OPTIMIZATION OF GAS TURBINE COMBINED CYCLE

POWER-GEN International 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada

S. C. (John) Gulen, John A. Jacobs III

GE Power Systems
1 River Road
Building 2-728
Schenectady, NY 12345

ABSTRACT
With over seven million hours of F technology operation, GE is the world leader in advanced gas
turbines that form the backbone of highly efficient and economical GE pre-engineered STAG™
(STeam And Gas) combined cycle systems. Today’s capital market driven power generation
customers demand the most efficient and reliable combined cycle configurations at the lowest
cost. Satisfying these two competing goals for a broad range of customers with differing
financial means and with operations in markets that have unique demands—when combined with
the uncertainty associated with forecasting economic parameters that drive overall plant
profitability—presents a complex optimization problem.
The challenge is to design a structured combined cycle system that integrates and builds upon a
series of structured components and sub-systems in a manner that minimizes capital cost, and
reduces order to COD (Commercial Operation Date) cycle while maximizing the RAM
(Reliability, Availability and Maintainability) characteristics of the plant.
The structured plant concept targets a base plant design that satisfies the needs of most
customers. Standard but optional plant packages are pre-designed and available to satisfy
common needs of yet even more customers. Finally, design flexibility is retained to satisfy the
unique requirements of a select few customers.
This paper will address combined cycle optimization considerations with GE's most advanced F-
class air-cooled gas turbines and the high-efficiency, advanced technology (HEAT™) steam
turbines. It will demonstrate that by employing Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) methodology and
a systems approach, a careful balancing of capital cost and performance trade-offs for a wide
range of market segments will lead to a structured combined cycle product that provides a robust
solution—resulting in an optimum cost of electricity with respect to a range of parameters that
are either impacted by or driven by market dynamics.

1. INTRODUCTION

Worldwide demand for efficient, clean, reliable and low-cost electric power has been on a
growth path for the last several decades and this trend is not expected to change in the future.
One can expect to see a growth demand and a sustained need for additions to the installed
capacity base in both developing and industrialized countries. For projection purposes one might
further expect to see load growth trends to track socio-economic drivers and indicators. Even
within the US, after the burst of what many refer to as a “bubble” or sharp increase in installed
capacity base, it can be expected that there will be growth pockets of generation capacity to
satisfy capacity requirements and skirt transmission limitations into and out of various regions of
the country. For now and in the foreseeable future, combined cycle power plants (CCPP) that
are based on natural gas fired, heavy-duty gas turbines will be in a unique position to satisfy the
needs of power generation customers on most fronts.
As dictated by fundamental thermodynamics, the evolution in gas turbine technology has been
the largest driver of recent dramatic improvements in combined cycle performance. Advances in
the development of turbine blade materials, thermal barrier coatings and blade cooling schemes
led to ever increasing gas turbine firing temperatures and higher gas turbine specific work. In
conjunction with higher cycle pressure ratios (made possible by improved compressor designs
that capitalized on the advances made in aircraft engine technology), modern gas turbines are
uniquely suited for efficient combined cycle power plants.
GE’s track record in F technology with more than 8.5 million hours of operation through
November 2003 established its leadership in the power generation industry. This leadership was
further enhanced by the successful operation and characterization of both the 7FB and 9H gas
turbines. The 7FB builds upon GE’s successful track record for 7FA gas turbines as well as
GE’s industry leadership role in the “F” technology in general. The 9H is the world’s first
closed-loop steam-cooled H-class gas turbine and powers the world’s largest and most powerful
single-shaft combined cycle power plant. The H System™ is designed with the capability to
achieve 60% thermal efficiency—a major milestone for the global power industry.

1.1. GAS TURBINE (PG9371-FB)

In response to market demands for low-cost, reliable and environmentally compliant power, the
F technology gas turbine has been enhanced repeatedly since its introduction in 1987. The 60 Hz
7FA, the 50 Hz 9FA and the geared 6FA versions of the F gas turbine have benefited from
ongoing innovations in product development, resulting in performance enhancements that
maintain exceptionally high reliability and low emissions. These ongoing technological advances
are being harnessed to satisfy the operational, financial and environmental factors that drive
customers’ requirements.
In conjunction with the continuing evolution of our existing gas turbine platforms, it is GE’s
Design For Six Sigma combined-cycle power plant systems-level optimization philosophy which
translates combined cycle enhancements into value for both GE and our customers. Such a
system approach was recently demonstrated in the successful design and testing of the
MS7001FB, GE’s latest air-cooled gas turbine. The 7FB has successfully completed extensive
full-speed, full-load testing at its launch site in Hunterstown, Pennsylvania. (See Figure 1.)
Like its 60 Hz 7FB counterpart, the 50 Hz 9FB (PG9371-FB) features an aerodynamically
redesigned turbine section that utilizes single-crystal material in the first-stage buckets and other
improved materials that are used in the H System. These improvements have translated to an
increase in firing temperature of ~100°F, which represents a significant improvement in both gas
turbine and gas turbine combined cycle performance over the existing 9FA. Additional
opportunities for incremental improvements in bottoming cycle (BC) performance are also
afforded and can be captured via optimization and re-optimization of the bottoming cycle itself,
and via advancements in steam turbine steam path technology.
Equipped with GE’s advanced Dry Low NOx combustion system to limit NOx emissions to less
than 25 ppm and controlled by GE’s advanced Speedtronic™ Mark VI control system, the
9FB—in concert with GE’s HEAT™ steam turbine—delivers new levels of fuel efficiency and
output for large, air-cooled CC plants.

Figure 1. The 7FB heading for factory test – September 2001

1.2. STEAM TURBINE / BOTTOMING CYCLE

There is no question that the evolution of gas turbines and gas turbine technology represents the
single largest contribution to improvements in overall combined-cycle plant performance. The
integration and optimization of its performance characteristics with the bottoming cycle (HRSG
and steam turbine) along with improvements in steam turbine technology affords a significant
opportunity for incremental combined-cycle performance and, therefore, economic benefits.
Thus, concurrent with the development of the 9FB gas turbine, GE also started a program to
develop a fully optimized, pre-engineered steam and gas (STAG™) power plant. Using a
systems level approach, this effort culminated in the development of an S109FB single-shaft
combined cycle power plant that integrates the 9FB gas turbine and HEAT™ steam turbine,
which is the latest steam turbine in GE’s A-Series steam turbine product line and an integral part
of the S109FB combined cycle plant. (See Figure 2.)
 Figure 2. HEAT™ Steam Turbine

Significant strides in steam path technology improvements (aerodynamic efficiency and leakage
control) are made possible by leveraging technology and tools cooperatively developed by GE
Aircraft Engines, GE Global Research Center and GE Power Systems gas turbine and steam
turbine engineering. The evolutionary products of these advancements have been combined with
GE’s leadership position in steam turbine industry (RAM, technology and experience). The
thermodynamic design of HEAT™ steam turbine was also a product of the integrated system
design approach. State-of-the-art design tools and test facilities form the foundation for the
HEAT™ steam turbine.
This paper describes the salient aspects of the optimization process employed to determine the
optimum bottoming cycle design for the 9FB-HEAT™ single shaft combined cycle system. The
focus will be on the cost-performance trade-off that led to the selection of the 2200 psig throttle
pressure steam turbine, bottoming cycle. Designed to generate 413 MW net output (gas-fired,
ISO conditions) at 58% efficiency, the S109FB nominally improves upon GE’s current S109FA
CC power plant offering by 1.6 points in net efficiency.

