REVIEW

published: 02 July 2021

doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.676969

Design Optimization and Dynamic

Simulation of Steam Cycle Power
Plants: A Review
Emanuele Martelli 1*, Falah Alobaid 2 and Cristina Elsido 1
1
Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy, 2Institute for Energy Systems and Technology, Technical University of
Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

After more than one century from its first use for electric power production, steam cycles
are still the object of continuous research and development efforts worldwide. Indeed,
owing to its favorable thermodynamic properties, steam cycles are not only used in coal-
fired power plants but in a large variety of applications such as combined cycles,
concentrated solar power plants and polygeneration plants. On the other hand, to
cope with the efficiency and flexibility requirements set by today’s energy markets, the
design and the operation of steam cycles must be carefully optimized. A key rule is played
by the simulation and optimization codes developed in the last 30 years. This paper
provides an introduction to the main types of simulation and optimization problems
Edited by:
Athanasios I. Papadopoulos, (design, off-design operation and dynamic), an overview of the mathematical
Centre for Research and Technology background (possible solution approaches, numerical methods and available software),
Hellas (CERTH), Greece
and a review of the main scientific contributions.
Reviewed by:
Martin T. White, Keywords: steam cycle, dynamic simulation, heat integration, process simulation, power plant, combined cycle,
City University of London, plant optimization, plant flexibility
United Kingdom
Alexios-Spyridon Kyriakides,
Centre for Research and Technology INTRODUCTION
Hellas (CERTH), Greece
Steam cycles have been used for electric power generation from coal since the early 1900’s. These first
*Correspondence:
Emanuele Martelli
coal-fired power units featured outputs in the range 1–10 MW and the steam generator already
[email protected] included an economizer, an evaporator, and a superheater (Harvey et al., 2020). According to the
same reference, the first steam cycle had an efficiency of only 1.6% while those built about 10 years
Specialty section: later reached an efficiency of about 15% thanks also to the adoption of regenerative feedwater
This article was submitted to preheaters. Steam reheating was first adopted in 1920’s and once-through supercritical boilers in the
Process and Energy Systems 1950’s. Unit sizes reached the standard of 300 MW already in the 1930’s. After more than one
Engineering, century, the global installed capacity of coal-fired steam cycles is above 1500 GW (IEA, 2019) and
a section of the journal manufacturers supply full turnkey Advanced Ultra Super Critical (A-USC) units with sizes up to
Frontiers in Energy Research
1.1 GW (General Electric, 2020). Although someone can consider steam cycles as an obsolete
Received: 06 March 2021 technology, it is important to mention that steam cycles are still an object of research and
Accepted: 04 June 2021
development efforts to improve their efficiency, operational flexibility, and range of applicability
Published: 02 July 2021
(i.e., tailoring their design for novel concepts of power plants). Indeed, today the use of steam cycles is
Citation: not limited to coal-fired power plants but they are employed as heat recovery systems in many other
Martelli E, Alobaid F and Elsido C
types of power plants, with either fossil or renewable energy sources. Examples of conventional steam
(2021) Design Optimization and
Dynamic Simulation of Steam Cycle
cycle-based power plants include coal-fired power plants (Speight, 2013), gas-steam turbine
Power Plants: A Review. combined-cycles (Kehlhofer et al., 2009), and nuclear power plants (Rinzic, 2017) (either boiling
Front. Energy Res. 9:676969. water reactor or pressurized water reactor); examples of novel plant concepts include concentrated
doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.676969 solar power plants (Peinado Gonzalo et al., 2019), integrated solar combined-cycles (Dersch et al., 2004),

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

waste to energy plants (Bogale and Viganò, 2014), integrated levelized cost of electricity at full load, corresponding to the
gasification combined-cycles (Martelli et al., 2011), electricity/ optimal trade-off between efficiency and costs (material cost,
hydrogen/synfuels polygeneration plants (Larson et al., 2009), manufacturing cost, installation cost, operating and maintenance
power plants with CO2 capture and storage (Spinelli et al., 2015) costs) (Kehlhofer et al., 2009; Gülen, 2019). However, it is not
and all the cycles that are specifically designed for industrial always possible to extend such design criteria to novel concepts
processes (typically for combined heat and power applications or (e.g., concentrated solar power plants, integrated solar combined
for heat recovery). An overview of the state-of-the-art in steam cycles, hydrogen/synfuels/electricity polygeneraiton plants)
turbine and steam cycle technology can be found in the recent because of the different thermodynamics (Martelli et al., 2012)
publication (Gulen, 2020). (i.e., efficiency is not maximized following the same criteria
A key rule in the research and development activities is being developed for combined cycles or conventional fired steam
played by simulation and optimization codes, which are used to cycles), specific design constraints (e.g., metal dusting on some
predict the effects of the design/control improvements on the heat exchangers processing syngas (Spinelli et al., 2015)) and
performance of the overall power plant. The results of such more tight operational constraints (e.g., solidification
models are applied to guide the development activities while temperature of the molten salts in CSP plants (Trabucchi
limiting very costly experimental campaigns. Computer-aided et al., 2017; Elsido et al., 2018)). For these plants, computer-
plant simulation approaches have been developed first by the aided optimization approaches are essential to assess the
chemical engineering community since the late 70’s. One of the performance and costs of the possible steam cycle configurations.
first successful examples is the ASPEN project (Advanced System Off-design simulation codes are essential tools for both the
for Process Engineering) funded by the United States Department design phase of the power plant and the operation of existing
of Energy in 1977 to researchers of MIT (Prof. Larry Evans) to cycles. During the design phase of a power plant, off-design
develop a code for the simulation of complex chemical processes simulation codes are used to assess the performance of the cycle
for the conversion of coals and synthetic fuels, as well as when operating at part-loads and/or site conditions (e.g, cooling
electrolyte and multi-phase systems (Mertens et al., 2014). The water temperature, ambient temperature, fuel type) different
ASPEN project led to the foundation of the well-known Aspen from those considered in the design phase. These steady-state
Tech company. As far as steam cycles are concerned, to the best of simulators can be used also to determine the optimal part-load
our knowledge, the first simulation codes were PRESTO (Choo control strategy of the steam cycle (i.e., throttling, sliding-
and Staiger, 1982), a computer code developed by NASA, and pressure boiler, partial-admission turbine) and check possible
PEPSE (Cooke, 1983), developed in the early 70’s for nuclear and part-load operating issues (e.g., steam overheating in heat
conventional steam cycles. Only later, in the late 80’s, other power recovery steam generators, steaming in economizers, molten
plant simulation codes were developed, mainly spurred by the salt solidification in CSPs). It is important to notice that the
need of optimizing the design and part-load operation of part-load assessment is today very important for steam cycle
combined cycles. Elmasri (formerly a professor at MIT) power plants which are asked to provide reserve capacity and
developed GT PRO (Elmasri, 1988); a computer program for balancing services (e.g., spinning reserve, frequency control,
the design simulation of combined cycle power plants (over the secondary reserve) to the electricity market. For these units it
years, GT PRO was expanded and today it is commercialized by essential to keep high efficiency also at low loads and reduce the
Thermoflow). Erbes and Cohn (Erbes et al., 1989) developed minimum load as much as possible.
GATE for the simulation of gas turbines and combined cycles Another challenge posed by today’s electricity market is the
(then the code was expanded and commercialized with the name dynamic flexibility of dispatchable units (i.e., quick start-up/shut-
“GATE cycle”). Prof. Lozza (Politecnico di Milano) (Lozza, 1988; down, and fast ramping up/down). In this regard, steam cycles are
Lozza, 1990) developed a computer program for the penalized compared to gas turbines by the larger thermal capacity
thermodynamic optimization of heat recovery steam cycles of the system (boiler metal and fluid inventory) and the use of
including accurate correlations for the assessment of the steam thicker components (turbine, drums, headers), in which
turbine efficiency (the code was merged with those developed by temperature gradients cause severe thermo-mechanical
other researchers of Politecnico di Milano for simulating gas stresses. However, novel technological solutions (see, e.g., the
turbines originating the GS “Gas Steam” simulation code warm-keeping and pre-warming system for steam turbines (Pehle
(Consonni, 1983; Chiesa and Macchi, 2004)). Another widely et al., 2020) and optimized start-up sequences are being
used steam cycle simulation code is IPSEpro, first published in developed to alleviate this penalty. In this regard, a key rule is
1991 as IPSE by Perz (1990). being played by dynamic simulation codes, which are used in
As far as cycle design codes are concerned, it is important to academia and industry as virtual test benches prior to the much
note that the design step of a steam cycle is a critical task since more expensive field-tests. These dynamic simulators are capable
decisions taken at this stage affect not only efficiency and costs of handling the configuration complexity of steam cycles
but also the operational issues (control strategy to be (featuring multiple pressure levels and/or a cascade of
implemented, minimum stable load, efficiency at part-load, feedwater preheaters, multiple turbine sections, and multiple
maximum ramp-up rate, start-up time, etc.). For conventional pumps), the implementation of the control structures, and
power plants, the optimal design criteria are well-known dynamic boundary conditions.
industrial standards. These design criteria, refined over tens of Review papers that systematically analyze scientific
years of industrial experience, essentially target the minimum publications on certain topics are very valuable. However, a

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

limited number of review papers on the topic under investigation has equal number m of variables xi and equations fj (x)  0. We
have been published. Relevant review papers found in the can write this system of equations using the more convenient
literature include Maffezzoni (Maffezzoni, 1992) (in 1992, vectorial form:
issues on the modeling and simulation of power plants), Liu f (x)  0 (1)
et al. (2012) (in 2012, a state-of-the-art review on modeling and
simulation of the thermal power plant), Alobaid et al. (2017) (in Such system (Eq. 1) is nonlinear, since some equations (e.g.,
2017, a state-of-the-art review on the dynamic simulation of equation of states, energy balance, performance correlations for
thermal power plants), Subramanian et al. (2018) (in 2018, a the units) are nonlinear, sparse, since only a few variables appear
state-of-the-art review on modeling and simulation of energy in each equation, and it may involve hundreds of variables and
systems) and Avagianos et al. (2020) (in 2020, a state-of-the-art equations if the power plant features many streams and units.
review on modeling and simulation of solid-fuel thermal power Power plant and process simulation software are based on
plants for flexible and off-design operation). Although the topics either the equation-oriented or the sequential modular
discussed range from steady-state to dynamic simulation models, approach to solve the nonlinear system of equations. The
these reviews were mostly specific to one modeling technique equation-oriented approach consists of solving the system of
(e.g., steady-state or dynamic) or a narrow field of application the equation as a whole using specifically developed numerical
(e.g., coal power or concentrated solar power). This first-of-its- algorithms, like the well-known Newton Raphson algorithm or
kind review paper provides researchers, and practitioners with the Powell dogleg algorithm (Biegler et al., 1997). On the one
detailed information on both steady-state and dynamic process hand, these algorithms very fast convergence rates (e.g.,
simulation and optmizaiton models, applied to various types of quadratic for the Newton-Raphson algorithm), but, on the
thermal power plants. other hand, they require a guessed starting solution (to be
An overview of the main scientific contributions and related assumed by the software user) not too far from the system
software targeting the simulation and optimization of steam solution and continuously differentiable equations f (x) with
cycles will be shown. For the sake of clarity, the review is non-singular Jacobian. From a practical point of view, the user
arranged in three parts. The first one (Mathematical has to guess a reasonably good starting value for all the
Background) focuses on the approaches proposed for the proprieties (pressures, temperatures, mass flow rates,
design optimization of conventional steam cycle power plants. compositions, etc) of each stream and all the variables of the
Design Calculation and Optimization of Conventional Steam equipment units. This task may be very time-consuming and,
Cycle Power Plants reviews the main contributions and depending on the user knowledge of the power plant, prone to
software for the design and design optimization of non- inaccuracy. Providing an inaccurate starting guess likely hinders
conventional steam cycles. Finally, Design Calculation and the convergence of the iterative algorithm with a very limited
Optimization of Non-Conventional Steam Cycles provides an possibility of debugging. Numerical issues occur also if the
exhaustive overview of the literature and related codes for the Jacobian of the function f (x) is singular or nearly singular in
dynamic simulation. some regions. Advanced techniques can be adopted to mitigate
these convergence issues, like integrating the Newton algorithm
with the Armijo line search to make it more robust to bad
MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND starting points, and adopting the Powell dogleg method or
continuation methods to mitigate the effect of Jacobian
Steady-State Simulation and Optimization singularity (Biegler et al., 1997). Recent software alleviates
The steady-state model of a steam cycle power plant, similarly to the user’s effort in initializing the solution by adopting ad
chemical processes, consists of a set of equations describing the hoc routines (e.g., doing some iterations with the sequential
thermo-chemical phenomena occurring in each piece of modular approach). Examples of the commercial process and
equipment. These equations are the thermodynamic property power plant simulation software based on the equation-oriented
models of each stream (equation of state and flash calculation approach are gPROMS (2021) and Ebsilon Professiona (2021);
routines computing the density, enthalpy, entropy, and vapor Aspen Tech (2021) can employ both modes (sequential-
fraction of each stream), the constitutive equations of each modular or equation oriented).
equipment unit (energy, mass, and atomic balance equations, The sequential-modular approach is based on the idea of
performance correlations) and the flowsheet topology equations solving the flowsheet units (pump, boiler, turbine, etc) in
(linking the output of a unit with the input of the downstream sequence, essentially following the flow of available pieces of
unit). The pressures, temperatures, mass flow rates, composition, information. Starting from the unit with known input streams
vapor fraction, enthalpy, entropy, the density of each stream of and specifications (e.g., the pump), its output flow properties
the power plant as well as the power input/output of each are computed by solving the constitutive equations of the unit
equipment unit are unknown variables xk to be found. If the (energy, mass, and atomic balance, performance
specifications set by the user on the input parameters (e.g., fuel correlations). Then, the downstream unit (e.g., the boiler)
composition and flow rate, performance parameters of the can be computed since the conditions of its input flow are
equipment units, evaporation, reheating and condensation known. If a required input stream is not known, since it is the
pressures, superheating and reheating temperatures) are outlet of a downstream unit, it is guessed to allow the
properly defined, the system of the above-mentioned equations calculation of the unit. Such guessed stream is called “tear

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

it is scattered away from the solution (if |λmax |>1). For this reason,
current sequential-modular software integrate also relaxation and
acceleration methods like the dominant eigenvalue method
(Crowe and Nishio, 1975) and the wegstein method
(Wegstein, 1958):
Compared to equation-oriented software, the convergence
issues of sequential modular ones increases rapidly with the
number of recycle loops of the flowsheet because more tear
variables need to be assumed and converged. Nested loops
(i.e., loops sharing one or more streams) cause particular
convergence issues because of the mutual influence. For these
reasons, sequential-modular software must be carefully used
when modeling steam cycle power plants that feature at least
FIGURE 1 | Example of a steam cycle simulated with the sequential-
one (basic steam cycle) or multiple (e.g., heat recovery steam
modular mode using the condenser outlet flow as tear stream.
cycles with multiple pressure levels, coal-fired steam cycles with
multiple regenerators) closed loops. If using general-purpose
process simulation software (e.g., Aspen Tech, 2021), the tear
stream” and this guessed value must be iteratively updated till streams and the convergence order should be carefully selected
convergence. Sequential-modular software performs four key and initialized. Software specifically developed for simulating
steps: steam cycle power plants (e.g., Thermoflex/GT PRO/Steam
Pro (Thermoflow, 2021)) feature ad hoc criteria to define the
1) Flowsheet partitioning and loop identification: closed loops convergence order and the tear variables to minimize
(recycles) of material and information streams between units convergence issues. On the other hand, the main advantages
are identified automatically using a simple routine. of sequential modular software are the better robustness to
2) Convergence order definition: the calculation order of the solution initialization accuracy, the need of initializing only
equipment units is determined either manually or the tear variables, the easier debugging in case of convergence
automatically with a routine (typically starting from the failure, and the possibility of integrating external equipment unit
input flows with known specifications and following the models (e.g., turbine meanline design code).
flowsheet topology). Adopting the same notation used so far for simulation
3) Tear stream identification: the closed loops (recycles) must be problems, steady-state optimization problems arising in the
“opened” by tearing at least one stream of the loop design phase or operation phase in off-design or part-load
(i.e., guessing the value for the properties of at least one conditions can be formulated as follows:
stream of the loop). Such tear streams xT are selected
either manually or automatically by the software using ad min c(x, z) (3)
hoc algorithms. s.t. f (x, z)  0 (4)
4) Tear stream convergence: the tear streams properties xT are g(x, z) ≤ 0 (5)
first guessed by the user, then they need to be updated by the
software to reach simulation convergence. The process x ∈ Rm , z ∈ Rnc × {0, 1}nb (6)
simulation with opened loops (tear stream) can be seen as
The variable z denote the independent design or operational
a transfer function g which, given the value assumed in the
variables while the variables x denote the dependent variables,
previous iteration xkT computes a new value xk+1T , as shown corresponding to the simulation variables of Eq. 1 (i.e., pressures,
in Eq. 2:
temperatures, mass flow rates, composition, etc. of each stream
T  g
x T 
xk+1 k
(2) and the power input/output of each equipment unit). Equation 3
indicates the objective function to be minimized (e.g., cost of
Figure 1 shows an example of a steam cycle where the tear electricity, heat rate, etc), Eq. 4 denotes the simulation model
stream is the feedwater pump inlet flow. Simulation convergence equations (same as Eq. 1) which are equality constraints of the
occurs when it is assumed a value xpT such that the calculation of optimization problem, Eq. 5 denote the possible inequality
the flowsheet returns the same (within a certain tolerance) value: constraints (e.g., bounds on the variables, cap on the project
g(xpT )  xpT . In mathematics such a class of problems is called budget, etc., desired net power output, etc.). We use m to denote
“fixed point problems”. The most basic iterative algorithm to the number of dependent variables, nc the number of continous/
solve such problems is called “direct substitution” and it consists real independent variables and nb the number of independent
of using the output of the current iteration as guessed value for the binary variables. Notice that for a fixed value of z, the problem
next one: xk+1T  xkT . Such simple and intuitive approach has a reduces to a simulation problem (finding x such
good convergence rate only if the maximum eigenvalue λmax of that f (x, z)  0).
the Jacobian matrix is close to zero. In the other cases, its Since in general the objective function and some of the
convergence rate is very slow (if |λmax | is approaching to 1) or constraints are nonlinear and nonconvex, the optimization

