Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energyonline
Available
Available Procedia 00
onlineatat (2018) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia 158
Procedia 00(2019)
(2017)3620–3625
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
10th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2018), 22-25 August 2018, Hong Kong,
10th International Conference on Applied Energy
China(ICAE2018), 22-25 August 2018, Hong Kong,
China
Simulation of a combined cycle gas turbine power plant in Aspen
SimulationTheof15th a combined cycle gasonturbine
International Symposium power
District Heating andplant
Cooling in Aspen
HYSYS
HYSYS
Assessing the feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor
Zuming Liu, I A Karimi*
temperature function for a long-term
Zuming Liu, I A Karimi* district heat demand forecast
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 4, Singapore 117585
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 4, Singapore 117585
I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
Abstract
Abstract
a
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
A detailed model Veolia Recherche
is developed in Aspen&HYSYS
Innovation,for 291simulating
Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520
the operation ofLimay, France
a triple-pressure reheat combined
c
A detailed Département
model is Systèmes Énergétiques
developed in Aspen et Environnement
HYSYS for - IMT Atlantique,
simulating the 4 rue Alfred
operation ofKastler,
a 44300 Nantes,reheat
triple-pressure France combined
cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant. To our knowledge, this is the first such model in the literature. A comparison
cycle
with angasequivalent
turbine (CCGT)GateCyclepower plant.shows
model To our knowledge,
that this isof
the predictions thethe
first
twosuch model
models in the HYSYS
(Aspen literature.and
A comparison
GateCycle)
with an equivalent
are comparable. The GateCycle model shows
average relative that the
deviations for predictions of the two
the power outputs andmodels
thermal(Aspen HYSYS
efficiencies of and GateCycle)
the gas turbine,
are
steamcomparable.
cycle, and The
Abstract CCGT average
plant relative
are less deviations
than 2.0%. for Thethe power
minor outputs andare
discrepancies thermal efficiencies
primarily from theofdifferences
the gas turbine,
in gas
steam cycle,
enthalpy and CCGT
correlations. Onplant are less
the other thanAspen
hand, 2.0%.HYSYSThe minor may discrepancies are primarily
have some advantages from
over the differences
GateCycle. in gas
First, its use
enthalpy
District
of correlations.
heating
the well-proven networks Onare
real-gasthecommonly
other hand,
Peng-Robinson AspenfluidinHYSYS
addressed may
mayhave
the literature
package asgive
onesome
of the
more advantages over solutions
most effective
accurate GateCycle.
predictions. for First,
Second, its use
decreasing
it allowsthe
of
easytheintegration
well-proven
greenhouse withreal-gas
gas emissions fromPeng-Robinson
various theenergy
buildingsystems fluid
sector. Thesepackage
such systems
as CO may give
require
2
more
high
capture, accurate
investments
organic predictions.
which
Rankine are Second,
returned
cycles, through
fuel it
cells, allows
the heat
LNG
sales.integration
easy Due air
terminals, to separation,
the with
changed climate
various conditions
energy
absorption and
systems
chillers, etc. building
such renovation
Third,asitsCOmodel canpolicies,
2 capture, heatdynamic
be organic
made demand
Rankineforincycles,
the future
fuelcould
predicting cells,
the decrease,
LNG
real-time
prolonging
terminals, ofthe investment
airaseparation, return period.
absorption chillers, etc. Third, its model can be made dynamic for predicting the real-time
behaviour CCGT plant.
The main scope
behaviour of this paper
of a CCGT plant.is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
©buildings
2019 ThethatAuthors.
vary Published
in bothLtd. by Elsevierperiod
construction Ltd. and typology. Three weather scenariosth (low, medium, high) and three district
Copyright
Selection © 2018
and Elsevier
peer-review underAll rights reserved.
This is an open
renovation access article
scenarios were underresponsibility
developedthe CC
(shallow,
of thelicense
BY-NC-ND scientific
intermediate,
committee of the 10 International Conference on Applied
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
deep). To estimate
Selection
Energy and peer-review
(ICAE2018).
Peer-review under under
responsibility responsibility
of the scientific of the
committee scientific committee
ofpreviously
ICAE2018 – Theof thethe
10th 10error,
th obtained heat
International
International
demand on
Conference
Conference
values were
Applied
on Applied Energy.
compared with
Energy (ICAE2018). results from a dynamic heat demand model, developed and validated by the authors.
The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
Keywords: Simulation; Gas turbine; Combined cycle; Power plant; Aspen HYSYS.
(the errorSimulation;
Keywords: in annual Gas
demand was
turbine; lower than
Combined cycle;20% forplant;
Power all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
Aspen HYSYS.
scenarios, the error value increased up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
1. Introduction
1.decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and
Introduction
renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
coupledGlobal warming
scenarios). has become
The values a great
suggested couldconcern
be usedoftoour modern
modify the society.
function CO 2 is considered
parameters as the main
for the scenarios cause and
considered,
of globalGlobal warming
warming, and has
morebecome
than a great
40% of concern
the CO of our modern
emissions stem society.
from the 2 is considered
COpower industry as the
[1]. main to
Owing cause
the
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations. 2
of global warming, and more than 40% of the CO2 emissions stem from the power industry [1]. Owing to the
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
Cooling.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-65166359.
* Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +65-65166359.
cheiak@nus.edu.sg
Keywords: Heat demand;
E-mail address: Forecast; Climate change
cheiak@nus.edu.sg
1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1876-6102and
Selection Copyright © 2018
peer-review Elsevier
under Ltd. All of
responsibility rights reserved. committee of the 10th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2018).
the scientific
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2018).

