 0AL, UK
Part III: Gas and Steam Turbine
Component Degradation Effects
This paper presents an investigation of the degradation effects that gas and steam turbine
cycles components have on combined cycle (CCGT) power plant performance. Gas tur-
bine component degradation effects were assessed with TurboMatch, the Cranfield Gas
Turbine simulation code. A new code was developed to assess bottoming cycle perfor-
mance deterioration. The two codes were then joined to simulate the combined cycle
performance deterioration as a whole unit. Areas examined were gas turbine compressor
and turbine degradation, HRSG degradation, steam turbine degradation, condenser deg-
radation, and increased gas turbine back pressure due to HRSG degradation. The proce-
dure, assumptions made, and the results obtained are presented and discussed. The pa-
rameters that appear to have the greatest influence on degradation are the effects on the
gas generator. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1639007兴

Introduction efficiency as a performance parameter has the uppermost effect on

The rapid improvement of gas turbine technology in the 1990s
drove combined cycle thermal efficiency to nearly 60% with natu-
ral gas as a fuel 共Briesch and Bannister 关1兴兲. It will probably go
even higher in the future. This high plant efficiency along with
low emissions and competitive capital and running costs made the
combined cycle gas turbine 共CCGT兲 plant a very popular prime
mover for electricity generation.
This interest increase in the CCGT plants led to the users of
such plants to become more concerned about the plant’s behavior
after running for long times. As a result, simulation codes are
developed to predict the behavior of such power plants and their
subsystems on a thermo-fluid dynamic basis 共Erbes and Gay 关2兴,
Roy-Aikins 关3兴, and Thermoflow 关4兴兲.
This is the third in a series of three technical papers looking at
the degradation effects that different components of combined
cycle have on the plant’s performance.
The first paper 共Zwebek and Pilidis 关5兴兲 presented the effects
that gas turbine components degradation have on gas turbine and
hence on the overall CCGT plant, the second paper 共Zwebek and
Pilidis 关6兴兲 discussed the steam 共bottoming兲 cycle component deg-
radation effects have on CCGT plant. The conclusion of the two
papers mentioned above is summarized herein. In the first paper,
关5兴, it was concluded that the GT turbine degradation has the
utmost effect on gas turbine as well as on steam turbine cycles
performances compared to GT compressor. Also, it was shown
that the GT exhaust temperature has a predominant effect on
steam cycle efficiency over the GT exhaust mass flow. Because
the CCGT plant is more dependent on the gas turbine, and as it
was expected, the CCGT plant performance was more sensitive to
change in gas turbine cycle conditions than to the changes in
steam turbine cycle conditions.
The conclusion from the second paper, 关6兴, was that, within the
HRSG unit, the evaporator degradation is the utmost effecting
fault on steam turbine cycle performance compared to superheater
and economizer. Also concluded that, the steam turbine isentropic
Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute 共IGTI兲 of THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF
ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Neth-
erlands, June 3– 6, 2002; Paper No. 2002-GT-30513. Manuscript received by IGTI,
Dec. 2001, final revision, Mar. 2002. Associate Editor: E. Benvenuti.
steam turbine cycle power and efficiency. Finally, the effects of
HRSG and condenser degradations on steam cycle and hence on
CCGT plants performance is very low compared to the steam
turbine unit components degradation.
GasÕSteam Turbine Performance Deterioration. Even un-
der normal engine operating conditions, with good inlet filtration
systems, and using a clean fuel, the gas turbine engine flow path
components will become fouled, eroded, corroded, and covered
with rust scale, 共Diakunchak 关7兴, Lakshminarasimha et al. 关8兴,
Tabakoff 关9兴, and Tabakoff et al. 关10兴, and others兲. The results will
then be an engine performance deterioration. Since the gas tur-
bine, in this case, is connected to another plant 共steam cycle兲
which is entirely dependent on it, then the concern due to perfor-
mance deterioration will increase. This is due to the fact that any
failure or malfunctioning within the gas turbine will be magnified
as it would be affecting the two 共CCGT兲 plants at the same time.
This paper explores different component degradation effects on
a simple combined cycle 共CCGT兲 plant of Fig. 1. The plant under
consideration is composed of a single-shaft industrial gas turbine
coupled with a single-pressure HRSG steam 共bottoming兲 cycle.
The 共design point兲 specifications of both gas and steam turbine
plants used with this unfired cycle were chosen in such a way that
they represent an existing typical real cycle, as follows:
Gas Turbine Specifications
inlet mass flow⫽408.6 kg/sec
compressor pressure ratio⫽15.2
turbine entry temperature⫽1697.80 K
exhaust mass flow⫽419.4 kg/sec
exhaust temperature⫽871.24 K
power⫽165.93 MW
thermal efficiency⫽35.57%
Steam Turbine Specifications
live steam pressure⫽65.4 bar
live steam temperature⫽537.8°C
steam mass flow⫽67 kg/sec
steam turbine isentropic effic.⫽89.48%
superheater surface area⫽8424.8 m2
evaporator surface area⫽29315.6 m2
economizer surface area⫽38004.1 m2
condenser surface area⫽3942.9 m2