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

problem is nonlinear and nonconvex. If all variables are optimization variables (<10–20 for non-smooth black-box
continuous (real), the problem is called NonLinear Program problems, up to 100 for smooth problems).
(NLP). If some of the optimization variables are binary or
discrete, the optimization problem is a Mixed Integer Fort the above-listed reasons, the black-box approach is
NonLinear Program (MINLP). widely adopted for both power plant and chemical process
The optimization problem can be tackled by adopting two optimization but is limited to problems with few
main approaches: independent design/operational variables. The equation-
oriented approach is typically adopted in academia for large-
- The equation-oriented approach: the large-scale NLP or scale problems involving a large number of binary/discrete
MINLP defined by Eqs. 3–6 is solved using an optimization variables as the steam cycles described in the
optimization algorithm that finds (at the same time) the section Design Optimization of Steam Cycles With Multiple Heat
optimal values of independent variables z and simulation Sources. A considerable amount of time is required to write all the
variables x. On the one hand, this approach has the optimization problem including all the power plant model
advantage of the computational effectiveness of today’s equations f (x, z)  0 in a suitable mathematical programming
nonlinear solvers (e.g., BARON for MINLP (Tawarmalani software (e.g., GAMS, 2021; AMPL, 2021; Pyomo, 2021).
and Sahinidis, 2005), SNOPT (Gill et al., 2005), and IPOPT
(Biegler, 2010). On the other hand, it shares the same
disadvantages of the equation-oriented mode for Dynamic Simulation
simulation (need of proving a good starting guess for all The dynamic simulation problem of a power plant can be
variables, convergence issues in case of poor starting formulated as in Eq. 7:
guesses/ill-conditioned problems/Jacobian singularity, the _ u)  0
f (x, x, (7)
limited possibility of debugging).
- The black-box approach: the optimization algorithm is kept Where x denotes the time-dependent state variables (pressures,
at a higher hierarchical level than the simulation equations temperatures, mass flow rates, etc of each stream and unit of the
Eq. 4. At each iteration k, the optimization algorithm plant), x_ denotes the derivative over time, and u the time-
samples values of the independent decision variables z k dependent control variables (position of valves, inlet fuel flow
and executes a simulation software to compute the value of rate, etc.). The equations f are the same as the steady-state model
the related dependent variables xk , objective function c(xk , z k ) with the exception that the energy and the mass balances of the
and inequality constraints g(xk , z k ). The power plant model units include the unsteady-flow terms (variation over time of
equations are hidden in the simulation software and cannot be mass and internal energy stored in the equipment unit). Since
accessed by the optimization algorithm (hence the name “black- some of these equations are algebraic (e.g., the equation of state,
box optimization”). The simulation software needs to be linked to the enthalpy-temperature-pressure functions, etc.) and some are
the optimization algorithm in such a way it receives the values of differential (including time derivatives), the system of equations
z k , it is automatically executed and then it returns the values of is called DAE (Differential Algebraic Equation). It is a very
objective function and constraints. Since most of today’s challenging class of problems that need either reformulation as
commercial plant simulation software have this capability, the a system of ODEs (Ordinary Differential Equations) or the use of
black-box approach has become very popular. Indeed, the main ad hoc integration algorithms (see, e.g., the IDA package (IDA,
advantage of this approach compared to the equation-oriented 2021)).
one is the possibility of using commercial power plant simulation Many approaches can be found in the literature to model the
software without the need to recoding all the model equations thermal-hydraulics of steam cycle power plants such as the
(very time-consuming activity). On the other hand, mixture flow model and two-fluid models. The one-
computational efficiency is the main disadvantage of the dimensional mixture flow model, also known as the
black-box approach: 1) the output of the plant simulation homogeneous or three-equation flow model, assumes
software is typically non-smooth and affected by numerical thermodynamic equilibrium between phases (water and
noise making it necessary to adopt derivative-free steam). The mixture flow model is represented by three partial
optimization algorithms (Martelli and Amaldi, 2014) (e.g., differential equations for mass, momentum, and energy that
pattern search, simplex/complex, scatter search, evolutionary describe the dynamic behavior of the characteristic variables.
algorithms) which have slower convergence rates (or no For single-phase flow components (e.g., superheater, turbine
convergence guarantees in case of meta-heuristic section, and economizer), the three characteristic fluid
algorithms) compared to gradient-based algorithms (Conn variables are the local pressure, the total mass flux, and the
et al., 2009), 2) each plant simulation is time-consuming and fluid temperature or the fluid enthalpy for subcooled water or
several hundreds of plant simulations are required to reach superheated steam. In the case of two-phase flow components
convergence of the optimization algorithm (Martelli and (e.g., evaporator and condenser), the three variables are
Amaldi, 2014). Since the number of required simulations complemented by the void fraction. Due to its simplicity and
grows exponentially with the number of independent applicability to a wide range of single and two-phase flow
optimization variables, the black-box approach is components, the mixture flow model is often used when the
recommended only for problems with a limited number of response of the total mixture and not of each constituent phase is

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

required. Therefore, this flow model can be found in most cycles for coal-fired power plants, and heat recovery steam cycles
dynamic simulation programs such as ASPEN Plus (also called “bottoming cycles”) for combined cycles. The scheme
DYNAMICS, MODELICA, and MATLAB SIMULINK. of a coal-fired steam cycle power plant is shown in Figure 2, while
The two-fluid models, also known as the heterogeneous flow the scheme of a combined-cycle is illustrated in Figure 3.
model, formulate separate conservation equations of mass,
momentum, and energy for the gas and liquid phase. This Coal-Fired Power Plants
formulation presents considerable difficulty because of Despite limiting growth in the future use of coal, coal-fired power
mathematical complexity and the uncertainty in modeling the plants play a significant role in the global electricity supply. In
interaction between phases at the interphase boundary. Such 2018, the total share of worldwide electricity generation by coal-
relations cannot be derived from fundamental physical laws and fired power plants accounted for 35% according to the
in most cases are based on empirical assumptions. Solving the International Energy Agency (IEA) (IEA, 2019). The specific
resulting differential equations requires higher computational contribution in the public electricity generation of each country
effort and entails parameters that may cause numerical depends on several factors such as the prices of coal and other
instability, especially due to improper selection of interfacial fossil fuel (gas or oil), local resources, political economy and
terms. Due to the increased number of differential equations environmental regulation, and access to the world market. The
and closure relations, the two-phase fluid models, in contrast to list of coal categories is long and varies from (meta-) anthracite
the mixture flow model, are related to higher computational costs over bituminous and sub-bituminous coal to lignite. For power
and are suitable for thermodynamic non-equilibrium and heat generation, two types of coals are generally used,
applications. Accordingly, the complex and time-consuming namely lignite (brown coal) and bituminous (hard coal). For
two-fluid models are only implemented in few simulation the pre-drying process, a huge amount of the recirculated hot
programs such as APROS (APROS, 2021) and RELAP. flue gas at a temperature of about 1,000°C is used. However, it is
To solve the one-dimensional partial differential equations, favorable to dry the brown coal using a low temperature
the finite difference solution method or the finite volume solution medium or using one of the external pre-drying techniques
method is used. The partial differential equations are discretized (Walter and Epple, 2017).
concerning space and time and the non-linear terms are The main component of a coal-fired power plant is the steam
linearized. In the space discretization (integration over the generator, where pulverized coal entrained with the primary
corresponding element length), several discretization schemes airflow is combusted (see Figure 2). The energy stored in the
such as the first-order upwind scheme, the second-order central chemical bonds of the coal is released in form of the thermal
differencing scheme, and the quadratic upwind interpolation are energy that is transferred to the working fluid (generally water) to
available. For time discretization, the implicit method is usually generate steam for the Rankine cycle. State-of-the-art coal-fired
applied. The physical properties such as pressure, velocity, and power plants have single reheat and several low-pressure and
enthalpy in the model can finally be calculated using the high-pressure feedwater preheaters, reaching a net thermal
discretized conservation equations, the parameters for inlet process efficiency of about 46%. Some power plants are
and outlet flows, and the thermodynamic properties. equipped with a second reheater stage. After leaving the steam
In optimal control problems, u are time-dependent decision generator, the flue gas may pass through different devices (air
variables which need to be optimized to minimize a cost preheater, flue gas cleaning systems such as the selective catalytic
function c: reduction system, the electrostatic precipitator, and the
desulphurization unit). Although all coal-fired power plants
min c(x, x, _ u) (8)
follow the same working principle, each plant is uniquely
_ u)  0
s.t. f (x, x, (9) engineered, resulting in various operation modes and dynamic
g(x, x,_ u) ≤ 0 (10) behavior. The specific design is influenced by different factors,
including coal composition and handling (effect on e.g., mills,
In other words, the optimal control problem aims at finding the burners, furnaces, and heat exchangers), local emission regulation
optimal trajectory of the control variables u. The main solution (effect on e.g., flue gas cleaning devices), water/steam cycle (sup-
approaches adopted in the energy and process industry are called critical, supercritical or ultra-supercritical steam parameters),
single-shooting, multiple-shooting, and collocation. A brief plant configuration (natural, forced circulation or once-
explanation is given below, while the interested reader can find through), reheater temperature control (e.g., attemperators,
further details, for example, in (Cellier and Kofman, 2006; Kunkel tilting burners, flue gas dampers). The plant size may range
and Mehrmann, 2006; Biegler, 2007; Alobaid, 2018a). from a small industrial system to a large plant with up to
1,300 MWel supercritical boiler (e.g., Rockport Generating
Station in the United States).
DESIGN CALCULATION AND With thermodynamic considerations, it is possible to prove
OPTIMIZATION OF CONVENTIONAL that the efficiency of fired steam cycle power plants is favored by
adopting regeneration (a cascade of regenerators fed by steam
STEAM CYCLE POWER PLANTS turbine extractions at optimized pressures), steam superheating
This section focuses on steam cycles which are widely adopted in at maximum temperature allowed by the boiler and turbine
the electric power industry, namely highly regenerative steam materials, one or more reheating at optimized pressure and

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

FIGURE 2 | Schematic diagram of a hard-coal fired power plant (source Starkloff et al., 2015).

maximum possible temperature, highest possible steam recovery steam generator (HRSG) installed downstream in
generation pressures allowed by boiler and turbine, and the the flue gas path of the gas turbine. The HRSG produces
lowest possible condenser pressures allowed by the cold heat superheated steam, generating additional power in the steam
sink (lake, river, sea, air), vacuum pump and sealing systems of turbine. The process efficiency of the Korneuburg (A)
the condenser. The interested reader can find further details combined-cycle power plant did not exceed 32.5%. At that
about steam cycles in ref. (Spliethoff, 2010). time, the GT operating temperature was very low (620°C) and
the GT outlet temperature was 310 °C so that a supplementary
Combined-Cycle Power Plant firing was required to support the steam cycle. Considerable
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2019 developments were then carried out including high-
(IEA, 2019), gas-fired power generation accounted for temperature-resistant materials, low-NO x combustors, and
approximately 24% of the total share of worldwide electricity innovative cooling methods, which significantly improve the
generation, dominated by combined-cycle power plants. The first gas turbine performance. Furthermore, the single-pressure
attempt to combine a gas turbine and a steam cycle was achieved HRSG was replaced over time with dual-pressure and triple-
by using the hot exhaust gas of the gas turbine to preheat the feed pressure HRSGs to reduce the temperature mismatch
water of an existing large-scale steam power plant (instead of between the flue gas path and the water/steam side.
steam extractions). An alternative approach was to use the hot Nowadays, a 1 + 1 arrangement of gas turbine and steam
exhaust gas of the gas turbine to supply hot combustion air to the turbine in combination with a triple-pressure reheat HRSG is
furnace of the steam generator. The modern layout of the state of the art (see Figure 3). Due to the high temperature at
combined-cycle power plant (CCPP) is the result of the gas turbine outlet (in the order of 650 °C), the
evolutionary development in the second half of the last supplementary firing is omitted. Accordingly, the nominal
century, driven by the increasing performance of the gas process efficiency of a modern combined-cycle power plant
turbine. Korneuburg (A) power station, commissioned in 1960 can reach 60%. Large-scale CCPPs with efficiency levels
in Austria, represents the first combined-cycle power plant greater than 60% (up to 62.2%) are now running in
according to the modern definition of the CCPP. The general Irsching, Germany (Ratliff et al., 2007; Scholz et al., 2012)
idea is that the waste heat of a gas turbine is absorbed by a heat and Bouchain, France (Vandervort et al., 2016; Vandervort

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

FIGURE 3 | Schematic diagram of a modern CCPP including 1 + 1 arrangement of gas turbine and steam turbine units in combination with a triple-pressure, reheat,
vertical heat recovery steam generator (source Alobaid et al., 2008).

et al., 2017) with a net electrical power of about 605 MW el equipment number and sizes with limited penalization in the
per unit. specific capital cost of the plant. For example, specific
Differently from coal-fired steam cycles, owing to the presence commercially available software like Steam Pro
of a pinch point between economizer oulet and evaporator inlet, (Thermoflow, 2021), have predefined steam cycle
the efficiency of heat recovery cycles adopted in combined cycles arrangements that can be selected.
is increased by adopting no regenerators (as they would decrease 2) The thermodynamic steady-state simulation of the cycle at
the turbine power without useful effect on steam generated in the design conditions (full-load, nominal ambient/site conditions)
HRSG) and multiple levels of evaporation at optimized pressures. is performed using an ad hoc software (either internally
Further details on the thermodynamic fundamentals, possible developed by the company/university, like GS (Consonni,
arrangements, design criteria, and operational issues of these 1983), or commercially available like Thermoflex/GT PRO/
cycles can be found in (Kehlhofer et al., 2009; Speight, 2013). Steam Pro (Thermoflow, 2021), Aspen Tech (2021), Cycle
Tempo (2021), Gate Cycle (2021) and Ebsilon Professional
Usual Design Procedure and Software (2021) and setting the key design variables (steam pressures,
The usual practice for the design of steam cycles of conventional steam temperatures, pinch temperature differences in the heat
power plants (e.g., coal-fired power plants, combined cycles) exchangers, etc.) according to the recommended industrial
consists of the following sequential procedure: standards (Kehlhofer et al., 2009; Martelli et al., 2011b;
Woodruff et al., 2017).
1) The structure of the cycle is defined (i.e., number of 3) Possibly the key cycle variables are optimized by means of
evaporation pressure levels, number of regenerators for sensitivity analysis or linking the simulation code with a black-
feedwater preheating, number of reheating stages, etc.) box optimization algorithm (e.g., genetic algorithm (Valdés
according to the engineer’s experience and previous et al., 2003), particle swarm optimizer (Eberhart and Kennedy,
industrial projects. As a general criterion, increasing the 1995), Smolyak grids, and polynomial approximations
plant size, more expensive and efficient designs are used to (Kieslich et al., 2018)).
minimize the levelized cost of electricity. This results from the 4) A preliminary engineering design of the cycle equipment units
economy of scale on the capital cost, which allows increasing (boiler, feedwater preheaters, condenser, steam turbine) is

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

performed according to recommended industrial design from the cycle model: the optimization algorithm optimizes the
criteria, commercially available software (e.g., PEACE independent design variables and calls the cycle simulation model
(Thermoflow, 2021)), or ad hoc optimization approaches. as a black-box function to determine cycle performance. This
For conceptual and preliminary studies, this design step is allows using ad hoc commercially available or proprietary
typically sufficient. simulation software for cycle design, simulation, and costing
5) For front-end engineering studies, equipment units (e.g., while coding the optimization algorithm in other languages
boilers, turbine sections, heat exchangers, valves) need to be
designed in detail in collaboration with the manufacturer, and
®
(Python, Matlab , etc.). Due to the numerical noise and non-
smoothness of the cycle simulator output (Martelli and Amaldi,
their performance is assessed using ad hoc rating codes. For 2014), derivative-free optimization algorithms are typically
example, for boilers, rating software like FRNC-5PC (FRNC- adopted. The equation-oriented approach consists of including
5PC, 2021) is commonly adopted. Cycle and power plant dependent and independent design/simulation variables in the
simulation performed in step 4) need to be updated optimization problem, which features the cycle modeling/design
according to the rated performance of the equipment units. equations as constraints of the optimization problem. Thus,
6) Direct and indirect capital costs involved in the project are simulation and optimization models have integrated into a
assessed. Depending on the level of accuracy desired for the large-scale (typically nonlinear) optimization problem. On one
project (conceptual study, front-end engineering, etc.), hand, gradient-based optimization algorithms with guaranteed
literature cost correlations (see e.g., (Turton et al., 2008; quadratic/superlinear convergence rates can be adopted; on the
Carcasci et al., 2015; Elsido et al., 2019)), dedicated other hand, depending on the type of solver, the number of
commercial software packages (e.g., PEACE (Thermoflow, variables, and problem nonlinearity, achieving convergence to
2021), Aspen economics (Aspen Tech, 2021)), or the global optimum may be difficult (local minima, infeasible
quotations from manufacturers are used. solutions, etc.).
7) Steady-state simulations at part-load and off-design conditions Table 1 shows some relevant recent contributions focusing on
(e.g., different condensation temperatures due to variations in the design optimization of conventional coal-fired steam cycle
the cooling medium temperature) of the equipment units and power plants. The table reports the objective of the study, the
whole cycle are performed to assess plant performance during optimization variables, and the methodology adopted. Most of the
extreme and most frequent operating conditions. General- studies optimize the key cycle variables: superheating steam
purpose process simulation software like Aspen Plus, ad hoc pressure/temperature (subject to bounds set by the selected
commercially available software like Steam Master tube/headers materials), reheating pressure/temperature,
(Thermoflow, 2021) and Thermoflex (Thermoflow, 2021), or pressures of the steam extractions for the feedwater preheaters,
user-defined codes can be used. and condenser pressure. It can be noticed that only a few studies
8) Possibly, dynamic simulations are performed for the most tackle the optimization of the cycle structure (number of feedwater
critical phases (start-up, shut-down, ramp-up, and ramp- preheaters, the arrangement of the steam turbine bleeds, and
down) to check the achievable dynamic performance and number of reheaters) because models and solutions algorithms
design the control system. Results of the dynamic simulations are more sophisticated (owing to the discrete decisions).
during start-up and ramps may be used to assess thermo- Table 2 reports some of the most recent contributions on the
mechanical stresses on the most critical equipment units. optimization of heat recovery steam cycles for combined-cycle
power plants. As explained in (Kehlhofer et al., 2009), the key cycle
Achieving a good steam cycle design may require several design variables are the number of evaporation levels, the steam
iterations among the different steps described above. Being an evaporation pressures, the superheat temperatures, and the reheat
iterative procedure, there is no guarantee of finding the optimal pressure (if adopted). Additional key variables are those
design (i.e., the design achieving the maximum net present value influencing the design of the HRSG and the heat transfer areas
across the whole lifetime of the power plant). Indeed, the ideal of the tube banks (economizers, evaporators, and superheaters/
steam cycle design tool should be able to tackle all the steps at reheaters). For example, the pinch point temperature difference
once, optimizing simultaneously cycle thermodynamic design, (minimum temperature difference between hot flue gases and
equipment design, costing, and part-load/off-design/dynamic boiling steam) influences both the heat transfer area of the
operation. However, such an optimization problem would be evaporator and the raised mass flow rate of steam (Kehlhofer
extremely challenging owing to a large number of variables et al., 2009; Martelli et al., 2011)and it is used as an independent
(mixed binary, discrete, and continuous) and nonlinear optimization variable in several works, e.g., (Carapellucci and
nonconvex constraints. For this reason, works available in the Giordano, 2013; Martelli et al., 2011; Nadir and Ghenaiet, 2015).
literature tackled only one or two of the above-mentioned
design steps.
DESIGN CALCULATION AND
Design Optimization Approaches OPTIMIZATION OF NON-CONVENTIONAL
As far as design optimization is concerned, the approaches can be
classified into two major categories: black-box approaches and
STEAM CYCLES
equation-oriented approaches (Biegler et al., 1997). The former Nowadays, steam cycles are used in a wide range of power plants
approach consists of keeping the optimization algorithm separated such as waste to energy plants (WTE), biomass-fired plants,

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

TABLE 1 | List of recent contributions on the design optimization of conventional coal-fired steam cycle power plants.

