Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Volume 2014, Article ID 940818, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/940818

Research Article
Thermodynamic Analysis of a Steam Power Plant with
Double Reheat and Feed Water Heaters

M. M. Rashidi,1,2 A. Aghagoli,1 and M. Ali3

1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Bu-Ali Sina University, P.O. Box 65175-4161, Hamedan, Iran
2
University of Michigan-Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
3
Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University, P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence should be addressed to M. Ali; mali@ksu.edu.sa

Received 4 September 2013; Revised 27 December 2013; Accepted 2 January 2014; Published 9 March 2014

Academic Editor: Moran Wang

Copyright © 2014 M. M. Rashidi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

A steam cycle with double reheat and turbine extraction is presented. Six heaters are used, three of them at high pressure and the
other three at low pressure with deaerator. The first and second law analysis for the cycle and optimization of the thermal and
exergy efficiencies are investigated. An exergy analysis is performed to guide the thermodynamic improvement for this cycle. The
exergy and irreversibility analyses of each component of the cycle are determined. Effects of turbine inlet pressure, boiler exit steam
temperature, and condenser pressure on the first and second laws’ efficiencies are investigated. Also the best turbine extraction
pressure on the first law efficiency is obtained. The results show that the biggest exergy loss occurs in the boiler followed by the
turbine. The results also show that the overall thermal efficiency and the second law efficiency decrease as the condenser pressure
increases for any fixed outlet boiler temperature, however, they increase as the boiler temperature increases for any condenser
pressure. Furthermore, the best values of extraction pressure from high, intermediate, and low pressure turbine which give the
maximum first law efficiencies are obtained based on the required heat load corresponding to each exit boiler temperature.