306 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Copyright © 2004 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Representation of component degradation

Fault Represented By Range

Compressor fouling Drop in ⌫ 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Drop in ␩ C 0.0–共⫺2.5%兲
Compressor erosion Drop in ⌫ 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Drop in ␩ C 0.0–共⫺2.5%兲
Turbine fouling Drop in ⌫ 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Drop in ␩ T 0.0–共⫺2.5%兲
Turbine erosion Rise in ⌫ 0.0–共⫹5.0%兲
Drop in ␩ T 0.0–共⫺2.5%兲
FOD Drop in ␩ C and ␩ T 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Gas turbine back GT Back pressure 0.0–共⫹3.0%兲
pressure rise
Economizer degradation Drop in U 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Evaporator degradation Drop in U 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Superheater degradation Drop in U 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Condenser degradation Drop in U 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Steam turbine fouling Drop in ⌫ 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Drop in ␩ T 0.0–共⫺2.5%兲
Steam turbine erosion Rise in ⌫ 0.0–共⫹5.0%兲
Drop in ␩ T 0.0–共⫺2.5%兲
FOD Drop in ␩ T 0.0–共⫺5.0%兲
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of a single pressure CCGT power
plant

component due to fouling along with a decrease in the compo-

HRSG efficiency⫽81.11%
steam turbine plant power output⫽76.4541 MW
steam turbine plant efficiency⫽33.97%
The effects of the gas turbine degradation on steam cycle, and
hence on the CCGT plants performance as whole was investi-
gated. The faults investigated were the following:
i. compressor isentropic effic. degradation,
ii. turbine isentropic efficiency degradation,
iii. compressor and turbine fouling,
iv. compressor and turbine erosion,
v. economizer degradation,
vi. evaporator degradation,
vii. superheater degradation,
viii. steam turbine fouling,
ix. steam turbine erosion,
x. ST isentropic efficiency degradation,
xi. condenser degradation,
xii. combination of all faults mentioned above, and
xiii. gas turbine back pressure increase due to heat exchanger
共HRSG兲 surfaces fouling.
The terms fouling and erosion are used in the context of other
work, 共Diakunchak 关7兴 and Lakshminarasimha et al. 关8兴兲. In the
case of gas turbine unit, because the combustion system is not
likely to be a direct cause of gas turbine performance deterioration
共Diakunchak 关7兴兲 it was assumed not to degrade for the following
reasons:
i. Combustion chamber faults that affect GT overall perfor-
mance are rare in comparison to those faults that may occur
in the compressor and turbine.
ii. Any malfunctioning in the combustion chamber would
mean increased emissions, which is not allowed by environ-
mental laws in many places.
nent’s isentropic efficiency due to surface roughness, for example.
Erosion: Compressor erosion is represented by a lower inlet
mass flow capacity and a reduction in compressor isentropic effi-
ciency. On the other hand, GT and ST turbines erosion is repre-
sented by an increased flow capacity plus a reduction in the tur-
bine isentropic efficiency 共Lakshminarasimha et al. 关8兴兲.
These two phenomena are represented by changing the so-
called nondimensional mass flow 共Eq. 共1兲兲 of the component maps
共Table 1兲.
Ẇ 冑T i
is increased or reduced (1)
PA
Component Efficiency Degradation: This is modeled by re-
ducing the component isentropic efficiency of the appropriate map
and keeping all other parameters at their design point 共DP兲 levels.
In this case, it was assumed that the component isentropic effi-
ciency might decrease from its DP value due to any reason, such
as blade tip rubs or FOD.
Heat Exchanger Degradation: The degradation of either of
the heat exchangers 共economizer, evaporator, superheater, and
condenser兲 was simulated by assuming a percent reduction in the
original DP value of the overall heat transfer coefficient of the
heat exchanger in concern.
Gas Turbine Back Pressure: The increased back pressure at
the gas turbine exhaust is represented as an increase in the GT
exhaust outlet pressure.
The above-mentioned faults are applied to different components
of the plant in different values. Table 1 summarizes these faults
and their ranges at which they were applied to each component.
Therefore, throughout this study, it was assumed that there was
no component washing or any type of maintenance carried out on
the gas and steam turbine plants until the deterioration reached 5%
from the original design point performance.

