ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy 32 (2007) 971–982

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A combined power cycle with absorption air conditioning

Osamah M. AL-Hawaja,, Hamad AL-Mutairib
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait
b
Mechanical Engineer at Kuwait National Petroleum Company-KNPC, P.O. Box 10252, Shuaba 65453, Kuwait

Abstract

A cogeneration scheme comprising a combined cycle power plant (CCPP) with an absorption chiller used for space cooling is studied.
A parametric study investigating the effect of different parameters, such as steam to gas mass flow rate ratio, fraction of turbine steam
extraction, ambient temperature, inlet steam turbine temperature, compressor pressure ratio, and gas turbine (GT) combustion efficiency
on the performance of the system has been made. In another aspect of the study, the relative advantage of using CCPP with absorption
cooling over thermally equivalent mechanical vapor compression (MVC) cooling is also demonstrated.
r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

All Kuwaiti plants are of the cogeneration type, producing both power and desalted water. Steam is usually extracted
from steam turbines to desalters at moderate pressures (1–2 bar). Gas turbines (GTs) are used only at peak load, and only
for few hours in July, and August and during emergency. A study of the data revealed by the Kuwait Ministry of Water
and Electricity [1] raises questions and suggests a better use of equipment and energy resources. The data show that in
Kuwait, power plants are operating at low capacity most of the year, except for few hours at peak demands in summer.
This means inefficient use of fuel energy and equipment, and high cost of power and desalted water. Also, the continuous
increase of power and water demands urges government to adopt conservation measures. A new idea of cogeneration
suggested by Darwish [2] was to replace abandoned multistage flash (MSF) desalination plants with absorption water
chillers for district air conditioning and found that this approach results in better utilization of fuel energy, better usage of
equipment and more beneficial alternative to using mechanically driven mechanical vapor compression (MVC)
refrigeration. Another study by Najjar [3] adopted a cogeneration system whereby portion of GT exhaust heat was
used to drive an aqua-ammonia absorption system with an evaporator connected to an air pre-cooler inlet supply to the
GT compressor, and found an enhancement of about 21% and 28% in overall efficiency and specific fuel consumption over
the simple GT. Another study by Lamfon [4] studied a combined GT equipped with heat pipe system and inlet-air cooling
system, and found that the net power output improvement of 11%. Another study by Edera [5] presented a study of gas-
driven cogeneration system for air conditioning using a single-effect high performance absorption chiller. The economic
feasibility of combined heat and power, CHP, with absorption refrigeration using commercially available GTs was studied
by Mone’ [6]. The study shows that the CHP system is capable of saving millions of dollars annually on electricity.
This paper suggests a new scheme for utilizing GT turbines to meet the peak load demand during summer seasons while
increasing the utilization factor of such plant. This scheme includes the use of GT turbines in a combined cycle power plant
(CCPP) together with absorption air conditioning cooling. The absorption unit can be retrofitted or used as an integral
portion of an existing combined cycle for producing power and desalted water, whereby portion of the extracted steam
from turbines is to be used to drive the desalination systems such as MSF or multiple effect, another portion is to be
diverted to a generator of an absorption system to provide cooling for the plant office building and possibly nearby

Corresponding author. Tel.: 965 481 1188 5788; fax: 965 484 7131.
E-mail address: osamah@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw (O.M. AL-Hawaj).

0360-5442/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.11.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
972 O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982

