LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS AND OPTIMISATION OF A COMBINED CYCLE

BASED ON THE INDUSTRIAL TRENT 50

Jenny Persson
Lund Institute of Technology
Dept. of Heat and Power Eng.
P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund
SWEDEN
e-mail: cim00jp7@m.lth.se

ABSTRACT
In cooperation with Rolls-Royce and Lund University, a
combined cycle power plant was modelled, simulated and optimised in the new software framework, the GTPOM tool, developed through the recent EC FP5 programme. The goal was
not only to calibrate its component models but also to show
how this new tool can be used.
This paper presents the gas turbine and combined cycle
whole plant modelling and its life cycle cost optimisation
within the GTPOM tool. In addition, this paper discusses the
software tool bearing in mind that the existence of other commercially available software packages for the purpose.
The other thermal engineering software package referred in
this project is a product of Thermoflow Inc and is a combination of three software modules, GTPRO, GTMASTER and
PEACE. In this project, data from this package was used to
calibrate the CCGT plant model in the GTPOM tool.
Rolls-Royce Industrial Trent 50 gas turbine was modelled in
the GTPOM tool with the abilities to calculate both designpoint and part-load performance for given ambient temperature
and exhaust loss.
The CCGT power plant with a 2-on-1 configuration was
modelled in the GTPOM tool. The component model library
developed in the GTPOM project was used, however the component models were modified and improved through calibrations with the reference GTPRO data.
The life cycle cost and through life economic parameters of
the CCGT whole plant in GTPOM have also been analysed,
and then this whole plant model was used as the non-optimised
benchmark model for a study in which the model was optimised in the GTPOM tool using a GA optimiser in order to
maximise the Internal Rate of Return (IRR).

NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations
CCGT
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
DLE
Dry Low Emission
EC
European Commission
GA
Genetic algorithm
GT
Gas Turbine
GTPOM Gas Turbine Plant Optimisation
HP
High Pressure
HRSG
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
IP
Intermediate Pressure
IRR
Internal Rate of Return
LMTD Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference
LP
Low Pressure
PEACE Plant Engineering and Construction Estimator
ST
Steam turbine
Designations
C
Correction factor for number of tube rows
h
Specific enthalpy
mf
Mass Flux
Pr
Prandtl number
Re
Reynolds number
x1,2,3,4
Steam turbine coefficients
Y
ST output

Heat Transfer Coefficient

Ratio of total surface area to tube surface area

INTRODUCTION
When a gas turbine is used to produce electricity the heat
loss from the exhaust is not negligible. One way to use this
waste heat is to combine the gas turbine cycle with one more
thermal cycle, like a steam cycle. The total efficiency achieved
is then higher than that of one cycle alone. The cycle that is

working at the higher temperature, in this case the gas turbine,

is called the topping cycle and the cycle that uses the waste
heat, the steam cycle, is the bottoming cycle. The configuration
is called a combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT). The main challenge in designing a CCGT plant is how to transfer the heat
from the gas turbine exhaust to the steam cycle to achieve optimum benefits. The focus is on the heat recovery steam generator in which the heat transfer takes place and the performance
depends on how much money that is put into it, i.e. there is a
balance between efficiency and capital cost. In order to know
which solution to choose, a complete economic life cycle
analysis has to be carried out. Calculating by hand would be too
time demanding and it is therefore necessary to use some computer method to analyse the best solution.
The purpose of this project was to model a benchmark
CCGT power plant with aero-derivative multi-shaft gas turbines in the new developed software package GTPOM tool and
evaluate the result of the life cycle analysis and the effect of
optimisation. The benchmark plant configuration needed to be
realistic with reference plant information so that the effect of
the optimisation can be evaluated properly with comparison to
the reference plant design concept. The task was also to show
the ability of the tool and how it can be used, i.e. when the
GTPOM tool is the preferable tool to use compared to other
software.
THE PROCESS SIMULATION TOOL GTPOM
The process simulation software used in this project is
called GTPOM tool and was previously developed through an
European funded project and Rolls-Royce, Alstom Power, Simtech, Energy E2, Lund University, University of Genoa and
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne were involved as the programme partners. The GTPOM tool is a derivative of IPSEpro,
which is a process simulation software product of Simtech,
with enhanced capability in plant life cycle cost analysis and
optimisation.
While the standard IPSEpro is a system for calculating heat
balances and simulating processes, GTPOM project gave it
additional functionalities, i.e. a special component library, GA
(genetic algorithm) optimiser and a detailed life cycle cost
analysis module, PSEconomy.
The economic module, PSEconomy, includes the ability to
determine the whole system capital cost, economic scenario,
and operational scenario, and to calculate and optimise life cycle cost and through-life economic performance of the plant,
based on the cycle configuration, operational and economic
scenarios selected.
As the overall GTPOM tool, there are four key functions as
follows:

Thermodynamic process modelling capability

Economic analysis capability
Optimisation capability
Overall software integration

The optimisation capability enables the configured cycle to

be optimised in accordance with the specific requirements of
the user. The ability to optimise through life cost performance
can be used to maximise the economic benefit of the system.

Genetic algorithm (GA) is used as the optimisation technique. The principle of GA was developed by JH Holland and
is based on the concept of survival of the fittest [i]. Reference
[ii] gives a good overview of this method and it also gives an
example in the heat and power plant field. The variable to be
optimised i.e. efficiency or internal rate of return is called the
objective function while the variables or parameters to be intentionally varied i.e. approach temperatures, pressures etc. are
called decision variables. First, multiple calculations for sampling purposes happen with randomly selected values of decision variables within allowable ranges specified, and each value
of the decision variables is coded into a binary string called
phenotype. Then the selection of the phenotypes as the natures
of individuals starts by finding the fitness of each individual
according to the objective function e.g. maximizing the efficiency. Only the best individuals will survive to breed. Different combinations of two parents (phenotypes) create offspring
and the new generation is being evaluated. Also a small population goes through a mutation, a small change in the binary code
to generate solutions that were not included in the starting
population [iii].
Using GA a complex mathematical plant model can be optimised without requiring derivative information, however according to [iv] the GAs are computationally expensive and
since GA is based on a random process the efficiency of solving a given problem is impossible to predict. However, the
beauty of GA in optimisation problems is its robustness when a
system with multiple decision variables has non-linear behaviour and/or multiple optima. Compared to full/pure random
search, in addition, it is relatively less time consuming to seek a
global optimum.
CCGT PLANT MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION
In this study, the Rolls-Royce Trent 50 was modelled in the
GTPOM tool as a preparation for the combined cycle modelling. The Trent 50 is an industrial gas turbine, with Dry Low
Emission (DLE), derived from the aero engine Trent 800 that
powers some of the Boeing 777 aircraft.
In order to simulate gas turbine performance at both design
and off-design points including all effect of ambient conditions
and pressure losses, it would be ideal to model each major part
of the gas turbine precisely in the GTPOM tool, i.e. compressors, combustor and turbines etc. This would however be time
consuming, and the main objective of this study is optimisation
of a combined cycle plant with an existing gas turbine and
without optimisation of the gas turbine itself. Instead, data for
the GT is provided from Rolls-Royces performance software
called eTrent, and was coded to the GTPOM tool as a lumped
component. Polynomial equations to express the engine characteristics were used and the benefit with this is that it is possible
to obtain very good accuracies within restricted boundaries;
pinlet = 127 mm H 2 O
40C Tambient 50C
0 p exhaust 400 mm H 2 O

The relative humidity and the ambient pressure is set to ISO

standard and cannot be changed in the model developed in this
study at this moment in time, however due to [v] and [vi] the

change of these parameters has a negligible influence on the

gas turbine performance.
When the power is greatly decreased the engine starts to behave differently from the approximation with the polynomial
equation (probably because of bleed flow) and the error increases significantly. Therefore it was decided to put a lower
limitation on the power output of 40% of maximum power output.
In order to carry out CCGT plant modelling, necessary information to be calculated in the gas turbine model for specified ambient conditions and given intake/exhaust losses is as
follows:

GT shaft power output

GT fuel flow rate

GT exhaust flow rate

GT exhaust temperature

GT exhaust composition

(Gas fuel feed pressure to GT interface)