Fault Representation Combined Cycle Degradation Simulation

In order to investigate the effects of faults mentioned in previ-
ous section on the Gas/steam turbine plants performance as a
standing alone units, and hence on CCGT plant as a whole, these
faults were fed into the program as a percent reduction of the
original design point value 共shown 0.0 in Table 1兲. This is done as
follows:
Fouling: GT compressor, GT turbine, and ST turbine fouling is
represented by reduced flow capacity at the inlet of the component
plus a reduction in the component isentropic efficiency. By doing
so, it is assumed that there is a blockage in the inlet area of the
Before starting any degradation simulations it was necessary to
establish a datum working line 共design point performance兲 of both
plants. This base line performance point is represented by 共0.0兲
value in Table 1 above and on all deterioration graphs shown
below. Once the design point performance has been identified,
then the magnitude of faults representing a physical fault of the
component in consideration, 共see ‘‘faults representation’’兲, to be
implanted on each component has to be established.
Unfortunately, although there is a lot of work published on the
subject of gas turbine performance deterioration 共Tabakoff 关9兴,

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 307

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 2 Component isentropic efficiency variation with degra- Table 3 GT back pressure distribution along with other com-
dation ponents degradation

Isentropic GT Back Pressure GT Fouling GT Erosion

Nondimensional Efficiency
Mass Flow Change Ratio ⫹1.0% ⫺1.0% ⫹1.0%
Physical Fault Change 共A兲 共B兲 A:B ⫹1.5% ⫺2.0% ⫹2.0%
⫹2.0% ⫺3.0% ⫹3.0%
Compressor fouling ⌫ c↓ ␩ c↓ ⬃1:0.5 ⫹2.5% ⫺4.0% ⫹4.0%
Compressor erosion ⌫ c↓ ␩ c↓ ⬃1:0.5 ⫹3.0% ⫺5.0% ⫹5.0%
Compressor corrosion ⌫ c↓ ␩ c↓ ⬃1:0.5
Turbine fouling ⌫ T↓ ␩ T↓ ⬃1:0.5
Turbine erosion ⌫ T↑ ␩ T↓ ⬃1:0.5
Turbine corrosion ⌫ T↓ ␩ T↓ ⬃1:0.5
Foreign object damage ⌫ C/T ↓ ␩ C/T ↓ ⬃1:2.0 torque on the shaft, coupling forces on thrust bearing, and vibra-
Thermal distortion ⌫ T ↑↓ ␩ C/T ↓ ⬃1:2.0
Blade rubbing ⌫ C↓ & ⌫ T↑ ␩ C/T ↓ ⬃1:2.0 tion, it was assumed that maximum it can go up to 0.03 atm over
the DP value.
It is worth reminding the reader here that the values in Fig. 3
and in the following successive figures are also including the gas
turbine back pressure rise due to HRSG degradation. This is ac-
Tabakoff et al. 关10兴, Diakunchak 关7兴, and Lakshminarasimha et al. complished by implanting a value of GT exhaust back pressure
关8兴, and others兲, the applied degradation magnitude to each com- rise with a corresponding GT degradation 共fouling/erosion兲 value
ponent, when simulating gas turbines deterioration performance, as shown in Table 3.
in most cases is either arbitrary or based on some published ex-
perimental results. Therefore, in present study the values men-
tioned by Diakunchak 关7兴 and Escher 关11兴 were taken as a guide- Gas Turbine Degradation Simulation Results
lines from which the implanted faults were estimated. Table 2 Due to its working nature and depending on the place where it
共Zwebek and Pilidis 关5兴兲 shows a summary of how component is installed, it was assumed that the gas turbine might foul or
isentropic efficiency changes vary with degradation. These values erode. Therefore, the simulation strategy of the gas turbine was
were applied in all calculations to the appropriate components. divided into two different categories. The first strategy was to
Based on what is mentioned above, in the case of steam turbine assume that the gas turbine will foul up 共⫺5.0%兲 from its original
plant, it was also assumed that every 1.0% deterioration in mass DP performance. On the other hand, the second strategy assumes
flow capacity 共fouling or erosion兲 would result in a deterioration an erosion in gas turbine gas path components up to 共⫹5.0%兲
of 共0.50%兲 in steam turbine isentropic efficiency. from their DP performance. In parallel with each of the cases
Unfortunately, not much literature was found on the subject of mentioned above, an amount increase in gas turbine back pressure
CCGT plant degradation, or on modeling of this problem, includ- due to degraded HRSG was assumed as shown in Table 3.
ing the effect of GT back pressure rise. Therefore to simulate the As Fig. 2 shows, a back pressure increase of 共3.0%兲 resulted in
effect of back pressure on gas turbine performance, due to HRSG a reduction in gas turbine thermal efficiency and power by
degradation some assumptions have been made. An increase in 共⫺2.0%兲 approximately. While the exhaust mass flow was almost
back pressure by ⬇0.0025 atm results in a reduction in gas turbine constant, the exhaust temperature increased by about 共0.75%兲
power by ⬇0.3%. Typical back pressure ranges from 0.025 to from its original DP value.
0.037 atm above the design value. Because of the inherent prob- Figure 3 summarizes the main performance parameters of gas
lems which accompanies the increase of back pressure, e.g., high turbine and how they vary with degradation. As it can be seen, it