Nomenclature ACC absorption cycle condenser

SCC steam cycle condenser
AF air to fuel ratio CC combined cycle
COP coefficient of performance comb combustion
f concentration ratio of strong to weak LiBr E evaporator
solution (kW) EX extraction
E total energy (kW) G gas
h enthalpy (kJ/kg) GC gas cycle
M mass flow rate (kg/s) gen generator of absorption cooling system
Q thermal energy (kW) GT gas turbine
QL thermal energy loss (kW) GMX maximum gas
T temperature (1C) in input
UF utilization factor MVC mechanical vapor compression
W work (kW) P1 low pressure condenser pump
w work per unit mass (kW/kg) P2 high pressure HRSG pump
WSAV power saving (%) P3 LiBr solution pump
Y fraction of steam extraction R refrigerant
Z mass ratio of steam to gas S steam
a a mass parameter in absorption cycle SC steam cycle
b compressor pressure ratio SHRSG calculated HRSG steam exit temperature
e heat exchanger effectiveness ST steam turbine
Z thermal efficiency SDI steam design inlet
DhAX enthalpy difference of steam due to auxiliary ST1 steam turbine expansion from inlet to extrac-
heating in HRSG tion pressure
Dhcomb enthalpy difference of gas due to combustion in ST2 steam turbine expansion from inlet to conden-
gas cycle ser pressure
DhGMX maximum enthalpy difference of gas across the WS weak solution
HRSG with no supplementary heating SS strong solution
Dhgen enthalpy difference of steam across the gen-
erator Acronyms
DhSDI enthalpy difference of steam between inlet to
HRSG and the steam design inlet to the turbine CCPP combined cycle power plant
CHP combined heat and power
Subscripts GT gas turbine
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
AB absorption MSF multistage flash
AX auxiliary heating MVC mechanical vapor compression
C compressor

residential area during summer seasons. This parametric study investigates the effect of different parameters on the
performance of the CCPP with thermally driven LiBr absorption cooling system. Also, this study compares the
performance results with a CCPP with electrically driven MVC cooling system providing an equivalent cooling load.

2. System description

A schematic diagram of the cogeneration plant with various significant components is shown in Fig. 1. It is based on a
combined cycle comprising a top gas cycle, a simple GT cycle, and a bottom vapor cycle, a simple steam cycle with steam
extraction. The two cycles are coupled together by a counter current heat exchanger called heat recovery steam generator,
HRSG, to recover portion of the exhaust waste heat to generate superheated steam for the steam cycle. The HRSG is a
single-pressure counter current heat exchanger with supplementary firing. The superheated steam condition exiting the
HRSG unit is controlled by a combination of a supplementary firing and a gas diversion using a control valve disposed at
the inlet of the exhaust gas. Also, a desuperheater, disposed prior to steam entry to the steam turbine, is used to further
condition the exiting steam to the required design condition when needed. When the full exhaust gas supplied to the HRSG
is not sufficient to bring up the steam to the required designed superheated condition, the supplementary firing unit is
turned on by combusting an additional amount of fuel to bring the steam to the design steam condition. In the other hand,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982 973

Fig. 1. Schematic of a combined cycle with absorption cooling.

when heat transfer from the full exhaust gas passing through the HRSG results in superheated steam outlet temperature
exceeding the required or that set by the design, the supplementary firing is turned off and the control valve is actuated to
divert portion of the exhaust gases directly to the smoke stack such that the remaining steam passing through the HRSG is
sufficient to bring the steam to the design condition. In the steam turbine, a portion of the expanded steam is bled off at
some intermediate pressure and supplied to the generator of the single-effect LiBr absorption unit, and the rest of steam
expanded to the low pressure condenser, which is cooled by water at ambient condition. The condensed vapor in the
condenser is pumped by a first pump to a pressure of the mixing chamber so as to mix with the extracted condensed portion
coming from the generator, and the total mixed condensate is pumped by a second pump to a higher pressure of the HRSG
unit.

3. Cycle modeling

A parametric energy analysis based on the first law of thermodynamic is performed using Equation Solver (EES). The
following performance parameters are considered in this study:
ðW CC ÞAB þ Qgen
UF ¼ , (1)
Qin

ðW CC ÞAB
ðZCC ÞAB ¼ , (2)
Qin

ðW CC ÞMVC
ðZCC ÞMVC ¼ , (3)
Qin

ðW CC ÞAB  ðW CC ÞMVC
WSAV % ¼  100, (4)
ðW CC ÞAB
where the heat input Qin is the sum of the heat added through the GT burner Qcomb plus the heat added through the
supplementary fired HRSG QAX , such that
Qin ¼ QAX þ Qcomb . (5)
The required power input to a mechanical compressor to provide an equivalent cooling load, QE , is obtained by assuming a
coefficient of performance for a typical MVC cycle, COPMVC ¼ 3, such that the compressor work, WMVC, and the
combined cycle work with MVC cooling, W CC;MVC , are given, respectively as
QE
W MVC ¼ , (6)
COPMVC