2. CC OPTIMIZATION

Optimization criteria for a combined-cycle power plant (or any type of power plant) can be
classified into three groups:
1. Economic, i.e., total capital investment, cost of electricity (COE), net present value
(NPV), internal rate of return (IRR)
2. Technological, i.e., thermal performance (efficiency and output), plant RAM
3. Environmental, i.e., emission rates, wastewater treatment, etc.
An optimized design minimizes or maximizes a selected criterion, as appropriate. Obviously, it
is desirable to develop a design that is “best” with respect to all of the aforementioned criteria.
In general, however, technological criteria compete with economic and/or environmental criteria.
It is impossible, for instance, to find a solution that maximizes the plant’s thermal efficiency
while minimizing the plant cost and pollutant emissions. Thus, rather than finding a global
optimum, combined-cycle optimization becomes a problem of trade-off that balances different
requirements.
Although it is desirable to include all the subsystems that significantly affect the performance of
the CCPP system under study, it is often better to break a complex system into smaller
subsystems that can be optimized individually. Suboptimization, i.e., optimization of one part of
a problem or of a subsystem—ignoring some variables (if necessary) that affect the objective
function of other systems—is the appropriate strategy for the optimization of complex thermal
systems such as a combined-cycle power plant.
There are four subsystems in a combined-cycle optimization study: gas turbine, Heat Recovery
Steam Generator (HRSG), Steam Turbine (ST) including condenser and Balance Of Plant
(BOP). To get a rough idea about the relative importance of these subsystems, we can do a
thought experiment. Starting from a baseline performance and given gas turbine technology, the
maximum thermodynamically possible CC performance can be obtained by the following steps:
(1) 100% efficiency (isentropic) HP, IP and LP turbines; (2) zero HRSG evaporator pinch,
approach subcooling and superheater approach; (3) 100% HRSG heat utilization factor and no
exhaust duct temperature loss; (4) zero steam turbine packing leaks; (5) zero GT inlet and
exhaust loss; (6) zero thermal and pressure losses from steam pipes. (See Figure 3.)
With all these hypothetical improvements, it is possible to add 2-3 points to CCPP net efficiency.
In terms of relative importance, ST and HRSG losses dominate by contributing roughly 80% of
the total. Therefore, focusing on the bottoming cycle is the logical approach to the CC
optimization.

CC Efficiency
Maximum Possible Improvement (100%)
Net ∆η

Breakdown
HRSG
26%
GT Exhaust
12%

Other (Piping,
Steam Turbine Leakage, GT
53% Inlet)
9%

BASELINE 100% LP NO PINCH, 100% HP 100% IP TURB ZERO EXH 100% HRSG TOTAL BOP ZERO STEAM ZERO EXH ZERO GT
TURB EFF NO SUBCOOL TURB EFF EFF PRESS DROP HEAT UTIL STEAM LINE TURB LEAK DUCT DT INLET LOSS
FACTOR LOSS

FEATURE ACCUMULATION

Figure 3. Theoretically possible (maximum) CC efficiency improvement with no irreversibility in the BC

Practical design limits in terms of component efficiency and heat exchanger effectiveness lead to
improved cycle designs to achieve higher efficiencies. These are identified in Table 1.

Table 1. CC power plant improvement possibilities for S109FB-SS

Steam Turbine HRSG

• HP Throttle Pressure (up to 2700 psig) • Once Thru Steam Generator vs. Drum Boiler
• HP/IP Steam Temperature (1050°F - 1100°F) • Horizontal vs. Vertical Boiler
• 1 versus 2 Flow LP Section • System Pinch and Sub-Cooling Values

Generator Gas Turbine

• Combustion Gas Fuel Inlet Temperature (365°F, 440°F)
• Evaluate generator efficiency entitlement using existing or • Inlet Filter Pressure Drop
near term technologies • Exhaust System (HRSG) Pressure Drop
• Exhaust Diffuser (Value Creation)
BOP
• Transformer Impedance Values
• Evaluate entitlement associated with auxiliary loads

In the following sections, we will describe the optimization criteria and optimization
methodology that led to the selection of the 2200# bottoming cycle for the S109FB combined
cycle power plant.

3. COST OF ELECTRICITY (COE)

GE’s Six-Sigma process starts with an understanding of the market dynamics and customer
CTQs (critical to quality). The major customer CTQ is the life-cycle cost of ownership. The
metric that is used to quantify this cost is the unit (per kWh) cost of generating electricity. COE,
in its most commonly used form, is a simple formula that combines a power generation system’s
cost (capital and operating) and thermal performance into a single figure of merit that enables
comparison of different systems. It is given as:
β ⋅C Lf ⋅ f
COE = + + Lom ⋅ om
P⋅H η
where:
! β is the levelized fixed charge rate factor
! C [$] is the plant’s total cost to the owner
! P [kW] and η are the 100% load performance parameters (usually at ISO)
! H [hrs] represents the annual service hours
! f [$/kWh] is the fuel price
! om [$/kWh] represents the variable and fixed operating and maintenance costs
 The first term in the formula represents the carrying charges, the second term is the cost of
fuel, and the last term is the cost of maintaining and operating the plant. Fuel cost and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are the variable components of the COE whereas
carrying charge is the fixed component. COE is typically calculated over the economic lifetime
of the plant (typically 15 to 20 years).
! Levelization factors (Lf and Lom) convert fuel and O&M costs that usually escalate over the
plant’s economic life due to market conditions and inflation into average annual (constant)
values. The formula for L can be found in any financial reference and is a function of
discount, escalation and inflation rates.
! The fixed charge rate, β, represents the plant’s financial and tax situation and is a function
of the economic life of the power plant, debt-equity ratio used in financing the plant, debt
and equity rates, corporate tax rate and tax credits, book depreciation, property tax and
insurance. Various methods are available for calculating β, which can be found in plant
economic studies, such as Ref. [1]. Typical values of β are 16-18% for Independent Power
Producers (IPPs) and 12-13%% for government-owned utilities, depending on the interest
and taxation rates.
If the new and clean performance conditions are used within the calculations, the cost of
generation as given by the COE formula should be treated as a figure of merit rather than an
accurate assessment of the “real” generating cost. Important drivers—such as seasonal
variations in ambient conditions, part load operation, recoverable and unrecoverable component
deterioration, uncertainty in fuel prices, start-up and shut-downs, and unforeseen events are not
considered. Nevertheless, levelized COE is an important metric that provides insight to
performance-cost trade-offs for OEMs (system design) as well as customers (system selection).
The goal of the Six-Sigma design process is to reduce the plant owner’s cost of ownership
represented by COE. The roadmap to achieve this goal is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Combined-cycle power plant COE improvement

COE component (per kWh) COE drivers Solution

Fixed costs (i.e., carrying charges) Reduction in construction time & cost Modular & structured (packaged) design STAG
Increased output and availability plants
System approach to plant design
Fuel cost Improved heat rate, start-up and part- Efficient thermodynamic cycles using efficient
load characteristics components with advanced features
System approach to plant design
O&M cost Improved parts life Robust design with evolutionary improvements
of existing products

3.1. CAPITAL COST

A CC power plant’s total installed capital cost is the total cost that is incurred by the plant owner
at the in-service date. It is the total capital requirement (TCR) that includes all monetary funds
necessary to complete the entire project. Depending on the plant mission, fuel prices and
financing structure about one-fourth to one-third of the COE is determined by the initial capital
investment. The capital cost structure that is used in this study is summarized in Table 3. The
definitions are loosely adapted from Refs. [2]-[3]. For a detailed application of a cost roll-up
very similar to that shown in Table 3 to a CCPP, the reader is referred to Ref. [4].