Fig. 2 Back pressure effects on GT performance

308 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 GT performance parameters variation with gas turbine cycle component
degradation
seems that the effect of either fouling or erosion is tending to have
a similar curvature trend, but the magnitude is different.
As this figure shows, the maximum degradation consequence
was encountered with gas turbine power deterioration due to GT
component erosion. This was around 共⫺15.2%兲 from the original
DP value. The corresponding plant thermal efficiency drop was
about 共⫺11.5%兲.
The combination of decreased compressor mass flow with an
increased turbine flow capacity, due to erosion by 5%, led to a
higher 共about 2.5%兲 reduction in the plant’s overall efficiency in
comparison to the case where both components are experiencing
fouling. This is due to the fact that the decreased pressure ratio
through the turbine due to erosion resulted in a lower power out-
put of the turbine, and hence a reduced overall power output of
the engine which then reflected on the engine’s overall efficiency.
This shows that the erosion effect of gas turbine gas path compo-
nents on the gas turbine performance is higher than the fouling
effect.
Steam Cycle Degradation Simulation Results
As it was explained above, since the trend of the GT degrada-
tion due to either fouling or erosion is the same, and they only
differ in the magnitude, and due to the limited space 共page num-
bers allowed for this paper兲 it was decided to discuss only the
fault which gave the higher impact on GT performance when
simulating the bottoming cycle. Therefore, as already showed,
since the GT erosion effects were predominant over the effect of
fouling, it was decided to use its values when simulating steam
cycle performance degradation.
The most important steam turbine cycle performance deteriora-
tion simulation results are represented graphically in Figs. 4
through 8. It is worth reminding the reader here that the values in
these figures are including also the gas turbine degradation 共ero-
sion兲 and GT exhaust back pressure rise effects due to HRSG
degradation as shown in Fig. 3.
The GT degradation effects on ST as well as on CCGT plants
was plotted within the graphs showing those plants degradation.
Figure 4 shows the effects of degraded topping 共GT兲 as well as
bottoming 共ST兲 cycles on the steam flow through the bottoming
cycle. As this figure shows, the increase in steam mass flow 共about
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
8.3%兲 was at its highest value with superheater degradation by
5%. Although the expectation was to see the highest change in
mass flow variation with GT degradation, the results came up with
different values. In reality, this increase in mass flow was not due
to degraded superheater. In fact as Zwebek and Pilidis 关6兴 showed,
the effect of degraded superheater alone on steam mass flow 共with
out gas turbine degradation兲 is almost negligible 共⫹0.51%兲.
Therefore, as Eq. 共1兲 shows, the inlet conditions at the ST inlet are
controlled by the so-called nondimensional mass flow 共Eq. 共1兲
