Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Configurations and pressure levels optimization of heat recovery steam

generator using the genetic algorithm method based on the constructal
design
Morteza Mehrgoo, Majid Amidpour
Department of Energy System Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

h i g h l i g h t s

Utilizing the constructal design method, three configurations of HRSG are compared.

Different objective functions are optimized using the genetic algorithm method.

Optimization is done by varying the geometric parameters and steam pressure levels.

The best configuration of each heat exchanger is derived without any extra step.

The effects of inlet gas temperature on the operating parameters is investigated.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In last two decades, there was a great deal of attention on the optimum design and performance improve-
Received 15 January 2017 ment of the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) units. In the present work, considering different objec-
Revised 30 March 2017 tive functions and utilizing the constructal design method, three configurations of HRSG are compared.
Accepted 27 April 2017
The design method is based on the constructal theory and optimization technique is carried out by vary-
Available online 30 April 2017
ing the geometric design parameters and steam pressure levels for different values of the exhaust gas
temperatures. Optimum conditions of HRSG are obtained with the help of the genetic algorithm under
Keywords:
the fixed total volume constraint. For each configuration of HRSG, optimal distribution of the heat sur-
Constructal theory
Configuration
faces (sizes) subject to the total volume constraint are derived such that the objective function is opti-
Efficiency mum. It is shown that how the geometric and thermodynamic design variables of HRSG can be
Heat recovery steam generator achieved, simultaneously. Features that resulted from the constructal design are the number of tubes,
Genetic algorithm configurations and aspect ratios for the main sections, the tube diameters and rate of the steam produc-
Power production tion at each pressure level. The results revealed that variations in different objective functions are
strongly affected by the hot gas inlet temperature. In addition, the use of several pressure levels in
HRSGs causes a considerable increase in the power production, declines irreversibility in HRSGs and
allows producing higher steam flow rate for all values of the inlet gas temperature. The constructal prin-
ciple invoked in this paper represents that geometrical form of systems can be deduced from a single
principle.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) are used to recover heat

Abbreviations: 1P, one pressure level HRSG; 2P, two pressure level HRSG; 3P,
three pressure level HRSG; LB, total length of the all evaporator sections; LE, total
length of the all economizer sections; LS, total length of the all superheater sections;
OF, Objective Function.
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Mortezamehrgoo@yahoo.com (M. Mehrgoo), amidpour@kntu.
ac.ir (M. Amidpour).
from high temperature exhaust gas leaving gas turbine and gener-
ate steam at different pressure levels. The efficiency of combined
cycle power plant is affected by the design of all its components,
which HRSG is one of the most important of them. So, any change
in its design directly affects the cycle efficiency, its power
generation, the global cost and many other variables in the cycle.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.144
1359-4311/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
602 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

Nomenclature

Ai tube inner surface area (m2) Tj gas outlet temperature from low pressure evaporator
At surface area of finned tube (m2) (K)
Aw average wall surface area (m2) Tk gas outlet temperature from low pressure economizer
APP Approach Point (K) (K)
Cmin minimum heat capacity rate (kJ kg1 K1) Tsat,HP high pressure saturation temperature (K)
Cp specific heat (kJ kg1 K1) Tsat,IP Intermediate pressure saturation temperature (K)
C1, 3, 5 dimensionless factors, Eq. (32) Tsat,LP low pressure saturation temperature (K)
C2, 4, 6 dimensionless factors, Eq. (36) Tsup,HP high pressure steam temperature (K)
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Tsup,IP Intermediate pressure steam temperature (K)
CCPP Combined Cycle Power Plant Tsup,LP low pressure steam temperature (K)
GT Gas Turbine V total volume (m3)
D diameter (m) U overall heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1)
ffi fouling factors inside (W1 m2 K)
ffo fouling factors outside (W1 m2 K1) Greek symbols
G gas mass velocity (kg m2 s1) q density (kg m3)
h heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1) m Viscosity (N s m2)
hf height of fin (m) e heat exchanger effectiveness
hfg Latent heat (kJ kg1) a ratio of tube pitch to diameter
I0 modified Bessel function of first kind (m = 0) DP gas side pressure drop (kPa)
I1 modified Bessel function of first kind (m = 1) gf fin effectiveness
K0 modified Bessel function of second kind (m = 0) gth Thermal efficiency
K1 modified Bessel function of second kind (m = 1) gEX Exergetic efficiency
Kt thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
L length (m) Subscripts
m_ flow rate (kg/s) eco economizer
NTU number of transfer unit
eva evaporator
NL number of rows deep f fin
Ns entropy generation number g flue gas
Nu Nusselt number
HS high pressure superheater
Nw number of tubes through transverse direction HB high pressure evaporator
P pressure (Pa) HE high pressure economizer
Q_ rate of heat transfer (kJ) i inside
Re Reynolds number
in inlet (for stream)
Pr Prandtl number IS Intermediate pressure superheater
R specific gas constant (kJ kg1 K1) IB Intermediate pressure evaporator
S pitch (m) IE Intermediate pressure economizer
T temperature (K)
L longitudinal
Ting gas inlet temperature to high pressure superheater (K) LS low pressure superheater
Tb gas outlet temperature from high pressure superheater LB low pressure evaporator
(K) LE low pressure economizer
Tc gas outlet temperature from reheater (K)
o outside
Td gas outlet temperature from high pressure evaporator out outlet (for stream)
(K) RH Reheater
Te gas outlet temperature from high pressure economizer
sat saturation
(K) sup superheater
Tf gas outlet temperature from intermediate pressure T total
superheater (K) w water
Tg gas outlet temperature from intermediate pressure
x length or longitudinal dimension
evaporator (K) y height
Th gas outlet temperature from intermediate pressure z width or transverse dimension
economizer (K) 0 environment
Ti gas outlet temperature from low pressure superheater
(K)