Table 3. CC power plant total installed cost and capital requirement bottom-up cost roll-up

Total Capital Requirement (TCR)

Total of TPI and Other Outlays
Total Plant Investment (TPI) Other Outlays
Total of TPC and AFUDC
Total Plant Cost (TPC) Allowance for • Pre-production
Also called as Fixed Capital Investment, TPC is the so-called overnight construction cost funds used (Start-up) costs
during
that assumes zero time for design and construction • Working Capital
construction
Direct Costs Indirect Costs (AFUDC) • Prepaid royalties,
(Equipment, Site Materials & Labor) licenses & fees
Power Plant Facility General Site • Engineering & • Land
(Process Facilities) (General Facilities) home office
• Warranty
(See Ref. [2]) overhead
• Permits
• Major Equipment (GT, ST, HRSG & • Site Preparation / Civil • Project and
Generators) process • Fees
• Buildings (turbine hall,
• BOP Equipment (pumps, tanks, offices, control rooms, contingencies • Heavy haul
compressors, etc.) guardhouse, etc.) • Contractor’s
• Piping (water, fuel, steam, etc.) • Roads, parking lot services

• Electrical (transformers, switchgear, • Waste disposal, • Contractor’s profit

cables and conduits, etc.) wastewater treatment,
• Instrumentation & Controls fire protection

• Installation

The direct cost (DC) breakdown of a typical 400 MW CC power plant is shown in Figure 4. It is
important to note that while major generating equipment are by far the most expensive items,
they contribute only about one-third of the plant direct costs. Indirect costs can contribute
anywhere from 15% to 30% on top of the direct costs. Note that the cost of the plant equipment
that can be identified on a plant heat balance is about 50% of the DC and will be less than that of
TPC. Therefore, reliable cost estimating based on a well-defined plant scope is paramount to
COE analysis.
 400 MW CCPP (from Ref. [9])

Civil, Arrangement,
Site Infrastructure
Buildings Gas Turbine Gen-
3%
18% Set
Control 32%
3%

Electrical
9%
Steam Turbine Gen-
Mechanical (incl. HRSG Set
Piping) 10% 8%
17%

Figure 4. Direct cost breakdown for a typical CC power plant

The cost model used in the study is based on rolling up equipment purchase prices, material and
labor into total direct (installed) cost. GT, ST and generator prices are based on detailed design-
to-cost (DTC) estimates while BOP equipment costs are estimated from cost estimating
relationships (CER). As defined by Ref. [5], CER is a “mathematical expression (i.e., a transfer
function) or an algorithm that describes, for predictive purposes, the cost of an item as a function
of one or more independent variables which represent the physical or functional characteristics
of that item.” Material and labor man-hours are estimated using cost factor methods. Figure 5
shows typical material and labor factors for process plant fluid handling equipment such as
pumps and heat exchangers from Refs. [6]-[8]. Similar numbers are used as default in our cost-
modeling program. It was found that the bulk material and labor factors calibrated to a reference
plant cost study (described below) lined up extremely well with published data for a typical
process plant module.

Typical Chem.
From Parametric Cost Model
Proc. Module Pump Heat Xchgr
[Ref. 6] [Ref. 7] [Ref. 8]
Instrumentation Equipment 100 100 100
Piping 32.0 29.3 118.0
Concrete 8.9 3.9 11.0
Valves Steel 1.7 0.0 11.0
Equipment (Pump) Instruments 7.3 2.9 24.0
Electrical 8.3 30.3 5.0
Piping Insulation 3.4 2.8 11.0
Paint, Insulation Paint 0.6 0.8 1.0
Total Materials 62.2 70.0 181.0
Electrical E+M 162.2 170.0 281.0
Labor 58.0 67.9 5.0
Concrete + Steel E+M+L 220.2 237.9 286.0
L/M 0.36 0.40 0.02

Figure 5. Typical plant equipment, materials and labor cost factors

For the purposes of the S109FB combined cycle optimization study presented herein, a bottoms-
up cost roll-up methodology was employed to estimate the TCR and was implemented in the
following manner:
1. Equipment costs for cost items in each relevant TPC category are estimated using CERs.
(Equipment installation costs are estimated separately.)
 2. Bulk materials and labor are estimated in eight categories (piping, valves, electrical,
concrete, steel, instrumentation, insulation and paint) using cost factor method. Typical
process plant factors are used as initial (default) estimates that are later calibrated based
on the reference plant cost estimate.
3. Equipment plus materials plus labor is rolled up to arrive at direct costs.
4. Indirect costs are calculated using factor method for the entire plant.
5. Direct and indirect costs are rolled up to arrive at TPC.
6. AFUDC is estimated from the weighted cost of capital, estimated annual inflation rate
and construction time. (See Ref. [1].)
7. AFUDC and TPC are rolled up to arrive at TPI.
8. Cost items in other outlays category are estimated and rolled up to arrive at the total.
9. Other outlays and TPI are rolled up to arrive at TCR.
Equipment cost models and the cost roll-up algorithm have been incorporated into a computer
program that is linked to the performance model via ASCII input files and combined on a
modeling platform (iSIGHT). Thus, the output of the thermal model which designs and sizes the
plant equipment is directly fed into the cost estimating model that converts performance and
hardware design data into equipment costs.
Once initial plant design was established using the methodology described above, plant design
and equipment design specifications were developed. These specifications were than leveraged
to put together a reference plant study for the purpose of calibrating the analytical models as well
as to drive the development of a proposal template in support of S109FB-SS transactional bids.
GE’s Power Plant Engineering group undertook the reference plant study. Using the existing
S109FA as a starting point, a series of value engineering studies were performed and proposals
have been obtained for major plant equipment (e.g., evaluation of HRSG technology, that is,
once-through vs. drum type HRSGs). Utilizing the results of the value engineering studies,
drawings (including the site plan, equipment arrangement, piping, architectural elevations,
electrical one-line, grounding and electrical tray plans and 3-D models) were developed and
detailed BOP cost estimates were generated. Cost estimates were based upon assumed labor
wage rates, European pricing for major plant equipment and a specified construction schedule.
It is extremely difficult to make meaningful comparisons with other CCPP plant costs. The lack
of published data is only one impediment. Differences in location, scope of supply, local labor
productivity and rates, financing arrangements, construction time, local laws and regulations can,
and usually do, cause big fluctuations—especially in indirect and other owner’s cost such as
interest during construction and permits. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that CC plants
comparable in size and technology should at least exhibit comparable direct cost breakdown.
This expectation is supported quite reasonably by comparison with published data as shown in
Figures 4, 5 and 6. Data such as those identified in these figures were leveraged for
benchmarking purposes.
 From Energy Issues (World Bank), No. 20 June 1999
Basis for example: 350/700 MW CC Plant with a V94.3A GT

Integrated Services CCPP w/ V94.3A

Project Management/Subcontracting 4.00%
Plant & Project Eng'g/Software 2.00%
15%
Plant Constr./Commissioning/Training 8.00%
Transport, Insurance 1.00%
Direct Costs (DC) DC Breakdown
Civil Works 15.00% 17.65%
Gas & Steam Turbine Set 32.00% 37.65%
BOP 16.00% 18.82% 100%
85%
Electrical Systems 7.00% 8.24%
Instruments & Control 4.00% 4.71%
Boiler Island 11.00% 12.94%