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of ICAE2018 – The 10th International Conference on Applied Energy.
10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.901
 Zuming Liu et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 3620–3625 3621
2 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

lower, cleaner emissions and higher thermal efficiencies, combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plants are
increasingly preferred over their coal-fired counterparts [2]. Some countries like Singapore produce more than
96% of their electric power from CCGT plants[3].
Since the power demand varies frequently, a CCGT plant often runs in part-load conditions, where its
power output is lower than its design capacity. For instance, a gas turbine power plant in Nigeria produced only
64.3% of its nameplate capacity from 2001 to 2010 [4]. The part-load operation arises from several reasons.
First, the power demand is hardly steady and rarely equals the design capacity. Second, many countries
mandate power plants to maintain spinning reserves (surplus capacity) to guard against unforeseen peaks in
demands. Third, a power plant may often be overdesigned to buffer against demand uncertainties. As expected,
the thermal efficiency of a power plant decreases as the operation drifts away from the design condition.
Therefore, there are strong incentives for improving the plant performance during part-load operations. Clearly,
rigorous simulation models that accurately capture the full details of a CCGT plant’s part-load operations are
valuable and necessary. Such simulation models are the foundation for a variety of routine operational tasks
such as benchmarking, process control, process optimization, condition monitoring, fault diagnosis,
performance analysis, and performance improvement.
In this work, we present a model in Aspen HYSYS [5] for simulating the operation of a CCGT plant. Aspen
HYSYS is a powerful process simulator with a large library of ready-made component models and in-built property
packages. It allows the static/dynamic modeling of a wide variety of complex chemical/hydrocarbon fluid-based
processes by simply connecting various modules using material and energy streams. This enables the simulation of
various energy systems or options other than just power plants. Hence, a simulation model in Aspen HYSYS for
CCGT plants allows easy integration with various energy systems such as CO2 capture, ORCs, fuel cells, LNG
terminals, air separation, absorption chillers, etc. Moreover, it can be made dynamic for predicting the real-time
behaviour.

2. Simulation in Aspen HYSYS

Fig. 1 shows a triple pressure reheat CCGT plant. The equations that describe the off-design operations of
various CCGT components are mainly presented in [6]. In this work, we implement those equations in Aspen
HYSYS to simulate the operation of the CCGT plant. Detailed simulation description can be found in [7]. We use
Peng-Robinson fluid package for air, fuel, and exhaust gas, and ASME steam table for water and steam. Fig. 2
shows the complete block flow diagram (BFD) for the CCGT plant in Aspen HYSYS.

Fig. 1. Schematic of a triple-pressure reheat CCGT power plant.

3622 Zuming Liu et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 3620–3625
Liu and Karimi / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

Fig. 2. Block flow diagram (BFD) for the CCGT plant in Aspen HYSYS: (a) Gas turbine (GT), (b-c) Steam cycle
(SC).
 Zuming Liu et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 3620–3625 3623
4 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

3. Comparison of Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle simulation models

Since GateCycle [8] is a widely used commercial software in the power industry, it is useful to see how the
results from Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle compare with each other. For this, we construct an equivalent model in
GateCycle and evaluate the relative deviations (RD) between the two models (Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle)
defined as follows:
HYSYS Result-GateCycle Result
RD(%) 100 (1)
GateCycle Result

3.1. Gas turbine (GT) performance

Fig. 3 shows the relative deviations for the key operating parameters of the compressor and turbine. Nearly
all are within 1.0%. Moreover, the average deviation is 0.5% for the parameters in Fig. 3. After a thorough analysis
of how Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle work, we conclude that the minor discrepancies are due to the differences in
the gas property calculations. For gas properties, GateCycle uses NASA method [9], in which ideal gases are
assumed. In contrast, Aspen HYSYS uses the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state [10], which is based on the
experimental data. The NASA method uses two separate fourth-order (5-parameter) polynomials to compute the
enthalpies below and above 1000 K (726.85 °C). Aspen HYSYS computes the enthalpies directly from the Peng-
Robinson equation-of-state. Aspen HYSYS predicts a higher (lower) enthalpy below (above) 1000 K than
GateCycle. The differences in the enthalpy predictions affect the complex interactions between the compressor and
turbine, represented by the matching between the compressor map and turbine characteristics. This leads to the
minor discrepancies shown in Fig. 3. Hence, Aspen HYSYS predicts a lower GT power output and efficiency than
GateCycle, as shown in Fig. 4. Moreover, as the plant load decreases, the differences in enthalpy predictions drive
the GT power output and efficiency of Aspen HYSYS farther way from GateCycle. While the maximum deviations
are within 3.2%, and the average deviation is within 2.0%, Aspen HYSYS may be more accurate, as it uses the
Peng-Robinson equation-of-state specifically meant for real gases.