above兲. Now by comparing the superheater degradation effects in
Figs. 4, 7, and 8 with GT degradation effects it will be observed
that while steam live pressure is almost constant 共Fig. 7兲, there
was an increase in steam mass flow. Now to fulfil the conditions
of Eq. 共1兲, then the live steam temperature must increase. This is
the result obtained 共as Fig. 8 shows兲. The same discussion is al-
most applicable to all other conditions.
It is well known from the very basics of steam turbine cycle
theory that the steam turbine power is a function of steam mass
flow and its enthalpy. Now by comparing Fig. 5 with Fig. 4 it
would be observed that the steam turbine power is more or less
following the mass flow behavior.
The effects of degraded topping as well as bottoming cycle
components on steam turbine power plant are illustrated in Fig. 5.
As this figure shows, the largest displacement of ST turbine power
from its original DP value was encountered with superheater as
well as condenser degradations. Again as stated above, this in-
crease in ST power is merely due to increased gas turbine exhaust
temperature due to GT degradation which led to increase steam
mass flow and hence to increase the ST power. On the other hand,
the lowest effect on ST power resulted from GT degradation along
with ST turbine isentropic efficiency degradation; this was around
⫹4.2%.
One of the very important results obtained from this study is
that, unlike the case with GT or ST degradations alone where the
relationship between performance parameter variation 共ST power,
ST Rankine, etc.兲 and deterioration is linear, in the case of both
plants deteriorated the relationship obtained was also nearly
linear.
Cerri 关12兴 stated that the maximal CCGT efficiency is reached
when the GT exhaust temperature is higher than the one corre-
APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 309
 Fig. 4 ST steam mass flow variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-
radation

sponding to the maximum GT efficiency; i.e., as GT exhaust tem-
perature goes up, the CCGT efficiency goes up. Since gas turbine
efficiency is already at its maximum, and still by increasing GT
exhaust temperature 共due to any reason兲 the CCGT will increase.
This would then implicitly indicate that this increase is gained by
increased steam turbine plant’s power due to the increased steam
turbine inlet conditions as explained above. This exactly coincides
with the results obtained in the current study 共see Fig. 5兲.
The next important performance parameter to discuss here is
the steam turbine plant 共Rankine兲 efficiency variation with degra-
dation, which is illustrated in Fig. 6. The thermal efficiency defi-
nition of steam turbine 共bottoming兲 plant is given by
W SC
␩ R⫽ . (2)
Q HRSG
This equation shows that the steam turbine 共bottoming兲 cycle
efficiency is a function of steam turbine net power output and the
heat transferred in the HRSG (Q HRSG), which is representing the
heat input to the steam cycle. Now by looking at Fig. 9 it will be

Fig. 5 Steam turbine power variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-
radation