Owner's Costs Excluded 100.00% 100.00%

Figure 6. Total plant cost breakdown of a typical S/W V94.3A CC power plant

3.2. PRICE OR COST

According to the NES Dictionary, cost is “the amount paid or payable for the acquisition of
materials, property or services. (See Ref. [5]) In contract and proposal usage, cost denotes
dollars and amounts exclusive of fee or profit.”
There is a clear distinction between cost and price that usually includes a fee or profit, henceforth
referred to as the contribution margin (CM). This distinction can be best explained by
considering a transaction between a seller and buyer. For a buyer, the outlay of funds to acquire
a particular item is the “acquisition cost”. For the seller of that particular item, the same funds
that are received from the buyer is the “selling price.” This price should cover the seller’s own
“acquisition cost” (if the seller is a middleman) or “production cost” (if the seller is a
manufacturer) and leave a suitable profit.
The price is driven by the market conditions and, to a certain extent, can be independent of the
cost, as pricing will more often than not follow the basic rule of “Supply and Demand.” Thus the
optimization process strives to achieve a system/equipment design that has an optimum cost (not
the minimum cost) that strikes the best balance between cost and performance. This in turn
ensures that the customers get the best possible plant value for their money independent from
“Supply and Demand” considerations.
The present study aims to optimize the “owner’s life cycle cost of ownership”. Therefore, it is
implicitly assumed that the total (installed) plant cost, C, in the COE formula is the “price” of the
CC power plant from the owner’s perspective and corresponds to the TCR in Table 3. Thus,
within the context of the present work, the term “plant cost” should be considered synonymous
to “plant price.” The actual model used in the study was calibrated to a recent detailed reference
plant study and GE’s own pricing policies. The COE improvements illustrated below are based
on a model that is calibrated to the S109FA price listed in the GTW 2001-2002 Handbook CC
price table. This is acceptable since the goal is not to establish a specific bid price for “a” CC
plant; the goal is to estimate cost/price derivatives of plant design parameters studied herein.
3.3. FUEL AND O&M COSTS

Fuel is by far the most dominant contributor to the COE by making up about two thirds of it. In
the 50 Hz markets of Asia and Europe, natural gas fuel prices in the $3-$4.5/MMBtu range have
been observed in the recent past; in general, prices are higher in Asia. Future price increases are
influenced by many factors, including economic and political developments and thus long-term
forecasts are notoriously unreliable. Based on historical experience, an average annual
escalation of approximately 1.5% in natural gas fuel prices in both market segments might be a
reasonable expectation.
For F-class machines, GE has specific CSA (contractual service agreement) prices that include
services such as lifetime maintenance, spares, and combustor inspections. Average O&M costs
account for 8-10% of the COE. Table 4 identifies estimates of the relative O&M costs as a
function of plant operating profile including one that has been identified as the “Design” profile.
In turn the design profile is the mission/duty profile which forms the basis for the cycle
optimization analysis described by Section 4 of this paper.

3.4. PLANT MISSION

Even though the recent industry deregulation and emergence of merchant plants have somewhat
changed the picture, a power plant is still designed for a specific mission. Typically, four
general types of plant operating regimes are possible: peaking, cyclic, intermediate and base-
loaded. These operating regimes can be characterized by the number of annual fired starts in
conjunction with operating hours. A typical comparison based on generic definitions is shown in
Table 4.
Table 4. Definition of CC plant operating regimes used in this analysis

Cold starts Warm starts Hot starts Annual Relative O&M

(unit is down 72 (unit is down ≤ 48 hrs (unit is down 8 hrs, 2-shift operating Cost
hrs) – 40 hrs. average) 5-day operation) hours

Peaking 40 100 10 600 10x

Cyclic 5 45 225 4,800 2.5x
Baseload 9 10 2 7,500 baseline
Continuous 3 5 10 8,200 1.10x
Design 5 18 46 6,000 1.20x

Figure 7 shows the operating profile for GE’s F/FA fleet. A linear regression on the base-loaded
units shows that after about 55 starts for commissioning, these units have an average of almost
150 fired hours per start.
 (F/FA Fleet Experience)
3,000

2,500
Peaking Duty

2,000
Fired Starts

Cycling
1,500

1,000
Base Load

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Fired Hours (x1000)

Figure 7. F-class gas turbine fleet experience

In addition to assessing the operating profile of GE’s “F” technology units, the profiles for
competitor “F” technology units were benchmarked for comparative purposes. Closer
examination of the operational profiles in the 50 Hz market revealed there was a wide variation
relative to how units are being operated. Even so, the data revealed that a majority of the unit
operation profiles fell within the intermediate to cyclic duty regimes.
Leveraging this data for reference purposes the “Base” design mission for the S109FB plant was
defined as 6,000 hours cyclic duty. Assuming that the unit is off for 40 hours on average, the
unavailable hours translated into 69 starts per year. Assuming that a load swing is equivalent to
a start-stop cycle and using another 69 starts as margin, the estimated cycles over 20 years of
plant life is 4,104 cycles. For the hot, warm, and cold start distribution, a 10:4:1 ratio (based on
all the prior estimated starts profiles) is used to get 46 hot, 18 warm, and 5 cold starts with an
average of 87 operating hours per start.
Plant mission impacts all three components of the COE. (See Figure 8.) Carrying charges are
impacted by the annual operating hours; the less hours a plant runs to generate electricity and
revenue, the more are its fixed costs per generated kWh. O&M costs dramatically increase with
start-stop cycles and their relative contribution to the total COE is highest for peaking and cyclic
duty plants. It should be noted for the purpose of this analysis the number of start-stop cycles is
not reflected in the original COE formulation. While start-up time and number of start-stop
cycles is a critical element of the overall plant design from a cycle optimization perspective the
COE impact of start-stop cycles on total fuel cost is often negligible. This is the case for all plant
missions with the exception of peaking mission where start-up fuel costs can account for up to
10% to the total fuel cost depending on the plant start-up time and loading control algorithm
(determined by heat-soak limits of the boiler and temperature matching needs of the steam
turbine). The fuel cost part of the COE can be modified to reflect that, e.g.,
 Nα
Lf ⋅ f 1 +
F= ⋅ H = L f ⋅ f ⋅ (1 + λ )
η 1 + Nβ η
H

where N is the number of start-ups and shut-downs, α and β are heat consumption and power
output, respectively, in %-hr during the start-up and shut-down. These can be evaluated for hot,
warm and cold starts and shut-downs separately and summed up. Based on typical S109FA
start-up curves, the fuel cost modifier λ is about 8% for peaking duty plant and 1% for the cyclic
duty. For the others it is of the order of 0.1% and can be safely ignored.

Peaking Duty Cyclic Duty

100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
3 4 5 3 4 5
Fuel Price, $/M MBtu(HHV) Fuel Price, $/M MBtu(HHV)

Car. Chg. Fuel O&M

Baseload Duty Continuous Duty

100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
3 4 5 3 4 5
Fuel Price, $/M MBtu(HHV) Fuel Price, $/M MBtu(HHV)

Figure 8. Life-cycle levelized COE for different operating regimes and fuel prices

The following qualitative observations can be made by examining Figure 8:

1. Less capital-intensive plants with mature technology and lower efficiency that have low
maintenance costs and require low capital investment are preferable for peaking duty
applications regardless of the fuel cost.
2. Plants intended for cyclic duty need to strike a good balance among all three components
(i.e., capital cost, fuel efficiency and O&M costs). At sufficiently low fuel prices, they
can be subject to similar considerations as the peaking duty plants. However, fuel
efficiency can be a dominant factor for high fuel price markets.
 3. More capital-intensive plants with the most advanced technology to offer highest fuel
efficiency are competitive for baseload duty plants, especially for high fuel price markets.