ðW CC ÞMVC ¼ W CC  W MVC , (7)

where WCC is the power output of the CCPP with no extraction.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
974 O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982

In this study, two important input parameters are studied, the first parameter defined as the mass flow rate ratio of steam
in the steam cycle to the gas in the gas cycle, Z, which is a measure of the relative capacity of the steam cycle to the gas
cycle, and the second parameter as the fraction of mass steam extraction, Y, which is a measure of the process heat used for
cogeneration cooling:
MS
Z¼ , (8)
MG

M EX
Y¼ . (9)
MS
Other input parameters studied include the ambient temperature, Ta, the steam design inlet temperature, TSDI, the
compressor pressure ratio, b, and the GT combustion efficiency, Zcomb .
Considering the cycle shown in Fig. 1, an expression for UF can be expressed analytically as
wGT  wC þ ZbwST2  wp2 þ Y ðwST1  wST2  wp1  awp3 þ Dhgen Þc
UF ¼ . (10)
Dhcomb þ ZDhAX
Here, a is a parameter obtained by considering mass and energy balances on the generator for a fixed concentration ratio, f,
of strong to weak LiBr solution, such that
Dhgen
a¼ . (11)
fhWS þ ð1  f ÞhR  hSS
The supplementary energy input to the HRSG per unit mass of steam, DhAX , can be expressed by the relation
8
< 0; T SHRSG 4T SDI ;
DhAX ¼ DhGMX (12)
: DhSDI  ; T SHRSG oT SDI :
Z
The above equation expresses a zero supplementary heat input to the HRSG when the theoretically calculated steam
temperature, TSHRSG, exceed the design turbine inlet steam temperature, T SDI , whereby the control valve at the exhaust of
the GT is actuated to divert portion of the exhaust gases directly to the stack and the remainder portion is directed to the
HRSG unit, while supplementary firing is off, such that the exiting steam temperature maintained close to T SDI . For the
case of zero supplementary heat input, Eq. (10) yields a linear relation of the utilization factor with steam to gas mass ratio.
An expression for the combined cycle thermal efficiency with absorption cooling at different steam extraction rates may
obtained by setting the useful heat supplied to the generator to zero, which yields the following expression:
8
> wGT  wC ½wST2  wp2 þ Y ðwST1  wST2  wp1  awp3 Þ
>
> þZ ; T SHRSG 4T SDI ;
>
> Dh comb Dhcomb
>
< wGT  wC
ZCC;AB ¼ þ ½wST2  wp2 þ Y ðwST1  wST2  wp1  awp3 Þ (13)
>
> Z   ; T SHRSG oT SDI :
>
> Dhcomb  DhGMX
>
> þ DhSDI
:
Z

The above equation describes a linear variation of the combined cycle thermal efficiency with mass ratio of steam to gas
when the theoretically calculated exit steam temperature, TSHRSG, exceeds the steam turbine inlet temperature, TSDI. In the
other hand, the above equation describes an asymptotic variation with Z when TSHRSG is less than TSDI.
The above expression for the combined cycle efficiency reduces to the special case corresponding to a combined cycle
with zero extraction, such that
8
>
> wGT  wC ðwST2  wp2 Þ
>
> þZ ; T SHRSG 4T SDI ;
>
> Dh Dhcomb
< w comb
GT  wC
ZCC jY ¼0 ¼ þ ðwST2  wp2 Þ (14)
>
> Z ; T oT :
>
> Dhcomb  DhGMX SHRSG SDI
>
>
: þ DhSDI
Z
As the mass ratio of steam to gas becomes very small, the contribution of the steam cycle power output becomes
negligible. In this case, the theoretically calculated exit steam temperature, TSHRSG, always exceeds the limiting steam
turbine inlet temperature, TSDI, whereby the supplementary firing is turned off and portion of the exhaust gas is diverted to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982 975