Therefore, the design parameters of HRSG should be carefully
selected in order to maximize the heat recovery and improve the
overall performance of the combined cycle.
A lot of efforts and work have been carried out regarding model-
ing and optimization of different thermal systems. Sanjay et al. [1]
performed parametric energy and exergy analysis of reheat gas-
steam combined cycle using closed-loop steam-cooling. It was
shown that the reheat gas-steam combined cycle plant with
closed-loop-steam-cooling enhanced thermal efficiency (around
62%) and plant specific work. Godoy et al. [2] optimized designs
of a CCGT power plant characterized by maximum second law effi-
ciency values for a wide range of power demands and different val-
ues of the available heat transfer area. Valdes et al. [3] performed a
thermoeconomic optimization of combined cycle gas turbine
power plants using a genetic algorithm. They proposed two differ-
ent objective functions; aimed at minimizing the cost of production
 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617
per unit electricity and maximizing the annual cash flow. Mohaghe-
ghi et al. [4] developed a computer code to examine the competence
for different types of HRSG by the thermodynamic optimization.
They obtained a high rate of generating power in the steam cycle.
Bracco et al. [5] developed a mathematical model to optimize one
pressure level HRSG using first and second low approach. Different
objective functions have been analyzed, some of which refer only to
the exergy balance of the heat recovery steam generator while
others involve the completely bottoming cycle.
Tajik Mansouri et al. [6] investigated the effect of HRSG pres-
sure levels on exergy efficiency of combined cycle power plants.
Three types of combined cycles, with the same gas turbine as a top-
ping cycle were evaluated. A double pressure, and two triple pres-
sure HRSGs were modeled. They showed how an increase in the
number of pressure levels of the HRSG affects the exergy losses
due to heat transfer in the HRSG and the exhaust of flue gas to
the stack. Naemi et al. [7] investigated the thermodynamic and
thermoeconomic analyses to achieve the optimum operating
parameters of a dual pressure heat recovery steam generator, cou-
pled with a heavy duty gas turbine. An extensive sensitivity anal-
ysis is performed to compare optimum pinch point for different
electricity and fuel prices.
Massaldi et al. [8] proposed a mixed integer non-linear pro-
gramming (MINLP) model to optimize the equipment arrangement
and operating conditions of CCPPs. General Algebraic Modelling
System (GAMS) was used to implement and solve the mathemati-
cal model. Carapellucci et al. [9] undertook a thermoeconomic
optimization of several types of HRSG adapted to three types of
GT and investigated the effect of fuel price and capacity factor on
the electricity cost. Several researchers have done further studies
on the performance evaluation and optimization of the HRSG dur-
ing the three last decades [1015].
On the other hand, Constructal theory, introduced first by Bejan
[16], deals mainly with shapes and generation of flow configura-
tions. In last decade, the theory found a widespread usage in opti-
mizing a large variety of engineering problems, to optimize shape
and structure [17,18]. A growing body of work and literature illus-
trate the constructal theory applied to different topics (steam gen-
erator architecture [1922], desalination [2325], assembly of fins
[26,27], Heterogeneous porous media [28], design and perfor-
mance evaluation of different types of heat exchangers [2933],
design and modeling of heat and mass transfer in a solidgas reac-
tor [34,35], evolutionary design of condensers [36], electrokinetics
systems and enclosures [37], solar pond fields [38] and Phase
change heat storage [39]).
As mentioned, there are several studies on HRSG unit most of
which are restricted to a number of thermodynamic and thermoe-
conomic evaluation, mathematical modeling and performance
improvement of the HRSG units. To the authors knowledge, there
are limited studies on the geometric optimization of HRSG unit.
Also, widespread applications of the constructal theory demon-
strated that it can be used to deliver the geometric features of engi-
neering systems. Therefore, it can adequately be used for novel
design and new design concepts of HRSG.
The present research work is aimed at introducing a new way of
conceptual design of HRSG units by applying the constructal law.
The main motivation behind this work is the application of the
constructal theory in several engineering systems. The originality
of the paper is in the new looking at the design of the heat recovery
steam generator systems.
The other feature distinguishing this study is optimizing differ-
ent objective functions (such as maximizing the power output)
using the genetic algorithm method by varying the complex con-
figurations of heat exchangers. The optimization work has been
carried out under the constraint of finite size by using the combi-
nation of heat transfer, thermodynamics, and fluid dynamics.
603
A mathematical model for HRSG system, which considered
three configurations of HRSG with different numbers of the main
heat exchangers, is developed. The related equations of the geo-
metric parameters, thermodynamic variables and heat transfer
equations are combined to identify and recognize all the feasible
and competing configurations. Furthermore, the effects of various
parameters such as the gas temperature on optimal configuration
and power production of system are investigated.
2. Process description and problem formulation
The constructal law complements the existing principles (mass,
momentum and energy conservation and the second law of ther-
modynamics) and provides new insights into finding the flow con-
figuration. Therefore, constructal design of a HRSG unit based on
the optimization of different objective functions under the condi-
tion of global constraint (the fixed total volume) is a robust design
method which is represented in this section.
The goal of this study is to simultaneously determine the opti-
mal values of the pressure levels, geometric and thermodynamic
design variables for several HRSG configurations according to dif-
ferent objective functions.
Three configurations of HRSG with different numbers of pres-
sure level are considered in this article that are represented in
Figs. 14. As shown, each pressure level consists of three main sec-
tions including an economizer, an evaporator and a superheater. A
reheater is added before high pressure superheater to reheat the LP
steam leaving the HP turbine. All HRSGs are considered as water
tube type with natural circulation evaporator (see Fig. 5).
There are a large number of geometric variables for each section
which significantly affect the operation and performance of the
system. Geometric design parameters are different for each section
and various dimensions and arrangements of the tubes (configura-
tions) could be used. Obviously, each configuration has its own
heat transfer characteristics, pressure drop and entropy genera-
tion. Moreover, Power production and system efficiency are signif-
icantly changed by the tube configurations of units. So, obtaining
the optimum values of the geometric and operating design param-
eters of HRSG, five objective functions are considered. For three
configurations of HRSG, these objective functions are evaluated
and optimized subject to the total volume constraint. Furthermore,
optimum values of geometric variables (configurations) and ther-
modynamic parameters are obtained.
As shown in Figs. 14, the geometric design parameters for each
section of HRSG (economizers, evaporators, reheater and super-
heaters) are different which consist of tube diameters, number of
tube rows in the direction of flow, number of tubes per row, num-
ber of fins per unit length of tube. In order to have a HRSG with
uniform section, it is considered that the length of the tubes (Ly)
and the width of each section (Lz) to be the same for all sections.
For each section (heat exchanger) of the HRSG, there are three
geometric design variables. So, a heat recovery steam generator
which composed of three pressure levels (as shown in Fig. 3) has
thirty-three geometric variables. These variables consist of: ten
tubes diameters (dHS, dHR, dHB, dHE, dIS, dIB, dIE dLS, dLB, dLE), ten lon-
gitudinal pitch ratios (aLHS, aLHR, aLHB, aLHE, aLIS, aLIB, aLIE, aLLS, aLLB,
aLLE), ten lengths for main sections of HRSG (LxHS, LxHR, LxHB, LxHE,
LxIS, LxIB, LXIE, LxLS, LxLB, LxLE), one transverse pitch ratio (az), one
width (Lz) and one height (Ly) which are shown in Figs. 14. Ther-
modynamic variables are the water saturation pressure at each
pressure level, the gas temperature at the outlet of the each heat
exchanger, superheater temperature (Tsup) and water to steam flow
rate ratio (m _ g ). It is necessary to consider these relatively large
_ w /m
numbers of variables simultaneously to obtain the major operating
parameters of the HRSG and optimize different objective functions.
604 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