310 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 Rankine efficiency variation with gas and steam cycles component degrada-
tion

seen that all types of degradations resulted into an increase in the
HRSG efficiency, i.e., increased Q HRSG . As Fig. 5 shows, al-
though ST power increased with all types of degradation as well,
yet the increase in the Q HRSG 共relative to DP value兲 in some cases
was higher than the increase in ST power. This led to the ST
efficiency to fall with such cases. This can be clearly seen in the
case of ST turbine isentropic degradation. In this case, the in-
crease in ST power was around 4.2% with 5% degradation. Al-
though 共as Fig. 9 shows兲 there was an increase in HRSG effi-
ciency by about 4.2% 共for the same magnitude of degradation兲 as
well, nevertheless, the increase in Q HRSG was predominant and
hence resulted in decreasing the ST turbine efficiency by approxi-
mately 3.3%.
As Figs. 5 and 6 show, the ST turbine isentropic efficiency has
a predominant effect over all other types of ST cycle degradations.
This is in agreement with the conclusion established by Zwebek
and Pilidis 关6兴.
The degradation effects of gas and steam plants on live steam
pressure and temperature are expressed on Figs. 7 and 8, respec-
tively. As Fig. 7 shows, the blockage of the steam turbine inlet due

Fig. 7 Live steam pressure variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-
radation

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 311

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 8 Live steam temperature variation with gas and steam cycles component
degradation

to fouling by 5.0% resulted in about 11.6% increase in live steam
pressure at the ST turbine inlet. The combination of all other types
of degradation with steam turbine fouling reduced the inlet pres-
sure to about 11.0%. On the other hand, the degradation of all
components along with steam turbine erosion by 5.0% resulted in
only 0.3% 共approximately兲 reduction in live steam pressure.
In the case of live steam temperature, as Fig. 8 shows, the effect
of different components degradation on live steam temperature is
mostly controlled by increased gas turbine exhaust temperature.
As already shown above 共see Fig. 3兲 the effect of gas turbine
components degradation was to increase the GT exhaust tempera-
ture. This, then by itself, led the live steam temperature to increase
共see explanation above兲.
Combined Cycle Degradation Results
The degradation results have been explained in part by address-
ing the two cycles separately. Figure 10 shows the whole CCGT
plant’s power and how it varies with GT and ST plants
degradation.

Fig. 9 HRSG efficiency variation with gas Steam cycles component degradation

312 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 10 CCGT power variation with gas and steam cycles component degradation

As this figure shows, although there was an increase in ST
power 共see Fig. 5兲, the decrease that was caused by GT power 共see
Fig. 3兲 was predominant. This actually is a straightforward result
since GT power counts for the two thirds of the total amount of
CCGT power. Figure 11 is a reproduction of Fig. 9 showing the
CCGT efficiency is actually following the behavior of CCGT
power.
As the two previous figures showed, the GT turbine degradation
alone was having the least effect on CCGT plant power and effi-
ciency. On the other hand, when the ST component effects were
included in the degradation, the outcome deterioration results
started to increase. As these two figures show, the largest degra-
dation effect was due to the ST turbine isentropic efficiency deg-
radation along with GT degradation. This was about ⫺10.7% and
⫺4.3% deterioration in CCGT power and efficiency respectively
with ⫺5.0% degradation.
Figures 9 and 12 illustrate the degradation effects of both plants
on HRSG efficiency ( ␩ HRSG) and stack temperature, respectively.
The stack temperature is mainly a measure of the amount of gas
turbine exhaust heat utilization by the bottoming cycle. Also, by
definition, HRSG efficiency is a function of stack temperature and
HRSG exhaust inlet temperature for a given ambient temperature
共Eq. 共3兲兲

Fig. 11 CCGT efficiency variation with gas steam cycles component degradation

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 313

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 12 Stack temperature variation with gas and steam cycles component deg-
radation