the stack. For this case, the combined cycle efficiency reduces to the gas cycle thermal efficiency:
wGT  wC
ZCC ¼ ZGC ¼ . (15)
Dhcomb
In the other hand, as the mass of the steam to gas becomes large, the contribution of the gas cycle heat and power input
becomes negligible and the combined cycle efficiency approaches the steam cycle efficiency
wST2  wp2 þ Y ðwST1  wST2  wp1  awp3 Þ
ZCC;AB ¼ ZSC ¼ . (16)
DhSDI
Another objective of the present study is to illustrate the relative advantages of using CCPP with absorption cooling as
an alternative option to using a CCPP with MVC cooling. The cooling is be used for the plant office building during
summer season, and possibly nearby residential complex area. To provide a comparison, the thermal efficiency of the
combined cycle is calculated for two cases: a first case using a combined cycle with steam extraction used to thermally
driving an absorption unit, and a second case using a combined cycle with zero extraction used to electrically driving a
compressor of a MVC cooling system with equivalent cooling load. In this study, a reference MVC coefficient of
performance COPMVC ¼ 3 is used to calculate the required compressor work input, which is to be subtracted from the net
power output of the combined cycle for zero extraction rate. Hence, an expression for combined cycle efficiency with power
expended in MVC cooling to provide an equivalent cooling load can be expressed as
8 h   COP i
>
> wGT  wC w ST2  w p2  Y Dh gen þ awp3
AB
>
> COPMVC
>
> þZ ; T SHRSG 4T SDI ;
>
> Dhcomb Dhcomb
<   
ZCC;MVC ¼ wGT  wC COPAB (17)
> þ wST2 wp2 Y ðDhgen þawp3 Þ
>
> Z   COP
>
>
MVC
; T SHRSG oT SDI ;
>
> Dhcomb  DhGMX
>
: þDhSDI
Z

where
QE
COPAB ¼ . (18)
Qgen þ W P3
Another way of demonstrating the relative advantage of absorption cooling compared to MVC cooling is made by
calculating the amount of power saving, WSAV, as defined by Eq. (4), which can be mathematically expressed by the relation

    
COPAB COPAB
Y wST1  wST2  wp1 þ awp3  1 þ Dhgen
COPMVC COPMVC
WSAV ¼ wGT  wC . (19)
þ ½wST2  wp2 þ Y ðwST1  wST2  wp1  awp3 Þ
Z
The modeling of the combined cycle with absorption cooling consider a reference cycle with key parameters listed in
Table 1 and adopts the following assumptions:

 Simple open loop GT cycle with air as a working fluid.

 GT expander power output is corrected for fuel mass addition using a correction factor (1 þ 1=AF ).
 Liquid Octane fuel combusted with 300% theoretical air and the adiabatic flame temperature is determined using
JANAF code.
 The top inlet gas temperature is determined by the calculating the adiabatic flame temperature and adjusted by an
assumed combustion efficiency.
 The HRSG unit is a single-pressure counter current heat exchanger with fixed effectiveness.
 Supplementary heat input in the HRSG is provided, when needed after the exhaust gas heat transfer, to maintain a
prescribed design conditions at the steam turbine inlet.
 A control valve is used to adjust the gas mass flow rate through the HRSG based to meet the required design condition
of exiting steam.
 All pumps are isentropic.
 Steam leaving the steam cycle condenser is saturated liquid.
 Steam condenser pressure is determined by prescribed cooling water temperature, heat exchanger effectiveness and
terminal temperature difference.
 Steam extraction pressure is determined by assuming a fixed solution generator temperature, generator effectiveness and
terminal temperature difference.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
976 O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982

Table 1
Combined cycle design parameters

Parameter Value

Compressor pressure ratio, b 12

Compressor isentropic efficiency 0.8
GT combustion efficiency, Zcomb 0.87
GT expander efficiency, ZGT 0.9
Gas turbine mass flow rate (kg/s) 21.92
HRSG efficiency 0.75
Steam turbine efficiency 0.86
Heat exchanger effectiveness 0.75
High pressure steam (kpa) 30 000
Design steam inlet temperature (1C) 500
Ambient temperature (1C) 25
Steam mass flow rate (kg/s) 2.76
Turbine mechanical efficiency 0.98
Electric generator efficiency 0.985
Heat exchangers terminal temperature difference (1C) 5
LiBr weak solution concentration (%) 64
LiBr strong solution concentration (%) 57.50
Generator boiling temperature (1C) 90
Chilled water inlet temperature (1C) 20
Cooling water inlet temperature (1C) 25
Pump mechanical efficiency (%) 70
Coefficient of performance of MVC cooling 3

 The heating steam exiting the generator is saturated liquid.