Fig. 1. Single pressure HRSG configuration: (a) flow diagram, (b) overall dimensions.

For all three configurations, the total volume of the HRSG is LxHS NLHS  SLHS 2
deemed to be fixed and has the same value. The geometry is free
LxRH NLRH  SLRH 3
to vary according to this constant size obtaining the optimum
value for different objective functions. Due to space limitation, only LxHB NLHB  SLHB 4
the modeling of triple pressure HRSG is presented.
Geometric equations of HRSG with three pressure levels and a LxHE NLHE  SLHE 5
reheat are as follows:
V LxHS LxRH LxHB LxHE LxIS LxIB LxIE LxLS LxLB LxIS NLIS  SLIS 6

LxLE  Lz  Ly 1 LxIB NLIB  SLIB 7

 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617 605

Fig. 2. Dual pressure HRSG configuration: (a) flow diagram, (b) overall dimensions.

LxIE NLIE  SLIE 8 Only the surfaces which heat transfer occurs are taken into
account. Therefore, the volume of the drums and down comer
LxLS NLLS  SLLS 9 tubes of the evaporators are not considered in the total volume.
Moreover, the vertical length of tubes (Ly) apart from the bow-
LxLB NLLB  SLLB 10 shaped tube for connecting is the same for main sections. Trans-
verse length is the same for main sections as considered in Eq.
LxLE NLLE  SLLE 11 (13). The transverse and longitudinal pitch ratios are az and aL,
respectively. The value of az is considered to be equal for all
Lz Nw  ST 12 exchangers but aL could be different for main sections.
The energy balances are applied to the all components of HRSG,
ST through e-NTU method. Correlations of e-NTU method can be
/z 13
do obtained or derived from correlations given in the standard litera-
ture. Energy balance equations for the triple pressure HRSG in the
SL
/L 14 above-mentioned heat exchangers are as follows [40]:
do
606 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

Fig. 3. Triple pressure HRSG configuration: (a) flow diagram, (b) overall dimensions.

Economizer: Q_ IS eIS C min;IS T e  T sat;I m

_ g cpg T e  T f 23
Q_ HE eHE C min;HE T d  T w;in;H m
_ g cpg T d  T e 15
Q_ LS eLS C min;LS T h  T sat;L m
_ g cpg T h  T i 24
Q_ IE eIE C min;IE T g  T w;in;I m
_ g cpg T g  T h 16 The e-NTU correlations are as follows [40]:
For economizers, reheater and superheaters:
Q_ LE eLE C min;LE T j  T w;in m
_ g cpg T j  T k 17 if C min C w
_  cp
where C m
1
Evaporator: e 1  exp C min 1  expNTU 25
C min
Q_ HB eHB C min;HB T c  T sat;H m
_ g cpg T c  T d 18
if C min C g
Q_ IB eIB C min;IB T f  T sat;I m
_ g cpg T f  T g 19

1  exp NTU  C min
e 1  exp  26
Q_ LB eLB C min;LB T i  T sat;L m
_ g cpg T i  T j 20 C min

Reheater: U eco  Ao
NTU eco 27
Q_ RH eRH C min;RH T b  T TOT m
_ g cpg T b  T c 21 C min

Superheater: U RH  Ao
NTU RH 28
C min
Q_ HS eHS C min;HS T g;in  T sat;H m
_ g cpg T g;in  T b 22
 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617 607

Fig. 4. Geometric configurations of tubes in the main sections of HRSG.