1. Introduction
Steam power plants are widely utilized throughout the world
for electricity generation, and coal is often used to fuel these
plants. Energy consumption is one of the most important
indicators showing the development stages of countries and
living standard of communities. Currently, 80% of electricity
in the world is approximately produced from fossil fuels
(coal, petroleum, fuel oil, and natural gas) fired thermal
power plants, whereas 20% of the electricity is compensated
from different sources such as hydraulic, nuclear, wind,
solar, geothermal, and biogas [1]. Many techniques are being
used to increase the efficiency of the steam cycle. The most
outstanding of these techniques are reheating in order to
reduce the irreversibility of the cycle. Reheating increases
the efficiency by raising the mean temperature of the heat
addition process, by increasing the steam temperature at
the turbine inlet and also by increasing the efficiency of
the expansion process in the steam turbine. With reheat, a
power plant can take advantage of the increased efficiency
that results in higher boiler pressure and yet avoid low-
quality steam at the turbine exhaust [2]. Habib and Zubair
[3] conducted a second law analysis of regenerative Rankine
power plants with reheat. Chiesa and Macchi [4], Gambini
et al. [5], Bhargava and Peretto [6], and Poullikkas [7] have
studied and predicted the performance of reheat gas turbine
using air as a coolant. Srinivas [8] showed that the deaerator
placed in between the LP and IP heaters gives high efficiency
compared to a deaerator-condenser arrangement.
Analyses of power generation systems are of scientific
interest and also essential for the efficient utilization of energy
resources. The most commonly used method for analysis of
an energy-conversion process is the first law of thermody-
namics. Furthermore, exergetic analysis provides a tool for a
clear distinction between energy losses to the environment
and internal irreversibility in the process [9]. As energy
analysis is based on the first law of thermodynamics, it has
some inherent limitations like not accounting for properties
of the system environment or degradation of the energy
quality through dissipative processes. An energy analysis
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 1: The main parameters for analyzing the steam cycle. 2. Energy and Exergy Analysis
𝑃0 (kPa) [16] 101.3 This cycle consists of boiler, turbine, condenser, feed water
𝑇0 (∘ C) [16] 25 heaters, deaerator, feed water pump, and the condensate
Condenser pressure (kPa) [10] 10–60 extraction pump. The schematic of cycle and the 𝑇-𝑠 diagram
Deaerator pressure (kPa) 800–2700 are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
Boiler exit steam temperature (∘ C) [31, 32] 600 For an open system at steady state, the first law of
HP turbine pressure (kPa) [31] 30000 thermodynamics can be written as [19–21]
𝜂LPT [8] 0.9 V𝑖2 V2
𝜂HPT [33] 0.85 ∑ 𝑄̇ + 𝑚̇ (ℎ𝑖 + + 𝑔𝑧𝑖 ) = 𝑚̇ (ℎ𝑜 + 𝑜 + 𝑔𝑧𝑜 ) + 𝑊.̇ (1)
2 2
𝜂𝑃 [34] 0.8
𝑇in (∘ C) 25 Exergy is defined as the maximum work that can be achieved
𝑇out (∘ C) 35 by bringing a system into equilibrium with its environment.
Pinch point (∘ C) [29] 2 The concept of exergy is supported by the consideration of the
Approach1 (∘ C) [29] 8 temperature level, which is based on the energy conversion
𝑚̇ 10 (kg⋅s−1 ) 1 from thermal to power. Exergy analysis is a useful method
1 for complementing but not for replacing the energy analysis.
Approach point is used for the heaters. For example, temperature difference
between 𝑇23 and 𝑇9 is defined as the approach point. It is becoming the most appropriate tool for thermodynamic
analysis. The exergy efficiency of the power cycle may be
defined in two ways. The first one is the physical exergy
and the second one is the chemical exergy. In this study,
the kinetic and potential parts of exergy are considered
does not characterize the irreversibility of processes within
negligible. The chemical exergy of gaseous fuels is computed
the system. In contrast, exergy analysis will characterize the
from the stoichiometric combustion chemical reactions. The
work potential of a system. Exergy is the maximum work
chemical exergy is associated with the departure of the chem-
that can be obtained from the system, when its state is
ical composition of a system from its chemical equilibrium
brought to the reference or dead state [10]. Ozgener et al.
which is important in processes involving combustion.
[11] illustrated that the overall energy and exergy efficiencies
Equations (2) and (6) show in general the exergy
of the SGDHS (Salihli geothermal district heating system)
destroyed rate and the exergy at any state of an open system:
components were also studied to evaluate their individual
performance and obtained to be 55.5 and 59.4%, respectively. Ex ̇ 𝑊 + Ex
̇ 𝑄 + ∑ 𝑚̇ 𝑖 ex𝑖 = ∑ 𝑚̇ 𝑜 ex𝑜 + Ex ̇ 𝐷,
Ameri et al. [12] showed that the greatest exergy loss in the (2)
in out
gas turbine occurs in the combustion chamber due to its high
irreversibility. Rosen [13] evaluated the performance of coal- ̇ 𝑄 = (1 − 𝑇0 ) 𝑄̇ 𝑘 ,
Ex (3)
fired and nuclear power plants via exergy analyses. Dincer 𝑇𝑘
and Muslim [14] performed a thermodynamic analysis of
̇ 𝑊 = 𝑊,̇
Ex (4)
reheat cycle power plants. Medina-Flores and Picón-Núñez
[15] proposed algorithms to predict power production for ̇ = Ex ̇ ch ,
̇ ph + Ex
single and multiple extraction steam turbines. Aljundi [16] Ex (5)
studied the energy and exergy analysis of Al-Hussein power ̇ ch = 𝑚ex
plant in Jordan and reported that the chemical reaction Ex ̇ ch
mix ,
(6)
is the most significant source of exergy destruction in the ̇ ph = 𝑚̇ [(ℎ − ℎ0 ) − 𝑇0 (𝑠 − 𝑠0 )] ,
Ex (7)
boiler system. Oktay [17] presented exergy loss and proposed
improving methods for a fluidized bed power plant in Turkey. where Eẋ 𝑄, Eẋ 𝑊, and Ex
̇ 𝐷 are the corresponding exergy of
Ahmadi et al. [18] have shown the results of both exergy heat transfer, work, and the exergy destruction which crosses
and exergoeconomic analyses. Their results showed that the the boundaries of the control volume, 𝑇 is the absolute
largest exergy destruction occurs in the CCPP (combined temperature (K), and (0) refers to the ambient conditions. The
cycle power plant) combustion chamber and that increasing mixture chemical exergy is defined as follows:
the gas turbine inlet temperature decreases the CCPP cost of
exergy destruction. 𝑛 𝑛
In the present study, the energy and exergy analysis exch
mix = [∑𝑋𝑖 ex
ch𝑖
+ 𝑅𝑇0 ∑𝑋𝑖 Ln𝑋𝑖 ] . (8)
are conducted to evaluate the performance of the above 𝑖=1 𝑖=1

suggested steam power plant cycle using 6 closed feed water
heaters with double reheat and with different extracting
pressure. Sources of exergy destruction in the power plant are
identified and a parametric study is performed to determine
the first and second law efficiencies with different operating
conditions. Maximum first law efficiencies are obtained at the
optimal extraction pressure.
The physical exergy of the fuels is negligible when compared
to the chemical exergy. For the evaluation of the fuel exergy,
the above equation cannot be used [22, 23]. Thus, the
corresponding ratio of simplified exergy is defined as follows
[24]:
ex𝑓 = 𝛾 × LHV, (9)
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 3

13 15
11

HP LP
IP turbine
Boiler turbine turbine

12󳰀 20 21 22 16
18 Third LP Second LP First LP
𝛼4 19 heater heater heater
Condenser
17 12 14 Hot water
Third HP Second HP First HP Deaerator 𝛼5 𝛼6 𝛼7
heater heater heater Cold water
10 𝛼1 𝛼2 𝛼3
F.W.P 6 5 C.E.P 1
9 8 7 4 3 2
23 24 25 26 27 28

Figure 1: The schematic of steam power plant cycle.

Table 2: Process parameters of the cycle.

