AC 2008-323: POWER PLANT ANALYSIS WITH MATHCAD

Jason Christopher, Rice University

Jason Christopher graduated from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) in 2007 at the
top of his major, Mechanical Engineering. Jason is currently pursuing a Master of Science in
Mechanical Engineering at Rice University, where his research focuses on computational fluid
dynamics (CFD), with specific emphasis on work related to the NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle
parachutes. After finishing his studies, he will work as an Air Force developmental engineer.

Adam Parks, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Adam Parks graduated from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) in 2007 with a
degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is currently stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
OH where he works as a developmental engineer. He is in charge of several research projects
with an emphasis on aircraft structural integrity.

Vipul Sharma, Air Force Institute of Technology

Vipul Sharma graduated from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) in 2007 where he
majored in Mechanical Engineering and minored in Mandarin. Vipul is currently pursuing a
Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)
where his research focus is Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC) and their applicability for use in
turbine engines. After completing his tour at AFIT, he will begin pilot training.

Michael Maixner, U.S. Air Force Academy

Michael Rex Maixner graduated with distinction from the U. S. Naval Academy, and served as a
commissioned officer in the USN for 25 years; his first 12 years were spent as a shipboard officer,
while his remaining service was strictly in engineering assignments. He received his Ocean
Engineer and SMME degrees from MIT, and his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Naval
Postgraduate School. He served as an Instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School and as a
Professor of Engineering at Maine Maritime Academy; he is currently a member of the
Department of Engineering Mechanics at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Page 13.987.1

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008

 Power Plant Analysis with Mathcad
by

J.D. Christopher 2LT USAF

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science
6100 Main Street — MS 321
Houston, TX 77005
jchristopher@rice.edu

Adam K. Parks, 2LT USAF

Developmental Engineer
Air Force Research Laboratory
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base OH
Adam.Parks@WPAFB.AF.MIL

V. Sharma, 2LT USAF

Air Force Institute of Technology
AFIT ENY/GAE 08S
2950 Hobson Way Building 641
WPAFB, OH 45433-7765
Vipul.Sharma@afit.edu

M.R. Maixner, PhD, PE

Department of Engineering Mechanics
DFEM 6L-155
2354 Fairchild DR
USAF Academy CO 80840-6240
Michael.Maixner@usafa.edu

Abstract

The requirement to continually update property values manually can seriously hinder the
learning and design processes in more advanced thermodynamics courses; the problem is
further compounded when two or more working fluids are involved, as in a combined
cycle. The pedagogical benefit of such an academic exercise would be greatly enhanced
if students were relieved of the requirement to manually update property values, allowing
them to concentrate on the more “global” aspects of the design process. Recent
“freeware” Mathcad function worksheets, still in development, allow automatic updating
of property values in response to changing input parameters, thereby permitting rapid
assessment of system response to changes in one or several parameters (turbine pressure
ratio, ambient conditions, cooling water temperature, boiler pressure, etc.). The function
worksheets, in conjunction with Mathcad’s intrinsic ability to handle units, has helped to
streamline and enhance the analysis of more advanced thermodynamic systems. Recent
experience in the application of these worksheets in more complex systems is reviewed,
Page 13.987.2

and suggestions for their implementation are made.

Introduction and Background

It has been suggested that instruction in the use of property tables be abandoned, and that
reliance be placed solely on software to retrieve property values—if employed at all, use
of tables and interpolation should be taught following instruction on the use of software
(Dixon1). The experiences of the current authors have proven otherwise. It is imperative
that all students of thermodynamics be capable of understanding the structure of the
various property tables and plots for different thermodynamic working fluids; proper
interpolation techniques are also a must, especially in light of the requirement for the use
of tables in the Fundamentals of Engineering examination and in actual practice. Once
having mastered this material, however, the study of more intricate systems is hampered
when property “look-ups” must be performed manually; when design iterations and/or
system modifications are performed, even on simple systems, the requirement for manual
property determination can be overwhelming, resulting in frequent errors and a detraction
from broader, more global learning objectives associated with design, optimization, and
the like.