References Objective Optimized variables Methodology and software

Ravindra Kumar Maximize the net electric efficiency (heat rate) of Pressures of the extractions for the The (steady-state design load) thermodynamic
et al. (2016) subcritical, supercritical, and ultra-supercritical regenerators. The cycle structure (number of model and the sensitivity analysis are performed
steam cycles regenerators, number of reheaters) is not with cycle tempo 5 (software)
optimized
Li et al. (2014) Maximize the efficiency of an ultra-supercritical The structure of the cycle (number of Thermodynamic and economic models (steady-
steam cycle with double reheat regenerators and feedwater preheating line) state design load) made with ebsilon professional
(GmbH). Optimization of the cycle structure is not
made using systematic algorithms but is just
guided by exergy analysis considerations
Opriş et al. (2020) Bi-objective optimization: Maximize the The key cycle variables (main steam pressure, Thermodynamic and economic model (steady-
efficiency and minimize the specific investment reheat pressure, deaerator pressure) state, design load) of the cycle developed by the
cost of a supercritical steam cycle with authors in Scilab (2021). Default scilab optimizers
feedwater preheating line and single reheat are used
(with/without bleed from the high-pressure
turbine)
Wang et al. (2014) Bi-objective optimization: Maximize plant Cycle structure (number of regenerators and The thermodynamic and economic model
efficiency and minimize the cost of electricity of reheaters) and the main cycle/equipment design (steady-state design load) of the cycle is made
a supercritical steam cycle (with up to ten variables with Ebsilon professional (2021). While the
regenerators and two reheaters) optimization is performed using an improved
differential evolution algorithm (black-box
optimization approach)
Kler et al. (2019) Maximize the efficiency or minimize the specific The key cycle design variables (pressures, The steady-state design model is coded in a
investment cost or minimize the cost of temperatures, mass flow rates) specific software developed by the melentiev
electricity of a supercritical steam cycle power energy systems institute of the Russian academy
plant of sciences Klerm et al. (1993). Optimization is
performed with a gradient-based algorithm
developed by the authors (equation oriented
approach)
Wang et al. (2016) Maximizing the efficiency or minimizing the cost Cycle structure and key sizing and operational Component models (steady-state, design load)
of electricity of steam cycle power plants variables (pressures, temperatures, mass flow are developed in GAMS (2021). Optimization relies
rates) on an upper-level evolutionary algorithm that
generates structural alternatives, and a lower level
deterministic algorithm to optimize the design and
operational variables (equation oriented approach)

concentrated solar power plants (CSP), Integrated Gasification Figure 5). Different CSP technologies are mainly distinguished by
Combined Cycles (IGCCs), Integrated reforming combined concentrator and receiver systems such as parabolic trough and
cycles (IRCCs), Integrated Solar combined cycles (ISCC), linear Fresnel reflectors as well as parabolic dish and solar tower
Integrated waste-to-energy combined cycles, poly-generation reflectors. While parabolic trough and linear Fresnel reflectors
plants (Elsido et al., 2019) for the coproduction of electricity, concentrate direct sunlight on a line (line focus), the parabolic
synfuels and heat, combined heat and power plants and tailored dish and solar tower technologies concentrate light on a point
steam cycles providing steam and heat to process industries (point focus). Almost half of the capital expenditure for a CSP
(often referred to “steam networks” or “steam utility plant is related to the solar field that determines the amount of
systems”). As an example, the scheme of an ISCC power plant electrical output. Current developments aim at increasing the
is represented in Figure 4. electrical conversion efficiency by using higher process
It is important to distinguish between steam cycles featuring a temperatures, which in turn results in a decrease in the
single major heat source (e.g., waste to energy plants, CSPs, fired levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Depending on the type
CHP steam cycles serving the district heating network) and steam and layout of the CSP, various cycles can be used in the
cycles recovering heat from multiple heat sources (IGCCs, IRCCs, power block (e.g., Rankine cycle, organic Rankine cycle,
polygeneration plants, steam networks for the process industry). Stirling engines, Brayton cycle, or combined-cycle). CSPs are
For the first class of steam cycles, it is possible to extend the generally not dispatchable, supplying fluctuating electricity
thermodynamic considerations derived for conventional steam depending on the weather conditions. The possible integration
cycles while for the second class it is necessary to deal with the of thermal energy storage (TES) in the CSP plant makes it highly
overall plant heat integration. dispatchable, providing a main competitive advantage of CSP
against photovoltaics or concentrated photovoltaics (CPV).
Concentrated Solar Power Plants Consisting of a two-tank thermal energy storage system (hot
A concentrated solar power (CSP) plant consists of a solar field, and cold salt tanks), round-trip efficiencies above 97% were
an energy storage system (optional), and a power block (see reported (Kuravi et al., 2013).

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

TABLE 2 | List of recent contributions on the optimization of heat recovery steam cycles for combined-cycle power plants.

References Objective Optimized variables Methodology and software

Bongartz.et al. (2020) Maximize the net electric efficiency and the Steam pressures, temperatures, and mass flow Thermodynamic steady-state and economic
levelized cost of electricity of single pressure rates cycle model implemented in C++, optimization
and dual pressure heat recovery steam cycles performed with MAinGO Bongartz et al. (2018)
Elsido et al. (2020b) Minimize the total annual cost of the plant HRSC structure (number of evaporation levels, Thermodynamic steady-state model (for design
(equivalent to maximize the net present value) reheat, deaerator), the arrangement of steam load and expected part-loads) and economic
including expected part-load operating tube banks within the HRSG, steam flow rates, model developed in GAMS (2021), problem
conditions across the plant life-time gas and steam temperatures for each expected formulated as a large scale MINLP and solved
part-load operating condition with an ad hoc bilevel decomposition algorithm
Elsido et al. (2019); Minimize the total annual cost of the plant HRSC structure (number of evaporation levels, Thermodynamic steady-state model (for design
Martelli et al. (2017) (equivalent to maximize the net present value) reheat, deaerator), the arrangement of steam load and economic model developed either in
for design load condition tube banks within the HRSG, steam flow rates, AMPL Martelli et al. (2017) or GAMS Elsido et al.
gas and steam temperatures for design-load (2019) (Equation oriented approach), problem
formulated as a large scale MINLP and solved
with an ad hoc bi-level decomposition
algorithms
Manassaldi et al. Maximization of the total net power generation Heat exchanger arrangement the HRSG, The superstructure of possible configurations
(2016) for a given total heat transfer area and the pumps and interconnections, design and cycle and steady-state (design load) cycle model
minimization of the total heat transfer area for thermodynamic variables implemented in GAMS (2021) and formulated
a given total net power for a dual pressure as a MINLP (equation oriented approach).
HRSC MINLP solved with DICOPT Grossmann et al.
(2021)
Nord et al. (2014) Minimize the weight to power ratio of a HRSC Superheat temperature, evaporation pressure, GT PRO (for design), GT MASTER (for off-
for off-shore installations. Bi-objective pinch point temperature difference, gas side design), and PEACE (preliminary engineering
optimization of minimum weight, maximum pressure drop (influencing gas speed), and cost estimation) by thermoflow inc. are the
net power output condenser pressure, cooling water temperature software used for the combined-cycle process
increase in the condenser modeling, simulations, and weight estimations
Thermoflow (2021). Independent variables
optimized with the evolutionary black-box
algorithm PGS-COM Martelli and Amaldi (2014)
(black-box optimization approach)
Nadir and Ghenaiet Maximize the specific work per unit mass of Independent optimization variables: An ad hoc steady-state thermodynamic model
(2015) exhaust gas of the gas turbine for three HRSC Evaporation pressures, the effectiveness of the of the HRSC is used as a black-box function
configurations (single, double, and triple superheaters (influencing the superheating (cycle simulator) by the particle swarm
pressure levels with reheat) temperature), and pinch point temperature optimizer Eberhart and Kennedy (1995) (black-
differences (influencing the mass flow rates of box optimization approach)
generated steam)
Mahmoud et al. (2016) Maximize the exergetic efficiency and Independent optimization variables: Ad hoc steady-state thermodynamic and
maximize the net present value Evaporation pressures, the effectiveness of the economic model of the HRSC is used as a
superheaters (influencing the superheating black-box function (cycle simulator) by the
temperature), and pinch point temperature particle swarm optimizer Eberhart and Kennedy
differences (influencing the mass flow rates of (1995) (black-box optimization approach)
generated steam)
Carapellucci and Maximize the efficiency or minimize the cost of Optimized variables: Pinch point temperature. The thermodynamic and economic model
Giordano (2013) electricity of single, double, and triple pressure Differences, evaporation pressures, (steady-state at design load) of the cycle is
levels HRSCs temperature differences in superheaters developed in GateCycle (2021). Optimization
performed using exergo-economic
methodology (Bejan et al. (1996)
Manassaldi et al. Maximize the net power or the net power/ Optimized discrete and continuous variables. The model is coded in GAMS (2021) and
(2011) material weight or minimize the net heat Discrete variables are related to HRSG tube formulated as a MINLP, then solved with the
transfer area of HRSGs banks geometry (tube length and diameter, standard branch and bound (SBB) solver of
number of fins or rows of studs per unit length of GAMS (equation oriented approach)
the tube, etc.). Continuous variables are
temperatures, flow rates, pressure, velocities,
pressure drops, and dimensions
Conte and Pedretti Maximize the net present value of HRSCs Thermodynamic cycle variables (pressures, The thermodynamic model was steady-state
(2011) considering expected off-design/part-load temperatures) for off-design and design conditions, automatic
operating conditions design, and sizing routines for HRSG and
turbine sections, the economic model
implemented in proprietary software of alstom.
Optimization with the black-box approach
using a custom-developed evolutionary
algorithm. (Black-box approach)
(Continued on following page)

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

TABLE 2 | (Continued) List of recent contributions on the optimization of heat recovery steam cycles for combined-cycle power plants.

References Objective Optimized variables Methodology and software

Rovira et al. (2011) Minimize the generation cost of electricity of Optimized independent variables: Drum The thermodynamic and economic model
the combined-cycle considering the expected pressures, pinch points, and steam developed by the authors in the previous
part-load operating conditions temperatures at each pressure level of the publication Valdés et al. (2003), integrated with
HRSG simplified part-load models of the HRSGs.
Optimization performed with a genetic
algorithm coded by the authors Valdés et al.
(2003) (black-box approach)
Mehrgoo and Minimize exergy destruction of a dual Independent optimization variables related to Thermodynamic and heat transfer model of the
Amidpour (2017) pressure level HRSG for a fixed volume HRSG tube banks geometry: Tube diameters, HRSG implemented in Matlab (2021).
number of tube rows in the direction of flow, Independent design variables optimized with a
number of tubes per row, length of the tubes (ly), genetic algorithm (black-box approach)
and width of each section (lz)
Durán et al. (2013) Achieve a target (low) UA (heat transfer area Independent optimization variables related to Ad hoc program (developed by the authors) for
multiplied by heat transfer coefficient) the geometry of the HRSG: Fins per length unit, the HRSG surface and heat transfer calculation
fin diameter, number of tubes, tube diameter,
number of tubes per column, number of tubes

FIGURE 4 | Schematic diagram of an ISCC power plant (source (Rashad et al., 2021; Temraz et al., 2020b)).

Waste to Energy Power Plants are low-rank solid fuels including refuse-derived fuel, solid
Non-conventional fuels, also known as alternative fuels or recovered fuel, municipal waste, and sewage sludge (a
advanced fuels contribute to the substitution of fossil fuels. residual by-product of industrial and municipal wastewater
Most of these non-conventional fuels are derived from treatment). For the thermal conversion of these fuels, both
renewable energy sources such as biomass and some others fluidized bed systems and waste incinerators use steam cycles to

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

FIGURE 5 | Schematic flow diagram of a modern concentrated solar power (source (Al-Maliki et al., 2016; Alobaid et al., 2017)).

FIGURE 6 | Schematic flow diagram of a modern waste incinerator power plant (source Alobaid et al., 2018a).

convert the combustion heat into electricity in an efficient way (see offering several advantages such as the continuous operation
Figure 6). with the possibility of solid transport in and out of the bed, the
The fluidized bed combustors are a demonstrated technology high heat and mass transfer rates between gas and solids, the low
for power and heat generation from non-conventional fuels, NOx emission in addition to simple SOx capture. For example,

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 13 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

TABLE 3 | List of recent contributions on the design optimization of CSP and WTE plants.

References Objective Optimized variables Methodology and software

De Greef et al. Increase low-temperature heat recovery of Boiler feedwater inlet temperature and outlet Thermodynamic model of the cycle made with
(2013) waste to energy plant while considering flue gases temperature CycleTempo (software), which is then used within
corrosion issues and consumption of reactants a sensitivity analysis
(ammonia for the NOx abatements)
Bogale and Compare different configurations (boiler and Sensitivity analysis varying flue gas temperature Thermodynamic model of the plants implemented
Viganò (2014) steam cycle) of WTE plants in terms of net at the stack, condenser pressure, excess of air in GS, a simulation code developed by
electric efficiency for combustion, and plant size researchers at the department of energy of
Politecnico di Milano Consonni (1983)
Barigozzi et al. Optimize the combination of wet and dry cooling Optimization of steam cycle design parameters Thermodynamic design and off-design model of
(2011) system for a large scale (80 MW) WTE plant to is not performed. Optimization concerns the steam cycle developed in thermoflex
achieve the maximum electric power output operating variables of the condenser system (Thermoflow, 2015). Optimization of condenser
operating variables performed with ad hoc matlab
code developed by the authors
Babaelahi et al. Multi-objective optimization: Energy and Cycle temperatures and pressures Thermodynamic steady-state and dynamic
(2020) exergetic performance and settling time to load models in matlab simulink. Optimization
changes of a CSP plant based on a regenerative performed with the particle swarm optimizer
steam cycle with reheater (black-box approach)
Bachelier and Minimize the cost of electricity of linear fresnel Optimization variables: Steam pressure at Models (for steady-state and dynamic conditions
Stieglitz (2017) power plants turbine inlet, reheat (yes/no), type of heat as well as economic calculations) coded by the
transfer fluid, solar multiple, and thermal storage authors in C++. Optimization performed with
size sensitivity analysis
Giostri et al. Compare different direct and indirect plant Optimization of steam cycle design parameters Thermodynamic models within an in-house code
(2012) designs in terms of energy performance is not performed PATTO (parabolic trough thermodynamic
optimization) able to predict the performance of
solar trough-based concentrated solar power
(CSP) plants in both design and off-design
conditions

Sumitomo Foster Wheeler will commission the world’s largest Design Optimization of Steam Cycles With
biomass-only fluidized bed furnace with a power output of Multiple Heat Sources
about 300 MWel in 2020, in Teesside, United Kingdom Once the cycle scheme (number of pressure levels, number of
(Wheeler, 2016). Incineration is a proven technology for the regenerators, with/without reheating, etc) and the heat exchanger
large-scale disposal of solid waste. The heat released during network (HXs within the steam generator and outside)
combustion (lower heating value: approximately 10 MJ/kg) is used to arrangement are fixed, calculating the design performance of
generate steam for the Rankine cycle. The state-of-the-art waste unconventional steam cycles can also be performed using
incinerator burns 6 kg/s of waste (500 tons per day) and can reach an commercially available modular process simulation software,
electrical gross efficiency of 30%. The design of WTE boilers is mainly like Thermoflow (2021), CycleTempo (2021) and Aspen Tech
influenced by the corrosive nature of the flue gases containing chlorine (2021). The key challenge, which requires the use of advanced
and sulfur (De Greef et al., 2013)). This translates into tight limitations optimization approaches, is to find the optimal cycle scheme and
on the maximum working temperatures of the tube banks (the HEN arrangement. Indeed, optimizing the cycle configuration and
superheating temperature is typically limited to 400–425°C (Bogale the HEN arrangement involves binary decisions (installing or not
and Viganò, 2014)) and the need to replace the superheater tube installing HXs, drums, pressure levels, turbine sections, etc). This
quite often. combinatorial problem becomes even more challenging when
dealing with steam cycles recovering heat from multiple heat
sources (i.e., hot streams) because of the following two factors:
Design Optimization of Concentrated Solar
Power and Waste to Energy Power Plants 1) The thermodynamic analysis of the cycle efficiency is not easy since
For CSP and WTE plants, it is possible to extend the thermodynamic the heat source features a non-standard composite curve. Therefore,
considerations made for coal-fired steam cycles. Their efficiency it is not obvious to assess the effects of the cycle options (reheating,
benefits from regenerators, high superheat temperatures, and high regeneration, adopting multiple evaporation levels), and
evaporation pressures. Thus, a limited number of interesting cycle thermodynamic variables (pressures/temperatures) on efficiency.
configurations is possible and design optimization is mainly focusing 2) Several possible arrangements/order/interconnections of the steam
on the cycle variables (pressures, temperatures) and arrangement of tube banks (i.e., the heat exchanger network, HEN) are possible and
the steam tube banks within the steam generator. Table 3 reports the the optimal solution is not obvious. Moreover, building and
main contributions to the design optimization of CSP and WTE simulating all the possible arrangements using conventional
plants available in public literature. simulation codes might be extremely time-consuming.

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 14 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

Several approaches to tackle the heat integration of steam on regenerative steam cycles. Martelli et al. (2011) proposed a
cycles into complex plants featuring multiple hot and cold mathematical programming model, a linear approximation,
streams have been proposed in the last decades mainly by the and a two-stage algorithm to optimize the design of HRSCs
process engineering community. These approaches can be and their integration with external hot and cold streams or
classified into three main categories: steam users. The model has been applied to highly integrated
plants: biomass to Fischer−Tropsch liquids plants, IGCCs with
1. Energy targeting methods: these methods aim at the definition and without carbon capture and storage (CCS), integrated
of minimum utility requirements (i.e., maximum heat reforming combined cycles (Martelli et al., 2012), and coal-to-
recovery) as well as the optimal selection and design of synthetic natural gas facilities (Martelli et al., 2013). Zhang
Rankine/steam cycles while avoiding computing the et al. (2014) proposed an approach for the optimal design of
detailed structure of the HEN, which would significantly HRSGs of polygeneration plants with and without external
increase the complexity of the optimization problem. heat stream integration, to maximize the net power output of
Examples of well-known energy targeting methods are the HRSG. The superstructure of the HRSG has a fixed
Pinch Analysis (Kemp, 1982; Linnhoff and Hindmarsh, number of tube banks (i.e., sections of economizers,
1983), the LP transshipment model (Papoulias and superheaters) and one evaporator for each pressure level.
Grossmann, 1983) and its extensions (Maréchal and Manassaldi et al. (2016) extended the HRSG superstructure
Kalitventzeff, 1998) and (Maréchal and Kalitventzeff, 1999), to include a wider variety of possible HRSG configurations and
and pinch location techniques (Duran and Grossmann, 1986). compared two optimization problems: i) the maximization of
As shown in (Papoulias and Grossmann, 1983a), such a the total net power for a given total heat transfer area, and ii)
problem can be formulated as a Linear Program which can the minimization of the total heat transfer area for a given total
be easily solved. Also Pinch-analysis-based and exergy analysis net power. Also, multi-period optimization approaches have
based approaches have been proposed to optimize the been proposed for steam cycles and steam networks to find
efficiency of Rankine/steam cycles without dealing with the designs able to work in the expected operating modes/loads
optimization of the HEN: for instance (Yu et al., 2015) defined with high efficiency. Iyer and Grossmann (1998) tackled
a methodology predicting the Pinch position between the heat multiperiod optimization of utility systems and formulated
source and the working fluid to calculate the heat recovered the integrated design-operation problem as a large-scale
and determine the optimum working fluid and operating MILP. Aviso et al. (2017) proposed a multi-period
conditions; (Maréchal and Kalitventzeff, 1998, 1999) approach based on process-graph models for the synthesis
proposed an energy targeting methodology to optimize the of integrated energy systems and poly-generation systems,
structure and flow rate of steam cycles and steam networks; formulated as a MILP problem. Elsido et al. (2017) tackled the
(Martelli et al., 2011) developed an energy targeting multi-period synthesis problem of CHP power plants with a
optimization tool to maximize the efficiency of heat two-stage problem decomposition: at the upper level a
recovery steam cycles integrated with multiple heat sources. heuristic algorithm optimizes the design variables, and at
Floudas and Grossmann, (1986) extended the LP the lower level the operation of the CHP units is optimized
transshipment problem by (Papoulias and Grossmann, by solving a linearized MILP model. Shang and Kokossis
1983) to the multi-period version, to consider different (2005) developed a multi-period optimization model for the
expected operating modes of the plant. design and operation of flexible utility systems, such as back-
2. Cycle optimization techniques: optimization approaches and pressure turbines, condensing turbines, boiler networks,
models aimed to optimize the detailed design of complex considering the varying efficiencies for part load operation.
steam cycles and steam networks that provide heat and/or More recently Jimenez et al. (2019), extended the
electric power to complex process plants and/or sell electricity transshipment methodology to synthetize site-wide heat
to the electric grid. The main focus of the design of utility recovery, distribution, and cogeneration systems with
systems is the structure and operating variables of the cycle. optimum operating conditions of the steam network
Usually, the HEN is fixed in a previous step, reducing the system, accounting for interactions between utility system
degree of freedom of the problem in terms of possible and processes.
integration options between both utility and process 3. Integrated optimization of HEN and steam cycle: due to the
streams, i.e., the HEN structure within the process and combinatorial nature of the HEN synthesis problem, only a
boiler/steam generator is not optimized. The few researchers have tackled the combined optimization of
thermodynamic optimization of steam cycle variables was steam cycles/networks and HEN. These approaches aim at
first investigated in the 1980s. One of the pioneering works optimizing the synthesis of utility systems and HENs while
in the systematic design of steam cycles is the one by Nishio considering all the possible integration options between
et al. (1980), who integrated linear programming with a set of process and utility systems. The first works are the
thermodynamic rules to determine the best plant structure sequential synthesis approaches proposed in (Duran and
and the steam cycle parameters. Nord et al. (2014) proposed a Grossmann, 1986; Maréchal and Kalitventzeff, 1998; Maré
method for optimization of compact heat recovery steam chal and Kalitventzeff, 1999; Papoulias and Grossmann, 1983;
cycles, Nadir and Ghenaiet (2015) and Valdés and Rapún Papoulias and Grossmann, 1983c): In the first step a targeting
(2011) on heat recovery steam generators, Wang et al. (2017) method is used to determine the optimal cycle configuration