T Gin⫺T Stack HRSG ⫽ heat recovery steam generator

␩ HRSG⫽ . (3) Q ⫽ heat transfer
T Gin⫺T amb
ST ⫽ steam turbine
This equation shows that, for a given HRSG inlet exhaust and T ⫽ temperature
ambient temperatures, the HRSG efficiency increases with de- ⌫ ⫽ nondimensional mass flow
creased stack temperature (T Stack) and vice versa. ␩ ⫽ efficiency
While, as Zwebek and Pilidis 关5兴 showed, the effects of GT U ⫽ heat transfer coefficient
component degradation resulted in decreasing T Stack , the effects Subscripts
of ST component degradation Zwebek and Pilidis 关6兴 came up
共somewhat兲 with opposite results. Now, as Fig. 12 shows, al- C ⫽ GT compressor
though in this case both plants were degraded, all types of degra- CC ⫽ combined cycle
dation led to decreasing T Stack and hence increasing the ␩ HRSG GT ⫽ gas turbine
共see Fig. 11兲. This leads us to a conclusion that the effects of GT ST ⫽ steam turbine
degradation on ␩ HRSG are predominant over the effect ST compo- i ⫽ inlet
nent degradation. Gin ⫽ HRSG inlet
SC ⫽ steam cycle
Conclusions T ⫽ turbine
Stack ⫽ HRSG exit
The results obtained showed that the erosion of gas turbine gas
path components has a predominant effect on its performance over
the effect of fouling. References
The results obtained are in agreement with those found in the 关1兴 Briesch, M. S., and Bannister, R. L., 1995, ‘‘A Combined Cycle Designed to
literature. The combination of the two 共upper and bottoming兲 cy- Achieve Greater Than 60 Percent Efficiency,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines
cle’s degradations leads to a nearly linear behavior of the deterio- Power, 117.
ration results. 关2兴 Erbes, M. R., and Gay, R. R., 1989, ‘‘Gate/Cycle Predictions of the Off-Design
Performance of Combined-Cycle Power Plants,’’ Winter Annual Meeting of
The obtained degradation effects of GT plant on steam cycle the ASME, San Francisco, CA.
plant’s performance are in agreement with the published data that 关3兴 Roy-Aikins, J. E. A., 1995, ‘‘BRAKINE: A Programming Software for the
the authors found in open literature, 关12兴. Performance Simulation of Brayton and Rankine Cycle Plants,’’ Proc. Inst.
The combination of GT component degradation with ST turbine Mech. Engrs., Part A, J. Power Energy, 209.
关4兴 Thermoflow, 1999, Thermoflex®, Fully Flexible Heat Balance Modelling-
isentropic efficiency degradations led to the highest deterioration Users Manual.
of CCGT plant power and efficiency. 关5兴 Zwebek, A. I., and Pilidis, P., 2001, ‘‘Degradation Effects on Combined Cycle
The combination of both plant component degradation led to Power Plant Performance, Part 1: Gas Turbine Cycle Component Degradation
decreasing the stack temperature (T Stack). This shows that the ef- Effects,’’ ASME Paper 2001-GT-388.
关6兴 Zwebek, A. I., and Pilidis, P., 2001, ‘‘Degradation Effects on Combined Cycle
fects of GT degradation on T Stack and hence on ␩ HRSG are pre- Power Plant Performance, Part II: Steam Turbine Cycle Component Degrada-
dominant over the effect ST component degradation. tion Effects,’’ ASME Paper 2001-GT-389.
关7兴 Diakunchak, I. S., 1992, ‘‘Performance Deterioration in Industrial Gas Tur-
Nomenclature bines,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 114.
关8兴 Lakshminarasimha, A. N., Boyce, M. P., and Meher-Homji, C. B., 1994,
atm ⫽ atmospheric pressure ‘‘Modelling and Analysis of Gas Turbine Performance Deterioration,’’ ASME
J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 116.
CCGT ⫽ combined cycle gas turbine plant 关9兴 Tabakoff, W., 1986, ‘‘Compressor Erosion and Performance Deterioration,’’
DP ⫽ design point AIAA/ASME 4th Joint Fluid Mechanics, Plasma Dynamics, and Laser Con-
GT ⫽ gas turbine ference, Atlanta, GA, May 12–14.

314 Õ Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 关10兴 Tabakoff, W., Lakshminarasimha, A. N., and Pasin, M., 1990, ‘‘Simulation of Program for General Applications,’’ Ph.D. thesis, School of Mechanical Engi-
Compressor Performance Deterioration due to Erosion,’’ ASME J. Eng. Gas neering, Cranfield University, UK.
Turbines Power, 112. 关12兴 Cerri, G., 1987, ‘‘Parametric Analysis of Combined Gas-Steam Cycles,’’
关11兴 Escher, P. C., 1995, ‘‘Pythia: An Object-Oriented Gas Path Analysis Computer ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 109.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 315

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use