The gas turbine power output is normally specified as input,
however it can be trimmed based on maximum power limitations based on the specified ambient conditions and given intake/exhaust losses. The efficiency of the engine can be calculated using the fuel flow rate, fuels lower heating value and the
power output at the GT output shaft. The exhaust flow rate,
temperature and composition are for thermal balancing downstream from the gas turbine. When the ambient temperature and
the power output change, this will affect the fuel consumption
and therefore the efficiency.
After modelling the gas turbine as a lumped component the
whole CCGT plant model was carried out. As the component
models in GTPOM tool needed to be calibrated first a plant
configuration with an existing reference dataset from one of the
conventional commercially available CCGT plant simulation
tools, GTPRO was sought. Referring to existing GTPRO datasets, a 2-on-1 CCGT configuration with multi-pressure steam
cycle as the bottoming cycle was chosen based on discussions
held in Rolls-Royce. This means that the CCGT plant consists
of two gas turbines (Trent 50), two Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one steam turbine (ST). The water/steam
system chosen consists of three different pressure levels where
the water with the lowest pressure goes to the deaerator (this
water does not go into the turbine directly without further pressurisation). This configuration is known as 2.5 pressure system.
An overview (screen shot) of the CCGT plant modelled in the
GTPOM tool is shown in Figure 1.
17.2
1.373

H EX

1.013

17.2
1.188

1.014

HEX

17.22
11.13

750.88
177.21

15.08
11.13

1289.2
184.59

13.45
53.67

1025.6
237.43

3.755
11.02

2910.5
237.23

13.45
53.57

1140.5
261.17

3.755
11.01

2962.1
260.15

OB JECT.

251.07
59.96

17.22
11.47

439.18
104.58

34.41
1.373
435.96
103.99

17.22
1.188
3.771
11.03

2780.8
13.45
184.19
11.13

0.0155
1.188

438.08
104.5

H EX
H EX

1.02
13.45
53.81

mas s[kg/s]
p[bar]

kW

Net efficiency

%
/kWh
%

2780.8
184.19
26.9
11.01

1.022

34.41
11.01

NG

3000

13

31.46
15

1.023

ST

( NG)
GT

321
140.4

40.35
53.57

1726
268.29

222.5
100

H EX

0
3

7.51
11.01

1.023

2962.1
260.15

26.9
49.93

mass flux =

40.35
53.47

1.031
13.45
53.17

NG

3219.2
411.48

1175.8
268.15

13.45
53.47

water mass flow

Number of inlets tube area

Equation 2
This change increased the Reynolds number and thereby the
heat transfer coefficient on water side.
2.

Correction factor for number of tube rows

The second adjustment that was done was that the heat
transfer coefficient seemed to be slightly too low when the configuration consists of more then one tube row. Therefore the
assumption was made that the equation1 for calculating the heat
transfer coefficient was based on one tube row, Equation 3.
According to [vii] the heat transfer coefficient is increasing
when the number of tube rows is increasing since there then is a
higher probability that the gas side exchange heat with the wter
side.
= 0,3 Re 0, 625 Pr 0,333 0,375 C
Equation 3
Table 1: Correction factor for number of tube rows.
Number of rows 1

2906.9
235.62
3000

3219.2
409.2

34.41
0.199
0
49.93

2791.2
268.17

26.9
53.17

3219.2
411.48

2335.2
59.95

3219.2
409.2
3219.2
409.2

2476
1.012

44.113
43.648

34.41
0.199
2476
1.013

250.95
59.955

Correction of heat exchanger specific cost

The heat exchanger specific cost (Euro per unit heat transfer
area) was reviewed and has been adjusted.

15.152
15

1.043
H EX
(N G)

10

1 1.103 1.221 1.309 1.353 1.397 1.426 1.441 1.456 1.471

3.

ST

26.9
49.93

H EX

46

However the data from GTPRO showed that the number of

tube rows was not equal to the number of rows per water side
flow pass. Therefore the mass flux becomes:

ST
HEX

-784.3

Equation 1

After these corrections were done, the overall heat transfer

coefficient were more accurate compared to the GTPRO reference data.