4. S109FB OPTIMIZATION

4.1. SHAFT ARRANGEMENT AND ST CONFIGURATION

S109FB combined-cycle optimization utilizes a subsystem optimization approach to identify the

optimum bottoming cycle (the bottoming cycle which most effectively utilizes 9FB gas turbine
exhaust energy to generate steam turbine power). In order to accomplish that, we have to
establish certain plant characteristics:
1. HRSG and ST cycle configuration, i.e., 2P vs. 3P, reheat vs. no reheat, etc.
2. Thermodynamic cycle selection, i.e., pressure levels, steam temperatures, fuel heating
3. Special cycle options, i.e., cold reheat entry below HP pinch, fuel moisturization
4. Steam turbine HP-IP section design, i.e., reaction vs. wheel-diaphragm (impulse)
5. Steam turbine LP section (i.e., last stage bucket size and number of ends) selection
6. Steam turbine HP-IP-LP casing configuration and rotor design
7. Shaft configuration (single shaft or multi-shaft)
Obviously, the bottoming cycle optimization problem has many facets that make a single
comprehensive solution practically impossible. Selection of the bottoming cycle configuration is
almost a foregone conclusion. While there may be a particular customer for whom even a single
pressure-level HRSG-ST would be the logical choice, for an F-class GT with 1100+°F exhaust, a
3PRH is a proven configuration and is widely accepted as the optimal solution from a
performance and cost point of view. Refer to Refs. [9] and [10] for detailed studies of the
relative merits of various configurations.
Single-shaft train arrangement and the ST configuration optimization were done in conjunction
with the thermodynamic cycle optimization. Current GE S109FA product is generator-at-the-
end design with a D-type steam turbine (combined single-shell HP-IP section with double end
LP). During optimization, 24 possible combinations of GT, generator and ST section
arrangements were considered from cost, layout, performance and maintenance perspectives.
Ultimately, two configurations were selected for the final evaluation. The generator-in-the-
middle arrangement with an axial-exhaust, single LP turbine was chosen over the generator-at-
the-end arrangement with a down-exhaust, single LP turbine.
LP turbine configuration is strongly dependent on the exhaust conditions. Low condenser
pressures (less than 1.5″ Hg) are favorable for increased output but require increased exhaust
annulus area and last stage bucket (LSB) sizes. A market study showed that 40% of the demand
was in the 1.3–2.0″ Hg back pressure range with a mean of 1.7″ Hg. For a S109FB, a single-end
LP with 48 in. steel LSB or the current double-end LP with 33.5 in. LSB are suitable for this
back pressure. However, double-end design is less cost competitive and the single-end design
was chosen for the S109FB.
 4.2. THERMODYNAMIC CYCLE

A design of experiments (DOE) has been set up to investigate the thermal cycle design space
specified below:
! HP steam (throttle) pressures 1400 through 2400 psig (96 through 165 barg)
! ST IP bowl pressures 275 to 475 psia (18.9 to 32.7 bara)
! ST LP bowl pressures 45 to 105 psia (3 to 7.2 bara)
! Throttle and hot reheat steam temperatures 1000°F (537°C), 1050°F (565°C) and 1100°F
(593°C)
! Fuel temperature 365°F and the maximum possible with a 30°F design approach fuel gas
heater (shell-and-tube type heat exchanger)
The baseline S109FA design is based on the 3PRH HRSG, D-type steam turbine with 1400 psig
(96 barg) throttle and 1050°F (565 °C) steam temperatures. 2400 psig (165 barg) throttle is
practically the upper limit for a drum-type HRSG design with sub-critical steam generation.
Higher pressure, supercritical cycles would necessitate usage of once-through type boiler
designs. For combined cycles, higher main steam temperatures in the realm of 1100°F (593°C)
warrant consideration. However, they would represent a new level in the industry and the
economic value of such a cycle today is questionable given the need for new materials across the
bottoming cycle.
S109FA served as the benchmark for the S109FB development and optimization program. The
S109FB combined-cycle plant is designed to be the next generation single-shaft plant based on
an F-class gas turbine that will be competitive in performance as well as cost. Based on
customer expectations (CTQs), the optimization lower specification limits (LSL) were defined to
ensure a minimum 1.6 points increase in net CC efficiency (based on a condenser back pressure
of 1.7″ Hg) and 2% decrease in levelized COE. These limits are selected for a product that
delivers a competitive COE.
Thermodynamic performance and plant capital cost data have been generated by running GE’s
plant performance and cost design software programs on an integration platform (iSIGHT).
Three types of economic evaluation criteria have been calculated automatically by the cost
program: COE, NPV and IRR. Performance and economic data has been fed into a DOE
software, Design Expert, for transfer function generation and optimization. The following
design features are held constant:
! 3PRH, drum-type HRSG with fixed evaporator pinches, economizer subcool and
superheater approach temperature differences
! Once-through, open-loop cooling with a deaerating, water-cooled surface condenser at
1.7″ Hg (57.6 mbar) pressure and 62.7°F (17°C) water inlet temperature with 12°F
(6.7°C) temperature rise
! GT inlet and exhaust losses
! LP economizer water recirculation water inlet temperature
! Constant-speed HP and IP feedwater pumps
Optimization parameters are marked in red font on the bottoming cycle schematic that is shown
in Figure 9.
 Fuel at 80F
Stack

IP Econ. Bleed to Fuel Heater

IP Steam

HP-SH-1

RH-SH-1

HP-SH-2

HP-EC-1

HP-EC-2

HP-EC-3
HP-EV-1

LP-SH-1

LP-EC-1
LP-EV-1
IP-SH-1

IP-EC-1
IP-EV-1
HP steam

Hot Reheat
Cold Reheat

LP Steam
Thrh
Cmb Php, Thp
Plp
Pip
Comp Turb HP IP LP LP Gen

CND

Figure 9. Standard 3PRH CC power plant schematic with generic GT and ST

The assumptions used in the economic analysis are shown in Table 6. O&M costs are escalated
at the same rate as the fuel price leading to the same levelization factor for both.
Table 6. Economic assumptions used in COE calculation

Discount rate 10.00%

Capital charge factor, β 16.0%
Fuel Cost (HHV), $/MMBtu $4.000
Economic Life, yrs 15
Annual Operating Hours 6000
Capacity Factor 68.49%
Operation Mode Design
Inflation Rate 1.50%
Fuel Escalation Rate 1.50%
Levelization Factor 1.2148
HHV/LHV 1.109

The results are shown below. Figure 10 shows the maximum possible fuel gas temperature with
a shell-and-tube type heat exchanger (with a design approach temperature difference of 30°F
(16.6 °C)) where natural gas from the pipeline at 80°F (26.6°C) is heated using IP economizer
water. The current standard is fuel heating to 365°F (185°C), which can be increased to about
400°F (204°C) with the existing bottoming cycle design. Depending on the IP pressure, fuel
temperatures up to 440°F (226.6°C ) are possible.
 450

440

430

Fuel Temp., F
420

410

400

390

380
250 300 350 400 450 500

IP Pressure, psia

Figure 10. Fuel gas temperature heated with IP economizer bleed in a 30°° F (16.6ºC) approach heat
exchanger

Figure 11 shows the relative impact of BC design parameters on CC net output. For the
definition of parameters Php, Pip, Plp, Tmain and Thrh, refer to Figure 9. These sensitivities
have been calculated assuming a base bottoming cycle design with main steam conditions of
1400 psig/1050°F/1050°F (96.2 barg/565°C/565°C). Main and reheat steam temperatures are by
far the dominant parameters; 1% increase in throttle steam and reheat steam temperature
increases CC net output by 0.035% and 0.045%, respectively. As an example, a 50°F (27.7°C)
or 4.55% increase in main steam and reheat steam temperatures results in increases in net CC
output of approximately 0.16% and 0.21% respectively. Throttle steam pressure is the third
most significant parameter and yields a net increase in CC output of approximately 0.014% per
percentage point increase in its value. It should be noted that this effect diminishes at higher
throttle pressure levels as will be demonstrated later in the section.