 Single-effect water–Lithium bromide absorption cycle.
 The refrigerant vapor leaving the generator has the equilibrium temperature of the weak incoming solution at the
generator prevailing pressure.
 All pressure line losses are neglected.

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 2 illustrates the variation of the utilization factor, UF, with steam to gas mass ratio, Z, for different steam extraction
rates, for which the following observations can be made:

 For steam extraction fraction below a value of 0.3, the maximum utilization factor for the CCPP occurs at a value of
steam to gas mass flow rate ratio of 0.12.
 For CCPP operating at a mass ratio, Z, exceeding a value of 0.8, a case when the CCPP is dominated by the steam cycle,
the utilization factor becomes only dependant on the fraction of steam extraction, Y, which, according to Eq. (10), the
UF becomes equal to the steam cycle efficiency plus a constant fraction proportional to steam extraction rate.

Figs. 3–7 describe the effect of extraction rate, Y, design inlet steam temperature, TSDI, ambient temperature, Ta,
compressor pressure ratio, b, and combustion efficiency, Zcomb, on the combined cycle efficiency, ZCC, for which the
following observations can be made.

 The combined cycle efficiency is strongly influenced by the steam extraction fraction. This is due to the steam turbine
power penalty associated with steam extraction. The results show that a CCPP operating at an optimum mass ratio of
0.12 and undergone a steam extraction increase from zero to 0.50 results in a decrease in CCCP efficiency by 5.8%. This
deterioration in performance increases to 8.8% when the CCPP operating at a mass ratio of 0.5.
 The combined cycle efficiency is moderately affected by ambient temperature variation. This variation is, firstly, due to
mass variation through the GT due to density variation with ambient temperature, and secondly, due to the condenser
pressure variation as influenced by the cooling water temperature which is taken to be equal to the ambient temperature.
The results show that this influence becomes significant for CCPP operating at higher values of mass ratios exceeding the
optimum value of 0.12. This is due to the significant contribution of the condenser pressure variation to the steam cycle
power output. For example, a CCPP operating at the optimum mass ratio of 0.12 and subjected to a decrease in ambient
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982 977

0.6

0.5

UF 0.4

Y=0.0
0.3 Y=0.10
Y=0.20
Y=0.30
Y=0.40
0.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Z

Fig. 2. Utilization factor versus steam to gas mass ratio at different steam extraction.

0.44

Y=0.0
0.42 Y=0.25
Y=0.50
0.40 Y=0.75

0.38
ηCC

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Z

Fig. 3. Effect of steam extraction on CCPP efficiency.

temperature from 40 to 10 1C, results in 5.2% improvement in CCPP efficiency; while this improvement increases to
8.5% at a higher mass ratio of 0.5.
 The combined cycle efficiency is weakly influenced by the steam design inlet temperature, TSDI, since the rise in this
temperature results in both increase of the supplementary heat input in the HRSG unit and steam cycle power output.
For example, a CCPP operating at the optimum mass ratio of 0.12 and undergone a change of design inlet steam turbine
temperature from 400 to 500 1C results in only 1% increase in efficiency, which slightly increases to 2% when operating
at a higher steam to gas mass ratio of 0.5.
 The combined cycle efficiency is moderately influenced by the compressor pressure ratio b. For example, at the optimum
value of steam to gas mass ratio of 0.12, an increase in the compressor pressure ratio from 8 to 14 results in only 6.6%
improvement in the CCPP efficiency, and this decreases to 3.4% when operating at a higher steam to gas mass ratio
of 0.5.
 The combined cycle efficiency is strongly influenced by GT combustion efficiency Zcomb. This is due to higher inlet top
gas temperatures associated with higher combustion efficiencies, and, thereby, higher GT output power. For example, a
CCPP operating at a steam to gas mass flow rate ratio of 0.12 and undergoing a combustion efficiency increase from
90% to 95% results in 5.7% increase in CCPP efficiency, and this declines to 3.2% when operating at a higher steam to
gas mass ratio of 0.5.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
978 O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982