Point 𝑇 (∘ C) 𝑃 (kPa) ℎ (kJ⋅kg−1 ) 𝑠 (kJ⋅K−1 ⋅kg−1 ) 𝑚̇ (kg⋅s−1 ) 𝜓 (kJ⋅kg−1 )

1 45.79 10 191.7 0.6489 0.6416 2.849
2 45.9 1199 193.2 0.6498 0.6416 4.069
3 85.99 1199 361 1.145 0.6416 24.23
4 107.6 1199 452.1 1.391 0.6416 41.94
5 134.6 1199 566.5 1.682 0.6416 69.85
6 187.9 1199 798.4 2.216 1 142.5
7 194.1 30000 839.4 2.234 1 178.1
8 236.8 30000 1028 2.621 1 251.6
9 295.7 30000 1306 3.136 1 376.1
10 340.8 30000 1551 3.55 1 497.8
11 600 30000 3443 6.232 1 1590
12 395.5 8307 3119 6.319 0.1165 1240
12󸀠 395.5 8307 3119 6.319 0.7545 1240
13 600 8307 3639 7 0.7545 1557
14 452.2 3277 3345 7.046 0.05638 1250
15 600 1199 3697 7.944 0.6416 1334
16 73.35 10 2636 8.306 0.5575 165.5
17 483.3 15121 3259 6.276 0.1289 1393
18 320.1 1199 3089 7.106 0.6416 975.8
19 320.1 1199 3089 7.106 0.05653 975.8
20 406.6 327.7 3288 8.012 0.0262 905.2
21 303.7 141.6 3080 8.066 0.02087 681.1
22 222.5 65 2921 8.126 0.037 503.5
23 303.7 15121 1358 3.261 0.1289 390.3
24 244.8 8307 1061 2.735 0.2455 250.1
25 202.1 3277 862.4 2.348 0.3019 167.3
26 115.6 327.7 485.3 1.48 0.0262 48.72
27 93.99 141.6 393.8 1.238 0.04707 29.22
28 53.9 65 225.7 0.7539 0.08407 5.527
Cold water 25 101 104.8 0.3669 32.65 0
Hot water 35 101 146.7 0.5049 32.65 0.7069
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

700
Water where 𝛾 stands for the exergy factor and LHV denotes the
lower heating value of the fuel material. It should be noted
600 11 13 15 that 𝛾 can be estimated for any fuel C𝑥 H𝑦 by [23, 25, 26]

500 17 14

400 20
𝑦 0.0698
12 𝛾 = 1.033 + 0.0169 ( ) − . (10)
T (∘ C)

10
21 𝑥 𝑥
300 9 18, 19
8 23
200 6, 7 24 22
25
Deaerator The energy and exergy destroyed equations for all compo-
45 nents of the cycle are given as follows.
100 3 26
1, 2 27 16
Condenser
28 The First Adiabatic Low Pressure Feed Water Heater.
0
0.0 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.4 5.5 6.6 7.7 8.8
s (kJ/kg·K)
(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (ℎ3 − ℎ2 )
Extraction line
Turbine line + (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 + 𝛼7 ) ℎ28 − (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 ) ℎ27 − 𝛼7 ℎ22 = 0,
Figure 2: The T-s diagram of the cycle. ̇
𝐼First.LP.H = −𝑇0 [(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (𝑠2 − 𝑠3 )

+ (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 ) 𝑠27 + 𝛼7 𝑠22 (11)

Table 3: Power balance of the power plant components. − (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 + 𝛼7 ) 𝑠28 ] ,

Power balance Power balance (kW) ̇
𝐼First.LP.H
Component (kW) based on based on the optimal 𝜂Π,First.LP.H = 1 − ,
Table 2 first law efficiency 𝜓in,First.LP.H
Boiler 2674 2581
Condenser 1367 1312
where 𝛼 is the extraction mass flow rate.
Turbine 1349 1311.5
Feed water pump 40.98 41.18 The Second Adiabatic Low Pressure Feed Water Heater.
Condense extraction pump 0.9634 1.7

(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (ℎ4 − ℎ3 )

Table 4: Exergy destruction of the power plant components. + (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 ) ℎ27 − 𝛼5 ℎ26 − 𝛼6 ℎ21 = 0,

Exergy Exergy ̇
𝐼Second.LP.H = −𝑇0 [(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (𝑠3 − 𝑠4 )
Percent
Component destruction efficiency
ratio (%) + 𝛼5 𝑠26 + 𝛼6 𝑠21 − (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 ) 𝑠27 ] ,
(kW) (%)
Boiler 199.8 46.4 55.09
Condenser 67.9 15.78 26.48 ̇
𝐼Second.LP.H
Turbine 110.3 25.6 92.44 𝜂Π,Second.LP.H = 1 − .
𝜓in,Second.LP.H
Feed water pump 5.4 1.25 86.79
(12)
Condensate extraction
0.18 0.04 81.3
pump
First LP heater 8.347 1.94 98.63
The Third Adiabatic Low Pressure Feed Water Heater.
Second LP heater 1.824 0.42 97.99
Third LP heater 4.53 1.05 97.47
Deaerator 7.951 1.85 94.72 (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (ℎ5 − ℎ4 ) + 𝛼5 (ℎ26 − ℎ20 ) = 0,
First HP heater 7.841 1.82 91.05
̇
𝐼Third.LP.H = −𝑇0 [(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (𝑠4 − 𝑠5 )
Second HP heater 8.981 2.1 91.12
Third HP heater 7.558 1.75 70.8 + 𝛼5 (𝑠20 − 𝑠26 )] ,
Total 430.7 100 —
̇
𝐼Third.LP.H
Thermal efficiency — 48.9 — 𝜂Π,Third.LP.H = 1 − .
Exergy efficiency — 46.13 — 𝜓in,Third.LP.H
(13)
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 5

The Adiabatic Deaerator.