U sup  Ao Heat transfer outside the HRSG tubes (ho) is considered as

NTU sup 29
C min forced convection due to cross flow of the hot flue gas over fin
tubes.
For evaporators:

0:5
0:25 !0:67
eev a 1  exp NTU ev a 30 do 2hf Tg kg
ho C 1 C 3 C 5    GC Pg 
do Tf lg cPg
U e v a  Ao 36
NTU ev a 31
C min
where hf and Tf are the fin height and fin tip temperature. kg, mg and
The overall heat transfer coefficient for extended surface can be
Cpg are thermal conductivity, viscosity and specific heat of flue gas,
obtained from:
respectively. C1, C3 and C5 are defined in Ref. [40].





 
1 At 1 At Where G in Eq. (32) is called gas mass velocity and is defined as
  ffi follows
U Ai hi Ai




 !
At do do 1 _g
m
  ln ffo 32 G 37
AW 2kt di gf ho Nw Ly ST  do
For solid fins, the correlation between base tube wall and fin tip
where do, di and kt are tube outer and inner diameters, thermal con-
temperature is given by [40]:
ductivity of the tube wall, respectively. Fouling factors for inside
and outside of the tubes are ffi and ffo. At, Ai and Aw are defined in Tg  Tf k1 mre  I0 mr e I1 mr e  k0 mre
Ref. [40] and fin efficiency (gf) is defined in Ref. [41]. 38
T g  T b k1 mre  I0 mr 0 I1 mr e  k0 mr0
Forced convection model with turbulent flow is considered to
evaluate the heat transfer coefficient inside the HRSG tubes (hi). The first and second orders of modified Bessel function are k1, I1,
Correlation for fully developed turbulent flow in the tube is k0, I0, respectively. (mre and mr0 are defined in Ref. [40]).
expressed as [41]: The following expressions are used to evaluate the pressure
drop for gas side (in-line arrangement) in each section of the HRSG:
Nu 0:023Re0:8 Pr0:4 33
G2 NL
DPg 2:56f a 39
where Re is Reynolds number that is expressed as 500qg
_w
4m
Rew 34

pdi lw f C2 C4C6
do 2hf
40
do
where m_ w is mass flow rate of the water, di is inner diameter of the
tube, lw is water viscosity, and Pr is Prandtl number that is defined
1 B2 T g;out  T g;in
as a  41
4N L Tg
lw Cpw
Prw 35 where NL and qg are the number of rows deep and gas density. C2,
kw
C4, C6 and B are given in Ref. [40]. Nw, Ly and ST are the number of
where Cpw and kw are specific heat and thermal conductivity of the the transverse tubes, the length of the tube and transverse pitch,
water, respectively. respectively.
608 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

3. Optimization approach

The genetic algorithm (GA) is a population based optimization

technique that searches the best solution of a given problem based
on the concepts of natural selection, genetics and evolution. The
search is made starting from an initial population of individuals,
often randomly generated. An individual is considered a possible
candidate solution for the optimization problem in hand. At each
evolutionary step, individuals are evaluated using an objective
function. Three types of operators do the evolution (i.e., the gener-
ation of a new population): breeding, mutation and selection while
selection includes killing a given proportion of the population
based on probabilistic survival of the fittest. Killed individuals
are superseded by children, which are created by breeding the
remaining individuals in the population. For each child produced,
breeding first requires probabilistic selection of two parent indi-
viduals, getting more chance to choose fitter individuals. Mutation
allows new areas of the response surface to be explored by random
alterations of optimization variables. GA iteratively improved the
set of tentative solutions by applying the aforementioned stages
to find a good solution.

3.1. Objective functions

The following objective functions are considered and the above

three proposed configurations of HRSG are optimized for each
function.

3.1.1. Maximum power production

W Total W HP W IP W LP 42

3.1.2. Maximum heat recovery rate

Q Total Q HP Q IP Q LP 43

3.1.3. Minimum entropy generation



E_ destruction E_ Waste T0 Rg P 0 DP g T g;out  T 0
Ns ln ln
m_ g C pg T 0 T g;in C pg P0 T0



m_ w cpw;LE T sat;L m_ w;L hfg;L _ w;L cw;LS
m T sup;L
ln ln
m _ g C pg T w;in m_ g C pg T sat;L m_ g C pg T sat;L



_
mw;H cpw;HE T sat;I m _ h
w;I fg;I _
mw;i cw;IS T sup;I
ln ln
m _ g C pg T w;in;I m_ g C pg T sat;I m_ g C pg T sat;I



m_ w;H cpw;H T sat;H m_ w;H hfg;H m _ w;H cw;RH T s;RH
ln ln
m _ g C pg T w;in;H m_ g C pg T sat;H m_ g C pg T TOT


m_ w;H cw;HS T sup;H
ln
m _ g C pg T sat;H
44

3.1.4. Maximum energetic efficiency

W HP W IP W LP
gth 45
Q HP Q IP Q LP
Fig. 5. Temperature-enthalpy diagram: (a) HRSG 1P, (b) HRSG 2P, (c) HRSG 3P.
 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617 609

3.1.5. Maximum exergetic efficiency Table 1

Input parameters which are used in the mathematical model.