0.46
Ta=10 deg C
0.44 Ta=20
Ta=30
0.42 Ta=40

0.40

ηCC
0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Z

Fig. 4. Effect of ambient temperature on CCPP efficiency.

0.46
TSDI= 400 deg. C
0.44 TSDI= 450 deg. C
TSDI= 500 deg. C
0.42
TSDI= 550 deg. C
0.40
ηCC

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Z

Fig. 5. Effect of inlet turbine design temperature on CCPP efficiency.

 There exists an optimum steam to gas mass ratio, Z, for the CCPP at which the combined cycle efficiency is maximum.
For the present combined cycle configuration, this optimum value is found to be 0.12, and is shown by the results to be
weakly influenced by variation in the above studied parameters. This optimum value corresponds to a case of minimum
supplementary heat input in the HRSG unit.

Another objective of the study is to show the relative advantage of using absorption cooling as alternative to MVC
cooling to provide cooling for office or residential buildings near the plant. As illustrated in Fig. 8, the CCPP with
MVC cooling is consistently having a lower efficiency for a given steam extraction fraction rate than CCPP with absorption
cooling providing equal thermal load. This difference in efficiencies increases when CCPP operate at higher mass ratio than
the optimum value. Also, as illustrated in Fig. 9, the percent of power saving as a result of using CCPP with absorption
cooling increases asymptotically with increase in mass flow rate ratio and linearly increase with steam extraction rate. This
power saving, for example, for a CCPP operating at a steam to gas mass ratio of 0.5 and a steam fraction extraction of 0.5
is about 10%.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982 979

0.46

0.44 β=8
β=10
0.42 β=12
β=14
0.40

0.38

ηCC 0.36

0.34

0.32

0.30

0.28

0.26
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Z

Fig. 6. Effect of compressor pressure ratio on CCPP efficiency.

0.50

0.45

0.40
ηCC

0.35

0.30 ηcomb=0.70
ηcomb=0.80
0.25 ηcomb=0.90
ηcomb=0.95

0.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Z

Fig. 7. Effect of combustion efficiency on CCPP efficiency.

5. Cycle validation and overall energy balance

The results of the present study are validated by comparing the results with those presented in [7] for a reference CCPP.
The reference CCPP uses a single-pressure level HRSG and a GT model, Taurus 60 GT. To provide a performance
comparison, the simulation is performed using approximately the same design parameters of the reference power
plant. The simulation results together with the performance parameters of the reference power plant are listed in
Table 2. A review of the table shows good comparison with the experimental results with an overall maximum percent error
of 0.6%.
Also, an overall energy balance is performed to check the correctness of the simulation results within the stated
assumptions. In this study, a fuel octane is combusted with 300% theoretical air to give an air to fuel mass ratio, AF ¼ 45.
This large AF makes the assumption of neglecting the mass of the fuel is justified whereby the contribution of the fuel mass
to total GT mass flow rate is considered negligible. Considering a CCPP with absorption cooling under steady state
conditions, an overall energy balance is made by equating the energy entering to the energy leaving the system as can be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
980 O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982

0.42

0.40 ηCC,AB

ηCC,MVC
0.38

0.36
ηCC

0.34

0.32

0.30

0.28
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Z

Fig. 8. Combined cycle efficiencies with absorption and MVC cooling versus steam to gas mass ratio at 50% steam extraction.

30
Y=0.0
25 Y=0.25
Y=0.50
Y=0.75
20
WSAV%

15

10

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Z

Fig. 9. Percent of power saving with absorption cooling over MVC cooling in CCPP.