𝐼𝐶̇ = {(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 − 𝛼6 − 𝛼7 ) ℎ16
𝛼4 ℎ19 + (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 + 𝛼3 ) ℎ25
+ (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 + 𝛼7 ) ℎ28 − (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) ℎ1 }
+ (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) ℎ5 − 𝑚̇ 6 ℎ6 = 0,
− 𝑇0 {(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 − 𝛼6 − 𝛼7 ) 𝑠16
̇
𝐼deaerator = −𝑇0 [𝛼4 𝑠19 + (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 + 𝛼3 ) 𝑠25
+ (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 + 𝛼7 ) 𝑠28 −(𝑚̇ 10 −𝛼1 −𝛼2 −𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) 𝑠1 }
+ (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) 𝑠5 − 𝑚̇ 6 𝑠6 ] ,
̇
𝐼deaerator + 𝑚̇ 𝑤.in {(ℎ𝑤.in − ℎ𝑤.out ) − 𝑇0 (𝑠𝑤.in − 𝑠𝑤.out )} ,
𝜂Π,deaerator = 1 − .
𝜓in,deaerator
𝐼𝐶̇
(14) 𝜂Π,C = 1 − .
𝜓in,𝐶
(18)
The First Adiabatic High Pressure Feed Water Heater.

𝑚̇ 7 ℎ7 − 𝑚̇ 8 ℎ8 + 𝛼3 ℎ14 + (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 ) ℎ24

The Adiabatic Feed Water Pump.
− (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 + 𝛼3 ) ℎ25 = 0,

̇
𝐼First.HP.H = −𝑇0 [𝑚̇ 7 𝑠7 + 𝛼3 𝑠14 + (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 ) 𝑠24 − 𝑚̇ 8 𝑠8 𝑤̇ F.W.P = 𝑚̇ 7 (ℎ7 − ℎ6 ) ,
󵄨 󵄨
− (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 + 𝛼3 ) 𝑠25 ] ,
̇
𝐼F.W.P = 𝑚̇ 7 [(ℎ6 − ℎ7 ) − 𝑇0 (𝑠6 − 𝑠7 )] + 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑤̇ F.W.P 󵄨󵄨󵄨 ,
(19)
̇
𝐼First.HP.H 𝐼̇
𝜂Π,First.HP.H = 1 − . 𝜂Π,F.W.P = 1 − F.W.P .
𝜓in,First.HP.H 𝑤̇ F.W.P
(15)

The Adiabatic Condensate Extraction Pump.

The Second Adiabatic High Pressure Feed Water Heater.

𝑚̇ 8 ℎ8 − 𝑚̇ 9 ℎ9 + 𝛼1 ℎ23 + 𝛼2 ℎ12 − (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 ) ℎ24 = 0, 𝑤̇ C.E.P = (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (ℎ2 − ℎ1 ) ,

̇
𝐼Second.HP.H = −𝑇0 [𝑚̇ 8 𝑠8 + 𝛼1 𝑠23 + 𝛼2 𝑠12 − 𝑚̇ 9 𝑠9 ̇
𝐼C.E.P = (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 )
(16) 󵄨 󵄨
− (𝛼1 + 𝛼2 ) 𝑠24 ] , × [(ℎ1 − ℎ2 ) − 𝑇0 (𝑠1 − 𝑠2 )] + 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑤̇ C.E.P 󵄨󵄨󵄨 , (20)

̇
𝐼Second.HP.H ̇
𝐼C.E.P
𝜂Π,Second.HP.H = 1 − . 𝜂Π,C.E.P = 1 − .
𝜓in,Second.HP.H 𝑤̇ C.E.P

The Third Adiabatic High Pressure Feed Water Heater.