W HP W IP W LP Input parameters Unit Value

gex 46
ExHP ExIP ExLP T0 C 25

 m_g kg/s 657.5
  T ing Pcond bar 0.12
_ g C pg T ing  T 0
ExQ ExHP ExIP ExLP m  T 0  ln
T0 V m3 2500
Fin configurations in the economizers (No. of cm 1.18/0.19/1.27
47 fins per (cm)/fin thickness/fin height)
Fin configurations in the evaporator (No. of cm 1.57/0.19/1.27
fins per (cm)/fin thickness/fin height)
3.2. Decision variables Fin configurations in the superheater (No. of fins cm 0.4/0.19/1.27
per (cm)/fin thickness/fin height)
In thermal system design and optimization, it is convenient to
identify two types of independent variables. These variables are
decision variables and parameters. The decision variables may be
varied in optimization process. However, the parameters remain 3.3. Assumptions
fixed in a given application. All other variables are dependent vari-
ables. Their values are calculated from independent variables using Input parameters, which are considered in modeling and opti-
thermodynamic relations. mizing of the system, are represented in Table 1. In addition, some
Genetic algorithm using Matlab software optimization toolbox of the main assumptions to develop the mathematical model are as
is herein employed to optimize objective functions, decision vari- follows:
ables and constraints. The tuning parameters of the optimization
program are presented in Table 2 and the decision variables of
System is at steady state.
the genetic algorithm, used in this study, are as follows:
The pressure drop in the water steam line is neglected.
The length of the each heat exchanger
There is no extraneous heat loss.
1:5m 6 Lx;i 6 10m; i 1 : 10 48
The length of the tubes 3.4. Constraints

3m 6 Ly 6 12m 49 The following limitations are considered for decision variables

The width of each section in the optimization study. These constraints are related to the
operating restrictions HRSG and must be satisfied:
3m 6 Lz 6 12m 50
X
The longitudinal pitch ratios V Lx  Lz  Ly 2500m3 ; Lx Lx;i 57

1:5 6 aL;i 6 4:5; i 1 : 10 51

10 6 DT pinch;HP 6 17; 10 6 DT pinch;IP 6 17; 10 6 DT pinch;LP 6 17
The transverse pitch ratio 58
1:5 6 az 6 5; i 1 : 10 52
5 6 DT App;HP 6 20; 5 6 DT App;IP 6 20; 5 6 DT App;LP 6 20 59
The tube diameters of the each heat exchangers
do;i 33:4; 42:2; 48:3; 60:3; 73; 88:9mm; i 1 : 10 53 T sup;HP  853K 6 0; T sup;IP  853K 6 0; T sup;IP  853K 6 0 60
First pressure level (LP)
PHP  160bar 6 0 61
2 6 PLP 6 12bar 54
Second pressure level (IP)
4. Constructal design
10 6 PLP 6 40bar 55
Constructal theory holds that every flow system exists with
Third pressure level (HP)
purpose (or objective, function). In nature, flows occur over a wide
40 6 PLP 6 160bar 56 range of scales with the purpose of reducing the existing gradients
To select the values of the tube diameters (discrete decisions), (temperature, pressure, etc.). In engineered structures heat and
ten decision variable (30  do,i  90 (mm)) are defined and the fol- mass flows occur for the same reason, and by dissipating minimum
lowing conditions are considered to select the conventional tube exergy they reduce the fuel requirement, and make all such sys-
diameters for each section of the HRSG. The imposed conditions tems more fit, i.e., better survivors. They flow better and better,
to select the discrete decision variables are: internally and over the surface of the earth.
The purpose of heat engines is to extract maximum useful work
if 30 6 do;i 6 40 : do;i 33:4mm from heat currents that flow between systems at different temper-
atures. Other machines work similarly; i.e., with purpose, e.g., by
if 40 < do;i 6 45 : do;i 42:2mm
collecting or distributing streams, or for enhancing heat or mass
transfer. Performance is a measure of the degree to which each sys-
if 45 < do;i 6 55 : do;i 48:3mm
tem realizes its purpose. The design of engineered systems evolves
in time toward configurations that offer better performance, i.e.,
if 55 < do;i 6 70 : do;i 60:3mm
better achievement of their purpose.
The system purpose is global. It is present along with fixed global
if 70 < do;i 6 80 : do;i 73mm
constraints, which may include the space allocated to the system,
available material and components, allowable temperature, pres-
if 80 < do;i 6 90 : do;i 88:9mm
sure or stress ranges, etc. The system designer brings together all
610 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

Table 2 the search of the best solution within the framework of a set of
Tuning parameters in the Genetic Algorithm. constraints. The constraints may vary from allowable materials,
Tuning parameters Value material properties, area or volume allocated to the system,
Population size 400 requirements to avoid hot-spots, or not to surpass maximal values
Maximum no. of generations 700 of temperature, pressure, stresses, etc. Depending on the systems
Minimum function tolerance 1e-5 nature, optimization may focus on exergy analysis, entropy gener-
Probability of crossover (%) 80 ation, thermoeconomics or minimization of highest stress, temper-
Probability of mutation (%) 1
Number of crossover point 2
ature or pressure. This direction is recognized as constructal design,
Selection process Tournament and with it designers seek not only better configurations but also
Tournament size 2 better (faster, cheaper, more direct, more reliable) strategies for
generating the geometry.
The global objective of a HRSG is to heat the stream of water in
Table 3 the most compact manner possible. Compactness translates ulti-
Model validation by Ref. [15]. mately into less volume, weight and cost of manufacturing, trans-
Input parameters Unit Ref. [15] Data Model data portation, assembly and maintenance. It is also related to the
improvement of thermodynamic performance subject to finite-
Exhaust gas mass flow rate kg/s 657.5 657.5
Exhaust gas temperature C 644 644
size constraint.
Condenser pressure bar 0.12 0.12 In this work, shape and structure for three different configura-
Output variables
tions of HRSG are optimized by considering different objective
1st level pressure bar 4.2 4.319 functions subject to total volume constraint. By using this con-
2nd level pressure bar 25.3 25.8 straint consistently at every level of construction, all competing
3rd level pressure bar 142.5 152.83 shapes and structures are investigate and the best one which the
1st level steam mass flow rate kg/s 12.63 15.59
HRSG global objective is maximum is selected as the final flow
2nd level steam mass flow rate kg/s 12.76 21.33
3rd level steam mass flow rate kg/s 86.7 82.69 configuration.
Maximal steam cycle temperature C 565 570.3
Net output MW 145.5 151.81

5. Results and discussion

A computer program based on the procedure explained in the

components, and optimizes the arrangement in order to reach max-
imum performance. In this way, the optimal flow architecture is
constructed. Therefore, the flow architecture (shape, structure) is
deduced, not assumed in advance. The constructal theory focuses
on the construction of optimal flow architecture, internal and
external.
Optimization makes sense only when purpose exists and the
problem-solver has the freedom to morph the configuration in
previous section was developed. The geometric parameters and
values of the pressure levels are considered as decision variables.
In addition, total volume of the HRSG is deemed fix and several
constraints are considered to optimize the objective functions.
Optimization is done using genetic algorithm method. In order to
optimize the objective functions at each step, it is assumed that
gas flow rate is fixed and optimization process is done for different
_ g and
values of the gas inlet temperature. As a way of illustration, m

Table 4
Comparison of the power production ratio for different types of HRSGs.