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 15 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

FIGURE 7 | Integrated superstructure of Rankine (steam) cycle, utility systems (boilers, cooling water, gas turbines, etc), and heat exchanger network proposed by
Elsido et al. (2019). for the design optimization of non-conventional steam cycles and steam networks (source Elsido et al., 2019).

and steam flow rates (without dealing with the combinatorial different plants includes only evaporating and condensing
problem associated with the design of the HEN) and, in a steam headers, without optimizing the arrangement of the
second step, the HEN is optimized (for fixed steam and utility heat exchangers inside the steam generators and without
mass flow rates). More recently Mian et al. (2016), proposed considering steam turbines. The authors proposed a multi-
an improved multiperiod version of the sequential synthesis objective optimization problem, considering both cost and
methodology employing a derivative-free algorithm to environmental impact.
improve the HEN solution by optimizing the penalty levels To the best of our knowledge, the first and most complete
of the HX matches (Gundersen et al., 1996), the heat recovery approach for the simultaneous optimization of HEN and utility
approach temperatures, and the utility sizes. Luo et al. (2016) systems (including complex Rankine cycles) has been proposed in
proposed a superstructure and a MINLP model for the (Elsido et al., 2019; Elsido et al., 2020b; Martelli et al., 2017). The
integration of utility system and HEN, in which the peculiarity of the model is to allow utility/Rankine cycle streams
integration between utility system and HEN is limited to to be part of the well-known SYNHEAT HEN superstructure
steam condensate and boiler feedwater. (Yee and Grossmann, 1990) with the same freedom in terms of
matching options as process streams (see Figure 7). As a result,
Huang et al. (2020) proposed a simplified simultaneous the MINLP is particularly challenging due to its nonconvexity
approach employing a fixed steam cycle/organic Rankine cycle and a large number of variables and constraints. The authors have
structure and a pre-defined partition of the HEN superstructure proposed two ad-hoc algorithms, a structure-based problem
into three subsections. The underlying assumption is that the decomposition (Martelli et al., 2017) and a bilevel
steam flow is raised only in the boiler (i.e., no steam raised using decomposition approach using advanced linearization
hot process streams) and steam of the steam cycle can be used techniques (Elsido et al., 2019). The methodology has been
only as of the hot-end utility (i.e., condensers can provide heat applied to several real-world problems with up to 35 streams,
only to the hot-end side of the cold process streams). Similarly, such as the design and HEN of a NGCC, ORCs for different
the ORC is confined to the low-temperature side of the HEN applications, IGCC, and integrated lignite and biomass-to-jet fuel
superstructure and it can be used only as a cold utility. The production plant via gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis,
methodology has been applied to two industrial energy system to demonstrate a considerable improvement in solution quality
case studies taken from literature, to demonstrate the capability of and CPU time over state-of-the-art.
the method to find improved solutions compared to schemes Recently Elsido et al. (2020a) and Elsido et al. (2020b),
without steam cycle/ORC integration. extended the simultaneous synthesis methodology for the
Ma et al. (2018) addressed the multi-period design of an simultaneous multiperiod optimization of Steam/Rankine
“interplant HEN” (i.e., connecting different plants) with a cycles and HENs capable of considering the off-design
centralized utility system, where steam is employed as the operating conditions expected across the lifetime, optimizing
heat transfer medium. The steam network connecting the operation of units (loads and on/off operation of boilers,

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 16 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

gas turbines, etc) and including the integration with thermal models must be used, in which the time derivations in the
energy storage systems. The methodology has been applied to conservation equations are taken into consideration. Dynamic
real-world complex problems, namely a flexible Organic Rankine process simulation models are a cost-efficient tool for assessing
Cycle, an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle able to operate the control strategies, capabilities, and limitations of the system.
in two different modes, and a flexible Integrated Solar Combined- Furthermore, they support unit commissioning and regular
Cycle power plant. Despite the large number of hot/cold streams operation by estimating component lifetime and directing
and technical design/operational constraints, the methodology maintenance (Alobaid et al., 2017). Also, the effect of possible
provided very good solutions featuring cost-effective designs. failures in control structures and electrical network on the system
can be analyzed. The dynamic process simulation models are
preferred for the proposal stage of a steam cycle project, e.g., to
DYNAMIC SIMULATION check whether the load changes according to specific customer
requirements are feasible without unacceptable lifetime
For the simulation of practical engineering applications, different consumption in thick-walled components. However, these
process-modeling concepts can be applied, namely black-box white-box dynamic process simulation models require detailed
process modeling, grey-box process modeling, and white-box information on the process and its control structures. The
process modeling (Cameron and Hangos, 2001). In black-box inherent complexity of the governing differential conservation
modeling, also known as data-driven models, the process equations and the numerical solution methods leads to highly
parameters are determined using various regression complex models with long development periods.
technologies and artificial intelligence by combining the For the dynamic process modeling of the steam cycles,
training data (experimental data) and network structure. By different process components such as heat exchanger, pump,
contrast, the process parameters in the white-box model are drum, etc. are required. Also, automation and electrical systems
derived from mass, energy, and momentum conservation are necessary to control and calculate the electrical power
equations. Although the white-box process models show better consumption of the process components during transients.
accuracy compared to the black-box process, the white-box The first process simulation software of a steam cycle plant
model shows unreliability in many cases because of the lack of dated back to the 1960s. The water/steam cycle was
relevant fundamental process details. The grey-box models are constructed using different components connected through
based on the physical structure that is improved by operating data lines. This embodiment (selecting from the library and
(i.e., a combination of both black-box and white-box process connecting component by component) has mainly been
models). Most of the process parameters are obtained through maintained in most simulation software since. Nowadays,
solving the conservation equations, while for unclear parameters dynamic process simulation software combines graphical user
or functions in the process, the black-box process modeling interface with detailed sub-models for flow, thermodynamic,
approach with operating data and optimization algorithms is chemical reactions, mass and heat transfer, automation, and
applied. In this study, the white-box dynamic process modeling, electrical systems, offering rapid assessments of the steam
applied to steam cycles available in the literature up to 2020 will cycle process such as:
be reviewed.
Process simulation models are crucial for increasing the • efficiency and flexibility improvement
efficiency and flexibility of thermal power plants. Usually, the • process modifications and retrofitting
design and optimization of a process start with steady-state • analysis of control loops and optimization of controller
process modeling, where the system operates continuously at parameter
its design base-load. The steady-state process models do not • operating behavior at baseloads, off-design, start-up, and
require control structures and mathematically are based on mass, shutdown procedures
momentum, species, and energy balances without the • security and safety analyses
consideration of the time derivations. In the case of zero- • Investigation of malfunctions, e.g., steam turbine trip,
dimensional modeling, the local discretization is also not failure of boiler feed pumps or condensate pumps,
considered. The modeling of the components such as heat blackout, and other
exchanger, pump, condenser, turbine, etc., results in an • new design
algebraic system of equations with inputs and output
parameters of components (pressure, enthalpy, mass flow, and Several commercial software for the dynamic process simulation of
concentration). In the case of one-dimensional modeling, the steam cycle processes are available, e.g., APROS, ASPEN PLUS
components are discretized between the inlet and the outlet along DYNAMICS, FLOWNEX, DYMOLA, JModelica.org, SimulationX,
with the flow in a certain number of cells (numerical grid). At and Power Plant Simulator and Designer (PPSD). Most of the
each discrete location, an algebraic system of equations is software provides specialized component libraries for the time-
obtained. Using the steady-state process simulation models, dependent simulation, including the combined-cycle power plant,
analyses of the thermodynamic properties of the water-steam the coal-fired power plant, and the concentrated solar power plant. In
side and flue gas path, as well as mass and energy flows, can be other software, missing components have to be modeled by the user
evaluated for a series of operating points. For the process analysis such as MATLAB SIMULINK or MODELICA that offer a generic
during transient conditions, the dynamic process simulation programming tool. Major power plant providers such as ABB, EDF,

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 17 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

and Siemens have simulation environment codes, aiming at development and application of the dynamic process
improving power plant efficiency, flexibility, and emissions simulation models during load change, shutdown, and start-up
reduction. Recently published studies are dedicated to shifting the procedures as well as during the malfunction cases are shown in
field of dynamic simulation away from commercial codes toward Table 4. Special attention was paid to those studies that include
more openly accessible models and software tools (e.g., measurement validation to achieve a fundamental competitive
OpenModelica). comparison between the model results and the operational data.
In the following sections, the dynamic process simulation The citation is selected among other references to give the reader
models applied to fossil-based and renewable-based steam an orientation to the application areas. The cyclic operation (load
cycles will be shown. change) of CCPPs offers high profits in the short term, providing
frequency-response, replacement, and spinning reserve services.
Fossil-Based Steam Cycle In the medium and long time, this cyclic operation can lead to a
Dynamics of Combined-Cycle Power Plants lifetime reduction of the CCPPs due to thermo-mechanical
Recent combined-cycle power plants feature not only high fatigue, creep, and corrosion. In the literature, there are many
efficiency but also a flexible unit dispatch. Fast response studies on the response of the HRSG with (single-pressure, dual-
capability represents a competitive advantage for the operator pressure, and triple-pressure with and without reheater section)
in a changing market environment due to the increasing shares of to GT load changes (among others: Shin et al. (2002), Pletl (2005),
renewable feed-in. The availability of wind turbines and Alobaid et al. (2015a); see Table 4). For example Benato et al.
photovoltaic solar panels is limited and difficult to predict. (2016b), investigated the cyclic operation of a 380 MW
They normally provide fluctuating feed-in into the grid so that combined-cycle power plant that consists of a gas turbine and
energy reserves, e.g., conventional thermal power plants or energy a triple-pressure heat recovery steam generator with reheat.
storage systems are required to achieve a balance between current Different transient conditions are tested and the developed
electricity supply and demand. Three factors are essential to model was used to improve the plant flexibility. Alobaid et al.
assess the practical flexibility of a thermal power plant: shut- (2015a) and Ata et al. (2020) investigated the capability of
down/start-up time, maximum load gradient (positive and different process simulation software to predict the behavior of
negative), and minimum load. Only 20 min is necessary to a combined-cycle power plant during part loads and off-design
start-up a simple-cycle gas turbine, independent of its initial operation using the process simulation software tools APROS,
temperature (Ruchti et al., 2011; Alobaid et al., 2012). However, ASPEN PLUS DYNAMICS, and Power Plant Simulator and
the load transients of the CCPP are restricted by the thermal Designer (PPSD). Operational data from Prai Power Station,
stresses in the thick-walled components of the bottoming steam located in Malaysia is used for the validation of the developed
cycle (e.g., ST rotor, ST casing, high-pressure drum, and outlet model (see Figure 8). The comparison between three dynamic
manifolds of HP superheater and final reheater). Approximately simulations using three different process software for the same
50 min after an overnight shutdown (hot start-up) is required to power plant give more confidence in dynamic simulation for the
complete the start-up procedure of a modern CCPP. For warm design and optimization of CCPPs.
and cold start-ups, the CCPP can reach its nominal load in less The rapid start-up capability represents a key benchmark for
than 90 and 150 min after the gas turbine ignition (Alobaid et al., CCPPs compared to other conventional power plant technologies
2012). The load gradient (positive and negative) of the CCPP can (e.g., coal-firing power plant and nuclear power plant). Generally,
sustain challenging load gradients up to ±60%/min, as e.g., it is distinguished between three different types of start-up
stipulated by the Great Britain Grid Code for primary procedures, namely hot start-up after overnight shutdown,
frequency response. The minimum load is mainly determined warm start-up after weekend shutdown, and cold start-up after
by the gas turbine, where stable combustion, as well as CO and a shutdown of several days. These definitions are too broad for
NOx levels in compliance with emission regulations (country- practical purposes and therefore the metal temperatures of the
specific regulation), should be conserved. The minimum load thick-walled components such as ST rotor, ST casing, and HP
limit defines the lower boundary for negative load changes and is drum are generally used to determine the type of start-up
highly relevant to flexible operation when frequent cycling is procedure. In the literature, the start-up simulation of the
anticipated. A lower minimum load limit significantly decreases CCPPs receives considerable attention (see Table 4). Kim
the number of shutdowns and start-ups, representing an et al. (2000) studied the effect of CCPP cold start-up with a
economically viable option for the operator in the electricity flue gas bypass on thermal stress in the drum of a single-pressure
market. Typical gas turbines can decrease their load to 40–50%, HRSG. The results show that the operation of the flue gas bypass
with a possible further reduction to 20% if a sequential- can be scheduled to mitigate thermal stress peaks at the inner
combustion design is used (i.e., each GT burner can be drum surface. Despite model simplifications, this work was one of
shutdown entirely). the first studies that consider the thermal stress in combined-
This section gives an overview of the published studies on cycle operation. Alobaid et al. (2008) developed a dynamic
dynamic simulation applied to combined-cycle power plants. process simulation model of a commercial-scale triple-pressure
Since the gas turbine is an inherently flexible component, the HRSG with reheat, based on the six-equation flow model of the
bulk of the studies in the literature are dedicated to the heat thermo-hydraulic process simulation software APROS. The gas
recovery steam generator due to its considerable inertia and turbine was simplified as a time-dependent boundary condition
delayed system response. Relevant published studies on the of exhaust gas mass flow and temperature. A warm start-up

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 18 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

TABLE 4 | Overview of dynamic simulation studies applied to combined-cycle power plants.

Type of investigation Software References Comment

Load changes and off-design operation APROS Alobaid (2018a), Alobaid et al. (2015a), Ata et al. • Operational flexibility of CCPPs during off-
(2020) design operation and load changes are
found in the literature, mainly focused on
the dynamic response of the water/steam
bottoming cycle
ASPEN PLUS Alobaid et al. (2014), Alobaid et al. (2015a), Sabia • Different dynamic process simulation
DYNAMICS, ASPEN et al. (2019) software (in-house and commercial) have
HYSYS been employed
MODELICA (e.g., Benato et al. (2016a), Benato et al. (2016b),
DYMOLA, Benato et al. (2014), Benato et al. (2015), El Hefni
JModelica.org) et al. (2011), Montañés et al. (2021)
MATLAB SIMULINK Bracco (2012), HAN et al. (2010), Hasan et al.
(2014), Mattos et al. (2016), Wenjing et al. (2020)
Others (e.g., in-house Ahmed et al. (2018), Chacartegui et al. (2011),
codes, MISTRAL) Ngoma (2001), Rovira et al. (2010), Shin et al.
(2002), Sunil et al. (2018)
Start-up and shutdown procedures (hot, APROS Alobaid (2018b), Alobaid et al. (2012), Alobaid • The dynamic modeling of CCPPs during
warm, and cold) et al. (2008), Alobaid et al. (2015b), Alobaid et al. shutdown/start-up procedure has been
(2009), Angerer et al. (2017), Ata et al. (2020), reported frequently in the literature using
Mertens et al. (2016), Mertens et al. (2015), different software
Mertens et al. (2016)
ASPEN PLUS Alobaid et al. (2014), Alobaid et al. (2015b), Ata • The dynamic optimization under thermal
DYNAMICS, ASPEN et al. (2020), Sabia et al. (2019) stress restraints receives less attention and
HYSYS should be the focus of future research
MODELICA (e.g., Albanesi et al. (2006), Casella and Pretolani • Many studies validated the numerical
DYMOLA, (2006), Meinke (2013) results toward real operational data
JModelica.org)
MATLAB SIMULINK Nannarone and Klein (2019), Sindareh-Esfahani
et al. (2014), Wenjing et al. (2020)
Others (e.g., in-house Can Gülen and Kim (2014), Casella et al. (2011),
codes, DBS, TRAX) Cha et al. (2011), Lopez-Negrete et al. (2013),
Rossi et al. (2017), Tică et al. (2012), Walter and
Hofmann (2011)
Other applications (e.g., island operation, e.g., in-house codes, Casella and Colonna (2012), Chen et al. (2016), • The dynamic modeling of CCPPs during
malfunction cases, compressed-air energy APROS, DYMOLA, Lee et al. (2014), Ponce et al. (2016), Sciacovelli malfunction cases are less presented
storage, integrated gasification combined- SOLARDYN et al. (2017), Spelling et al. (2012), Sun et al. • Hybrid concepts that integrate solar
cycle, integrated solar combined-cycle plant, (2011), Temraz et al. (2020a) power, gasification process, chemical
dynamic instabilities, integrated chemical- looping in the CCPPs were proposed and
looping combined-cycle plant) dynamically simulated

FIGURE 8 | Operational data and simulated results of the high-pressure feed water and steam mass flow rates using three different software during a load change
scenario (source Ata et al., 2020).

procedure was simulated and the numerical results are in close followed by a hot start-up of a commercial-scale triple-pressure
agreement with measurement data. In another work of the same HRSG with reheat using APROS. The simulated results were
group Mertens et al. (2016), investigated the shutdown procedure compared with the operation data, showing generally good

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 19 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

FIGURE 9 | Operational data and simulated results of the high-pressure circuit during the hot start-up and shutdown procedure (source Mertens et al., 2016).

agreement (see Figure 9). However, the model underestimated with pressure stresses were applied to evaluate the material
the thermal inertia of the real plant, which in turn results in fatigue caused by start-up and shutdown cycles.
deviation, especially the sudden pressure drop after shutdown. Discontinuities such as weld connections and surface
Recently, the same group published several studies regarding hot, irregularities are considered by a factor that reduces the
warm, and start-up procedures of the CCPP using different fatigue strength. The results show that there was a significant
software such as ASPEN PLUS DYNAMICS and Power Plant potential for reducing the start-up time, while keeping acceptable
Simulator and Designer (Alobaid et al., 2015b; Alobaid, 2018b; component life of the thick-walled components. Mertens et al.
Sabia et al., 2019; Ata et al., 2020). Meinke (2013) developed a (2015) compared the dynamic behavior of two triple-pressure
dynamic process simulation model of a triple-pressure HRSG HRSG models (drum-type and once-through) for cold, warm,
with reheat based on the homogeneous flow model of the and hot start-up procedures using the software APROS. The
software DYMOLA/MODELICA. The model was validated study concludes that the once-through HRSG is favorable for
with measurement data of a hot start-up procedure to 54% combined-cycle plants with enhanced flexibility requirements, at
load, showing a fair agreement. Hack et al. (2012) presented a the cost of slightly increased heat exchanger surface of the HP
methodology for the dynamic simulation of HRSG during cold circuit (approximately 9% in the given case). Nannarone and
and warm start-up. The calculated thermal stresses combined Klein (2019) developed a flexible dynamic process simulation

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 20 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

TABLE 5 | Overview of dynamic simulation studies applied to coal-fired power plants.