The Adiabatic Turbine.
𝑚̇ 10 ℎ10 − 𝑚̇ 9 ℎ9 − 𝛼1 (ℎ17 − ℎ23 ) = 0,
̇
𝐼Third.HP.H = −𝑇0 [𝑚̇ 9 𝑠9 − 𝑚̇ 10 𝑠10 + 𝛼1 (𝑠17 − 𝑠23 )] ,
𝑤̇ 𝑡 = {𝑚̇ 11 (ℎ11 − ℎ17 ) + (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 ) (ℎ17 − ℎ12 )
̇
𝐼Third.HP.H
𝜂Π,Third.HP.H = 1 − . +(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 ) (ℎ13 − ℎ14 )
𝜓in,Third.HP.H
(17) +(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 ) (ℎ14 − ℎ18 )

+(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (ℎ15 − ℎ20 )

The Condenser.
+(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 ) (ℎ20 − ℎ21 )

𝑞𝐶̇ = (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 − 𝛼6 − 𝛼7 ) ℎ16 +(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 − 𝛼6 ) (ℎ21 − ℎ22 )

+ (𝛼5 + 𝛼6 + 𝛼7 ) ℎ28 − (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) ℎ1 , +(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 − 𝛼6 −𝛼7 ) (ℎ22 −ℎ16 )} ,

6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

×102 ×102
𝐼𝑡̇ = {−𝑇0 [𝑚̇ 11 (𝑠11 − 𝑠17 ) + (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 ) (𝑠17 − 𝑠12 ) 22

+(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 ) (𝑠13 − 𝑠14 ) 30 20

Condenser heat load (kW)

+(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 ) (𝑠14 − 𝑠18 )

Boiler heat load (kW)

18
25
+(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (𝑠15 − 𝑠20 )
16
+(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 ) (𝑠20 − 𝑠21 )
20
+(𝑚̇ 10 −𝛼1 −𝛼2 −𝛼3 −𝛼4 −𝛼5 −𝛼6 ) (𝑠21 −𝑠22 ) 14

+(𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 − 𝛼5 − 𝛼6 − 𝛼7 ) 15
12
× (𝑠22 − 𝑠16 )]} ,
10 20 30 40 50
𝑤̇ 𝑡 Condenser pressure (kPa)
𝜂Π,𝑡 = .
𝐼𝑡̇ + 𝑤̇ 𝑡 Condenser heat load Boiler heat load
TB = 500 (∘ C) TB = 500 (∘ C)
(21) TB = 550 (∘ C)
TB = 550 (∘ C)
TB = 600 (∘ C) TB = 600 (∘ C)
The Boiler.
Figure 3: The effect of condenser pressure on the boiler and
𝑞𝐵̇ = 𝑚̇ 11 ℎ11 − 𝑚̇ 10 ℎ10 + (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 ) (ℎ13 − ℎ12󸀠 ) condenser heat loads at 𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.

+ (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (ℎ15 − ℎ18 ) ,

𝐼𝐵̇ = {𝑚̇ 10 (ℎ10 − ℎ11 ) + (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 ) (ℎ12󸀠 − ℎ13 ) 3. Results and Discussion
+ (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (ℎ18 − ℎ15 ) The main parameters for analyzing this steam cycle are shown
in Table 1. It should be noted that the main parameters in
− 𝑇0 [(𝑠10 − 𝑠11 ) + (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 ) (𝑠12󸀠 − 𝑠13 ) Table 1 are chosen following some references as shown in
+ (𝑚̇ 10 − 𝛼1 − 𝛼2 − 𝛼3 − 𝛼4 ) (𝑠18 − 𝑠15 )]} Table 1. Furthermore, low values of both pinch and approach
points are chosen following [29] such that the thermal
𝑇0 efficiency of the cycle has a maximum. The thermodynamic
+ 𝑞𝐵̇ (1 − ), properties of water were calculated using EES software [30]
𝑇𝐵
and summarized in Table 2. The energy consumption based
𝐼𝐵̇ on the dead state of 𝑃0 = 101 (kPa) and 𝑇0 = 25 (∘ C) for each
𝜂Π,𝐵 = 1 − . component is shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Table 3
ex𝑓
(22) shows the power balance of the power plant components at
two states. One of these is based on the data from Table 2
Energy efficiency (thermal efficiency) is defined as [27] and the other is from the power plant at the optimal first law
efficiency. In other words, to obtain the optimum first law
efficiency and then the power balance of other parts of cycle
𝑊̇ Net
𝜂thermal = . (23) such as boiler and turbine, should vary as seen in Table 3.
𝑄̇ 𝐵 The optimum first law efficiency is shown, for example,
in Figures 9, 11, 12, and 13 for some different extraction
It is obvious that pressure. The exergy destruction, exergy efficiency of each
component, and percent exergy destruction rate are also
𝑊̇ Net = 𝑊̇ 𝑇 − 𝑊̇ C.E.P − 𝑊̇ F.W.P , (24) shown in Table 4 following the equations defined earlier for
each component. The thermal efficiencies for boiler, heaters,
whereas exergy efficiency (the second law efficiency) is and condenser are 100%, since the heat losses for these
defined as components are neglected. The efficiencies in the case of the
turbine, feed water pump and, condensate extraction pump
𝑊̇ Net
𝜂exe = . (25) are 92.83%, 80%, and 80%, respectively. The first and second
ex𝑓 law efficiencies of this power cycle based on (23) and (26) are
48.9% and 46.13%, respectively.
It is obvious that [28]
𝜂thermal 3.1. Effect of Condenser Pressure. The effect of condenser
𝜂exe = . (26)
𝛾 pressure on the boiler and condenser heat load and also on
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 7

1450 47

1400
46
1350
45
1300

Second law efficiency (%)

Turbine power (kW)

44
1250

1200 43

1150 42

1100
41
1050
40
1000
39
950
10 20 30 40 50
10 20 30 40 50
Condenser pressure (kPa)
Condenser pressure (kPa)
TB = 500 (∘ C)
TB = 500 (∘ C)
TB = 550 (∘ C)
TB = 550 (∘ C)
TB = 600 (∘ C)
TB = 600 (∘ C)
Figure 4: The effect of condenser pressure on the turbine power at
Figure 6: The effect of condenser pressure on the second law
𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.
efficiency at 𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.