2 Pressure levels 3 Pressure levels

Ref. [4] Data Model data Ref. [4] Data Model data
Woptimum/Wmax,single pressure 1.177 1.181 1.225 1.241

Fig. 6. Comparison of the produced steam to gas flow rate ratio with Ref. [13].
 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617 611

Tinw are considered as fixed parameters while Ting is changed from
350 (C) to 650 (C). For a given inlet gas temperature, each objec-
tive function is optimized using the genetic algorithm method sub-
jected to the fixed volume constraint (Eq. (1)). Values of the
decision variable and thermodynamic parameters are obtained
by the above-mentioned procedure. It is noteworthy that thermo-
dynamic and geometric variables are dependent. It means if all of
the geometric variables are known, thermodynamic variables and
gas pressure drop can be obtained. The main assumptions, opti-
mization approach, constraints and the results are given below.
5.1. Model validation
To verify the validity of the suggested model, the model outputs
are compared with different data from literature. The comparison
between model results and Ref. [15] is represented in Table 3. It
is shown that results are close to the data of Ref. [15] and there
is a slight difference between them, which is acceptable. Moreover,
the results are validated by two other researches work (Refs.
[4,13]) which are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 6. The imposed con-
straints such as the limited total volume and pinch point criteria
are reasons of the slight deviations presented in this section. In
sum, there is an admissible conformity among the results and
literature.
5.2. Optimal designs
5.2.1. Maximum power production
In order to avoid mechanical degradation and deterioration of
the aerodynamic performances of the last stages of steam turbine,
the steam fraction should be higher than 88%. To maintain a good
operation of HRSG and turbine material, the steam pressure and
temperature at HRSG exit should not exceed 160 bar and 580 C,
respectively [13]. The optimal values of the steam pressure at inlet
of the HP turbine for different values of the inlet gas temperature
are depicted in Fig. 7. The limitation of the steam quality at outlet
of the LP turbine restricts the maximum values of HP steam pres-
sure. The superheated steam temperature has lower values at

180

160

140

120

100
PHP (bar)

80

60

40

20

0
350 400 450 500 525 550 575 600 650

Ting ( C)
3P 2P 1P

Fig. 7. Optimum values of the high pressure (HP) versus Ting (OF: Maximum Power).

1P 2P 3P
180

160

140

120
Wmax (MW)

100

80

60

40

20

0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Ting ( C)

Fig. 8. Optimal power production as a function of the inlet hot gas temperature.
612 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

lower amount of the inlet gas temperature that increases the pos-
sibility of reducing the steam quality at outlet of LP turbine. There-
fore, the values of HP steam pressure are lower at lower Ting and
increases by soaring the hot gas temperature. Moreover, for a given
value of Ting, it is possible to reach higher steam pressure by adding
a pressure level.
Variations in the optimal power production as a function of the
inlet hot gas temperature for the three different configurations of
HRSG are represented in Fig. 8. The power consumption of the
pumps corresponding to the maximum power production are cal-
culated and these values are subtracted from the total power pro-
duction, for all three configurations. The isentropic efficiency of

Fig. 9. Effects of the gas inlet temperature on the total steam fractions produced by the three types of HRSG (OF: Maximum Power).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 10. The steam production ratios for each pressure level versus the gas inlet temperature: (a) 2P HRSG, (b) 3P HRSG (OF: Maximum Power).
 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617 613