Cadets at the United States Air Force Academy enrolled in the mechanical engineering
program learn these basic property relationships in the first course in the thermal fluids
curriculum, and practice them in the following two thermal fluids courses (Maixner
et.al.2). Beyond these first three courses, an elective course in energy conversion entails
substantial use of these property tables in support of broader application of
thermodynamics principles in the design and analysis of substantially more complex
thermodynamic systems. At this point, cadets are relieved of the requirement to perform
manual property retrieval. In the past, Thermal Fluids Toolbox (an Excel©-based add-
in—see Maixner3, Caretto4) had been employed to allow automatic property
determination whenever independent variables had changed; its graphic user interface is
excellent, but the requirement still existed to perform necessary unit conversions within
the basic spreadsheet. The energy conversion course includes a term project which is
usually centered about a combined cycle cogeneration plant; the course includes a design
component wherein the students must modify and analyze a substantial component of the
plant. Obviously, numerous property determinations are required throughout, and must
be refreshed when any upstream changes are made.

Mathcad Implementation

While previously provided for steam, support is no longer included for any intrinsic
property functions within Mathcad. Recently, however, McClain5 presented several
Mathcad function worksheets which, when referenced by other Mathcad programs, can
automatically perform these property lookups; his paper provides some simple
applications of these function worksheets. Dr. McClain was kind enough to provide the
existing functions for use at the Air Force Academy; these included tables for water, R22,
R134a, propane, ammonia, and a variety of gases (air and 12 ideal gases). In the fall term
of the 2006-7 academic year, the first three authors embarked on an independent study
Page 13.987.3

project to represent a combined cycle cogeneration plant within Mathcad (Figure 1)

(since teaching assistants are not routinely provided at the Academy, these three students
essentially acted in that capacity); additionally, a compressed air energy storage plant was
modeled in Mathcad (Figure 2, based on Berman6). The combined cycle cogeneration
plant consisted of an intercooled regenerative gas turbine which exhausted to a Rankine
cycle; the cooling water for the condenser was employed in a cogeneration capacity.
This plant requires properties for two working fluids: air and water.

Most of the cadets enrolled in the spring 2006-07 and 2007-08 offerings of the energy
conversion course had no previous experience with Mathcad. The Academy has
purchased Mathcad 13 site licenses which were checked out to the enrolled cadets for the
duration of the term, and two 20-minute classroom introductions were provided early in
the term to demonstrate the basic features of the program. Additionally, the cadets were
encouraged to perform relatively simple homework problems with Mathcad, with the
warning that they would soon be using Mathcad in conjunction with the first part of their
term project. A basic Mathcad worksheet solution template was provided, employing the
required format for all homework submissions (see, e.g., §2.6 of Moran et. al.7).
The combined cycle/cogeneration project was assigned in three parts to teams of two
cadets each, with the entire project distributed in the third week of the semester; the three
parts of the project were due at roughly equal intervals through the remainder of the
semester; prior to submitting the second and third parts, corrected work on the previous
submissions was required to be resubmitted to the instructor’s satisfaction. The first
portion of the project required a detailed analysis of the gas turbine portion of the
combined cycle, and was phased to coincide with the portion of the course which covered
internal combustion engines, gas turbines, and cycle enhancements (reheat, regeneration,
intercooling, etc.). Part two of the project centered about the steam cycle, and was
scheduled to coincide with course coverage of the Rankine cycle and its performance
enhancements (reheat, feed heating, etc.). The final portion of the project concentrated
on overall cycle performance, cogeneration, engineering economics, and a design
component. A certain amount of “what if” analysis was required in the first two parts of
the project: in the first part, all cadets were required to investigate the effect of varying
gas turbine inlet temperature, and in the second part, of varying condensate depression.
In the design portion of the project, however, each team was required to submit a
proposal for a design change which might entail adding/removing a cycle component
to/from the baseline design (reheat, regeneration, feed heating, intercooling, etc.), or
performing a more detailed parametric analysis on the effect of environmental conditions,
pressure ratios, boiler operating pressures, etc. The concomitant effect on plant
economics was an essential outcome of this design analysis.

Problems and Limitations

o While not a problem with McClain’s Mathcad worksheets, it took some time for
users to obtain the requisite familiarity with function call syntax so that reference
sheets were not required; this was particularly true for the multi-phase working
fluids such as R-22, R-134a, propane, ammonia, and water. Once working with a
particular fluid for several days, however, reference sheets were not generally
Page 13.987.4

required. Indeed, the structure of the function calls actually mimicked the
 structure of the tables, helping to make their format and use that much easier (see
Figure 3, from McClain8). It might be appropriate to include an example of
double interpolation on the board (commonly encountered in refrigeration cycles
for the compressor discharge state), and then perform with same property
retrieval(s) with the freeware worksheet function(s); demonstrating the tedious
nature of a double interpolation makes any function syntax difficulties pale in
comparison!