% change in CC net output per % change in BC design

parameter
0.05

0.04

0.03
Var. Tfuel 365F Fuel
0.02

0.01

0
Thrh Tmain Php Plp Pip

-0.01

Figure 11. CC net output sensitivity to BC design parameters

Figure 12 shows the efficiency improvement for the S109FB-SS combined cycle power plant.
The curves in Figure 12 represent four different levels of IP pressure at a constant LP pressure of
55 psia (3.8 bara). For the base design that has main and reheat steam temperatures of 1050°F
(565°C) and GT fuel gas heating to 365°F (185°C), Figure 12 indicates that a 2100+ psig (144
barg) bottoming cycle is necessary to satisfy the LSL established for the desired improvement in
net CC efficiency. When fuel gas inlet temperature is increased to the maximum extent
possible—assuming a fuel gas heat exchanger design with a 30°F (16.6°C)-approach design heat
exchanger—a 1900+ psig (130.7 barg) bottoming cycle design can be adopted. Increasing main
steam temperatures to 1100°F (593°C) would afford the opportunity to further reduce the throttle
pressure required to satisfy the LSL.

1.80% 1.80%

1.70% 1.70%

1.60% 1.60%
Net Efficiency

Net Efficiency
1.50% 1.50%

1.40% 1.40%

365°° F Fuel –1050°° F Steam Max. Fuel T. –1050°° F Steam

1.30% 1.30%

1.20% 1.20%
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia

325 300 350 400 Challenge

2.10% 2.10%

2.00% 2.00%

365°° F Fuel –1100°° F Steam

1.90% 1.90%
Net Efficiency

Net Efficiency

1.80% 1.80%

Max. Fuel T.–1100°° F Steam

1.70% 1.70%

1.60% 1.60%

1.50% 1.50%
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia

Figure 12. CC efficiency (pts. relative to base) for LP=55 psia and IP pressures of 300, 325, 350 and 400 psia

The curves in Figure 13 represent four different levels of LP pressure at a constant IP pressure of
325 psia (22.3 bara). Observations similar to those made for Figure 12 in the preceding
paragraph apply here as well. Based on Figures 12 and 13, several general observations can be
made as described below.
Second only to steam temperatures, HP throttle pressure is the most important driver of BC
efficiency; more than 0.3 points are to be gained by increasing the cycle pressure from 1400#
(96.3 bar) to 2200# (151.3 bar). Further increases have diminishing impact. In general,
increasing HP pressure at given IP and LP pressures results in decreasing HP flow (less steam
produced at higher HP evaporator temperature) and increasing IP and LP steam flows. The net
effect is a decrease in IP and LP section flows and outputs, while HP section output increases for
an increase in overall ST shaft output. The favorable trade-off between increasing available
energy and decreasing steam flow in HP section tapers off at higher pressures.
IP pressure selection is an important driver at the lower end of the HP steam pressure spectrum.
For lower HP pressures, and across the range of IP pressures considered, this impact can account
for as much as 0.1 percentage points in CC net efficiency. However, as HP throttle pressures are
increased, the significance of IP pressure level diminishes considerably. In general, increasing
IP pressure at given HP and LP pressures shifts the HP/IP pressure ratio distribution and results
in:
! Decreasing IP admission flow (less steam produced at higher IP evaporator temperature)
! Increasing LP admission and HP throttle flows

The increase in HP throttle flow more than compensates for the reduction in IP admission flow
and results in a net increase in LP turbine steam flow even though hot reheat steam flow is
slightly lower. LP expansion efficiency is lower due to increasing exhaust loss and moisture
content so that HP and LP section outputs decrease while IP section output increases, with the
net effect of a decrease in ST shaft output. The unfavorable trade-off between increasing
available energy and decreasing steam flow in the IP section tapers off at higher pressures.
IP pressure selection for cases when fuel temperature is allowed to be as high as possible with a
30°F (16.7°C)-approach heater design shows an interesting trend. At low HP steam pressures,
lower IP pressures are favorable, whereas the reverse is true for high HP steam pressures. There
is a “pinch” point at around 2000# (137.6 bar) throttle pressure where IP pressure effect is
practically nil.
Fuel heating is a trade-off between GT heat consumption and IP steam production; higher fuel
temperatures reduce GT heat consumption (also GT output, albeit slightly) at the expense of ST
output for a net increase in CC efficiency:
! At lower HP steam pressures, the benefit of increased steam production and ST output is
more important than reduced heat consumption.
! At higher HP steam pressures, the situation is reversed in favor of reduced heat
consumption. At 2000# HP steam, they are approximately equally valuable so that CC
net efficiency is constant with increasing or decreasing IP pressure.
 1.80% 1.80%

1.70% 1.70%

1.60% 1.60%
Net Efficiency

Net Efficiency
1.50% 1.50%

1.40% 1.40%

365°° F Fuel –1050°° F Steam Max. Fuel T. –1050°° F Steam

1.30% 1.30%

1.20% 1.20%
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia

45 55 65 75 Challenge

2.10% 2.10%

2.00% 2.00%

365°° F Fuel –1100°° F Steam

1.90% 1.90%
Net Efficiency

Net Efficiency
1.80% 1.80%

Max. Fuel T.–1100°° F Steam

1.70% 1.70%

1.60% 1.60%

1.50% 1.50%
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia

Figure 13. CC efficiency (pts. relative to base) for IP=325 psia and LP pressures of 45, 55, 65 and 75 psia

LP pressure selection has approximately the same impact on CC net efficiency across the HP
steam pressure range (about 0.05 points). In general, increasing LP pressure at given HP and IP
pressures results in decreasing LP admission steam flow (less steam produced at higher LP
evaporator temperature) and increasing IP steam flow (HP throttle flow is essentially constant).
The increase in IP admission flow does not compensate for the reduction in LP admission flow
with the net effect of a decrease in ST shaft output.
Figure 14 shows the life-cycle (levelized) COE improvement for an S109FB-SS combined cycle
power plant. The curves in Figure 14 represent two different levels of steam temperatures at
constant IP and LP pressures of 325 psia (22.4 bara) and 55 psia (3.8 bara), respectively. The
COE evaluation is done for three different plant operating regimes at three fuel price levels. The
following general observations can be made:
1. For any given price level, higher HP steam pressure cycles meet the LSL criterion with
increasing annual operating hours.
2. For any given operating regime, higher HP steam pressure cycles meet the LSL criterion
with increasing fuel price.
 0.40 0.00 0.00