×102 ×102
49 14

48
13.5
47 26
First law efficiency (%)

Condenser heat load (kW)

46 13
Boiler heat load (kW)

45
24
12.5
44

43
12
22
42

41 11.5

10 20 30 40 50
20
Condenser pressure (kPa) 11
2 3 4 5 6
×104
TB = 500 (∘ C) HP turbine pressure (kPa)
TB = 550 (∘ C)
Boiler heat load Condenser heat load
TB = 600 (∘ C) TB = 600 (∘ C) TB = 600 (∘ C)
TB = 550 (∘ C) TB = 550 (∘ C)
Figure 5: The effect of condenser pressure on the first law efficiency
TB = 500 (∘ C) TB = 500 (∘ C)
at 𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.
Figure 7: The effect of HP turbine inlet pressure on the boiler and
condenser heat loads at 𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.
the turbine power for three boiler exit steam temperatures
is shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. It is clear that as exit steam temperature increases. However, the boiler heat
the condenser pressure increases, the condenser saturation load is independent of the condenser pressure. Figure 4
temperature increases too which means that more heat has shows that the turbine power is affected by both the boiler exit
to be removed by the condenser for fixed boiler exit steam steam temperature and the condenser pressure. Therefore,
temperature as seen in Figure 3. Furthermore, the condenser as the condenser pressure increases, more heat load will be
heat load increases for fixed condenser pressure as the boiler removed through the condenser which leads to a decrease
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

1400

46

1300

Second law efficiency (%)

45
Turbine power (kW)

1200
44

1100 43

42
1000
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6 ×104
HP turbine pressure (kPa) ×104 HP turbine pressure (kPa)

TB = 600 (∘ C)
TB = 600 (∘ C) TB = 550 (∘ C)
TB = 550 (∘ C) TB = 500 (∘ C)
TB = 500 (∘ C)
Figure 10: The effect of HP turbine inlet pressure on the second law
Figure 8: The effect of HP turbine inlet pressure on the turbine efficiency at 𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.
power at 𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.

49.15
49

49.1
First law efficiency (%)

48
First law efficiency (%)

49.05

47
49

46 48.95

48.9
45 8 10 12 14 16 18
HP turbine extraction pressure (kPa) ×103

2 3 4 5 6
P17
×104
HP turbine pressure (kPa) P12

TB = 600 (∘ C) Figure 11: The best values of extraction pressure from HP turbine.
TB = 550 (∘ C)
TB = 500 (∘ C)

Figure 9: The effect of HP turbine inlet pressure on the first law
efficiency at 𝑇𝐵 = 500∘ C, 550∘ C, and 600∘ C.
in the turbine power for fixed 𝑇𝐵 and vice versa. It is also
noted that as 𝑇𝐵 increases the turbine power increases for
fixed condenser pressure.
Figures 5 and 6 show the effect of condenser pressure
on the first and second law efficiencies, respectively. Profiles
shown in these figures are confirmed by (23) and (26), since
the first law efficiency depends on both the net power and
the heat added at the boiler but since the boiler heat load is
constant then increasing the condenser pressure will reduce
the net power which in turn will reduce the thermal efficiency.
Similar effects are obtained for the exergy since it depends on
the thermal efficiency and the constant value of the exergy
factor as seen in Figure 6.
3.2. Effect of High Pressure Turbine. Figures 7 and 8 show the
effect of high pressure turbine on the boiler and condenser
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 9

increases, so the turbine power output increases. However,

due to the change of gradient of the saturated vapor line, the
turbine power decreases and this explains the behavior of the
49 thermal efficiency which increases and then decreases as the
turbine extraction pressure increases as shown in Figures 11,
First law efficiency (%)

12, and 13.

Figures 9 and 10 show the effect of HP turbine pressure
48.8 on the first and second law efficiencies. Since the first law
efficiency depends on both the turbine power and the boiler
heat and since both of them (as shown in Figures 7 and 8)
reach a maximum then decrease, therefore the thermal
48.6
efficiency profiles follow them as seen in Figure 9. Similar
effects are obtained for the second law efficiency since it is a
function of the first law efficiency so it should follow the same
trend as seen in Figure 8.
48.4
It is also clear that for both cases as the boiler exit steam
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 temperature increases the boiler and condenser heat load,
IP turbine extraction pressure (kPa) ×103 turbine power, and first and second law efficiencies increase
for any fixed pressure. Figures 11, 12, and 13 show the best
P14
values of extraction pressure from high, intermediate, and
Pdeaerator
low pressure turbine on the first law efficiency at 𝑇𝐵 = 600∘ C,
Figure 12: The best values of extraction pressure from IP turbine. respectively.
The maximum first law efficiency at optimum extraction
pressure (𝑃17 = 15639 kPa, 𝑃12 = 10000 kPa, 𝑃14 = 4540 kPa,
𝑃6 = 2073 kPa, 𝑃20 = 472.6 kPa, 𝑃21 = 171.7 kPa, and 𝑃22 =
50 kPa) is 49.16%.
49.15