o McClain8 warns that the worksheet functions are intended only for academic use,
and that if employed in industrial engineering calculations, the user is responsible
for all calculations and results. A similar caveat is provided in each of the
function worksheets.

o To employ the property function worksheets, a “reference” statement must be

used in the worksheet from which it is called. Frequently, when opening a saved
worksheet which included a reference statement, it was required to “refresh” the
saved worksheet in order to activate the reference statement and allow property
functions to work. Although annoying, this did not prove to be a critical flaw.

o The function worksheets defaulted to all arrays having a lower subscript of zero;
all worksheets which referenced these function worksheets also had to employ a
starting subscript of zero. Again, somewhat irritating, but not a limiting issue.

o In the region of compressed/subcooled liquid, specifying a combination of two

independent properties other than temperature and pressure frequently resulted in
functional evaluations which were inaccurate. When this occurred, it was
necessary to assume that, for a property which was a function of both pressure
and temperature, its value could be obtained from the saturated liquid condition
associated with that temperature. For enthalpy at a pump discharge, it was also
possible to determine the approximate enthalpy change across the pump as the
specific volume at the inlet times the pressure change across the pump. This was
a perfect example where knowledge of the property tables was invaluable, and
resulted in many “teachable moments.” Students were quick to point out
situations which resulted in negative enthalpies, imaginary numbers, etc.

Student Feedback

In previous terms, Thermal Fluids Toolbox (Maixner3) had been employed as the vehicle
to obtain properties for the working fluids; although it had a good graphic user interface,
it still did not automatically convert units. Mathcad’s organic capability to perform unit
conversions, coupled with McClain’s function worksheets, proved to be the best solution.
Although initially chagrined by the requirement to “learn” another piece of software, the
WYSIWYG (“What You See Is What You Get”) interface associated with Mathcad, the
fact that site licenses were used (in lieu of purchasing yet another piece of software), the
classroom familiarization sessions, and the phased nature of the project helped to
Page 13.987.5

ameliorate initial hesitancies on the cadets’ parts. In the end, cadets were uniformly
enthusiastic in embracing Mathcad, and were using it in other courses as well; several
ended up purchasing the student version of the software to retain. Additional comments
from end-of-course surveys were on the order of “why didn’t we have access to Mathcad
earlier in our curriculum” and “it would have been nice to have had these property look-
ups during the first three courses in thermal fluids.” Of course, student understanding of
the structure of the property tables and the relationships of the various phases in multi-
phase fluids would have suffered, had they not been forced to perform interpolations by
hand prior to moving on to the software.

An additional point is that the use of the Mathcad property functions did not alleviate the
requirement for cadets to think about how to apply them—the functions were not a
panacea for understanding mass/momentum/energy conservation and entropy balances.
Mathcad also helped entice cadets to be more organized in their approach to problem
solving, especially when employing the Mathcad format templates mentioned above.
Finally, the cadets (“teaching assistants”) who developed the detailed project to be
performed in the spring were assigned yet another project to complete during the energy
conversion course, with a suitable degree of difficulty (Figure 4).

As a condition of use, end-of-course cadet feedback relative to the use of the Mathcad
property evaluation functions was provided to Dr. McClain.

Recommendations

Based upon two semesters’ experience using the property function worksheets, the
following suggestions are offered:

o “Budding” thermodynamics students are perhaps better off learning the property
table structure, manual interpolation, etc. Additionally, if they are not likely to be
taking more advanced applications of thermodynamics, purchasing the basic
Mathcad program (even the student version) is a fairly significant financial outlay.
Additionally, it is important that these basic skills be mastered for use when
computers are unavailable or not permitted (for example, during the
Fundamentals of Engineering examination).

o When introducing the property function worksheets, it is best to include a few

short introductory lessons in Mathcad itself, culminating in the establishment of
reference links to the property function worksheets, use of those property
functions, and comparison of results with tabular values.

o Recommend that homework be done with properties obtained from the property
functions; if complete solutions are routinely posted, post them in Mathcad
format. Recommend (or require, as appropriate) that solutions be done in
accordance with a prescribed format within a Mathcad template.
Page 13.987.6
 o “Ramp up” the difficulty with increasingly more complex systems, requiring
students to perform “mini-design” modifications or “what if” scenarios which will
test Mathcad’s features to the fullest extent possible.