2891.5
228.92

H EX

15.152
15

water mass flow

Number of U tubes tube area

h[k J/k g]
t[ C]

Power output

HRSG efficiency
3.755
11.03

mass flux =

CO E

1.021
H EX

146.8
1.013

755.78
177.82

In the present GTPOM the assumption that all heat exchangers consists of U-tubes where the flow is divided into
each tube.

2780.8
152.78

750.88
177.21

0.0155 2780.8
11.03 184.19

Reynolds number on water side

ST

1.016
781.73
184.21

1.

251.07
59.96

FU N CT.

15.08
11.03

The model is a 2 on 1 configuration, however to avoid unnecessary equations only one GT and HRSG has been modelled
and the flow has then been doubled before entering the steam
turbine.
In order to use the data from GTPRO as reference for the
Life Cycle Analysis some of the component models had to be
modified. The heat exchanger models where modified in three
different aspects:

1.033

Figure 1 Screen shot for the CCGT plant in GTPOM

tool.

The equation used in GTPOM is based on an in-line arrangement.

Also some adjustments for the original GTPOM steam turbine unit model were carried out. The investment cost of the ST
however was changed and the one that it was decided to use is
based on a simple exponential cost curve decaying as unit size
grows. This equation has been found to have high accuracy
when bidding projects.

x2
Specific Cost = x1 +
x4
+
(
x
3 Y)

Equation 4

The CCGT plant in this project was modelled with an aircooled condenser that was not originally in the GTPOM library.
A simple air-cooled condenser had been created during the previous GTPOM project, but it was never implemented into
GTPOM library. This simplified air-cooled condenser model
has been utilised with modification in this project. Equations
were added to calculate the heat transfer coefficient on air-side
while the heat transfer on steam/water side was set to a fixed
value. When both the heat transfer coefficients on each side had
been calculated the overall heat transfer coefficient could be
found, and with the logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference
and heat duty the heat transfer area could be calculated. Same
type of exponential function (Equation 4) that was used for the
ST cost calculation was then used to calculate the investment
cost for the condenser based on the heat transfer area.
Another component that was used was a gas fuel compressor. The required fuel gas pressure from the gas fuel skid depends upon fuel composition, fuel temperature, ambient temperature and engine loading. Fuel temperature limits are specified to avoid any condensation in the fuel system. The fuel
should be delivered between 38C and 149C and at least 20C
above the maximum dewpoint of the fuel. The required fuel
pressure for the Trent is from [viii] simplified to an equation
based on load. This curve, Figure 2, has a good accuracy between 30% and 100% load, which is in this case sufficient because of the low power limitation for the GT model (down to
40% load).

Table 2 Economic Scenario

Construction
Operation
Inflation Rate
Discount Rate

24
15
Not
6.5

months
years
considered
%

An outline for the operational scenario selected is shown in

the table below. Case 1 and 2 models the plant at design point
(100% load) while case 3 and 4 are based on a part load operation (70% load). It was assumed that each power generation
system achieves an average availability of 95% hence the total
number of running hours per year is 8322. The cases are the
same as presented in [ix] except for the selling price that has
been slightly changed. The selling price is based on virtual
prices for the UK and was decided after discussion within
Rolls-Royce.
Table 3 Operating scenario
Operating
Case
1
2
3
4

Operating
hours/year
4077
1748
1748
749

Power output
%
100
100
70
70

Electricity selling
price cents/kWh
4.3
6
7
10

The fuel price is a very significant factor in the economics

but is also very difficult to predict. The fuel price used in
GTPRO was considered to be overestimated due to the European market and therefore the data used in this project was
taken from [ix] which is an average future gas price prediction
derived from a number of gas price predictions for EU Member
States taken from public domains.
The O&M costs for the genset and the ST were merged to
one variable cost depending on the whole power plant power
delivery and defined in free equations in the PSE model. Other
costs such as staff and insurance were defined in PSEconomics.
Table 4 shows the ST including HRSG and condenser and fixed
O&M costs for the power plant. These numbers are based on
previous examples and calculations.
Table 4 O&M costs

Fuel pressure requirments

50

Pressure [bar]

40
30
20
10
0
30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Load

Figure 2 Required fuel pressure.