pumps is considered equal to 85%. As shown, power production
strongly depends on the inlet gas temperature. Increasing the hot
gas temperature, would enhance the driving force for heat transfer.
Therefore, at higher temperatures, the steam production and out-
put power increase. Furthermore, power production for the three
HRSG configurations are compared. For all values of Ting, triple
pressure HRSG leads to higher values of work than HRSG 2P and
1P, respectively.
Considering Fig. 9, it is clear that gas inlet temperature has signif-
icant effect on the total steam fractions (the ratio of the total pro-
duced steam to gas mass flow rate) produced by the three types of
HRSG. As shown, m _ w /m
_ g increases by the growth of gas inlet temper-
ature. For all the values of Ting, the triple pressure HRSG produces
more steam as compared with dual and single pressure level HRSGs.
For instance, the total produced steam to gas flow rate ratios for
1P, 2P and 3P at Ting = 600 C, are 13.53%, 15.86% and 16.88%,
respectively. The total size of the HRSG (the total volume) is
deemed to be fixed and has the same value for all three configura-
tions. Therefore, the same size the HRSGs have, the same approxi-
mate cost would be.
The steam production ratios for each pressure level versus the
gas inlet temperature for 2P and 3P HRSGs are distinctively
depicted in Fig. 10. The steam production at HP level is much
higher than that of the IP and LP pressure levels. This difference
increases by rising the gas inlet temperature. By way of illustration,
steam production to gas flow rate ratios for LP, IP and HP pressure
levels, at Ting = 550 C, are 2.53%, 3.53% and 9.14%, respectively.
These values for LP and HP levels of the dual pressure HRSG are
5.8% and 8.8%, respectively.
In the constructal design of the HRSG, the aim is to search for
the best designation of the heat transfer surface among the heat
exchangers. Optimal dimensions of the main heat exchangers for
maximum power are shown in Table 5. The results show that for
the triple pressure HRSG, about 34.5% of the total size is allocated
to the evaporators, 31.8% to the economizers, 24.7% to the super-
heaters and 9% to the reheater. For the dual and single pressure
HRSGs, the highest value of the heat transfer area are dedicated
to the evaporators, too. According to Table 5, inlet temperature
of the flue gas has negligible effect on the geometric parameters
of the HRSG which the value of the heat transfer surface of the
three configurations of HRSG remain approximately constant by
changing Ting from 350 C to 650 C.
Fig. 11 shows the optimal values of the UA for maximum power
production as a function of the inlet gas temperature for three lay-
outs of the HRSG. The results show that for all configurations, most
of the UA is dedicated to the evaporators and economizers. For
instance, about 52% and 21% of the total UA for the dual pressure
HRSG are earmarked to the evaporators and economizers. More-
over, it is obvious that Ting has a slight effect on allocation of UA
to the heat exchangers. This results supports the one presented
by Table 5 which comes to the conclusion that the heat transfer
areas of the main section of the HRSG have slender variation by
the gas inlet temperature.
5.2.2. Maximum heat recovery
In this section, maximization of the heat transfer subject to the
total volume constraint is considered as the objective function. The
variations of the maximum heat recovery with the hot gas inlet
temperature is depicted in Fig. 12. This figure illuminates a high
sensitivity of the heat recovery to Ting and also a moderate increase
in its value by escalating the number of pressure level. As shown,
heat recovery in the triple pressure HRSG has higher value in com-

Table 5
Optimal length for main heat exchangers of the HRSG.

(a) Optimal dimensions for the three configuration of HRSG

Ting (C) 1P 2P 3P
Lx (m) Ly (m) Lz (m) Lx (m) Ly (m) Lz (m) Lx (m) Ly (m) Lz (m)
350 30.91 9.23 8.77 31.70 9.94 7.93 43.28 8.62 6.70
400 31.68 9.08 8.69 31.64 9.98 7.91 43.46 8.02 7.18
450 31.63 9.11 8.67 31.62 9.98 7.92 43.30 8.46 6.83
500 32.06 9.11 8.56 31.83 9.91 7.93 43.84 8.22 6.94
550 32.01 7.81 10.00 31.89 9.87 7.94 43.29 9.10 6.35
600 31.80 8.61 9.13 31.65 9.94 7.94 43.01 8.51 6.83
650 33.08 9.01 8.39 31.77 9.95 7.91 43.68 9.37 6.11

(b) Optimal aspect ratio for the single and dual pressure HRSG
Ting 1Pa 2Pa
LxHS LxRH LxHB LxHE LxHS LxRH LxHB LxHE LxLS LxLB LxLE LxS LxB LxE
Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx

350 16.81 16.81 40.90 25.48 10.16 10.16 18.21 15.39 11.86 18.76 15.46 22.02 36.97 30.85
400 15.98 15.98 43.82 24.22 10.18 10.18 18.76 15.42 11.88 18.10 15.49 22.06 36.86 30.91
450 16.13 16.13 43.29 24.45 10.18 10.18 18.61 15.43 11.89 18.21 15.50 22.07 36.82 30.93
500 15.74 15.74 44.66 23.86 10.12 10.12 18.82 15.33 11.81 18.40 15.40 21.93 37.22 30.73
550 16.07 16.07 43.51 24.35 10.10 10.10 18.80 15.30 11.79 18.55 15.36 21.89 37.35 30.67
600 16.01 16.01 43.70 24.27 10.18 10.18 18.15 15.42 11.88 18.71 15.48 22.06 36.86 30.90
650 15.13 15.13 46.79 22.94 10.14 10.14 18.60 15.36 11.84 18.50 15.43 21.97 37.10 30.79

(c) Optimal aspect ratio for the triple pressure HRSG

Ting 3Pa
LxHS LxRH LxHB LxHE LxIS LxIB LxIE LxLS LxLB LxLE LxS LxB LxE
Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx Lx

350 7.44 8.96 12.36 10.00 9.01 9.86 11.09 8.32 12.18 10.78 24.77 34.40 31.87
400 7.41 8.93 12.42 9.95 8.97 12.35 11.05 8.28 9.90 10.74 24.67 34.67 31.73
450 7.44 8.96 12.96 9.99 9.01 12.10 11.09 8.31 9.36 10.78 24.76 34.42 31.86
500 7.35 8.85 12.15 10.36 8.90 12.68 10.95 8.21 9.92 10.63 24.45 34.75 31.94
550 7.44 8.96 12.24 10.00 9.01 9.03 11.09 8.32 13.14 10.78 24.76 34.41 31.87
600 7.29 9.02 11.92 10.01 9.07 10.45 11.16 8.37 12.36 10.39 24.73 34.72 31.55
650 7.37 8.88 8.69 9.90 8.93 12.69 10.99 8.24 13.62 10.68 24.54 35.01 31.57
a
The unit of aspect ratio is %.
614 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617

1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P 1P 2P 3P

0.05
1

0.06

0.06
0.06

0.06

0.07

0.07

0.07
0.07
0.07

0.07

0.08

0.08
0.08

0.07
0.08
0.08

0.09
0.09

0.09

0.09
0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21
0.21
0.23

0.23

0.23

0.23
0.24

0.23

0.23
0.8

0.35

0.34

0.34

0.34

0.34
0.34

0.34
0.6
UAi/UAT

0.55

0.53

0.52

0.52

0.51
0.52

0.51

0.38
0.39

0.39

0.38
0.59

0.58

0.38
0.58

0.39
0.56

0.55
0.38

0.55
0.56
0.4

0.2

0.21

0.21
0.21

0.21

0.21
0.21

0.21

0.20
0.20

0.20

0.20
0.20

0.19
0.19

0.12
0.12
0.12

0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11

0
350 350 350 400 400 400 450 450 450 500 500 500 550 550 550 600 600 600 650 650 650

Ting ( C) UAEco/UAT UAEva/UAT

UASup/UAT UARH/UAT

Fig. 11. Optimal allocation of the UA for maximum power production.

