Enernv Vol.20. No. 11, DD.1121-I130.

1995
Pergamon -&pyright Q 199j &ewier Science Ltd
Printedin CheatBritain.All rights reserved
0360-5442/95 69.50+ 0.00

THERMODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE

GHAZLAN POWER PLANT

M. A. HABIB, S. A. M. SAID,? and J. J. AL-BAGAWI

Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhabran 31261,
Saudi Arabia

(Received 16 December 1994)

Abstract-The design and performance of the Ghazlan power plant (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
are described. The study is based on first- and second-law analyses. A full exergy analysis is
carried out to identify the potential for improving the plant efficiency. The exergy analysis shows
a detailed breakdown of exergy losses for the different plant components. Alternative arrangements
to improve the efficiency are suggested.

1. INTRODUCTION

A computer program for on-line thermoeconomic evaluation of steam power plants was recently
developed.’ Performance optimization of thermal systems was carried out* in which operating costs are
based on second-law analysis; in this study, components with significant irreversibility losses were ident-
ified. A comparison has been carried out between a cogeneration and a conventional plant based on first-
and second-law analyses3 The distributions of irreversibility rates were evaluated for different components
of conventional and gas-turbine co-generation plants for the same process mass and power output. A
power cycle at different loads was optimized4 by minimization of irreversibilities. This work indicates
that the boiler steam temperature and pressure at full load should be at their respective upper limits for
minimal irreversibilities to occur in the system and they should be decreased at part loads of less than
65%. Exergy-flow diagrams have been published5 for a combined power and desalination facility in Abu
Dhabi.5 The results of an extensive first- and second-law analysis of the performance results of a turbine
cycle for steam power plants have also been published6 and show striking differences between first- and
second-law analyses. The authors of other studies7-1ohave used the concept of exergy. In this paper, the
exergy concept is utilized to evaluate the design and performance of an existing power plant.

2. MATHEMATICAL MODELING

The power cycle is represented mathematically by a system of algebraic equations. The system of
equations for the mathematical model consists of the (i) mass, energy, and exergy equations, (ii) thermo-
chemical property relations, and (iii) associated boundary conditions.

2.1. The balance equations

The steady-state equation for conservation of mass is

2 rite= c cl, . (1)

e I

That for energy conservation is

(2)

The exergy balance is

tTo whom all correspondenceshould be addressed.

1121
(PI)
(El)
(2 ) ‘I\HH X ++ = “‘0
01 speq
(or) ‘(;A/!x ) KII0.y = “%
(6) ‘(OS - S) OJT- (OY - Y) = “”
alaqM
‘ “%I + WV = ‘v
(t-0 - --
(L)
s! .z ureaas ua@ a 30 v Waxa M~IJ CXJCYXI~
@loI am
. ‘J,;y = !y
(9) -. .
(s)
(9)
18 $3 ‘l!‘PH ‘V ‘b’l
 Ghazlan power plant 1123

Using Eqs. ( 11) and ( 14) the irreversibility rate for power plant components without chemical reac-
tions is

i,., = T,,& , (15)

where the entropy production rate is given by

C lit,S, - C miSi (16)

e

The irreversibility rate in the combustion chamber may be obtained from the availability balance of
Eq. (3) in the form

. .
Ic.c=Af-;lm-&H-&, (17)

where the combustion chamber availability input and output are, respectively,

2.5. Boundary conditions

The incoming air and fuel temperatures are 25°C; the stack temperature is 450 K. All components,
except for the steam generator, have adiabatic boundaries and 15% excess combustion air is assumed.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The characteristics of the power cycle are those of the Ghazlan thermal power plant which has four
400-MW units. The plant configuration is shown in Fig. 1. The thermodynamic properties of the power

rl
I
I
I Steam
I generator
I
I
I
I

Dcaerator
PumP t

beater 1

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the Ghazlan power plant.

1124 M. A. Habib et al

cycle are fixed at the values shown in Table 1. These results of plant-design performance are shown
in Figs. 2-6. Figure 2 shows the first-law efficiency q and the total irreversibility rate I (as a percent
of input exergy) vs the load. The figure indicates an increase of q and decrease of I with load percentage.
The rates of change of q and I decrease as the load increases. The load is normally reduced by reducing
the fuel-flow rate. Figure 3 shows the fuel-flow rate vs the load. As may be seen, the reduction in first
law efficiency q at 25% load cannot be attributed to reduction in fuel-flow rate.
The reduction in 1) at low loads may be attributed to irreversibility losses in the steam-generator and
turbine-cycle units. As the load increases, the combustion efficiency is expected to improve and the
percentage of heat losses in the steam generator is expected to decrease, which is confirmed by results
in Fig. 4. The irreversibility at full load is less than that at 25% load by 7.5%. Irreversibility losses in
the steam generator are due to combustion and heat-transfer irreversibilities. These losses are related
to the thermomechanical and chemical irreversibilities which are expressed by Eq. (8). The losses
are characterized by gas losses and the difference in temperature between the boiler gases and the
steam flow.
The h-s expansion lines for the high-, intermediate-, and low-pressure turbines are shown in Fig. 5.
The efficiency of the high-pressure turbine decreases as the load is reduced. This result explains the
improvement in q at high load percentages. The sharp decay in efficiency of the high-pressure turbine
at 25% load is partly due to throttling which is normally applied at such low loads. Figure 6 shows

Table 1. Values of thermodynamic properties for the power cycle.