LIFE CYCLE COST AND ANALASYS
The software module PSEconomics as a part of the GTPOM
tool was used for the whole plant Life Cycle Analysis and Optimisation. In PSEconomics the economic scenario and operating cases were defined after discussion in Rolls-Royce. Below
is a table of the input data to PSEconomics.

The O&M costs for the genset and the ST including HRSG
and condenser was added up to one cost divided by the power
output of the plant.
When the economic scenario was set up it was chosen to
optimise the plant according to the IRR. The IRR is defined as
the discount rate which sets the net present value of a series of
cash flows over the planning horizon equal to zero and is used
as a profit measure. The IRR gives the return of an investment
when the capital is in use as if the investment consists of a single outlay at the beginning and generates a stream of net benefits afterwards.
The total capital investment was calculated and compared
with the GTPRO data and the accuracy (5% lower for GTPOM,
see Table 5) was very good considering that in reality these
figures can differ by up to 20% from different tenders when
bidding project. The difference in IRR is mostly because of the

fuel cost in GTPRO was lower than that which was set in this
project.

TQ diagram
500
450
400

300
C

GTPOM
94.95%
10.3%

Total capital investment

Internal Rate of Return

Gas side Before optimisation

Gas side after optimisation
Water side before optimisation
Waterside after optimisation

350

Table 5 Capital investment and IRR comparison

GTPRO
100% (base)
13.7%

250
200
150
100
50
0
0

The optimisation of the whole power plant was done for two
different cases. Case one (DV 11) used 11 decision variables to
optimise the plant, and case two (DV 12) used one more decision variable when the plant was optimised.
RESULTS
Comparison of plant efficiency before and after optimisation, Table 6, shows that the IRR was improved by 0.4-0.5%
units by the optimisation.

Before
After,
DV 11
After,
DV 12

99.59%
99.51%

HRSG
efficiency

base
-0.21%points
-0.25%
points

71.43%
68.83%
69.15%

COE
base
-0.01
c/kWh
-0.01
c/kW/h

96.76%

10.8%

95.96%

Figure 3 shows how the investment costs for all the components have changed after the optimisation. The investment cost
for the heat exchangers was reduced by 18% compared to the
non-optimised plant. Since the gas turbine has not been optimised in this work the investment cost for the genset was set to
a fixed value and has not been changed during the optimisation
.
Investment cost breakdown

Investment cost

Construct cost
Plant engineering
Power TD
Buildings
ST
Genset
HRSG

Base case

DV 11

DV 12

Figure 3
The lower investment cost will decrease the efficiency of
the plant, however the IRR will be improved through the decrease in cost. The TQ diagram below shows the difference
before and after optimisation with 11 decision variables. The
thick lines represent the optimised case. The recovered heat in
the HRSG is less for the optimised 48 MW and 50MW heat has
been recovered in each case.

40000

50000

Figure 4 Heat duty

The change of the temperature approaches in the heat exchangers affects the areas and thereby the investment cost.
Figure 5 compares how the area in each heat exchanger has
changed after the optimisation and it shows that the overall heat
transfer area has decreased.
Area of HRSG
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Capital
IRR Investment
100%
10.3% (base)
10.7%

30000

Base
DV 11
DV 12

m2

Net
efficiency

20000

kW

Table 6 Results of optimisation

Power
output
100%
(base)

10000

LTE

IPE2

IPB

HPE2 IPS1 HPE3 IPS2 HPB1 HPS3

Figure 5
CONCLUSIONS
The result from the optimisation shows that both the HP
pressure and IP pressure were increased from 53 (HP) and 11
bar (IP) to 83 (HP) and 13 bar (IP) respectively. The LP pressure decreases from 1.19 bar and goes towards the lowest value
1 bar, which is close to ambient pressure. This is what we expected since it needs, less steam from the boiler to the deaerator
(lower saturation temperature). To receive a high HRSG efficiency the temperature difference should be kept low and the
area of the heat exchangers large, however a large area also
means a large investment cost and it is therefore a balance between cost and efficiency that needs to be considered. The bottoming cycle optimisation resulted in a total capital cost reduction of the bottoming cycle of up to 3% (HRSG 18% and steam
turbine 1.5%).
The improvement of the IRR through the optimisation in
this present work has remained much more modest degree,
0.4%-points to 0.5%-points, compared to the previously presented IRR improvements by the case studies in the GTPOM
programme [ix]. There are several reasons for this:

The gas turbine capital cost has been dominating the majority of the total capital investment cost of the whole
plant. The previous GTPOM programme optimised the
topping cycle as well but this has not been done in the optimisation in this present work because the gas turbine
component was agreed to be modelled as a lumped component model in order to calibrate the GTPOM tools component models for bottoming cycle with reference CCGT
plant information.