Table 2
Comparison of simulated results with CCPP using GT Taurus 60

GT Taurus 60 Simulation Error%

CCPP electrical power output (MW) 7.92 7.90 0.3

CCPP heat rate (kJ/kWh) 8140 8180 0.5
CCPP efficiency 0.4423 0.44 0.5
GT power output (MW) 5.31 5.30 0.2
GT efficiency 0.2969 0.30 0.6
GT inlet turbine temperature (1C) 1093 1092.00 0.1
GT outlet temperature (1C) 518 520 0.4
ST power output (MW) 2.6 2.60 0.1
High pressure steam mass flow (kg/s) 2.76 2.76 0.0
HRSG efficiency 0.7455 0.75 0.0
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982 981

Table 3
Overall energy (KJ) balance for a combined cycle with absorption cooling at different mass ratio (Y ¼ 0:30)

Z Qcomb QAX QE WC W P1 W P2 W P3 E in W GT W ST QLcomb QLSTK QLSCC QLACC QAB E out Error%

0.05 19 404 0 605.6 8440 0.05 3.198 6.912 28 460 14 319 1047 2426 7606 1698 644.7 719.6 28 460 5.29E10
0.1 19 404 0 1211 8440 0.11 6.397 13.82 29 075 14 319 2095 2426 4111 3396 1289 1439 29 075 1.23E14
0.15 19 404 2655 1817 8440 0.16 9.595 20.74 32 346 14 319 3142 2426 3272 5095 1934 2159 32 346 5.38E11
0.2 19 404 6149 2423 8440 0.22 12.79 27.65 36 456 14 319 4190 2426 3272 6793 2579 2879 36 456 2.16E15
0.25 19 404 9643 3028 8440 0.27 15.99 34.56 40 566 14 319 5237 2426 3272 8491 3223 3598 40 566 2.23E15
0.3 19 404 13 137 3634 8440 0.33 19.19 41.47 44 676 14 319 6284 2426 3272 10 189 3868 4318 44 676 1.49E15
0.35 19 404 16 631 4239 8440 0.38 22.39 48.39 48 786 14 319 7332 2426 3272 11 888 4513 5037 48 786 2.91E16
0.4 19 404 20 125 4845 8440 0.43 25.59 55.3 52 896 14 319 8379 2426 3272 13 586 5158 5757 52 896 1.55E16
0.45 19 404 23 620 5451 8440 0.49 28.78 62.21 57 006 14 319 9427 2426 3272 15 284 5802 6477 57 006 7.85E16
0.5 19 404 27 114 6056 8440 0.54 31.98 69.12 61 116 14 319 10 474 2426 3272 16 982 6447 7196 61 116 6.39E17

Table 4
Overall energy (KJ) balance for a combined cycle with absorption cooling at different extraction rate with (Z ¼ 0:13)

Y Qcomb QAX QE WC W P1 W P2 W P3 E in W GT W ST QLcomb QLSTK QLSCC QLACC QAB E out Error%

0.00 19 404 1020 0.05 8440 0.20 8.12 0.0 28 873 14 319 2938 2426 2991 0.1 6200 0.06 28 873 5.8E10
0.10 19 404 1047 516 8440 0.18 8.13 5.9 29 421 14 319 2851 2426 3084 549.2 5580 613.1 29 421 6.8E10
0.20 19 404 1075 1032 8440 0.16 8.15 11.8 29 970 14 319 2764 2426 3178 1098.0 4960 1226 29 970 5.2E15
0.30 19 404 1102 1548 8440 0.14 8.17 17.7 30 519 14 319 2677 2426 3272 1648.0 4340 1839 30 519 7.2E15
0.40 19 404 1129 2064 8440 0.12 8.20 23.6 31 068 14 319 2590 2426 3366 2197.0 3720 2452 31 068 7.5E16
0.50 19 404 1156 2580 8440 0.10 8.22 29.4 31 617 14 319 2503 2426 3459 2746.0 3100 3065 31 617 1.7E16
0.60 19 404 1183 3095 8440 0.08 8.25 35.3 32 166 14 319 2415 2426 3553 3295.0 2480 3678 32 166 2.1E15
0.70 19 404 1210 3611 8440 0.06 8.28 41.2 32 715 14 319 2328 2426 3647 3844.0 1860 4291 32 715 3.7E16
0.80 19 404 1237 4127 8440 0.04 8.31 47.1 33 263 14 319 2241 2426 3740 4394.0 1240 4904 33 263 1.1E15
0.90 19 404 1264 4643 8440 0.02 8.34 53.0 33 812 14 319 2154 2426 3834 4943.0 620 5517 33 812 6.3E17