Type of investigation Software References Comment

Load changes and off-design operation APROS Hentschel et al. (2017), Kuronen et al. (2018), • Few dynamic models of coal-fired power
Lappalainen et al. (2012), Rakopoulos et al. plants have been presented in the literature
(2017), Roth et al. (2005), Schuhbauer, (2013),
Schuhbauer et al. (2014), Starkloff et al.
(2015), Zehtner et al. (2008)
ASPEN PLUS DYNAMICS, Harun et al. (2012), Jin et al. (2014a), Jin et al. • Off-design operation and load changes
ASPEN HYSYS (2014b), Kuczynski et al. (2011), Luo et al. by increasing flexibility requirements are in
(2015), Luo et al. (2014) the focus of interest
MODELICA (e.g., DYMOLA, Chen et al. (2017), Marx-Schubach and
JModelica.org) Schmitz (2019), Richter et al. (2015)
MATLAB SIMULINK Bhambare et al. (2007), Lu (1999), Nevriva
et al. (2011), Wang et al. (2012)
Others (e.g., in-house codes, Liu et al. (2015); Zhao et al. (2018)
GSE, DBSSP)
Start-up and shutdown procedures (hot, APROS Deng et al. (2017), Lappalainen et al. (2012) • The dynamic modeling of coal-fired
warm, and cold) power plants during the shutdown/start-
up procedure receives less attention
ASPEN PLUS DYNAMICS, Luo et al. (2014) • The lack of available data for validation of the
ASPEN HYSYS developed models is a major challenge
MODELICA (e.g., DYMOLA, Hübel et al. (2017), Meinke et al. (2011),
JModelica.org) Runvik, (2014)
MATLAB SIMULINK Neuman et al. (2002)
Others (e.g., in-house codes, Li et al. (2005)
GSE, DBSSP)
Other applications (e.g., malfunction cases, e.g., in-house codes, Bui et al. (2014), de Klerk et al. (2020), Dutta • The investigation into the dynamic
oxy-combustion coal-fired power plants, APROS, DYMOLA, et al. (2017), Gwebu and Rousseau (2018), behavior during malfunction cases (e.g.,
fluidized bed power plant, coal-fired power FLOWNEX, gPROMS, GSE Harun et al. (2012), Kuczynski et al. (2011), blackout) have been reported
plants with carbon capture technologies, Lappalainen et al. (2014), Laubscher and • Recently published studies evaluated the
integration of thermal energy storage) Rousseau (2020), Lawal et al. (2010), Lawal possible integration of a thermal energy
et al. (2012), Le Grange et al. (2018), Luo et al. storage system in the process of coal-
(2015), Marx-Schubach and Schmitz (2019), fired power plants for improving the load
Mikkonen et al. (2017), Nittaya et al. (2014), flexibility
Postler et al. (2011), Richter et al. (2019), • The dynamic simulation of coal-fired
Starkloff et al. (2016), Stefanitsis et al. (2020), power plants with carbon capture
Wang et al. (2017) technologies (e.g., the combustion of coal
with a nitrogen-free oxidant (oxyfuel concept)
or post-combustion CO2 capture with MEA
recently received a lot of attention

™
model using the Simulink environment. The model contains
more than 100 process components including heat exchangers,
Dynamics of Coal-Fired Power Plant
Even though the technology of coal-fired power is well known,
valves, and turbines in addition to the control structures. The there is still potential for further improvement regarding load
model was validated against operational data of three different gradients, minimal load limit, and start-up procedure, which can
start-up types (cold, warm, and hot start-ups). According to the be explored using dynamic simulation. At the early stage of
authors, the simulation can identify the bottlenecks in the start- development, the dynamic process simulation models of coal-
up procedure of the existing CCPP and devise several fired power plants are used to reach higher efficiency and to
optimization actions. Accordingly, a reduction in the start-up reduce emissions at off-design operation points as well as to
times of 32.5 and 31.8% for cold and warm has been achieved. In investigate the system behavior during malfunction cases (e.g.,
another study presented by Albanesi et al. (2006), the cold start- steam turbine trip, blackout, failure in feed water preheaters or
up procedure was optimized for different stress constraints of the pumps). Given challenges for the electricity market with the
ST rotor by manipulation of the GT load and the valve position continuing expansion of intermittent renewables, the
for ST admission. The required start-up time was reduced by 20 operational flexibility including load changes, start-up
and 48% for a conservative stress constraint and a standard stress procedures and minimal load limit is recent of interest to
constraint, respectively. For optimization purposes Casella and utilities’ operators. This section summarizes the existing body
Pretolani (2006), developed a simplified model of a triple- of literature on dynamic process simulation applied to coal-fired
pressure HRSG using DYMOLA/MODELICA. The results power plants (see Table 5).
show that the thermal stress peak is at the beginning of the In 1982 Armor et al. (1982), presended one of the most
ST loading phase and that both peak stress and start-up time can detailed dynamic process simulation models of a coal-fired
be considerably decreased with regard to the reference procedure. power plant (Mystic Unit 7 power plant with an electrical

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 21 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

FIGURE 10 | Operational data and simulated results of the high-pressure and reheater circuits during load change scenario (source Starkloff et al., 2015).

output of 550 MW) using a tool, so-called modular modeling optimization of the start-up progress without exceeding the
system. Although the developed model of the thermal power threshold values. Kruger et al. (2001) and Krüger et al. (2004)
plant was similar to the real plant, the fuel in the steam generator extended the drum-based boiler model of Astroem (Åström and
due to simplification reasons was replaced with oil. Representing Bell, 2000), giving a very good overview of the start-up procedure
the entire thermal power plant with this model was as well as the initial conditions. The standard classic start-up
unconventional at that time. A promising match between the curves were simulated, followed by a stress-optimized start-up
model and the operational data has been shown. Lu (1999) curve. Meinke et al. (2011) presented a detailed model of
developed a dynamic process simulation model of Castle Peak 508 MWel hard coal-fired plants located in Rostock, Germany.
B power plant in Hong Kong with an electrical output of 677 MW All required process components and their related control
using MATLAB/SIMULINK. The model quality is evaluated structures were modeled using the simulation platform
against the response to step changes (a change in the main MODELICA and the non-commercial library ThermoPower.
pressure step and a sudden position change of the main steam For the model validation, the authors compared the model
valve). Oko and Wang (2014) presented a dynamic process predictions with the operational data during a start-up
simulation model of an entire coal-fired power plant procedure from 0 to 9% after 37 h shutdown period. The
(500 MWel) at the Didcot power station. The model was results match very well with the operational data of the start-
validated with measurements at steady-state operational points up procedure (240 min).
for 70, 80, 94.4, and 100% load. With the validated model, Taler et al. (2015) developed a dynamic simulation model of a
transient simulations have then been performed. Starkloff large-scale lignite power plant with a sub-critical natural
et al. (2015) developed a sub-critical, once-through steam circulation boiler. The model was applied to optimize the
generator of Heilbronn Power Station located in Germany start-up curves, taking into account the thermal stresses of the
with a thermal power input of 1860 MW and an electrical thick-walled components. Hübel et al. (2017) introduced a
output of 760 MW. The number of model boundary comprehensive dynamic simulation model of a coal-fired
conditions is minimized (only the coal composition, the inlet power plant using ThermalPower Library by Modelon.
temperatures, and the mass flow rates of the cooling water into According to the authors, the model was able to reproduce a
the condensers). The developed model and its implemented representative hot start scenario with acceptable deviations
controls are evaluated during a load change scenario from 100 toward the measurement data. After model validation with the
to 22.7% (see Figure 10: Operational data and simulated results of reference start-up, faster start-ups, less fuel consumption, and less
the high-pressure and reheater circuits during load change emission were identified, maintaining the thermal and
scenario (source Starkloff et al., 2015)). The numerical results mechanical stress, caused by higher ramp rates, within
were compared towards the operational data, showing very good reasonably range.
agreement. All in all, many dynamic process simulation studies on
In coal-fired power plants, the start-up procedure represents coal-fired power plants can be found in the literature, but the
the most crucial operation process since the thick-walled lack of available data for validation of the developed models
components expose high pressure and temperature gradients. represents here a major challenge. In the last decade, the
The start-up curves of coal-fired power plants are often set based attention of authors is shifted toward the integration of
on operational experience and conservative assumptions. Here, thermal energy storage as well as carbon capture and
the dynamic simulation models are of high relevance for the storage, especially oxyfuel combustion. Here, the dynamic

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 22 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

TABLE 6 | Overview of dynamic simulation studies applied to concentrated solar power plants, geothermal power plants, and waste-to-power plants.

Type of Software References Comment

investigation

Concentrated solar TRNSYS Bakos and Petroglou (2014), Biencinto et al. (2016), • Most dynamic studies in the literature are related to
power plant Calise et al. (2015), Cao et al. (2013), Jones et al. (2001), parabolic trough CSP, few studies on the central
Muren et al. (2011), Niknia and Yaghoubi (2012) receiver and linear fresnel reflector systems, and no
APROS Al-Maliki (2017), Al-Maliki et al. (2016), Al-Maliki et al. studies on parabolic dish systems
(2016), Hakkarainen et al. (2015), Henrion et al. (2013),
Terdalkar et al. (2015)
ASPEN PLUS DYNAMICS, Greenhut et al. (2010)
ASPEN HYSYS
MODELICA (e.g., DYMOLA, Bonilla et al. (2012), Liu et al. (2015), Manno et al. (2020), • Most studies focus on system-level plant dynamics
JModelica.org) Mertens et al. (2014), Singh et al. (2013) considering transient solar radiation, while other
MATLAB SIMULINK Bonilla et al. (2012), Ponce et al. (2016), Yousef Nezhad studies investigated the dynamic behavior of sub-
and Hoseinzadeh (2017) systems such as thermal energy storage
Others (e.g., in-house codes Manenti and Ravaghi-Ardebili (2013), Rodat et al. (2014),
ACSP, DYNSIM, alstom SRSG) Terdalkar et al. (2015), Vitte et al. (2012)
Waste-to-power e.g., APROS, MATLAB Alobaid et al. (2018b), Alobaid et al. (2020), Beiron et al. • In the literature, the dynamic behavior of waste-to-
plant SIMULINK (2019), Quoilin et al. (2011), Stefanitsis et al. (2020), power plant is rarely investigated
Udono and Sitte (2008) • The variation of waste lower heating value has a
considerable influence on the water-steam cycle
and therefore the dynamic process simulation
models are of high relevance to improve the plant
efficiency

process simulation models are mostly applied to evaluate the Fresnel reflector systems. However, no studies in the field of
switch over from air to oxygen combustion and load changes. dynamic simulation for parabolic dish systems have been
Although no large-scale oxyfuel-fired plants exist (measured published in the literature according to the authors’ best
data is not available), several works can be found in the knowledge yet. García et al. (2011) presented one of the
literature, summarized in Table 5. fundamental studies on the dynamic modeling of the parabolic
trough CSP plant that is based on the 50 MWel solar thermal
power plant Andasol II in Granada, Spain. The model was
Dynamics of Renewable-Based Steam generated using Wolfram’s MATHEMATICA 7 software. Al-
Cycles Maliki et al. (2016) and Al-Maliki W. et el. (2016) used the design
Over the past years, renewable electricity generation has steadily and measurement data from García et al. (2011) to develop a very
increased. In 2018, the total share of worldwide electricity detailed model of Andasol II, including the solar field, the thermal
generation based on renewable energy sources (mainly wind storage system, and the power block using the simulation
power, solar, and hydropower) was 28% and this will expand software APROS. The comparison between measurement and
to reach approximately 49% in 2050 according to the simulation shows good agreement. According to the authors, the
International Energy Agency (IEA). In the following section, discrepancies raised in the modeling related to unknown operator
the dynamic process simulation model applied for renewable- behavior. Liu et al. (2015) evaluated the dynamic behavior of a
based power plants with steam cycles will be reviewed (see thermal storage system integrated into a 1 MWel central receiver
Table 6). direct steam generation plant. The model of the thermal storage
system that consists of an oil-operated cold and hot tank, as well
Dynamics of Concentrated Solar Power Plants as a steam accumulator, is built in DYMOLA by means of the
Since the CSP plant is dynamic, considerable numbers of MODELICA library “ThermoSysPro”. Further published works
dynamic studies that investigate the performance under on the application of dynamic process models to concentrated
different solar irradiance conditions can be found in the solar power plants can be found among others in Table 6.
literature. Furthermore, start-up procedures, capacity, and
dynamics of thermal storage systems during charge and Dynamics of Waste-To-Energy Power Plants
discharge cycles, as well as the annual electrical power output, Although the solid waste is known for its varying composition
have been simulated and evaluated. For the dynamic process (variation of lower heating value, which in turn has
simulation of the CSPs, the well-known commercial software that considerable influence on the water/steam cycle and
used for other steam cycle applications is generally applied such accordingly on the plant operation), a limited number of
as DYMOLA, TRNSYS, and APROS. The parabolic trough CSP dynamic simulation studies on fluidized bed systems fired by
plant is widely deployed and therefore is commonly used to non-conventional fuels and incineration plants can be found
validate the dynamic process simulation models. Other studies in the literature (see Table 6). Despite the dynamic nature of
analyzed the dynamic behavior of the central receiver and linear the operation, the solid waste incinerator is almost not

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 23 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

considered in the dynamic studies apart from a few operating modes, off-design operation, and integration with
exceptions such as the work of Alobaid et al. (2018b), who thermal storage.
developed a dynamic simulation model of a waste incinerator
using APROS. The model was used to investigate the Dynamic Process Simulation
influence of waste heating value variations on the plant The dynamic simulation becomes an integral part of the design
efficiency as well as to evaluate the plant behavior at part and operation of steam cycles. It is preferred for the proposal
loads and during the start-up procedures. stage of a thermal power plant project, e.g., to check whether the
load changes according to specific customer requirements are
feasible without unacceptable lifetime consumption in thick-
CONCLUSION walled components. The dynamic simulation is also a cost-
efficient approach to support unit commissioning and regular
Although someone can consider steam cycles as an obsolete operation by estimating component lifetime and directing
technology, the analysis of the literature has shown that steam maintenance. The basic task for dynamic simulation models is
cycles are still the object of research and development efforts to to calculate the response of power plants and their control circuits
improve their efficiency, operational flexibility, and range of to a change in load demand (e.g., load change and start-up).
applicability (i.e., tailoring their design for novel concepts of Furthermore, these models can reliably predict the power plant
power plants such as concentrated solar power plants, integrated response to malfunctions (e.g., gas turbine load rejection, steam
solar combined-cycle, waste to energy plants, electricity/ turbine trip, and blackout) and to modifications in design and
hydrogen/synfuels polygeneration plants). A key rule in the control structures (e.g., once-through super-critical heat recovery
research and development activities is being played by steam generator and oxyfuel pulverized coal-fired power plant).
simulation and optimization codes, which are used to predict In the literature, the dynamic process simulation models applied
the effects of the design/control improvements on the frequently to fossil-based and renewable-based steam cycles,
performance of the overall power plant. showing that:

Design Calculation and Optimization • At different part loads and off-design operations, the
As far as conventional steam cycles are concerned (i.e., coal-fired dynamic simulation models can follow the measurement
power plants, heat recovery steam cycles for combined cycles), the with a maximum relative error of about 5–10%. Several
design calculation of conventional steam cycles can be performed parameters showed, however, a relative error of less
with commercially available software, and the optimization of the than 5%.
independent cycle design variables can be performed either via • During start-up and shutdown procedures, the dynamic
sensitivity analysis or by linking the design calculation code with simulation models can reproduce the qualitative behavior of
an external optimization algorithm (black-box optimization the real power plant but larger discrepancies between
approach). Some works tackle the optimization of the cycle simulations and measurements were observed. These
variables using the equation-oriented approach, although this were attributed to incomplete information on real
requires the use of mathematical programming languages and the operation and control circuits.
definition of the cycle modeling equations as constraints of the • Several commercial software for the dynamic process
optimization problem. The optimization of the cycle simulation of steam cycle processes are available (e.g.,
configuration (also called structural optimization or synthesis) APROS, ASPEN PLUS DYNAMICS). However, there are
involves binary/discrete decisions and it can be handled with the key challenges in modeling power plant dynamics such as
black-box approach using specific algorithms able to handle the required information on the process and its control (e.g.,
function discontinuities and/or a limited number of binary detailed geometry data and specifications of the process
variables (e.g., evolutionary algorithms). The same simulation components as well as the control circuits and the controller
and black-box optimization approaches can be applied to non- parameters including gain, integration time, and derivation
conventional cycles featuring a single heat source and a limited time). Recently published studies are dedicated to shifting
number of possible structural configurations, like concentrated the field of dynamic simulation away from commercial
solar power plants and waste-to-energy plants. software toward more openly accessible models and
Significantly, more challenging is the design optimization of software tools (e.g., OpenModelica).
non-conventional steam cycles recovering heat from multiple heat
sources (e.g., integrated gasification combined cycles, integrated Possible Research Extensions
solar combined cycles, polygeneration plants) because the While the steady-state optimization of steam cycle power plants
combinatorial nature of heat exchanger network arrangement has been well studied in literature and several optimization
leads to a large number of possible structural configurations (to approaches are available, none of the reviewed works performs
be combined with the possible cycle structural configurations). For the combined optimization of cycle design, off-design operation,
this kind of plants, the energy targeting and the superstructure- and plant dynamics (start-up/shut-down, ramping). This open
based synthesis approaches developed by the process engineering challenge should be the object of future research efforts since it is
community should be adopted. The most recent and complete of high relevance for today’s electricity markets. Indeed,
superstructure-based approaches can account for the expected dispatchable power plants must be designed with increased

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 24 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

flexibility requirements. However, since the dynamic flexibility of of further study. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the
steam cycles is also limited by thermo-mechanical stresses acting dynamic study of municipal waste incinerators.
on thick-wall components (e.g., steam turbine shaft and case,
boiler tube headers, drums, etc), this calls for the development of
a multidisciplinary design optimization approach combining AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
steady-state design models, dynamic plant models as well as
detailed mechanical models of the most critical equipment EM and CE wrote the sections on steam cycle optimization
units. This further increases the complexity of the simulation/ approaches while FA the sections on dynamic simulations.
optimization problem calling for the development of ad hoc
numerical approaches and computer codes.
Another research gap is concerns the dyanamic study of integrated ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
gasification combined cycles. Indeed, while the dynamic of the
combined-cycle power, coal-fired power, and concentrated solar The authors thank Michael Erbes (Enginomix), John Gulen
power is well studied in the literature, the dynamic of integrated (Bechtel Fellow), Paolo Chiesa, and Giovanni Lozza
gasification combined cycles and the interaction with the syngas (Politecnico di Milano) for sharing their knowledge on steam
treatment unit is not well understood and have to be the subject cycle simulation codes.