3.2. Steam cycle (SC) performance

Fig. 5 shows the relative deviations for the operating parameters of HPST, IPST, and LPST. Since both
Aspen HYSYS and GateCycle use the ASME steam table for water and steam, their differences are primarily from
their gas models. Aspen HYSYS predicts higher steam flows, and higher ST power outputs than GateCycle due to
two reasons. The first is the higher gas enthalpy from Aspen HYSYS, as the SC operates below 1000 K, and the
second is the higher turbine exhaust flow (see Fig. 3(b)). However, the steam pressures and temperatures for HPST,
IPST, and LPST are all less than 0.6% from the two models, and steam flows and power outputs are within 2.4%.
Moreover, the deviations in SC power output and efficiency range between 1.2% and 2.0% as shown in Fig. 4, and
the average deviation is less than 1.5%.

3.3. CCGT performance

Fig. 4 shows the relative deviations for the plant power output and efficiency. Aspen HYSYS predicts a
relatively lower power output and efficiency than GateCycle, as the GT power output dominates the total output.
The relative deviations are the largest (smallest) at 40% (100%) plant load. However, they are at most 1.0%, and
their average is less than 0.6%. The reason is that Aspen HYSYS predicts a higher SC power output, which
compensates its lower GT output. By comparing the predictions from Aspen HYSYS with those from GateCycle,
we conclude that the predictions from the two simulation models are comparable.
Overall, Aspen HYSYS may have an edge over GateCycle, as its model can be easily integrated with various
energy systems (e.g. CO2 capture, ORCs, fuel cells, LNG terminals, air separation, absorption chillers, etc.), which
is not possible with GateCycle.
3624 Zuming Liu et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 3620–3625
Liu and Karimi / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 5

4. Conclusions

We presented a comprehensive model for simulating the part-load operation of a triple-pressure reheat CCGT
plant in Aspen HYSYS. To our knowledge, this is the first such model in the open literature. A comparison with an
equivalent GateCycle model for 40-100% part-loads showed that the predictions from the two models (Aspen
HYSYS and GateCycle) are comparable. The relative deviations for the most key operating parameters of the GT
and SC are within 1.0%, and 0.6%. Moreover, the average deviations for the power outputs and thermal efficiencies
of the GT, SC, and CCGT plant are less than 2.0%, 1.5%, and 0.6%, respectively. We believe that these minor
deviations primarily originate from the differences in gas enthalpy correlations.
Aspen HYSYS may have an edge over GateCycle due to several reasons. First, its use of the well-proven
real-gas Peng-Robinson fluid package may give more accurate predictions. Second, Aspen HYSYS allows easy
integration with a variety of energy systems or options such as CO2 capture, ORCs, fuel cells, LNG terminals, air
separation, absorption chillers, etc. Third, its model can be made dynamic for predicting the real-time behavior of a
CCGT plant.

Fig. 3. Relative deviations for the operating parameters of the compressor (a) and turbine (b).

Fig. 4. Relative deviations for the power outputs and efficiencies of the GT, SC, and CCGT plant.
 Zuming Liu et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 3620–3625 3625
6 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

Fig. 5. Relative deviations for the operating parameters of HPST (a), IPST (b), and LPST (c).

Acknowledgement

The work was funded in part by the National University of Singapore via a seed grant R261-508-001-
646/733 for CENGas (Center of Excellence for Natural Gas). We acknowledge AspenTech Inc. and General Electric
for allowing the use of Aspen HYSYS® and GateCycle under academic licenses provided to the National University
of Singapore.

References

[1] IEA. World Energy Outlook. 2017.

[2] Rao AD. Combined Cycle Systems for Near-Zero Emission Power Generation, Natural gas-fired combined cycle
(NGCC) systems. 2012.
[3] EMA Singapore. https://www.ema.gov.sg/Statistics.aspx. 2017.
[4] Oyedepo SO, Fagbenle RO, Adefila SS, Adavbiele SA. Performance evaluation and economic analysis of a gas
turbine power plant in Nigeria. Energy Conversion and Management. 2014;79:431-40.
[5] Aspen HYSYS V9. www.aspentech.com. 2017.
[6] Liu Z, Karimi IA. Simulation and optimization of a combined cycle gas turbine power plant for part-load
opeartion. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. 2018;131:29-40.
[7] Liu Z, Karimi IA. Simulating combined cycle gas turbine power plants in Aspen HYSYS. Energy Conversion
and Management. 2018;171:1213-25.
[8] GateCycle 6.1. General Electric Company. 2013.
[9] McBride BJ, Gordon S, Reno MA. Coefficients for calculating thermodynamic and transport properties of
indivial species. NASA Technical Memorandum, 4513. 1993.
[10] Aspen HYSYS V9. Aspen HYSYS V9 Help. Peng-Robinson calculation methods. 2017.