expressed by the relation

E in ¼ E out , (20)

where

E in ¼ Qcomb þ QAX þ QE þ W C þ W P1 þ W P2 þ W P3 (21)

and

E out ¼ QLcomb þ QLSTK þ QLSCC þ QLACC þ QLAB

þ W GT þ W ST , ð22Þ

where each of the terms in the right-hand sides of Eqs. (21) and (22) is expressed as a product of mass flow rate and an
enthalpy difference, calculated from physical property tables using EES software. The results of the overall energy balance
simulation are listed in Tables 3 and 4 using the reference CCPP specifications given in Table 1. Two cases of energy
balance are considered: namely, one with a fixed extraction rate, and another with a fixed steam to gas mass ratio.
A percentage error difference between energy entering and leaving the CCPP is also calculated and included in the
above mentioned tables, whereby the error is given by the expression

E in  E out
Err% ¼  100. (23)
E in

A review of the simulated results indicates a maximum percentage error of not exceeding 6  1010, which is within the
computational accuracy of the machine.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
982 O.M. AL-Hawaj, H. AL-Mutairi / Energy 32 (2007) 971–982

6. Conclusions

Based on the parametric study of the CCPP with absorption cooling, the following concluding remarks can be
summarized:

 For maximum values of efficiency and utilization factor, the CCPP should be designed to operate with steam to gas ratio
of 0.12.
 The CCPP optimum steam to gas mass ratio is primarily insensitive to variation in steam extraction fraction, ambient
temperature, design inlet steam turbine temperature, compressor pressure ratio, and combustion efficiency.
 The improvement in CCPP efficiency with decrease in ambient temperature becomes particularly significant when the
CCPP operate at a mass ratio larger than the optimum mass ratio.
 The deterioration of CCPP performance with steam extraction increases when the CCPP operate at mass ratios larger
than the optimum mass ratio.
 The effect of increasing the steam turbine inlet temperature has very small improvement on the performance of the
CCPP.
 Both increase in the compressor pressure ratio and GT combustion efficiency improve the CCPP efficiency and this
improvement decreases when the CCPP operate at higher mass ratio than the optimum one. This improvement gain
comes from gas section of the CCPP.
 A cogeneration CCPP with absorption cooling yields significantly less power penalty than a CCPP with a MVC cooling.
The fraction of power saving increases linearly with increase in thermal load and asymptotically with increase in steam
to gas mass ratio exceeding the optimum value.

References

[1] Kuwait Ministry of Electricity and Water. Statistical year book, 2001, Water and Electricity. Office of Statistics, P.O. Box 24395, Safat-Kuwait 13104.
[2] Darwish MA. New idea for co-generation power desalting plants due to abandoned MSF desalination process. Desalination 2001;134:221–30.
[3] Najjar YSH. Enhancement of performance of gas turbine engines by inlet air cooling and cogeneration system. J Appl Thermal Eng 1996;16(2):163–73.
[4] Lamfon NJ, Najjar SH, Akyurt M. Modeling and simulation of combined gas turbine engine and heat pipe system for waste heat recovery utilization.
Energy Convers Manage 1998;39:81–6.
[5] Edera M, Kojima H. Development of new gas absorption chiller heater-advanced utilization of waste heat from gas-driven co-generation systems for
air-conditioning. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43:1493–501.
[6] Mone’ CD, Chau DS, Phelan PE. Economic feasibility of combined heat and power and absorption refrigeration with commercially available gas
turbines. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:1559–73.
[7] Bhargava R, Blanch M, Melino F, Peretto A. Parametric analysis of combined cycles equipped with inlet fogging. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
2006;128:326–35.