Combined Cycle Power Plants - Part A: Part Loads and Off-Design Operation.
REFERENCES Fuel 153, 692–706. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.010
Alobaid, F., Starkloff, R., Pfeiffer, S., Karner, K., Epple, B., and Kim, H. G. (2015b).
Ahmed, A. S. E. D., Elhosseini, M. A., and Arafat Ali, H. (2018). Modelling and A Comparative Study of Different Dynamic Process Simulation Codes for
Practical Studying of Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Drum Dynamics Combined Cycle Power Plants - Part B: Start-Up Procedure. Fuel 153, 707–716.
and Approach point Effect on Control Valves. Ain Shams Eng. J. 9 (4), doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.011
3187–3196. doi:10.1016/j.asej.2018.06.004 Alobaid, F. (2018b). Start-up Improvement of a Supplementary-Fired Large
Al-Maliki, W. A. K., Alobaid, F., Kez, V., and Epple, B. (2016). Modelling and Combined-Cycle Power Plant. J. Process Control. 64, 71–88. doi:10.1016/
Dynamic Simulation of a Parabolic Trough Power Plant. J. Process Control. 39, j.jprocont.2018.02.007
123–138. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2016.01.002 Alobaid, F., Ströhle, J., Epple, B., and Kim, H.-G. (2009). Dynamic Simulation of a
Al-Maliki, W. A. K., Alobaid, F., Starkloff, R., Kez, V., and Epple, B. (2016). Supercritical Once-Through Heat Recovery Steam Generator during Load
Investigation on the Dynamic Behaviour of a Parabolic Trough Power Plant Changes and Start-Up Procedures. Appl. Energ. 86 (7-8), 1274–1282.
during Strongly Cloudy Days. Appl. Therm. Eng. 99, 114–132. doi:10.1016/ doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.013
j.applthermaleng.2015.11.104 AMPL (2021). AMPL Software Webpage. Available at: https://ampl.com/ (Accessed
Al-Maliki, W. A. K. (2017). Modelling, Optimization and Dynamic Simulation of a May 5, 2021).
Parabolic Trough Power Plant. Technische Universität Darmstadt. Angerer, M., Kahlert, S., and Spliethoff, H. (2017). Transient Simulation and
Albanesi, C., Bossi, M., Magni, L., Paderno, J., Pretolani, F., Kuehl, P., and Diehl, M. Fatigue Evaluation of Fast Gas Turbine Startups and Shutdowns in a Combined
(2006). “Optimization of the Start-Up Procedure of a Combined Cycle Power Cycle Plant with an Innovative thermal Buffer Storage. Energy 130, 246–257.
Plant,” in Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.104
Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, USA, December 13–15, 2006. APROS (2021). Apros Product Website. Available at: https://www.apros.fi/
doi:10.1109/cdc.2006.376749 applications/engineering-support/ (Accessed May 5, 2021).
Alobaid, F., Al-Maliki, W. A. K., Lanz, T., Haaf, M., Brachthäuser, A., Epple, B., Armor, A., W. Shor, S., DiDomenico, P., Bennett, W., and Smith, L. (1982).
et al. (2018a). Dynamic Simulation of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator. Dynamic Performance of Fossil-Fueled Power Plants. IEEE Trans. Power
Energy 149, 230–249. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.170 Apparatus Syst. PAS-101 (10), 4136–4146. doi:10.1109/tpas.1982.317092
Alobaid, F., Al-Maliki, W. A. K., Lanz, T., Haaf, M., Brachthäuser, A., Epple, B., Aspen Tech (2021). Aspen Plus Process Simulation Software, Webpage. Available
et al. (2018b). Dynamic Simulation of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator. at: https://www.aspentech.com/en/products/engineering/aspen-plus (Accessed
Energy 149, 230–249. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.170 May 5, 2021).
Alobaid, F., Karner, K., Belz, J., Epple, B., and Kim, H.-G. (2014). Numerical and Åström, K. J., and Bell, R. D. (2000). Drum-boiler Dynamics. Automatica 36 (3),
Experimental Study of a Heat Recovery Steam Generator during Start-Up 363–378. doi:10.1016/s0005-1098(99)00171-5
Procedure. Energy 64, 1057–1070. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.007 Avagianos, I., Rakopoulos, D., Karellas, S., and Kakaras, E. (2020). Review of
Alobaid, F., Mertens, N., Starkloff, R., Lanz, T., Heinze, C., and Epple, B. (2017). Process Modeling of Solid-Fuel Thermal Power Plants for Flexible and Off-
Progress in Dynamic Simulation of thermal Power Plants. Prog. Energ. Design Operation. Energies 13 (24), 6587. doi:10.3390/en13246587
Combustion Sci. 59, 79–162. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2016.11.001 Aviso, K. B., Lee, J.-Y., Dulatre, J. C., Madria, V. R., Okusa, J., and Tan, R. R. (2017).
Alobaid, F. (2018a). Numerical Simulation for Next Generation Thermal Power A P-Graph Model for Multi-Period Optimization of Sustainable Energy
Plants. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76234-0 Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 1338–1351. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.044
Alobaid, F., Peters, J., Amro, R., and Epple, B. (2020). Dynamic Process Babaelahi, M., Mofidipour, E., and Rafat, E. (2020). Combined Energy-Exergy-
Simulation for Polish lignite Combustion in a 1 MWth Circulating Control (CEEC) Analysis and Multi-Objective Optimization of Parabolic
Fluidized Bed during Load Changes. Appl. Energ. 278, 115662. Trough Solar Collector Powered Steam Power Plant. Energy 201, 117641.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115662 doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.117641
Alobaid, F., Pfeiffer, S., Epple, B., Seon, C. Y., and Kim, H. G. (2012). Fast Start-Up Bachelier, C., and Stieglitz, R. (2017). Design and Optimisation of Linear Fresnel
Analyses for Benson Heat Recovery Steam Generator. Energy 46 (1), 295–309. Power Plants Based on the Direct Molten Salt Concept. Solar Energy 152,
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.08.020 171–192. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2017.01.060
Alobaid, F., Postler, R., Ströhle, J., Epple, B., and Kim, H.-G. (2008). Modeling and Bakos, G. C., and Petroglou, D. A. (2014). Simulation Study of a Large Scale Line-
Investigation Start-Up Procedures of a Combined Cycle Power Plant. Appl. Focus Trough Collector Solar Power Plant in Greece. Renew. Energ. 71, 1–7.
Energ. 85 (12), 1173–1189. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.03.003 doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.053
Alobaid, F., Starkloff, R., Pfeiffer, S., Karner, K., Epple, B., and Kim, H.-G. (2015a). Bany Ata, A., Alobaid, F., Heinze, C., Almoslh, A., Sanfeliu, A., and Epple, B.
A Comparative Study of Different Dynamic Process Simulation Codes for (2020). Comparison and Validation of Three Process Simulation Programs

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 25 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

during Warm Start-Up Procedure of a Combined Cycle Power Plant. Energ. Can Gülen, S., and Kim, K. (2014). Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Dynamic
Convers. Management 207, 112547. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112547 Simulation: a Physics Based Simple Approach. J. Eng. gas turbines Power
Barigozzi, G., Perdichizzi, A., and Ravelli, S. (2011). Wet and Dry Cooling Systems 136 (1), 1–15. doi:10.1115/1.4025318
Optimization Applied to a Modern Waste-To-Energy Cogeneration Heat Cao, F., Li, H., Zhao, L., Bao, T., and Guo, L. (2013). Design and Simulation of the
and Power Plant. Appl. Energ. 88 (4), 1366–1376. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy. Solar Chimney Power Plants with TRNSYS. Solar Energy 98, 23–33.
2010.09.023 doi:10.1016/j.solener.2013.05.022
Beiron, J., Montañés, R. M., Normann, F., and Johnsson, F. (2019). Dynamic Carapellucci, R., and Giordano, L. (2013). A Comparison between Exergetic and
Modeling for Assessment of Steam Cycle Operation in Waste-Fired Combined Economic Criteria for Optimizing the Heat Recovery Steam Generators of Gas-
Heat and Power Plants. Energ. Convers. Management 198, 111926. doi:10.1016/ Steam Power Plants. Energy 58, 458–472. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.003
j.enconman.2019.111926 Carcasci, C., Pacifici, B., Winchler, L., Cosi, L., and Ferraro, R. (2015).
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., and Moran, M. (1996). Thermal Design and Thermoeconomic Analysis of a One-Pressure Level Heat Recovery Steam
Optimization. New York: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1615/ichmt.1996. Generator Considering Real Steam Turbine Cost. Energ. Proced. 82,
transientconvheattransf.220 591–598. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.877
Benato, A., Bracco, S., Stoppato, A., and Mirandola, A. (2016a). Dynamic Casella, F., and Colonna, P. (2012). Dynamic Modeling of IGCC Power Plants.
Simulation of Combined Cycle Power Plant Cycling in the Electricity Appl. Therm. Eng. 35, 91–111. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.10.011
Market. Energ. Convers. Management 107, 76–85. doi:10.1016/ Casella, F., Farina, M., Righetti, F., Faille, D., Tica, A., Gueguen, H., et al.
j.enconman.2015.07.050 (2011). An Optimization Procedure of the Start-Up of Combined Cycle
Benato, A., Bracco, S., Stoppato, A., and Mirandola, A. (2016b). LTE: A Procedure Power Plants. IFAC Proc. Volumes 44 (1), 7043–7048. doi:10.3182/
to Predict Power Plants Dynamic Behaviour and Components Lifetime 20110828-6-it-1002.00604
Reduction during Transient Operation. Appl. Energ. 162, 880–891. Casella, F., and Pretolani, F. (2006). Fast Start-Up of a Combined-Cycle Power
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.162 Plant: A Simulation Study with Modelica in Paper presented at the Modelica
Benato, A., Stoppato, A., and Bracco, S. (2014). Combined Cycle Power Plants: A Conference, Vienna, September 4–5, 2006.
Comparison between Two Different Dynamic Models to Evaluate Transient Cellier, F. E., and Kofman, E. (2006). Continuous System Simulation. Springer
Behaviour and Residual Life. Energ. Convers. Management 87, 1269–1280. Science & Business Media.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.017 Cha, H., Song, Y. S., Kim, K. J., Kim, J. R., and Kim, S. M. (2011). “Dynamic
Benato, A., Stoppato, A., and Mirandola, A. (2015). Dynamic Behaviour Analysis of Simulation of a HRSG System for a Given Start-Up/Shut Down Curve,” in
a Three Pressure Level Heat Recovery Steam Generator during Transient Paper presented at the ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering
Operation. Energy 90, 1595–1605. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.117 Congress and Exposition, Denver, CO, USA, November 11–17, 2011.
Bhambare, K., Mitra, S. K., and Gaitonde, U. (2007). Modeling of a Coal-Fired Chacartegui, R., Sánchez, D., Muñoz, A., and Sánchez, T. (2011). Real Time
Natural Circulation Boiler. OSTI. Simulation of Medium Size Gas Turbines. Energ. Convers. Management 52 (1),
Biegler, L. T. (2007). An Overview of Simultaneous Strategies for Dynamic 713–724. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.07.050
Optimization. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensification 46 (11), Chen, C., Han, L., and Bollas, G. M. (2016). Dynamic Simulation of Fixed-bed
1043–1053. doi:10.1016/j.cep.2006.06.021 Chemical-looping Combustion Reactors Integrated in Combined Cycle Power
Biegler, L. T., Grossmann, I. E., and Westerberg, A. W. (1997). Systematic Methods Plants. Energ. Technology 4 (10), 1209–1220. doi:10.1002/ente.201600079
for Chemical Process Design. Prentice-Hall. Chen, C., Zhou, Z., and Bollas, G. M. (2017). Dynamic Modeling, Simulation and
Biegler, L. T. (2010). Nonlinear Programming: Concepts, Algorithms, and Optimization of a Subcritical Steam Power Plant. Part I: Plant Model and
Applications to Chemical Processes. SIAM. doi:10.1137/1.9780898719383 Regulatory Control. Energ. Convers. Management 145, 324–334. doi:10.1016/
Biencinto, M., González, L., and Valenzuela, L. (2016). A Quasi-Dynamic j.enconman.2017.04.078
Simulation Model for Direct Steam Generation in Parabolic Troughs Using Chiesa, P., and Macchi, E. (2004). A Thermodynamic Analysis of Different Options
TRNSYS. Appl. Energ. 161, 133–142. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.001 to Break 60% Electric Efficiency in Combined Cycle Power Plants. J. Eng. Gas
Bogale, W., and Viganò, F. (2014). A Preliminary Comparative Performance Turbines Power 126 (4), 770–785.
Evaluation of Highly Efficient Waste-To-Energy Plants. Energ. Proced. 45, Choo, Y. K., and Staiger, P. J. (1982). New Features And Applications Of PRESTO:
1315–1324. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.137 A Computer Code For the Performance Of Regenerative, Superheated Steam
Bongartz, D., Najman, J., and Mitsos, A. (2020). Deterministic Global Optimization Turbine Cycles: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Scientific and
of Steam Cycles Using the IAPWS-IF97 Model. Optimization Eng. 3 (21), Technical.
1095–1131. doi:10.1007/s11081-020-09502-1 Conn, A. R., Scheinberg, K., and Vicente, L. N. (2009). Introduction to
Bongartz, D., Najman, J., Sass, S., and Mitsos, A. (2018). MAiNGO–McCormick- Derivative-free Optimization. SIAM.
Based Algorithm For Mixedinteger Nonlinear Global Optimization: Process Consonni, S. (1983). Performance Prediction of Gas/Steam Cycles for Power
Systems Engineering (AVT.SVT). RWTH Aachen University. Generation. Princeton university MAE Dept, Ph.D Thesis n. 1983-T.
Bonilla, J., Yebra, L. J., Dormido, S., and Zarza, E. (2012). Parabolic-trough Solar Conte, E., and Pedretti, C. (2011). “Thermo-Economic Optimization of the CCPP
thermal Power Plant Simulation Scheme, Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm Design with Supplementary Firing Considering Off-Design Performance and
Calibration and Validation. Solar Energy 86 (1), 531–540. doi:10.1016/ Operating Profile,” in Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition,
j.solener.2011.10.025 Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 6–10, 2011 (ASME 2011 Turbo Expo),
Bracco, S. (2012). “Dynamic Simulation of Combined Cycles Operating in 621–631. doi:10.1115/GT2011-45550
Transient Conditions: an Innovative Approach to Determine the Steam Cooke, D. H. (1983). “Modeling of Off-Design Multistage Turbine Pressures by
Drums Life Consumption,” in The 25th International Conference on Stodola’s Ellipse,” in Paper presented at the Energy Incorporated PEPSE User’s
Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Group Meeting, Richmond, VA.
Energy Systems, June 26–29, 2012, Perugia, Italy. Crowe, C. M., and Nishio, M. (1975). Convergence Promotion in the Simulation of
Bui, M., Gunawan, I., Verheyen, V., Feron, P., Meuleman, E., and Adeloju, S. Chemical Processes-The General Dominant Eigenvalue Method. Aiche J. 21 (3),
(2014). Dynamic Modelling and Optimisation of Flexible Operation in post- 528–533. doi:10.1002/aic.690210314
combustion CO2 Capture Plants-A Review. Comput. Chem. Eng. 61, 245–265. Cycle Tempo (2021). Software Cycle Tempo Webpage. Available at: http://www.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.11.015 asimptote.nl/software/cycle-tempo/ (Accessed May 5, 2021).
Calise, F., d’Accadia, M. D., Vicidomini, M., and Scarpellino, M. (2015). Design and De Greef, J., Villani, K., Goethals, J., Van Belle, H., Van Caneghem, J., and
Simulation of a Prototype of a Small-Scale Solar CHP System Based on Vandecasteele, C. (2013). Optimising Energy Recovery and Use of
Evacuated Flat-Plate Solar Collectors and Organic Rankine Cycle. Energ. Chemicals, Resources and Materials in Modern Waste-To-Energy Plants.
Convers. Management 90, 347–363. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.11.014 Waste Management 33 (11), 2416–2424. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.026
Cameron, I. T., and Hangos, K. (2001). Process Modelling and Model Analysis. de Klerk, G., Rousseau, P., and Jestin, L. (2020). A Dynamic Modeling
Elsevier. Methodology to Estimate the Magnitude of Unwanted Liquid Flows in High

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 26 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

Temperature Boiler Components. J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 12 (5), 1–30. GateCycle (2021). Gate Cycle Webpage. Available at: http://www.wyattllc.com/
doi:10.1115/1.4046517 GateCycle/GateCycle.html (Accessed April 20, 2021).
Deng, K., Yang, C., Chen, H., Zhou, N., and Huang, S. (2017). Start-Up and General Electric (2021). General Electric Webpage: "Can GE Deliver the Highest
Dynamic Processes Simulation of Supercritical Once-Through Boiler. Appl. Efficiency for My Coal Power Plant?. Available at: https://www.ge.com/power/
Therm. Eng. 115, 937–946. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.01.016 steam/steam-power-plants/advanced-ultra-supercritical-usc-ausc (Accessed
Dersch, J., Geyer, M., Herrmann, U., Jones, S. A., Kelly, B., Kistner, R., et al. (2004). May 5, 2021).
Trough Integration into Power Plants – a Study on the Performance of Gill, P. E., Murray, W., and Saunders, M. A. (2005). SNOPT: An SQP Algorithm for
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Systems. Energy 29, 947–959. doi:10.1016/ Large-Scale Constrained Optimization. SIAM Rev. 47 (1), 99–131. doi:10.1137/
s0360-5442(03)00199-3 s0036144504446096
Duran, M. A., and Grossmann, I. E. (1986). Simultaneous Optimization and Heat Giostri, A., Binotti, M., Astolfi, M., Silva, P., Macchi, E., and Manzolini, G. (2012).
Integration of Chemical Processes. AIChE J. 32 (1), 123–138. doi:10.1002/ Comparison of Different Solar Plants Based on Parabolic through Technology.
aic.690320114 Solar Energy 86 (5), 1208–1221. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2012.01.014
Durán, M. D., Valdés, M., Rovira, A., and Rincón, E. (2013). A Methodology for the gPROMS (2021). The gPROMS Platform. Available at: https://www.psenterprise.
Geometric Design of Heat Recovery Steam Generators Applying Genetic com/products/gproms/platform.
Algorithms. Appl. Therm. Eng. 52 (1), 77–83. doi:10.1016/ Greenhut, A. D., Tester, J. W., DiPippo, R., Field, R., Love, C., Nichols, K., et al.
j.applthermaleng.2012.10.041 (2010). Solar–geothermal Hybrid Cycle Analysis for Low Enthalpy Solar and
Dutta, R., Nord, L. O., and Bolland, O. (2017). Prospects of Using Equilibrium- Geothermal Resources. Proc. World Geothermal Congr. 25–29.
Based Column Models in Dynamic Process Simulation of post-combustion Grossmann, I. E., Viswanathan, J., Vecchietti, A., Ramesh, R., and Erwin, K. (2021).
CO2 Capture for Coal-Fired Power Plant. Fuel 202, 85–97. doi:10.1016/ GAMS Solvers. DICOPT. Available at: http://www.gams.com/ (Accessed May
j.fuel.2017.04.030 5, 2021).
Eberhart, R., and Kennedy, J. (1995). “A New Optimizer Using Particle Swarm Gülen, S. C. (2019). Gas Turbines for Electric Power Generation. Cambridge
Theory. MHS 95,” in Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on University Press. 9781108241625.
micro machine and human science, 39–43. Gulen, S. (2020). Steam Turbine-Quo Vadis?. Front. Energ. Res. 8, 1–20.
Ebsilon Professional (2021). EBSILON Professional Software Webpage. Available at: Gundersen, T., Duvold, S., and Hashemi-Ahmady, A. (1996). An Extended Vertical
www.ebsilon.com (Accessed May 5, 2021). MILP Model for Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 20
El Hefni, B., Bouskela, D., and Lebreton, G. (2011). “Dynamic Modelling of a (21), S97. doi:10.1016/0098-1354(96)00027-0
Combined Cycle Power Plant with ThermoSysPro,” in Proceedings of the 8th Gwebu, E. Z., and Rousseau, P. G. (2018). “Development and Validation of a
International Modelica Conference, Dresden; Germany, March 20th-22nd Process Model for a Superheater Heat Exchanger in a Coal-Fired Power Plant
(Technical Univeristy). Boiler,” in Paper presented at the International Heat Transfer Conference
Elmasri, M. A. (1988). GTPRO: A Flexible, Interactive Computer Program for the Digital Library, Beijing, China, August 11–15, 2018.
Design and Optimization of Gas Turbine Power Systems. Paper presented at the Hack, H., Fan, Z., Seltzer, A., and Alvarez, J. (2012). Advanced Methods of HRSG
Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. Design for Life Cycle Optimization under Fast Startups. POWERGEN Int.,
Elsido, C., Bischi, A., Silva, P., and Martelli, E. (2017). Two-stage MINLP 11–13.
Algorithm for the Optimal Synthesis and Design of Networks of CHP Hakkarainen, E., Tähtinen, M., and Mikkonen, H. (2015). “Dynamic Model
Units. Energy, 403–426. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.014 Development of Linear Fresnel Solar Field,” in Paper presented at the
Elsido, C., Martelli, E., and Grossmann, I. E. (2019). A Bilevel Decomposition ASME 2015 9th International Conference on Energy Sustainability
Method for the Simultaneous Heat Integration and Synthesis of Steam/Organic collocated with the ASME 2015 Power Conference, the ASME 2015 13th
Rankine Cycles. Comput. Chem. Eng. 128, 228–145. doi:10.1016/ International Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and
j.compchemeng.2019.05.041 Technology, and the ASME 2015 Nuclear Forum, San Diego, CA, USA,
Elsido, C., Martelli, E., and Grossmann, I. E. (2018). A Bilevel Decomposition June 28–July 2, 2015.
Method for the Simultaneous Synthesis of Utility Systems, Rankine Cycles and Han, X.-g., Qu, W.-h., Dong, Y., and Nie, H.-g. (2010). Dynamic Simulation Model
Heat Exchanger Networks. Computer Aided Chem. Eng. 43, 373–378. of Gas Turbine Based on Simulink [J]. Aeroengine (3), 1–9.
doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-64235-6.50068-1 Harun, N., Nittaya, T., Douglas, P. L., Croiset, E., and Ricardez-Sandoval, L. A.
Elsido, C., Martelli, E., and Grossmann, I. E. (2020a). Multiperiod Optimization of (2012). Dynamic Simulation of MEA Absorption Process for CO2 Capture
Heat Exchanger Networks with Integrated Thermodynamic Cycles and from Power Plants. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 10, 295–309. doi:10.1016/
Thermal Storages. Comput. Chem. Eng. 149, 107293. doi:10.1016/ j.ijggc.2012.06.017
j.compchemeng.2021.107293 Harvey, A., Larson, A., and Patel, S. (2020). History of Power: The Evolution
Elsido, C., Martelli, E., and Grossmann, I. E. (2020b). Simultaneous Multiperiod of the Electric Generation Industry. Available at: https://www.powermag.
Optimization of Rankine Cycles and Heat Exchanger Networks. Computer com/history-of-power-the-evolution-of-the-electric-generation-industry/
Aided Chem. Eng. 48, 1495–1500. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823377-1.50250-0 (Accessed April 20, 2021).
Elsido, C., Martelli, E., and Kreutz, T. (2019). Heat Integration and Heat Recovery Hasan, N., Rai, J. N., and Arora, B. B. (2014). Optimization of CCGT Power Plant
Steam Cycle Optimization for a Low-Carbon lignite/biomass-to-jet Fuel and Performance Analysis Using MATLAB/Simulink with Actual Operational
Demonstration Project. Appl. Energ. 239, 1322–1342. doi:10.1016/ Data. SpringerPlus 3 (1), 275. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-275
j.apenergy.2019.01.221 Henrion, T., Ponweiser, K., Band, D., and Telgen, T. (2013). Dynamic Simulation
Erbes, M., Gay, R., and Cohn, A. (1989). Gate: A Simulation Code for Analysis of of a Solar Power Plant Steam Generation System. Simulation Model. Pract.
Gas-Turbine Power plantsTurbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. Paper Theor. 33, 2–17. doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2011.12.009
presented at the. Hentschel, J., Zindler, H., and Spliethoff, H. (2017). Modelling and Transient
Floudas, C. A., and Grossmann, I. E. (1986). Synthesis of Flexible Heat Exchanger Simulation of a Supercritical Coal-Fired Power Plant: Dynamic Response to
Networks for Multiperiod Operation. Comput. Chem. Eng. 10, 153–168. Extended Secondary Control Power Output. Energy 137, 927–940. doi:10.1016/
doi:10.1016/0098-1354(86)85027-x j.energy.2017.02.165
Frnc-, 5P. C. (2021). FRNC-5PC Software Webpage. Available at: http://www. Huang, X., Lu, P., Luo, X., Chen, J., Yang, Z., Liang, Y., et al. (2020). Synthesis and
pfrengineering.com/products/frnc-5pc/ (Accessed May 5, 2021). Simultaneous MINLP Optimization of Heat Exchanger Network, Steam
Gams (2021). General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) Webpage. Available at: Rankine Cycle, and Organic Rankine Cycle. Energy 195, 116922.
https://www.gams.com/ (Accessed May 5, 2021). doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.116922
García, I. L., Álvarez, J. L., and Blanco, D. (2011). Performance Model for Parabolic Hübel, M., Meinke, S., Andrén, M. T., Wedding, C., Nocke, J., Gierow, C.,
Trough Solar thermal Power Plants with thermal Storage: Comparison to et al. (2017). Modelling and Simulation of a Coal-Fired Power Plant for
Operating Plant Data. Solar Energy 85 (10), 2443–2460. doi:10.1016/ Start-Up Optimisation. Appl. Energ. 208, 319–331. doi:10.1016/
j.solener.2011.07.002 j.apenergy.2017.10.033