Feedwater Temperature, Oc

‘htxtk Temperature. Oc

Reheat Pressure, kPa

Reheat TemperatucoC
510.00 488.40
510.00 510.00
511.11 510.00

Exhaust Pressure. mm Hg 42.16 50.8

53.84 50.8
72.39 50.8
65.27 50.8
 Ghazlan power plant

‘0E

g
33

32

31

30
3 68
63
67
69
70

66%
‘
.*
3
vf%
*

27

26
1 I I I I I I M
25
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0--

Fraction of full lord

Fig. 2. Efficiency and irreversibilityvs fraction of full load.

1.0 -

0.9 -

0.8 -

.o, 0.7 -
t
9) 0.6-
5
* 0.5 -

$ 0.4 -

z 0.3-

0.2 -

0.1 -

0
I I I I 1 I I I
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fraction of full load

Fig. 3. Fuel-flow rate ratio vs fraction of full load.

the turbine irreversibilities as functions of load. The reduction in 11of the turbine is due to irreversi-
bilities. The irreversibility loss decreases 2% as the load increases from 25% to full load. Figure 7
shows the percentage of exergetic losses for the plant components vs the load.
The results of the full-load exergy analysis are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 8. Table 2 shows that
more than 70% of the total losses occur in the boiler, 12% in the turbines, 2% in the condenser, 4%
in the feedwater heaters, 2% in the pumps, and about 10% in other components. The overall efficiency,
defined as the ratio of useful exergy outputs to exergy inputs, is 36%. The heat-transfer process is the
most inefficient operation, accounting for nearly 44% of total exergy destruction.
Energy and exergy values in Fig. 8 show comparisons of results of first- and second-law analyses.
According to the first-law analysis, major energy losses are due to heat rejection in the condenser and
to stack gases. According to the second-law analysis, major losses occur in the boiler and in the boiler
heat exchanger, where 17 and 28% of the full exergy are destroyed, respectively. The first-law results
are misleading since the plant efficiency could only be improved by a maximum of 2% by utilizing
more energy from either or both the condenser and the stack gases. Power-plant evaluations should be
based on second-law results.
Comparisons between design and actual plant performance are shown in Fig. 9. Figure 9 shows the
1126 M. A. Habib et al

so -
?? a 0
45 - I- Hoat exchxn6c.r . + fumxcs
40-

8 3s-
”
3 30-

&5-
P,
e 20-
4 lS- O A r Furnace
0

10 -

S-

O I I I I I I I I
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fraction of full load

Fig. 4. Irreversibility rate vs fraction of full load for the heat exchanger and furnace.

4000 -

3750 -

3500 -

2 3250 -
Y
6 3000 -
5
5
,j 2750 -

2Soo -

::::
6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

Entropy (kJ/kg-K)

Fig. 5. Enthalpy vs entropy for different load fractions.

12 -

I I I I I I I I
0,
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fraction of full load

Fig. 6. Turbine irreversibilitiesvs fraction of full load.
 Ghazlan power plant 1127

90

80

- Heat exchuqer

-Turbine - Coadcnrcr

FUrUX.C
20 Ar
P

10

vo.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fraction of full load

Fig. 7. Plant-component irreversibilities vs fraction of full load.

Table 2. Design-data-based exergy analysis of the Ghazlan power plant at 100% load.

overall efficiency and total irreversibilities of the plant as a function of the load. The efficiency may
be 4% less and the total irreversibility 4% greater than the design value, depending on the load fraction.
The available plant data cover loads ranging from 250 to 340 MW. The comparison results reveal that
there is room for improvement of plant performance. The results of energy and exergy analyses for
full load are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 10. Major plant inefficiencies occur in the boiler heat exchanger.
The exergetic losses in the boiler heat exchanger may be reduced by increasing the feedwater tempera-
ture, which may be achieved by adding feedwater heaters to the plant, which contains only two closed
feedwater heaters.
1128 M. A. Habib et al

pumps, fans, etc.

6.19
(0.24)

Boiler furnace t
Exergy 100 -16.88 54.62 Turbiner 47.8 Generator
Energy (100) Heat transfer (86.37) -7.76 (36.01) -0.92
-28.5
I
I

System electrical
output 35.77 *

Fig. 8. Exergy- and energy-flow diagrams for the design conditions.