Conclusion

Mathcad, along with McClain’s various property worksheets, has been found to be an
exceptionally powerful tool for use in analyzing and designing complex thermodynamic
systems, and for providing results in a report-quality format. The user is now freed from
the minutiae of property determinations, allowing more attention to be paid on the
broader design aspects of the problem. While intended primarily as an aid for students of
thermodynamics, these tools may also find utility in industry, pursuant to the caveats
provided by McClain8. McClain and his coworkers are continuing to refine the existing
Mathcad worksheets, and are constructing additional worksheets to include a greater
variety of thermodynamic working fluids; this will further enhance the problem-solving
capabilities for future thermodynamics students.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Dr. Stephen McClain of Baylor University and his coworkers
for having assembled the various Mathcad worksheets for thermodynamic working
fluids, and for having been so gracious as to provide them for evaluation and use at the
Air Force Academy. Dr. McClain’s prompt and expert troubleshooting at all hours was
greatly appreciated by the authors and cadets; four-hour turnaround to correct program
bugs on a Saturday night is most certainly exceptional service! Thanks are due also to
the students enrolled in ME467 Energy Conversion at the Air Force Academy for their
cogent and insightful questions regarding the Mathcad functions.

Disclaimer

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or
position of the U.S. Air Force, Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

References
1
Dixon, G.W., Teaching Thermodynamics without Tables—Isn’t it Time?, 2001 ASEE Annual Conference
& Exposition, paper 2001-2266.
2
Maixner, M.R., and Havener, G., Thermal Fluids Systems Engineering at the United States Air Force
Academy, 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, paper 2004-2266.
3
Maixner, M.R., Interactive Graphic Depiction of Working Fluid Thermal Properties Using Spreadsheets,
Page 13.987.7

2006 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, paper 2006-231.

4
Caretto, L, McDaniel, D., and Mincer, T., Spreadsheet Calculations of Thermodynamic Properties, 2005
ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, paper 2005-297.
5
McClain, S., MathCAD Functions for Thermodynamic Analysis of Ideal Gases, 2005 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, paper 2005-3666.
6
Berman, P.A., Turbo Machinery Systems for Compressed Air Energy Storage, ASME paper 76-JPGC-GT-
1.
7
Moran, M.J., H.N. Shapiro, B.R. Munson, D.P. DeWitt. Introduction to Thermal Systems Engineering:
Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Heat Transfer. New York: Wiley, 2003.

Page 13.987.8
 Recuperator
8 1.3 psig
Lost
52 psig mdot=47
Combustor 5
9
299.7 F
7

Wfuel
0 psig
1 100 F 4
Wair
10

11 9 LPC HPC HPT LPT Power

Turbine
GTG
Saturated
14.7 psia
Boiler 2 3

From
Intercooler 6
10
Super- Second Gas
Turbine TGT cw out TGT cw in
heated
Boiler
287.07 F
40 psig V--1

261 F 617 F Lost 612 F Steam

8 mdot= Turbine TG
52 psig 285 psig 285 psig 280 psig
mdot=58829 294

Pressure
LEGEND Regulating 1 2
Valves 14 mdot=250
w=gas & fuel flow, lbm/hr
F=temp, deg Fahrenheit mdot=100 13
mdot=steam flow, lbm/hr
7 5 3 x=0.92
Air or gas 11

260.4 F Deareating
Steam Feed Heater 106 F
366 psig 20 psig 20 psig
(Saturated
Mixture) TTG cw in
Feed & Condensate 4
mdot=
6 259.3 F 12 Condenser
5998 2.5" Hg Abs
mdot=74500 106 F
Gland Leakoff & Vent
TTG cw out
Condensate Make-up
Feed mdot=441
Pump
Pump

Figure 1: Combined cycle cogeneration plant employed in Spring 2007 offering of ME467 Energy
Conversion.

Clutch Clutch
LPC IPC HPC M/G HPT LPT

7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 13
Reheater
IC1 IC2 After Clr
CC

14

E D C B
Recuperator

10

A 9

15

Reservoir

Figure 2: Compressed air energy storage cycle. Page 13.987.9

Figure 3: Scheme for naming property functions (from McClain8).

1
Fuel Combustor
8
4 5

LPC HPC HPT LPT Generator

PEG

2
3 6 7

Fuel Reheater
Intercooler

Steam
Turbine Generator
9 PES
Building HX
Pump 2 18
19 20
D

17 E
y18 y19 C
15 16

G F
11
10
14 B
13
12 OFWH
CFWH Condensate
Pump

21 Feed Pump
A
T 22

Figure 4: Additional combined cycle cogeneration plant.

Page 13.987.10