0.20 -0.20
-0.20

-0.40
0.00
-0.40
-0.60
-0.20
COE, $/MWh

COE, $/MWh

COE, $/MWh
-0.60 -0.80
-0.40 $3 Fuel - Cyclic
$4 Fuel - Cyclic
-0.60
-0.80 -1.00
$5 Fuel - Cyclic
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-1.40

-1.00 -1.20
-1.60

-1.20 -1.40 -1.80

1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia

0.20 0.00 0.00

-0.20
0.00 -0.20

-0.40
$5 Fuel - Design
-0.20 -0.40
-0.60
COE, $/MWh

COE, $/MWh

COE, $/MWh
-0.40 -0.60 -0.80

$3 Fuel - Design
-0.60 -0.80 $4 Fuel - Design -1.00

-1.20
-0.80 -1.00
-1.40

-1.00 -1.20
-1.60

-1.20 -1.40 -1.80

1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia
,p

365F Fuel - 1050F Steam 365F Fuel - 1100F Steam Var. Fuel T - 1050F Steam Var. Fuel T - 1100F Steam Challenge

0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.20
$3 Fuel - Baseload -0.20
-0.20
$4 Fuel - Baseload
-0.40
-0.40
$5 Fuel - Baseload
-0.40 -0.60
COE, $/MWh

COE, $/MWh

COE, $/MWh
-0.60 -0.80
-0.60
-0.80 -1.00

-0.80 -1.20
-1.00
-1.40
-1.00
-1.20
-1.60

-1.20 -1.40 -1.80

1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia Throttle Pressure, psia

Figure 14. COE (¢/kWh relative to base) for IP=325 psia and LP = 55 psia

More specific observations are:

1. 1100°F (593°C) steam temperature designs do not meet the minimum economic selection
criterion. Added capital cost of new materials is not offset by improved cycle
performance.
2. For the same BC, 365°F (185°C) fuel heating is a better option than higher fuel
temperature. Performance improvement does not offset added capital cost of larger
heater.
3. As opposed to a discrete point, there is a band that defines the optimal cycle design from
an HP throttle pressure selection perspective. This range varies from about 1800 – 2200
psia (123.8 – 151.3 bara) across almost all scenarios with the exception of the low fuel-
hour scenario. (Note: Bearing in mind that fuel gas prices are projected to increase,
bottoming cycle designs that fall in the upper end of this range afford the flexibility to
address expected changes in market dynamics).

4.3. MULTI-RESPONSE OPTIMIZATION

Figures 12–14 present a striking display of the cost-performance trade-off. These figures re-
enforce that the selection of 1800–2200# (123.8-151 bar) bottoming cycles with main steam
temperatures of 1050°F (565°C) is apparently the most sensible choice from an economic point
of view.
Utilizing the plant design basis identified in Table 6, Figures 12–14 point to the selection of an
1800# BC on the basis that it delivers the lowest COE on a life-cycle basis. However, this would
be a very simplistic approach. It should be noted that COE and NPV models are deterministic
models and either do not – or can not – account for:
! Unforeseen events
! Market swings (e.g. unanticipated increase in fuel prices, spikes in spark spread, etc.)
! Component degradation (recoverable and unrecoverable)
Also, the plant’s part-load and ambient performance will have a profound impact on the plant’s
actual life-cycle costs.
In addition, it should be realized that many other elements of the COE such as actual plant
capital costs, plant operating profile (mission/duty) and actual O&M costs can also be subject to
a fair degree of uncertainty. Only a stochastic model based on realistic scenarios can predict a
life cycle financial benefit for a real asset such as a power plant. With this said, COE methods
are an excellent method of screening and narrowing the focus of optimization, since many of the
softer points identified above can be addressed to ensure an economically robust power plant
design that serves the power generation needs across multiple markets.
So what can be done in the absence of a stochastic model? One possible strategy is to mitigate
the risk by putting a premium on efficiency over COE. The question is: What efficiency level
would be appropriate? This can be answered by a multi-response optimization that will
simultaneously maximize efficiency and minimize COE to achieve an optimum balance between
them and ultimately satisfy the needs of a dynamic market.
Figures 15–16 show the net CC efficiency and COE surfaces for the 3PRH bottoming cycle with
365°F (185°C) fuel. The data is represented as differences with respect to the baseline
configuration with 1400 psig (96.3 barg) HP, 325 psia (22.4 bara) IP, 55 psia (3.8 bara) LP
pressures and 1050°F (565°C) steam temperatures. Instead of looking for the minimum COE or
maximum efficiency, the optimal solution is a plant design that balances both of these while
satisfying a LSL for market expectations for performance.
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot DESIGN-EXPERT Plot

Ef f Ef f
X = A: Php X = A: Php
Y = B: Pip Y = C: Plp

Actual Factors Actual Factors

C: Plp = 55.00 0.671747 B: Pip = 325.00 0.673564
D: Tmain = 1050.00 D: Tmain = 1050.00
0.563315 0.596729
E: Thrh = 1050.00 E: Thrh = 1050.00
0.454883 0.519895

0.346451 0.443061

Eff

Eff
0.238018 0.366226

475.00 85.00
2414.70 2414.70
425.00 75.00
2164.70 2164.70
375.00 65.00
1914.70 1914.70
B: Pip 325.00 1664.70 C: Plp 55.00 1664.70
A: Php A: Php
275.00 1414.70 45.00 1414.70
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot DESIGN-EXPERT Plot

Ef f Ef f
X = C: Plp X = D: Tmain
Y = B: Pip Y = E: Thrh

Actual Factors Actual Factors 0.811951

A: Php = 1814.70 A: Php = 1814.70
0.611121
D: Tmain = 1050.00 B: Pip = 325.00 0.699471
E: Thrh = 1050.000.574213 C: Plp = 55.00
0.586991
0.537305
0.500397 0.474511
Eff

Eff
0.46349
0.362031

475.00
85.00
425.00
1100.00
75.00 1100.00
1075.00
375.00 1075.00
65.00 1050.00 1050.00
E: Thrh 1025.00 1025.00
B: Pip 325.00 D: Tmain
55.00 1000.00 1000.00
C: Plp
275.00 45.00

Figure 15. Net CC efficiency (points relative to base) for 3PRH S109FB with 365F fuel

DESIGN-EXPERT Plot DESIGN-EXPERT Plot

COE COE
X = A: Php X = A: Php
Y = B: Pip Y = C: Plp

Actual Factors Actual Factors

C: Plp = 55.00 B: Pip = 325.00
D: Tmain = 1050.00 D: Tmain = 1050.00
- 0.00410151
E: Thrh = 1050.00 E: Thrh = 1050.00
0.000270889 - 0.011274
-0.00627938
- 0.0184465
- 0.0128297
-0.0193799 - 0.025619
COE
COE

-0.0259302 -0.0327915

2414.70
475.00 2414.70
85.00
2164.70
425.00 2164.70
75.00
1914.70
375.00 1914.70
65.00

325.00 1664.70 A: Php 1664.70

55.00 A: Php
B: Pip C: Plp
275.00 1414.70 45.00 1414.70
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot DESIGN-EXPERT Plot

COE COE
X = C: Plp X = D: Tmain
Y = B: Pip Y = E: Thrh

Actual Factors Actual Factors 0.0444513

A: Php = 1814.70 A: Php = 1814.70
-0.0201741
D: Tmain = 1050.00 B: Pip = 325.00 0.0244497
E: Thrh = 1050.00
-0.0233668 C: Plp = 55.00
0.00444813
-0.0265596
-0.0297523 -0.0155535
COE