4. Conclusion
First law efficiency (%)

49.1
In this study, a thermodynamic analysis of a reheat Rankine
cycle steam power plant with three HP feed water heaters
and three LP feed water heaters with deaerator is conducted,
49.05
in terms of the first law of thermodynamic analysis and the
second law analysis. The main conclusions drawn from the
present study are summarized as follows.
49

(i) When condenser pressure increases, the condenser

rejected heat increases and the turbine power and first
48.95
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 and second law efficiencies decrease but boiler heat
LP turbine extraction pressure (kPa) transfer is independent of the condenser pressure.

P20 (ii) When the boiler exit steam temperature increases,

P21
P22
condenser rejected heat load, boiler heat load, turbine
power, and first and second laws efficiencies increase.
Figure 13: The best values of extraction pressure from LP turbine.
(iii) As the high pressure turbine increases, the first and
second laws’ efficiencies have similar profiles with
heat load and also on the turbine power for three boiler maximum values depending on the HP turbine and
exit steam temperatures, respectively. When the HP turbine the boiler temperature.
pressure increases, the turbine exit enthalpy decreases and
the condenser heat load decreases because the inlet and the (iv) The maximum first law efficiencies are obtained for
outlet enthalpies at condenser are constant and the mass the optimal extraction pressure at high, intermediate,
flow rate decreases. Also it can be seen that the turbine and low pressure turbine as 49.15%.
power and boiler heat increase first to maximum and then
decrease as the HP turbine inlet pressure increases. It should (v) The maximum value of exergy loss occurs in the boiler
be noticed that the enthalpy drop across the turbine and followed by the turbine and the minimum value of
extraction mass flow rate increase as HP turbine inlet pressure exergy loss occurs in the condensate extraction pump.
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Nomenclature [2] M. J. Moran and H. N. Shapiro, Fundamentals of Engineering

−1
Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 5th
ex: Specific exergy (kJ⋅kg ) edition, 2006.
̇
Ex: Exergy rate (kW) [3] M. A. Habib and S. M. Zubair, “Second-law-based thermo-
𝑔: Gravitational constant (m⋅s−2 ) dynamic analysis of regenerative-reheat Rankine-cycle power
ℎ: Specific enthalpy (kJ⋅kg−1 ) plants,” Energy, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 295–301, 1992.
LHV: Low heating value (kJ⋅kg−1 ) [4] P. Chiesa and E. Macchi, “A thermodynamic analysis of different
𝑚:̇ Mass flow rate (kg⋅s−1 ) options to break 60% electric efficiency in combined cycle
𝑃: Pressure (kPa) power plants,” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
𝑄:̇
Power, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 770–785, 2004.
Heat transfer (kW)
[5] M. Gambini, G. L. Guizzi, and M. Vellini, “H2 /O2 cycles: ther-
𝑠: Specific entropy (kJ⋅K−1 ⋅kg−1 )
modynamic potentialities and limits,” Journal of Engineering for
𝑇: Temperature (∘ C) Gas Turbines and Power, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 553–563, 2005.
V: Velocity (m⋅s−1 ) [6] R. Bhargava and A. Peretto, “A unique approach for thermoeco-
𝑊:̇ Work rate (kW) nomic optimization of an intercooled, reheat, and recuperated
𝑧: Elevation (m). gas turbine for cogeneration applications,” Journal of Engineer-
ing for Gas Turbines and Power, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 881–891, 2002.
Greek Letters [7] A. Poullikkas, “An overview of current and future sustainable
gas turbine technologies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 409–443, 2005.
𝜂: Efficiency (%) [8] T. Srinivas, “Study of a deaerator location in triple-pressure
𝛼: Extraction mass flow rate (kg⋅s−1 ) reheat combined power cycle,” Energy, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1364–
𝛾: Exergy factor. 1371, 2009.
[9] M. Kopac and A. Hilalci, “Effect of ambient temperature on the
Subscript efficiency of the regenerative and reheat Çatalağzı power plant
in Turkey,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 27, no. 8-9, pp.
1377–1385, 2007.
0: Reference point [10] P. Regulagadda, I. Dincer, and G. F. Naterer, “Exergy analysis of
1–28: Points a thermal power plant with measured boiler and turbine losses,”
𝐵: Boiler Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 30, no. 8-9, pp. 970–976, 2010.
𝐶: Condenser [11] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, and I. Dincer, “Energy and exergy
𝐻: Heater analysis of Salihli geothermal district heating system in Manisa,
HP: High pressure Turkey,” International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 29, no. 5,
𝑖: Inlet pp. 393–408, 2005.
IP: Intermediate pressure [12] M. Ameri, P. Ahmadi, and S. Khanmohammadi, “Exergy anal-
LP: Low pressure ysis of a 420 MW combined cycle power plant,” International
𝑜: Outlet Journal of Energy Research, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 175–183, 2008.
𝑝: Pump [13] M. A. Rosen, “Energy- and exergy-based comparison of coal-
𝑡: Turbine. fired and nuclear steam power plants,” Exergy, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.
180–192, 2001.
[14] I. Dincer and H. A. Muslim, “Thermodynamic analysis of
Conflict of Interests reheat cycle steam power plants,” International Journal of Energy
Research, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 727–739, 2001.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
[15] J. M. Medina-Flores and M. Picón-Núñez, “Modelling the
regarding the publication of this paper.
power production of single and multiple extraction steam
turbines,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 2811–
Acknowledgments 2820, 2010.
[16] I. H. Aljundi, “Energy and exergy analysis of a steam power
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of plant in Jordan,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 29, no. 2-3,
Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this pp. 324–328, 2009.
work through the research group Project no. RGP-VPP- [17] Z. Oktay, “Investigation of coal-fired power plants in Turkey and
080. They also express their gratitude to the anonymous a case study: can plant,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 29, no.
referees for their constructive review of the paper and helpful 2-3, pp. 550–557, 2009.
comments. [18] P. Ahmadi, I. Dincer, and M. A. Rosen, “Exergy, exergoeco-
nomic and environmental analyses and evolutionary algorithm
based multi-objective optimization of combined cycle power
References plants,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 5886–5898, 2011.
[1] H. H. Erdem, A. V. Akkaya, B. Cetin et al., “Comparative [19] Y. A. Cengel and M. A. Boles, Thermodynamics: An Engineering
energetic and exergetic performance analyses for coal-fired Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 4th edition, 2002.
thermal power plants in Turkey,” International Journal of Ther- [20] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, and M. Moran, Thermal Design and
mal Sciences, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 2179–2186, 2009. Optimization, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 11