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 27 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

IDA (2021). IDA Package Website. Available at: https://computing.llnl.gov/ Larson, E. D., Fiorese, G., Liu, G., Williams, R. H., Kreutz, T. G., and Consonni, S.
projects/sundials/ida (Accessed May 5, 2021). (2009). Co-production of Synfuels and Electricity from Coal + Biomass with
IEA (2019). World Energy Outlook 2019. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/ Zero Net Carbon Emissions: an Illinois Case Study. Energy Procedia.,
world-energy-outlook-2019. 4371–4378. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.251
Iyer, R. R., and Grossmann, I. E. (1998). Synthesis and Operational Planning of Laubscher, R., and Rousseau, P. (2020). Coupled Simulation and Validation of a
Utility Systems for Multiperiod Operation. Comput. Chem. Eng. 22, 979–993. Utility-Scale Pulverized Coal-Fired Boiler Radiant Final-Stage Superheater.
doi:10.1016/s0098-1354(97)00270-6 Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 18, 100512. doi:10.1016/j.tsep.2020.100512
Jimenez, J., Azapagic, A., and Smith, R. (2019). Novel Methodology for Lawal, A., Wang, M., Stephenson, P., Koumpouras, G., and Yeung, H. (2010).
Cogeneration Targeting with Optimum Steam Level Placement. Computer Dynamic Modelling and Analysis of post-combustion CO2 Chemical
Aided Chem. Eng. 46, 1741–1746. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818634-3.50291-5 Absorption Process for Coal-Fired Power Plants. Fuel 89 (10), 2791–2801.
Jin, B., Zhao, H., and Zheng, C. (2014a). Dynamic Modeling and Control for doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.05.030
Pulverized-Coal-Fired Oxy-Combustion Boiler Island. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Lawal, A., Wang, M., Stephenson, P., and Obi, O. (2012). Demonstrating
Control. 30, 97–117. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.09.002 Full-Scale post-combustion CO2 Capture for Coal-Fired Power Plants
Jin, B., Zhao, H., and Zheng, C. (2014b). Dynamic Simulation for Mode Switching through Dynamic Modelling and Simulation. Fuel 101, 115–128.
Strategy in a Conceptual 600 MWe Oxy-Combustion Pulverized-Coal-Fired doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.10.056
Boiler. Fuel 137, 135–144. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.07.104 Lee, H. H., Lee, J. C., Joo, Y. H., Oh, M., and Lee, C. H. (2014). Dynamic Modeling
Jones, S. A., Pitz-Paal, R., Schwarzboezl, P., Blair, N., and Cable, R. (2001). of Shell Entrained Flow Gasifier in an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
“TRNSYS Modeling of the SEGS VI Parabolic Trough Solar Electric Process. Appl. Energy 131, 425–440.
Generating System,” in Proceedings of Solar Forum 2001: Solar Energy: The Le Grange, W., Lee, H.-H., Lee, J.-C., Joo, Y.-J., Oh, M., and Lee, C.-H. (2018).
Power to Choose, Washington, DC, April 21–25, 2001. Dynamic Modeling of Shell Entrained Flow Gasifier in an Integrated
Kehlhofer, R., Hannemann, F., Stirnimann, F., and Rukes, B. (2009). Combined- Gasification Combined Cycle Process. Appl. Energ. 131, 425–440.
Cycle Gas-Steam Turbine Power Plants. 3rd edition. PennWell. 978-1-59370- doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.044
18-0. Li, B., Chen, T., and Yang, D. (2005). DBSSP––A Computer Program for
Kemp, I. C. (1982). Pinch Analylis and Process Integration. A User Guide on Process Simulation of Controlled Circulation Boiler and Natural Circulation Boiler
Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy. Elsevier. Start up Behavior. Energ. Convers. Management 46 (4), 533–549. doi:10.1016/
Kieslich, C. A., Boukouvala, F., and Floudas, C. A. (2018). Optimization of Black- j.enconman.2004.04.010
Box Problems Using Smolyak Grids and Polynomial Approximations. J. Glob. Li, Y., Zhou, L., Xu, G., Fang, Y., Zhao, S., and Yang, Y. (2014). Thermodynamic
Optimization 71, 845–869. doi:10.1007/s10898-018-0643-0 Analysis and Optimization of a Double Reheat System in an Ultra-supercritical
Kim, T., Lee, D., and Ro, S. (2000). Analysis of thermal Stress Evolution in the Power Plant. Energy 74, 202–214. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.057
Steam Drum during Start-Up of a Heat Recovery Steam Generator. Appl. Linnhoff, B., and Hindmarsh, E. (1983). The Pinch Design Method for Heat
Therm. Eng. 20 (11), 977–992. doi:10.1016/s1359-4311(99)00081-2 Exchanger Networks. Chem. Eng. Sci. 38, 745–763. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(83)
Kler, A., Dekanova, N., and Schegoleva, P. (1993). Methods for Optimizing Complex 80185-7
Heat and Power Plants. Novosibirsk. Liu, C., Wang, H., Ding, J., and Zhen, C. (2012). An Overview of Modelling and
Kler, A. M., Zharkov, P. V., and Epishkin, N. O. (2019). Parametric Optimization of Simulation of thermal Power Plant. Int. J. Adv. Mechatronic Syst. 4 (2), 76–85.
Supercritical Power Plants Using Gradient Methods. Energy 189, 116230. doi:10.1504/ijamechs.2012.048398
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.116230 Liu, J.-Z., Yan, S., Zeng, D.-L., Hu, Y., and Lv, Y. (2015). A Dynamic Model Used
Krüger, K., Franke, R., and Rode, M. (2004). Optimization of Boiler Start-Up Using for Controller Design of a Coal Fired Once-Through Boiler-Turbine Unit.
a Nonlinear Boiler Model and Hard Constraints. Energy 29 (12-15), 2239–2251. Energy 93, 2069–2078. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.077
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.022 Liu, S., Faille, D., Fouquet, M., El-Hefni, B., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., et al. (2015).
Kruger, K., Rode, M., and Franke, R. (2001). “Optimal Control for Fast Boiler Start- Dynamic Simulation of a 1MWe CSP tower Plant with Two-Level thermal
Up Based on a Nonlinear Model and Considering the thermal Stress on Thick- Storage Implemented with Control System. Energ. Proced. 69, 1335–1343.
Walled Components,” in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.03.139
Conference on Control Applications (CCA’01) (Cat. No. 01CH37204), Lopez-Negrete, R., D’Amato, F. J., Biegler, L. T., and Kumar, A. (2013). Fast
Mexico City, Mexico, September 5–7, 2001. Nonlinear Model Predictive Control: Formulation and Industrial Process
Kuczynski, K., Fitzgerald, F., Adams, D., Glover, F., White, V., Chalmers, H., et al. Applications. Comput. Chem. Eng. 51, 55–64. doi:10.1016/
(2011). Dynamic Modelling of Oxyfuel Power Plant. Energ. Proced. 4, j.compchemeng.2012.06.011
2541–2547. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.151 Lozza, G. (1990). “Bottoming Steam Cycles for Combined Gas Steam Power Plants:
Kumar, P. R., Raju, V. R., and Kumar, N. R. (2016). Simulation and Parametric a Theoretical Estimation of Steam Turbine Performance and Cycle Analysis,” in
Optimisation of thermal Power Plant Cycles. Perspect. Sci. 8, 304–306. Proc. 1990 ASME Cogen-Turbo (New Orleans: Louisiana).
doi:10.1016/j.pisc.2016.04.060 Lozza, G. (1988). Thermodynamic Opitmization of Heat Recovery Steam
Kunkel, P., and Mehrmann, V. (2006). Differential-algebraic Equations: Analysis CyclesProceedings of the II National congress “Gruppi Combinati: Prospettive
and Numerical Solution, 2. European Mathematical Society. Tecniche. Florence: economiche”.
Kuravi, S., Trahan, J., Goswami, D. Y., Rahman, M. M., and Stefanakos, E. K. Lu, S. (1999). Dynamic Modelling and Simulation of Power Plant Systems. Proc.
(2013). Thermal Energy Storage Technologies and Systems for Concentrating Inst. Mech. Eng. A: J. Power Energ. 213 (1), 7–22. doi:10.1243/
Solar Power Plants. Prog. Energ. Combustion Sci. 39 (4), 285–319. doi:10.1016/ 0957650991537392
j.pecs.2013.02.001 Luo, W., Wang, Q., Huang, X., Liu, Z., and Zheng, C. (2015). Dynamic Simulation
Kuronen, J., Hotti, M., and Tuuri, S. (2018). Modelling and Dynamic Simulation of and Transient Analysis of a 3 MWth Oxy-Fuel Combustion System. Int.
Cyclically Operated Pulverized Coal-Fired Power Plant in Proceedings of The J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 35, 138–149. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.02.003
9th EUROSIM Congress on Modelling and Simulation, EUROSIM 2016, The Luo, W., Wang, Q., Liu, Z., and Zheng, C. (2014). Dynamic Simulation of the
57th SIMS Conference on Simulation and Modelling SIMS 2016, Oulu, Finland, Transition Process in a 3 MWth Oxy-Fuel Test Facility. Energ. Proced. 63,
September 12–16, 2016. 6281–6288. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.659
Lappalainen, J., Blom, H., and Juslin, K. (2012). Dynamic Process Simulation as an Luo, X., Huang, X., El-Halwagi, M. M., Ponce-Ortega, J. M., and Chen, Y. (2016).
Engineering Tool: A Case of Coal Plant Evaporator Analysis. VGB Powertech Simultaneous Synthesis of Utility System and Heat Exchanger Network
92 (1-2), 62–68. Incorporating Steam Condensate and Boiler Feed Water. Energy 113,
Lappalainen, J., Tourunen, A., Mikkonen, H., Hänninen, M., and Kovács, J. (2014). 875–893. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.109
Modelling and Dynamic Simulation of a Supercritical, Oxy Combustion Ma, J., Chang, C., Wang, Y., and Feng, X. (2018). Multi-objective Optimization of
Circulating Fluidized Bed Power Plant Concept—Firing Mode Switching Multi-Period Interplant Heat Integration Using Steam System. Energy,
Case. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 28, 11–24. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.06.015 950–960. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.217

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 28 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

Maffezzoni, C. (1992). Issues in Modelling and Simulation of Power Plants. IFAC Mertens, N., Alobaid, F., Lanz, T., Epple, B., and Kim, H.-G. (2016). Dynamic
Proc. Volumes 25 (1), 15–23. doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)50423-1 Simulation of a Triple-Pressure Combined-Cycle Plant: Hot Start-Up and
Manassaldi, J. I., Arias, A. M., Scenna, N. J., Mussati, M. C., and Mussati, S. F. Shutdown. Fuel 167, 135–148. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.11.055
(2016). A Discrete and Continuous Mathematical Model for the Optimal Mertens, N., Alobaid, F., Starkloff, R., Epple, B., and Kim, H.-G. (2015).
Synthesis and Design of Dual Pressure Heat Recovery Steam Generators Comparative Investigation of Drum-type and Once-Through Heat Recovery
Coupled to Two Steam Turbines. Energy 103, 807–823. doi:10.1016/ Steam Generator during Start-Up. Appl. Energ. 144, 250–260. doi:10.1016/
j.energy.2016.02.129 j.apenergy.2015.01.065
Manassaldi, J. I., Mussati, S. F., and Scenna, N. J. (2011). Optimal Synthesis and Mertens, N. J., Alobaid, F., Epple, B., and Kim, H.-G. (2016). “Combined-cycle
Design of Heat Recovery Steam Generation (HRSG) via Mathematical Start-Up Procedures: Dynamic Simulation and Measurement,” in ASME 2016
Programming. Energy 36 (1), 475–485. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.10.017 Power Conference collocated with the ASME 2016 10th International
Manenti, F., and Ravaghi-Ardebili, Z. (2013). Dynamic Simulation of Conference on Energy Sustainability and the ASME 2016 14th International
Concentrating Solar Power Plant and Two-Tanks Direct thermal Energy Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology, Charlotte, NC,
Storage. Energy 55, 89–97. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.001 USA, June 26–30, 2016.
Manno, A., Amaldi, E., Casella, F., and Martelli, E. (2020). A Local Search Method Mian, A., Martelli, E., and Maréchal, F. (2016). Framework for the Multiperiod
for Costly Black-Box Problems and its Application to CSP Plant Start-Up Sequential Synthesis of Heat Exchanger Networks with Selection, Design, and
Optimization Refinement. Optimization Eng., 1–36. Scheduling of Multiple Utilities. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 168–186. doi:10.1021/
Maréchal, F., and Kalitventzeff, B. (1998). Process Integration: Selection of the acs.iecr.5b02104
Optimal Utility System. Comput. Chem. Eng., S149–S156. doi:10.1016/s0098- Mikkonen, H., Lappalainen, J., Pikkarainen, T., and Kuivalainen, R. (2017).
1354(98)00049-0 Modelling and Dynamic Simulation of the 2nd Generation Oxy Fired
Maréchal, F., and Kalitventzeff, B. (1999). Targeting the Optimal Integration of Power Plant–Oxidant Fan Failure Case. Energ. Proced. 114, 561–572.
Steam Networks: Mathematical Tools and Methodology. Comput. Chem. Eng., doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1198
S133–S136. doi:10.1016/s0098-1354(99)80034-9 Montañés, R. M., Skaugen, G., Hagen, B., and Rohde, D. (2021). Compact Steam
Martelli, E., Amaldi, E., and Consonni, S. (2011). Numerical Optimization of Bottoming Cycles: Minimum Weight Design Optimization and Transient
Heat Recovery Steam Cycles: Mathematical Model, Two-Stage Algorithm Response of Once-Through Steam Generators. Front. Energy. Res. 9, 261.
and Applications. Comput. Chem. Eng., 2799–2823. doi:10.1016/ Muren, R., Arias, D., Chapman, D., Erickson, L., and Gavilan, A. (2011). “Coupled
j.compchemeng.2011.04.015 Transient System Analysis: a New Method of Passive thermal Energy Storage
Martelli, E., and Amaldi, E. (2014). PGS-COM: A Hybrid Method for Constrained Modeling for High Temperature Concentrated Solar Power Systems,” in Paper
Non-smooth Black-Box Optimization Problems. Brief Review, Novel presented at the ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy
Algorithm and Comparative Evaluation. Comput. Chem. Eng., 108–139. Sustainability, Washington, DC, USA, August 7–10, 2011.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.12.014 Nadir, M., Ghenaiet, A., and Carcasci, C. (2016). Thermo-economic Optimization
Martelli, E., Elsido, C., Mian, A., and Marechal, F. (2017). MINLP Model and Two- of Heat Recovery Steam Generator for a Range of Gas Turbine Exhaust
Stage Algorithm for the Simultaneous Synthesis of Heat Exchanger Networks, Temperatures. Appl. Therm. Eng. 106, 811–826. doi:10.1016/
Utility Systems and Heat Recovery Cycles. Comput. Chem. Eng., 106, 663–689. j.applthermaleng.2016.06.035
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.01.043 Nadir, M., and Ghenaiet, A. (2015). Thermodynamic Optimization of Several
Martelli, E., Kreutz, T., Carbo, M., Consonni, S., and Jansen, D. (2011). Shell (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) HRSG Configurations for a Range of Exhaust
Coal IGCCS with Carbon Capture: Conventional Gas Quench vs. Gas Temperatures. Energy 86, 685–695. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.023
Innovative Configurations. Appl. Energ., 3978–3989. doi:10.1016/ Nannarone, A., and Klein, S. A. (2019). Start-Up Optimization of a CCGT Power
j.apenergy.2011.04.046 Station Using Model-Based Gas Turbine Control. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
Martelli, E., Kreutz, T. G., Gatti, M., Chiesa, P., and Consonni, S. (2013). Numerical 141 (4). doi:10.1115/1.4041273
Optimization of Steam Cycles and Steam Generators Designs for Coal to FT Neuman, P., Pokorny, M., Varcop, L., Weiglhofer, W., and Javed, A. (2002).
Plants. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 1467–1482. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2013.02.026 Engineering and Operator Training Simulator of Coal-Fired Steam Boiler. Proc.
Martelli, E., Nord, L. O., and Bolland, O. (2012). Design Criteria and Optimization 10th Int. Conf. MATLAB 44, 8259–8264. doi:10.3182/20110828-6-IT-
of Heat Recovery Steam Cycles for Integrated Reforming Combined Cycles with 1002.00403
CO2 Capture. Appl. Energ. 255–268. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.10.043 Nevriva, P., Ozana, S., and Pies, M. (2011). Simulation of Power Plant Superheater Using
Marx-Schubach, T., and Schmitz, G. J. I. j. o. g. g. c. (2019). Modeling and Advanced Simulink Capabilities. Int. J. Circuits, Syst. Signal Process. 5 (1), 86–93.
Simulation of the Start-Up Process of Coal Fired Power Plants with post- Ngoma, D. (2001). Untersuchungen zur Strömungsstabilität verschiedener
combustion CO2 Capture. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 87, 44–57. Abhitzedampferzeugersysteme im Vergleich: Shaker.
doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.05.003 Niknia, I., and Yaghoubi, M. (2012). Transient Simulation for Developing a
Matlab (2021). MATLAB Software Webpage. Available at: https://it.mathworks. Combined Solar thermal Power Plant. Appl. Therm. Eng. 37, 196–207.
com/products/matlab.html (Accessed May 5, 2021). doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.11.016
Mattos, H. A. d. S., Bringhenti, C., Cavalca, D. F., Silva, O. F. R., Campos, G. B. d., Nishio, M., Itoh, J., Shiroko, K., and Umeda, T. (1980). A Thermodynamic
and Tomita, J. T. (2016). Combined Cycle Performance Evaluation and Approach to Steam-Power System Design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dynamic Response Simulation. J. Aerospace Technology Management 8 (4), Development 19 (2), 306–312. doi:10.1021/i260074a019
491–497. doi:10.5028/jatm.v8i4.599 Nittaya, T., Douglas, P. L., Croiset, E., and Ricardez-Sandoval, L. A. (2014).
Mehrgoo, M., and Amidpour, M. (2017). Constructal Design and Optimization of a Dynamic Modelling and Control of MEA Absorption Processes for CO2
Dual Pressure Heat Recovery Steam Generator. Energy 124, 87–99. doi:10.1016/ Capture from Power Plants. Fuel 116, 672–691. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2013.08.031
j.energy.2017.02.046 Nord, L. O., Martelli, E., and Bolland, O. (2014). Weight and Power Optimization
Meinke, S., Gottelt, F., Müller, M., and Hassel, E. (2011). “Modeling of Coal-Fired of Steam Bottoming Cycle for Offshore Oil and Gas Installations. Energy 76,
Power Units with Thermopower Focussing on Start-Up Process,” in Paper 891–898. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.08.090
presented at the Proceedings of the 8th International Modelica Conference, Oko, E., and Wang, M. (2014). Dynamic Modelling, Validation and Analysis of
Dresden; Germany, March 20th-22nd, 2011 (Technical Univeristy). Coal-Fired Subcritical Power Plant. Fuel 135, 292–300. doi:10.1016/
Meinke, S. (2013). Modellierung thermischer Kraftwerke vor dem Hintergrund j.fuel.2014.06.055
steigender Dynamikanforderungen aufgrund zunehmender Windenergie-und Opriş, I., Cenuşă, V.-E., Norişor, M., Darie, G., Alexe, F.-N., and Costinas, S.
Photovoltaikeinspeisung: Forschungszentrum für Verbrennungsmotoren und (2020). Parametric Optimization of the Thermodynamic Cycle Design for
Thermodynamik Rostock GmbH. Supercritical Steam Power Plants. Energ. Convers. Management 208, 112587.
Mertens, N., Alobaid, F., Frigge, L., and Epple, B. (2014). Dynamic Simulation of Papoulias, S. A., and Grossmann, I. E. (1983a). A Structural Optimization
Integrated Rock-Bed Thermocline Storage for Concentrated Solar Power. Solar Approach in Process Synthesis-I. Comput. Chem. Eng. 7, 695–706.
Energy 110, 830–842. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2014.10.021 doi:10.1016/0098-1354(83)85022-4