The benchmark model of the power plant in the GTPOM

tool was calibrated and compared against the GTPRO data
which had already been optimised in the thermoflow
software PEACE and therefore the result was expected to
give a modest degree of improvement.

The gas turbine exhaust conditions differ both from the

values in GTPRO and the reference data from eTrent.
However even though it differs by up to 1% the effect on
the IRR will not be of this order because of other parameters i.e. fixed costs that have a much greater impact on the
IRR then the errors in exhaust conditions.

Although the Trent 50 model has been successfully implemented and the component models for the bottoming cycle part
in the GTPOM tool library have been calibrated and improved
through this present work, the above results and findings has
been conversely implying that optimising whole CCGT plant
including optimisation of gas turbine itself is important in order
to drastically improve IRR of a CCGT whole plant.

that the author had to spent significant time to find suitable GA

parameter settings for the problem given as a part of the preparation for the optimisation. Therefore when creating and analysing a typical CCGT plant configuration, some of the existing
commercially available software packages like GTPRO with its
rich previous example database could be more user-friendly,
guiding and giving relatively less experienced users to more
conservative but realistic system configurations.
However when it is wished to develop a new configuration
e.g. HAT (Humid Air Turbine) cycles, or to model a detailed
gas turbine with each component as an own unit, the GTPOM
tool is an excellent tool because of its flexibility. The tool also
gives the user full control over the model i.e. equations for heat
and mass balance, investment costs and maintenance costs etc.,
and he/she will be able to create special requirements and/or
make new components which would not be possible in other
commercial available tools like GTPRO.
In conclusion, continuous usage and exploration of the potential of a very flexible tool like GTPOM tool is worth doing
despite some of the issues identified in user-friendliness.

Current conclusions about the tool GTPOM:

GTPOM is a very flexible tool to make detailed thermodynamic performance evaluation and detailed through-life economic analysis and optimisation. It has the ability to improve
either the thermodynamic inputs or the economic scenario depending on what is to be achieved.
In this present work the author experienced some convergence problems when running the calculations of the whole
CCGT model in the GTPOM tool. In addition, it must be noted
RERERENCES

i Holland JH, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems,

The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachetts, 1992

ii Fredriksson Mller B., Optimisation and Integration of

Post-Combustion CO2 Capture in Gas Turbine-based Power
Plants, Ph.D. Thesis, Lund Institute of Technology, 2003

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank those who have helped me here at
Rolls Royce and also the people at Lund University that have
been to great help during this project.

vii Holman J.P., Heat Transfer, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill

International Editions, Singaprore, 1986

viii Rolls-Royce, Trent Application Handbook, 1998

ix Rolls-Royce, et. Al, Thermo-Economic optimisation of
Whole Gas Turbine Plant, Project N NNE5-1999-20110,
Contract N ENK5-CT2000-00079

iii Arriagada J. On the Analysis and Fault-Diagnosis Tools

for Small-Scale Heat and Power Plants, Ph.D. Thesis, Lund
Institute of Technology, 2003

iv Codeceira A., Pilidis P., An assessment of Power Plants

Using Genetic Algorithms, Paper 2001-GT-0560, Proc. Of
ASME Turbo Expo 2001, June 4-7, New Orleans, U.S.A
v Mesbahi E., et. Al, A Unique Correction Technique for
Evaporative Gas Turbine (EVGT) Parameters, Paper 2001GT-0560, Proc. Of ASME Turbo Expo 2001, June 4-7, New
Orleans, U.S.A

vi Mesbahi E., et. Al, An online and Remote Sensor Validation and Condition Monitoring System for Power Plants, Proceedings of CIMAC Congress 2001, 99. 833-842, Hamburg,
Germany