COE

-0.0329451
-0.035555

475.00
85.00
425.00
1100.00
75.00 1100.00
1075.00
375.00 1075.00
65.00 1050.00 1050.00
E: Thrh 1025.00 1025.00
B: Pip 325.00 D: Tmain
55.00 1000.00 1000.00
C: Plp
275.00 45.00

Figure 16. Levelized COE (¢/kWH relative to base) for 3PRH S109FB with 365F fuel
The optimization is done in Design Expert (D-E). Performance and cost data generated by the
design software has been entered into D-E. Transfer functions (also called response surfaces) for
ηCC and COE are generated using the Analysis feature of the software. The Optimization feature
is used to simultaneously satisfy the requirements imposed on each of the factors (i.e., steam
cycle pressures and temperatures) and responses (i.e., ηCC and COE).
The software uses a desirability function (DF), which combines the goals associated with each
response. The possible goals are: maximize, minimize, target, is-in-range, none (for responses
only) and set to an exact value (for factors only.)
For this study, Tmain and Thrh are set to 1050°F (565°C). Pressure levels, Php, Pip and Plp are
set to is-in-range. Minimum and maximum levels are provided for the factors and goals. The
"importance" of each factor is set based on the sensitivities in Figure 11 ranging from most
important for steam temperatures (+++++) to LP steam pressure (+++).
The goals for two responses, i.e., “maximize” for ηCC (+++++) and “minimize” for COE (++++),
are combined into a DF. Higher weight for the efficiency is intended as a qualitative measure of
the market premium placed on plant performance and its lower uncertainty relative to COE. The
numerical optimization finds a point that maximizes the DF starting from a random starting point
and proceeds up the steepest slope to a maximum. Since there may be two or more maxima
because of the curvature of the DF constructed from multiple response surfaces, the program
starts from several points in the design space to improve the likelihood for finding the "best"
local maximum. The DF surface is shown in Figure 17. The summary of assumptions and
results are shown in Figure 18.
 DESIGN-EXPERT Plot

Desirability
X = A: Php
Y = B: Pip

Actual Factors 0.475

C: Plp = 54.54
D: Tmain = 1068.95 0.356
E: Thrh = 1050.00
0.237

0.119
Desirability
0.000

475.00

425.00
2414.70
375.00 2164.70
B: Pip 1914.70
325.00
1664.70
275.00 1414.70 A: Php

Figure 17. Desirability function combining CC net efficiency and COE for S109FB-SS

The optimum cycle selection for S109FB identified a 2200#(151.3 bar) HP pressure bottoming
cycle with 1050ºF(565°C) steam temperatures. This configuration strikes a balance between cost
and performance considerations to provide a structured CC product that will provide a good
value to the plant owner. The balanced design ensures that the product has:
1. Plant designs that are not too capital-intensive for moderate-to-low fuel price markets and
cyclic-intermediate duties to suffer in cost;
2. More efficient plant designs which are not overly capital-intensive for moderate-to-high
fuel price markets and baseload duties to suffer in fuel efficiency.
The final design selection provides a 1.6+ point improvement over current S109FA for 58+% net
efficiency and 2+% improvement in life-cycle COE. It also provides a platform (designed to
handle 2400# (165 bar) design HP pressures) to improve upon for the next generation of the 9FB
gas turbine and HEAT steam turbine.
 Constraints
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Name Goal Lim it Lim it Weight Weight Importance
Php is in range 1414.7 2414.7 1 1 5
Pip is in range 275 475 1 1 4
Plp is in range 45 85 1 1 3
Tm ain is target = 1050.001000 1100 1 1 5
Thrh is target = 1050.001000 1100 1 1 5
Eff maxim ize 0.6582 0.89964 1 1 5
COE minimize -0.039558 0 1 1 4

Solutions
Number Php Pip Plp Tm ain Thrh Eff COE Desirability
1 2206.87 350.49 54.54 1068.95 1050.00 0.708663 -0.0147657 0.475
Selected
2 2198.78 346.55 52.75 1068.88 1050.00 0.709088 -0.0145345 0.475

2 Solutions found

Number of Starting Points 10

Php Pip Plp Tmain Thrh
1733.30 296.74 74.35 1095.63 1056.44
1833.10 308.10 78.72 1059.24 1070.73
2206.40 369.94 67.78 1045.27 1055.88
1841.00 312.98 56.80 1076.74 1015.00
1743.00 390.52 51.65 1018.16 1046.60
1745.60 307.06 76.70 1023.21 1025.64
1652.80 335.98 51.61 1015.60 1084.49
1604.30 325.52 54.92 1025.59 1082.64
1996.10 372.16 58.54 1059.91 1032.25
1845.20 426.66 62.46 1071.52 1023.48

Figure 18. Multi-response optimization results for S109FB-SS

5. CONCLUSION

To develop power generation systems and products successfully, it is necessary to satisfy

multiple market demands simultaneously in an effort to minimize the overall life-cycle cost of
producing electricity. The developmental focus of the products discussed in this paper has been
the improvement of overall combined-cycle efficiency that provides cost-effective, flexible
product solutions while maintaining and further enhancing GE’s position as a industry leader in
gas turbine and steam turbine product reliability, maintainability and availability. The STAG
109FB combined-cycle power plant combines the evolutionary development of the 9FB gas
turbine and HEAT steam turbine. The STAG 109FB affords a 1.6 percentage point
improvement in overall combined-cycle efficiency (at the optimization conditions), which leads
to a reduction in the cost of electricity and improvement in ROI from a customer’s perspective.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of John Ford in the Systems Engineering group who
led the S109FB NPI (New product Initiation) project. Many individuals from various groups in
GE Power Systems provided valuable input that went into the calculations presented in this study
and reviewed the final manuscript. Their contributions are greatly appreciated.
6. REFERENCES

1. “Industrial Cogeneration,” R. H. Williams, Ann. Rev. Energy, 3, pp. 313-56, 1978

2. EPRI Technical Assessment Guide (TAG™) Report, Chapter 3.
3. Thermal Design & Optimization, A. Bejan et al., Wiley-Interscience, Chapter 7, 1996
4. “Market-Based Advanced Coal Power Systems, Final Report,” May 1999, Office of Fossil
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Chapters 6, 9 and Appendix C.
5. Parametric Cost Estimating Handbook, Joint Government/Industry Initiative, Fall 1995,
Department of Defense, U.S.A.
6. “Capital Cost Estimating”, K. Guthrie, Chemical Engineering, pp. 114-142, 1969
7. “Sharpen Your Capital-Cost Estimating Skills”, Chemical Engineering, L. Dysert, pp. 70-
81, 2001
8. “How Accurate Is Your Cost Estimate?”, Chemical Engineering, G. Enyedy, pp. 106, 1997
9. Combined Cycle Gas & Steam Turbine Power Plants, 2nd Ed., Kehlhofer et al., PennWell,
pp. 16, 1999
10. “Advanced Combined Cycle Alternatives with the Latest Gas Turbines,” P. J. Dechamps, J.
Eng. Gas Turbines & Power, Vol. 120, pp. 350, 1998
11. iSIGHT Version 6.0, Engineous Software Inc., 2000 Centre Green Way, Suite 100,
Cary, NC 27513
12. Design-Expert Version 6.0.0, Stat-Ease, Inc., 2021 East Hennepin Ave., Suite 191,
Minneapolis, MN 55413