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 29 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

Papoulias, S. A., and Grossmann, I. E. (1983). A Structural Optimization Approach Rovira, A., Valdés, M., and Durán, M. D. (2010). A Model to Predict the Behaviour
in Process Synthesis-II. Comput. Chem. Eng. 7, 707–721. doi:10.1016/0098- at Part Load Operation of Once-Through Heat Recovery Steam Generators
1354(83)85023-6 Working with Water at Supercritical Pressure. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (13),
Papoulias, S. A., and Grossmann, I. E. (1983c). A Structural Optimization 1652–1658. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.03.023
Approach in Process Synthesis-III. Comput. Chem. Eng. 7, 723–734. Ruchti, C., Olia, H., Franitza, K., Ehrsam, A., and Bauver, W. (2011). “Combined
doi:10.1016/0098-1354(83)85024-8 Cycle Power Plants as Ideal Solution to Balance Grid Fluctuations—Fast Start-
Pehle, L., Łuczyński, P., Jeon, T., Wirsum, M., Mohr, W. F., and Helbig, K. (2020). Up Capabilities,” in Proc. of 43th Colloquium of Power Plant Technology, TU
“Comparison of Steam Turbine Pre-warming and Warm-Keeping Strategies Dresden, September 18–19, 2011.
Using Hot Air for Fast Turbine Start-Up,” in ASME Turbo Expo 2020: Runvik, H. (2014). Modelling and Start-Up Optimization of a Coal-Fired Power
Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition, Virtual. Online, Plant. MSc Thesis. Sweden: Lund University.
September 21–25, 2020. Sabia, G., Heinze, C., Alobaid, F., Martelli, E., and Epple, B. (2019). ASPEN
Peinado Gonzalo, A., Pliego Marugán, A., and García Márquez, F. P. (2019). A Dynamics Simulation for Combined Cycle Power Plant - Validation with Hot
Review of the Application Performances of Concentrated Solar Power Systems. Start-Up Measurement. Energy 187, 115897. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.115897
Appl. Energ. 255, 113893. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113893 Scholz, C., Zimmermann, H., and an der Ruhr, M. (2012). First Long-Term
Perz, E. (1990). “A Computer Method for thermal Power Cycle Calculation,” in Experience with the Operational Flexibility of the SGT5-8000H.
ASME 1990 International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Schuhbauer, C., Angerer, M., Spliethoff, H., Kluger, F., and Tschaffon, H. (2014).
Exposition. Coupled Simulation of a Tangentially Hard Coal Fired 700°C Boiler. Fuel 122,
Pletl, C. (2005). Experimente und numerische Simulation zum dynamischen 149–163. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.032
Verhalten eines Abhitzedampferzeugers mit Zwangdurchlauf. VDI-Verlag. Schuhbauer, C. (2013). Dynamic and Coupled Simulation of the 700° C Coal-Fired
Ponce, C. V., Sáez, D., Bordons, C., and Núñez, A. (2016). Dynamic Simulator and Power Plant. Dr. Hut.
Model Predictive Control of an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Plant. Energy Sciacovelli, A., Li, Y., Chen, H., Wu, Y., Wang, J., Garvey, S., et al. (2017). Dynamic
109, 974–986. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.129 Simulation of Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage (A-CAES) Plant with
Postler, R., Epple, B., Kluger, F., Mönkert, P., and Heinz, G. (2011). “Dynamic Integrated thermal Storage - Link between Components Performance and Plant
Process Simulation Model of an Oxyfuel 250 MWel Demonstration Power Performance. Appl. Energ. 185, 16–28. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.058
Plant,” in Paper presented at the 2nd oxyfuel combustion conference, Scilab (2021). Scilab Software Webpage. Available at: https://www.scilab.org/
Queensland, Australia, September 12–16, 2011. (Accessed May 5, 2021).
Pyomo (2021). Pyomo Package Webpage. Available at: http://www.pyomo.org/ Shang, Z., and Kokossis, A. (2005). A Systematic Approach to the Synthesis and
about (Accessed May 5, 2021). Design of Flexible Site Utility Systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 4431–4451.
Quoilin, S., Aumann, R., Grill, A., Schuster, A., Lemort, V., and Spliethoff, H. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2005.03.015
(2011). Dynamic Modeling and Optimal Control Strategy of Waste Heat Shin, J., Jeon, Y., Maeng, D., Kim, J., and Ro, S. (2002). Analysis of the Dynamic
Recovery Organic Rankine Cycles. Appl. Energ. 88 (6), 2183–2190. Characteristics of a Combined-Cycle Power Plant. Energy 27 (12), 1085–1098.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.015 doi:10.1016/s0360-5442(02)00087-7
Rakopoulos, D., Avagianos, I., Almpanidis, D., Nikolopoulos, N., and Grammelis, Sindareh-Esfahani, P., Habibi-Siyahposh, E., Saffar-Avval, M., Ghaffari, A., and
P. (2017). Dynamic Modeling of a Utility Once-Through Pulverized-Fuel Steam Bakhtiari-Nejad, F. (2014). Cold Start-Up Condition Model for Heat Recovery
Generator. J. Energ. Eng. 143 (4), 04016070. doi:10.1061/(asce)ey.1943- Steam Generators. Appl. Therm. Eng. 65 (1-2), 502–512. doi:10.1016/
7897.0000426 j.applthermaleng.2014.01.016
Rashad, A., Elweteedy, A., Temraz, A., and Gomaa, A. (2021). Investigating an Singh, R., Miller, S. A., Rowlands, A. S., and Jacobs, P. A. (2013). Dynamic
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Power Plant. Glob. J. Eng. Sci. 7, 1–14. Characteristics of a Direct-Heated Supercritical Carbon-Dioxide Brayton Cycle
doi:10.33552/GJES.2021.07.000652 in a Solar thermal Power Plant. Energy 50, 194–204. doi:10.1016/
Ratliff, P., Garbett, P., and Fischer, W. (2007). The New Siemens Gas Turbine Sgt5- j.energy.2012.11.029
8000h for More Customer Benefit. VGB Powertech. 87 (9), 128–132. Speight, J. G. (2013). Coal-Fired Power Generation Handbook. 1st edition. Salem,
doi:10.1097/01.won.0000264822.57743.16 Massachussets: Wiley-Scrivener.
Richter, M., Möllenbruck, F., Starinsk, A., Oeljeklaus, G., and Görner, K. (2015). Spelling, J., Favrat, D., Martin, A., and Augsburger, G. (2012). Thermoeconomic
“Flexibilization of Coal-Fired Power Plants by Dynamic Simulation,” in Optimization of a Combined-Cycle Solar tower Power Plant. Energy 41 (1),
Proceedings of the 11th International Modelica Conference, Versailles, 113–120. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.073
France, September 21-23, 2015. Spinelli, M., Campanari, S., Romano, M. C., Consonni, S., Kreutz, T. G., Ghezel-
Richter, M., Oeljeklaus, G., and Görner, K. (2019). Improving the Load Flexibility Ayagh, H., et al. (2015). “Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells as Means for Post-
of Coal-Fired Power Plants by the Integration of a thermal Energy Storage. Combustion CO2 Capture: Retrofitting Coal-Fired Steam Plants and Natural
Appl. Energ. 236, 607–621. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.099 Gas-Fired Combined Cycles,” in ASME 2015 13th International Conference on
Rinzic, J. (2017). Steam Generators for Nuclear Power Plants. Woodhead Fuel Cell Science. V49001T49405A49400: Engineering and Technology, San
Publishing. Diego, CA, USA, June 28–July 2, 2015.
Rodat, S., Souza, J. V. D., Thebault, S., Vuillerme, V., and Dupassieux, N. (2014). Spliethoff, H. (2010). Power Generation from Solid Fuels. Springer Science &
Dynamic Simulations of Fresnel Solar Power Plants. Energ. Proced. 49, Business Media.
1501–1510. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.159 Starkloff, R., Alobaid, F., Karner, K., Epple, B., Schmitz, M., and Boehm, F. (2015).
Rossi, I., Sorce, A., and Traverso, A. (2017). Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Start-Up Development and Validation of a Dynamic Simulation Model for a Large Coal-
and Stress Evaluation: A Simplified Dynamic Approach. Appl. Energ. 190, Fired Power Plant. Appl. Therm. Eng. 91, 496–506. doi:10.1016/
880–890. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.141 j.applthermaleng.2015.08.015
Roth, K., Scherer, V., and Behnke, K. (2005). Enhancing the Dynamic Starkloff, R., Postler, R., Al-Maliki, W. A. K., Alobaid, F., and Epple, B. (2016).
Performance of Electricity Production in Steam Power Plants by the Investigation into Gas Dynamics in an Oxyfuel Coal Fired Boiler during Master
Integration of Transient Waste Heat Sources into the Feed-Water Pre- Fuel Trip and Blackout. J. Process Control. 41, 67–75. doi:10.1016/
heating System. Int. J. Energ. Technology Pol. 3 (1–2), 50–65. doi:10.1504/ j.jprocont.2016.03.003
ijetp.2005.006739 Stefanitsis, D., Nesiadis, A., Koutita, K., Nikolopoulos, A., Nikolopoulos, N., Peters,
Rovira, A., Sánchez, C., Muñoz, M., Valdés, M., and Durán, M. D. (2011). J., et al. (2020). Simulation of a CFB Boiler Integrated with a thermal Energy
Thermoeconomic Optimisation of Heat Recovery Steam Generators of Storage System during Transient Operation. Front. Energ. Res. 8, 1–14.
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants Considering Off-Design doi:10.3389/fenrg.2020.00169
Operation. Energ. Convers. Management 52 (4), 1840–1849. doi:10.1016/ Subramanian, A., Gundersen, T., and Adams, T. (2018). Modeling and Simulation
j.enconman.2010.11.016 of Energy Systems: A Review. Processes 6 (12), 238. doi:10.3390/pr6120238

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 30 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969

Martelli et al. Steam Cycle Simulation and Optimization

Sun, B., Liu, Y., Chen, X., Zhou, Q., and Su, M. (2011). Dynamic Modeling and Wang, C., Liu, M., Li, B., Liu, Y., and Yan, J. (2017). Thermodynamic Analysis
Simulation of Shell Gasifier in IGCC. Fuel Process. Technol. 92 (8), 1418–1425. on the Transient Cycling of Coal-Fired Power Plants: Simulation Study
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.02.017 of a 660 MW Supercritical Unit. Energy 122, 505–527. doi:10.1016/
Sunil, P. U., Barve, J., and Nataraj, P. S. V. (2018). A Robust Heat Recovery Steam j.energy.2017.01.123
Generator Drum Level Control for Wide Range Operation Flexibility Wang, J., Wojcik, J. D., and Zue, Y. (2012). Study of Supercritical Coal Fired Power
Considering Renewable Energy Integration. Energy 163, 873–893. Plant Dynamic Responses and Control for Grid Code ComplianceMathematical
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.167 Modelling and Simulation of Power Plants and CO2 Capture WORKSHOP.
Taler, J., We˛glowski, B., Taler, D., Sobota, T., Dzierwa, P., Trojan, M., et al. (2015). Wang, L., Lampe, M., Voll, P., Yang, Y., and Bardow, A. (2016). Multi-objective
Determination of Start-Up Curves for a Boiler with Natural Circulation Based Superstructure-free Synthesis and Optimization of thermal Power Plants.
on the Analysis of Stress Distribution in Critical Pressure Components. Energy Energy 116 (1), 1104–1116. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.007
92, 153–159. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.086 Wang, L., Yang, Y., Dong, C., Morosuk, T., and Tsatsaronis, G. (2014). Systematic
Tawarmalani, M., and Sahinidis, N. V. (2005). A Polyhedral branch-and-cut Optimization of the Design of Steam Cycles Using MINLP and Differential
Approach to Global Optimization. Math. programming 103 (2), 225–249. Evolution. J. Energ. Resour. Technol. 136 (133), 031601. doi:10.1115/1.4026268
doi:10.1007/s10107-005-0581-8 Wang, M., Liu, G., and Hui, C. W. (2017). Novel Shortcut Optimization Model for
Temraz, A., Alobaid, F., Lanz, T., Elweteedy, A., and Epple, B. (2020a). Operational Regenerative Steam Power Plant. Energy 138, 529–541. doi:10.1016/
Flexibility of Two-phase Flow Test Rig for Investigating the Dynamic j.energy.2017.07.088
Instabilities in Tube Boiling Systems. Front. Energ. Res. 8, 1–12. Wegstein, J. H. (1958). Accelerating Convergence of Iterative Processes. Commun.
doi:10.3389/fenrg.2020.517740 ACM 1 (6), 9–13. doi:10.1145/368861.368871
Temraz, A., Rashad, A., Elweteedy, A., Alobaid, F., and Epple, B. (2020b). Energy Wenjing, D., Jinbo, L., and Baoqiang, Y. (2020). Dynamic Characteristics Analysis
and Exergy Analyses of an Existing Solar-Assisted Combined Cycle Power of a Once-Through Heat Recovery Steam Generator. Appl. Therm. Eng.,
Plant. Appl. Sci. 10 (14), 4980. doi:10.3390/app10144980 115155.
Terdalkar, R., Doupis, D., Clark, M., Joshi, A., and Wang, C. (2015). Transient Wheeler, A. (2016). Amec Foster Wheeler Wins UK Biomass Fired CFB Boiler
Simulation of High Temperature High Pressure Solar tower Receiver. Energ. Contract. Pump Industry Analyst 2016 (9), 3. doi:10.1016/S1359-6128(16)
Proced. 69, 1451–1460. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.03.093 30261-0
Thermoflow (2021). Thermoflow Products Webpage. Available at: http://www. Woodruff, E. B., Lammers, H. B., and Lammers, T. F. (2017). Steam Plant
thermoflow.com/products_overview.html (Accessed May 5, 2021). Operation. Tenth Edition. McGraw-Hill Education.
Tică, A., Gueguen, H., Dumur, D., Faille, D., and Davelaar, F. (2012). “Hierarchical Yee, T., and Grossmann, I. (1990). Simultaneous Optimization Models for Heat
Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Combined Cycle Start-Up Integration—II. Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 14
Optimization,” in IEEE 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (10), 1165–1184. doi:10.1016/0098-1354(90)85010-8
(CDC), Maui, HI, USA, December 10–13, 2012. Yousef Nezhad, M. E., and Hoseinzadeh, S. (2017). Mathematical Modelling and
Trabucchi, S., Casella, F., Maioli, T., Elsido, C., Franzini, D., and Ramond, M. Simulation of a Solar Water Heater for an Aviculture Unit Using MATLAB/
(2017). Preliminary Analysis of the PreFlexMS Molten Salt Once-Through SIMULINK. J. Renew. Sustainable Energ. 9 (6), 063702. doi:10.1063/1.5010828
Steam Generator Dynamics and Control Strategy. AIP Conf. Proc. 1850, Yu, H., Feng, X., and Wang, Y. (2015). A New Pinch Based Method for
030048. doi:10.1063/1.4984391 Simultaneous Selection of Working Fluid and Operating Conditions in an
Turton, R., Bailie, R. C., Whiting, W. B., and Shaeiwitz, J. A. (2008). Analysis, ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) Recovering Waste Heat. Energy 90, 36–46.
Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes. Third Edition. Pearson College Div. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.059
Udono, K., and Sitte, R. (2008). Modeling Seawater Desalination Powered by Waste Zehtner, W., Spliethoff, H., and Woyke, W. (2008). Analysis and optimisation of
Incineration Using a Dynamic Systems Approach. Desalination 229 (1-3), operation of modern hard coal-fired power plants through
302–317. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.10.017 simulationBetriebsanalyse und-optimierung moderner Steinkohlekraftwerke
Valdés, M., Durán, M. D., and Rovira, A. (2003). Thermoeconomic Optimization durch Simulation.
of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants Using Genetic Algorithms. Appl. Zhang, J., Liu, P., Zhou, Z., Ma, L., Li, Z., and Ni, W. (2014). A Mixed-Integer
Therm. Eng. 23 (17), 2169–2182. doi:10.1016/s1359-4311(03)00203-5 Nonlinear Programming Approach to the Optimal Design of Heat Network in a
Valdés, M., and Rapún, J. L. (2011). Optimization of Heat Recovery Steam Polygeneration Energy System. Appl. Energ., 146–154. doi:10.1016/
Generators for Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plants. Appl. Therm. j.apenergy.2013.09.057
Eng. 21 (11), 1149–1159. Zhao, Y., Wang, C., Liu, M., Chong, D., and Yan, J. (2018). Improving Operational
Vandervort, C., Leach, D., and Scholz, M. (2016). “Advancements in H Class Gas Flexibility by Regulating Extraction Steam of High-Pressure Heaters on a 660
Turbines for Combined Cycle Power Plants for High Efficiency, Enhanced MW Supercritical Coal-Fired Power Plant: A Dynamic Simulation. Appl. Energ.
Operational Capability and Broad Fuel Flexibility,” in 8th International Gas 212, 1295–1309. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.017
Turbine Congress, Brussels, Belgium, October 12–13, 2016.
Vandervort, C., Wetzel, T., and Leach, D. (2017). Engineering and Validating A World Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
Record Gas Turbine. Mech. Eng. 139 (12), 48–50. doi:10.1115/1.2017-dec-13 absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Vitte, P., Manenti, F., Pierucci, S., Joulia, X., and Buzzi-Ferraris, G. (2012). potential conflict of interest.
Dynamic Simulation of Concentrating Solar Plants. CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING 29. Copyright © 2021 Martelli, Alobaid and Elsido. This is an open-access article
Walter, H., and Epple, B. (2017). Numerical Simulation of Power Plants and Firing distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
Systems. Springer. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
Walter, H., and Hofmann, R. (2011). How Can the Heat Transfer Correlations for original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
Finned-Tubes Influence the Numerical Simulation of the Dynamic Behavior of publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
a Heat Recovery Steam Generator? Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (4), 405–417. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.08.015 these terms.

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 31 July 2021 | Volume 9 | Article 676969