Comparison of Repowering by STIG Combined Cycle and Full Repowering Based on Exergy and Exergoeconomic Enalysis

Mohammad Baghestani
Mechanical Engineering Faculty K.N.Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Masoud Ziabasharhagh
Mechanical Engineering Faculty K.N.Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Mohammad Hasan Khoshgoftar Maneshr
Mechanical Engineering Faculty K.N.Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Ladda ner artikelhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp110571652

Ingår i: World Renewable Energy Congress - Sweden; 8-13 May; 2011; Linköping; Sweden

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 57:23, s. 1652-1659

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2011-11-03

ISBN: 978-91-7393-070-3

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


Nowadays; repowering is considered as the most common methods for improving status of current power plants. Repowering is the transformation of an existing steam power plant into a combined cycle system by adding one or more gas turbines and heat recovery capacity. It is a cost-effective way to improve performance and extended unit lifetime while adding capacity; reducing emissions and lowering heat rejection and water usage per kW generated. Each methods of repowering from “para repowering” to “full repowering” shall probably be the best choice for special national and economical power plant. In this paper different repowering methods have been introduced. The design concept consists in adding a gas turbine to the combined cycle; integrated by steam injection into the existing gas turbine. The steam is produced in a simplified heat recovery steam generator fed by the additional turbine’s exhaust gas.

A 156MW steam cycle power plant has been chosen as a case study. Two repowering scenarios have been utilized for this case. Thermodynamics code has been supplied for combined cycle and STIG combined cycle and compare with each others. The exergy and exergoeconomic analysis method was applied in order to evaluate the proposed repowered plant. Also; computer code has been developed for exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. It is anticipated that the results provide insights useful to designers into the relations between the thermodynamic losses and capital costs; it also helps to demonstrate the merits of second law analysis over the more conventional first law analysis techniques.The efficiency of the STIG repowered plant compares favourably with repowered combined cycle.


Repowering; Gas turbines; Steam injection; exergy; Exergoeconomic


[1]. M.Frankle. The standardized repowering solution for 300 MW steam power plants in Russia. Siemens AG 2006.

[2]. A.bouam; S.aissani. Combustion chamber steam injected for gas turbine performance improvement during high ambient temperature operation. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power JULY 2008; Vol. 130 / 041701-1

[3]. T Srinivas; AVSSK S Gupta. Parametric simulation of steam injected gas turbine combined cycle. J. Power and Energy Vol. 221 Part A

[4]. R.carapellucci; A.Milazzo. Repowering combined cycle power plant by a modified STIG configuration. Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 1590–1600. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2006.11.024.

[5]. Haselbacher; H. Performance of water/steam injected gas turbine power plants consisting of standard gas turbines and turbo expanders. Int. J. Energy Technol. Policy; 2005; 3(1/2); 12–23. doi: 10.1504/IJETP.2005.006737.

[6]. Sanjay Y; Singh O; Prasad BN. Energy and exergy analysis of steam cooled reheat gas–steam combined cycle. Applied Thermal Engineering 2007; 27: 2779–2790. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.03.011.

[7]. Chao Z; Yan W. Exergy cost analysis of a coal fired power plant based on structural theory of thermoeconomics. Energy Conversion and Management 2006; 47:817–843. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2005.06.014.

[8]. Modesto M; Nebra SA. Analysis of a repowering proposal to the power generation system of a steel mill plant through the exergetic cost method; Energy 2006; 31: 3261–3277. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2006.03.032.

[9]. Feng X; Zhu XX. Combining pinch and exergy analysis for process modifications. Applied Thermal Engineering 1997; 17: 250-260. doi: 10.1016/S1359-4311(96)00035-X.

[10]. Durmayaz A; Yavuz Y. Exergy analysis of a pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Applied Energy 2001; 69: 39-57. doi: 10.1016/S0306-2619(00)00071-4.

[11]. Nafey AS; Fath HES; Mabrouk AA. Exergy and thermoeconomic evaluation of MSF process using a new visual package. Desalination 2006; 201: 224-240. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.09.043.

[12]. Dobrowolski R; Witkowski A; Leithner R. Simulation and optimization of power plant cycles. ECOS 2002; Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Efficiency; Costs; Optimization; Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems; Berlin; Germany; 2002; pp. 766–772.

[13]. Joint Army-Navy–Air Force Thermochemical Tables. NSRDS-N3537; Washington; DC: National Bureau of Standard Publications; 1985.

Citeringar i Crossref