[21] S. C. Kaushik, V. S. Reddy, and S. K. Tyagi, “Energy and exergy

analyses of thermal power plants: a review,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1857–1872, 2011.
[22] M. Ameri, P. Ahmadi, and A. Hamidi, “Energy, exergy and
exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant: a case study,”
International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 499–
512, 2009.
[23] A. G. Kaviri, M. N. M. Jaafar, T. M. Lazim, and H. Barzegaravval,
“Exergoenvironmental optimization of Heat Recovery Steam
Generators in combined cycle power plant through energy and
exergy analysis,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 67,
pp. 27–33, 2013.
[24] T. J. Kotas, The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis,
Butterworths, London, UK, 1985.
[25] M. Ameri and N. Enadi, “Thermodynamic modeling and
second law based performance analysis of a gas turbine power
plant (exergy and exergoeconomic analysis),” Journal of Power
Technologies, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 183–191, 2012.
[26] A. G. Kaviri, M. N. M. Jaafar, and T. M. Lazim, “Modeling and
multi-objective exergy based optimization of a combined cycle
power plant using a genetic algorithm,” Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 58, pp. 94–103, 2012.
[27] M. M. Rashidi, N. Galanis, F. Nazari, A. Basiri Parsa, and L.
Shamekhi, “Parametric analysis and optimization of regener-
ative Clausius and organic Rankine cycles with two feedwater
heaters using artificial bees colony and artificial neural net-
work,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 5728–5740, 2011.
[28] C. J. Koroneos and E. A. Nanaki, “Energy and exergy utilization
assessment of the Greek transport sector,” Resources, Conserva-
tion and Recycling, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 700–706, 2008.
[29] M. Valdés, M. D. Durán, and A. Rovira, “Thermoeconomic
optimization of combined cycle gas turbine power plants using
genetic algorithms,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 23, no. 17,
pp. 2169–2182, 2003.
[30] S. A. Klein and F. Alvarda, “Engineering equation solver (EES),”
WI: F-chart Software, 2007.
[31] J. Franke and R. Kral, “Supercritical boiler technology for
future market conditions,” in Proceedings of the 6th International
Charles Parsons Turbine Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 2003.
[32] Y. Ust, G. Gonca, and H. K. Kayadelen, “Determination of opti-
mum reheat pressures for single and double reheat irreversible
Rankine cycle,” Journal of the Energy Institute, vol. 84, no. 4, pp.
215–219, 2011.
[33] F. Hajabdollahi, Z. Hajabdollahi, and H. Hajabdollahi, “Soft
computing based multi-objective optimization of steam cycle
power plant using NSGA-II and ANN,” Applied Soft Computing,
vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 3648–3655, 2012.
[34] R. Chacartegui, D. Sánchez, J. M. Muñoz, and T. Sánchez,
“Alternative ORC bottoming cycles FOR combined cycle power
plants,” Applied Energy, vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 2162–2170, 2009.