38 -

z6 36 -
conditiona
E
.a
Efficiency, design conditionr _

Irrcvsrsibiliry mu. dcrign

conditions
” Q
-
0 u 62
Efficiency, actual conditions

28 ’ I I I I I I I 1
0.625 0.650 0.675 0.700 0.725 0.750 0.775 0.800 o.*26O
Fraction of full load

Fig. 9. Efficiency and irreversibility rate vs fraction of full load for design and actual conditions.

Table 3. Actual data-based exergy analysis of the Ghazlan power plant at 318.1 MW power output.
 Ghazlan power plant 1129

Pumps, far, etc.

(lY3)

t
Boiler furnace
Exergy 100 -18.88 51.24 41.54 Generator _
Turbines
Energy (100) (77.60) -6.31 (33.10) -0.67
Heat transfer
-29.88
I
I

System electrical
output 31.17 4
Fig. 10. Exergy- and energy-flow diagrams for actual operating conditions.

Table 4. Thermodynamic properties for the Qurayyah power cycle.

Table 5. Exergy analysis for the Qurayyah power plant at 100% load.

BOILER - Combustion
1130 M. A. Habib et al

In order to analyse the deficiency due to the restricted number of feedwater heaters in the Ghazlan
power plant, the exergy analysis of the plant was compared to that of the Qurayyah power plant which
has eight feedwater heaters. The design data and exergy analysis for the Qurayyah power plant are
given in Tables 4 and 5. As is shown in Tables 3 and 5, the plant and steam-generator efficiencies at
Qurayyah are 11% greater than at Ghazlan. Comparison of results in Tables 4 and 5 indicates that the
differences in efficiencies are mainly due to the steam generator and stack components.

Acknowledgemenr-The authors acknowledge support provided by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals during the
course of this study.

REFERENCES

1. G. Tsatsaronis and M. Sanae, “On-line Thermoeconomic Evaluation of Power Plant Performance,” pp. l-8,
International Power Generation Conference, ASME, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. (1991).
2. M. R. Spakovsky and R. B. Evans, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 112, 86 (1990).
3. M. A. Habib, Energy-The International Journal 17, 5, 485 (1992).
4. K. V. Wong and Z. Niu, “Optimization and Different Loads by Minimization of Irreversibilities,” pp. l-5,.
ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division, Vol. 25, Atlanta, GA (1991).
5. R. A. Gaggioli, Y. M. El-Sayed, A. M. El-Nashar, and B. Kamaluddin, J. Energy Res. Technol. 110, 2,
114 (1988).
6. E. Sciubba and T. M. Su, “Second Law Analysis of the Steam Turbine Power Cycle: A Parametric Study,”
Computer-Aided Engineering of Energy Systems, Winter Annual Meeting, AES Vol. 23, pp. 151, Anaheim,
CA (1986).
7. M. A. Habib and S. M. Zubair, Energy-The International Journal 17, 3, 295 (1992).
8. G. Bidini and S. S. Stecco, ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 113, 145 (1991).
9. R. Mastrullo, “A Software Rankine Cycles Exergetic Analysis,” Advanced Energy Systems Division ASME,
Vol. 27, pp. 187-191, Anaheim, CA (1992).
10. M. A. Habib and S. M. Zubair, ‘Thermodynamics of Regenerative Rankine Cycle Power Plants,” ASME
Advanced Energy System Division, Vol. 19, pp. 29-34, Dallas, TX (1990).
11. J. E. Aheran, The Exergy Method of Energy System Analysis. Wiley, New York, NY (1980).
12. J. Szargut, D. R. Morris, and F. R. Steward, Exergy Analysis of Thermal Chemical, and Metallurgical Pro-
cesses. Hemisphere, New York, NY (1988).

NOMENCLATURE

a = Specific flow exergy Greek symbols

z = Molal specific flow exergy
n = Thermal efficiency of the overall
.A = Rate of flow availability (exergy)
power plant
A, = Availability rate of the combustion-
u = Entropy production
chamber output
ATM= Rate of thermo-mechanical
Subscripts
availability
b = Total energy rate i = Inlet
HHV = Higher heating value of the fuel e = Exit
h,, = Enthalpy at equilibrium with the c.v. = Control volume
surrounding j = Boundary
HPT = High-pressure turbine in = Input
i = Irreversibility rate p = Production
IPT = Intermediate-pressure turbine f = Fuel
LPT = Low-pressure turbine o = Dead state (equilibrium condition
rit = Steam flow rate with the environment)
k = Rate of change with time of the ch = Chemical
number of moles cc = Combustion chamber
P = Output power
Superscripts
P.L. = Percent load
0 = Heat rate ’= Rate
So = Entropy e = Environment
Tj = Temperature - = Molal
W = Work a = Specific flow exergy
X, y = Mole fraction