400
1P

350 2P

3P
300

250
Qmax (MW)

200

150

100

50

0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Ting ( C)

Fig. 12. Variations of the maximum heat recovery with the hot gas inlet temperature.

parison with dual and single pressure HRSGs. For example, heat streams, and the possibility of using exergy depending on the use
recovery in 3P HRSG when Ting = 500 C is equal to 262.4 MW of (heating or cooling uses) heat exchangers is more [4]. Therefore,
which is 6% and 35% higher than that of the 2P and 1P HRSGs. distribution of heat exchangers in HRSG to different sections and
using these heat exchangers in a specific temperature range
decrease the irreversibility of the heat transfer process.
5.2.3. Minimum entropy generation
The evolution of exergy destruction with the inlet gas temper-
The entropy generation of HRSG can be evaluated by using Eq.
ature for three configurations of the HRSG are illustrated by
(44). Considering Fig. 13, it is clear that the inlet gas temperature
Fig. 14. It can be seen that the HRSG with highest-pressure level
has significant effect on the entropy generation number where Ns
has the lowest value of exergy destruction. Triple pressure HRSG
decreases by increasing the amount of Ting.
destroys less exergy as compared with dual and single pressure
Furthermore, the number of pressure levels is another parame-
HRSG, for all Ting values. In addition, this figure represents that
ter that effects on the entropy generation. Optimal values of Ns
exergy destruction rate declines by increasing the gas inlet
markedly decline by adding a pressure level to HRSG where
temperature.
entropy generation numbers are 0.25, 0.21 and 0.19 for 1P, 2P
and 3P HRSGs, respectively. This is in accordance with the second
law of thermodynamics that in heat exchangers with one cold and 5.2.4. Maximum thermal efficiency
one hot stream, the irreversibility of the heat transfer process is Fig. 15 reveals variation of the optimal thermal performance as
less for small temperature differences between cold and hot an objective function versus the inlet gas temperature. As it shows,
 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617 615

0.40
1P
2P
0.35
3P

0.30

0.25
Ns

0.20

0.15

0.10
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Ting ( C)

Fig. 13. Optimized entropy generation number versus Ting.

1P
0.5
2P
3P
0.45

0.4

Ed 0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2
350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Ting ( C)

Fig. 14. Rate of exergy destruction as a function of inlet gas temperature for three configurations of the HRSG.

0.45

0.4

0.35

th
0.3

0.25

0.2
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Ting ( C)
1P 2P 3P

Fig. 15. The optimal thermal performance of the systems.

for all three configurations, energetic efficiency increases by esca-
lating Ting and the curves have upward trend. Moreover, increment
of the number of pressure level improves the thermal efficiency. For
single pressure HRSG, gth at Ting = 500 C is equal to 32.64%, whereas
thermal efficiency of 2P and 3P HRSGs are 36.13% and 38.25% that
shows about 3% efficiency improvement by adding each pressure
level. This trend can be anticipated from Qmax and Wmax (Figs. 8
and 12) where by soaring the inlet gas temperature and number
of pressure level, heat recovery and power production have upward
trend. So, energetic efficiency would have the same behavior.
616 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
EX
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
300 350 400
Fig. 16. Optimal exergetic efficiency versus Ting.
5.2.5. Maximum exergy efficiency
The results of the second law efficiency optimization subject to
the fixed total volume constraint is represented in Fig. 16. Accord-
ing to this figure, single pressure HRSG has lowest value of the
exergetic efficiency that its value remarkably increases by rising
the inlet gas temperature and difference between exergy efficiency
of the three configurations of the HRSG decreases by rising Ting. For
example, at Ting = 450 C, the gEX for 3P, 2P and 1P are 0.731, 0.671
and 0.61 while at Ting = 650 C, these values are 0.742, 0.765 and
0.787, respectively.
6. Conclusion
In summary, optimization of the three configurations of HRSG
system on the basis of the constructal law was performed using
a comprehensive mathematical model. The model solves a set of
linear and non-linear equations describing the performance of
the components in HRSG units. Several objective functions were
considered and optimized by using the genetic algorithm method
subject to the total volume constraint. The results revealed that
variations in different objective functions strongly affected by the
hot gas inlet temperature. Also, the use of several pressure levels
in HRSGs causes a considerable increase in the power production,
declines irreversibility in HRSGs and allows producing higher
steam flow rate for all values of the inlet gas temperature. More-
over, the following general conclusions can be used for all opera-
tion conditions of HRSG systems.

Steam production at HP level is much higher than that of the LP
and IP levels.

Most of the heat transfer area is dedicated to evaporators.

For all configurations, most of the UA is allocated to the evapo-
rators and economizers.

The heat recovery in the triple pressure HRSG has higher value
in comparison with single and dual pressure HRSG.

The HRSG with highest pressure level has the lowest value of
exergy destruction.

Optimal values of entropy generation number markedly decline
by adding a pressure level to HRSG.

The heat transfer areas of the main sections of HRSG have slen-
der variation by the gas inlet temperature.
This general constructal design proves to be very efficient in the
case of HRSG design and can be used as a practical model in many
1P
2P
3P
450 500 550 600 650 700
Ting ( C)
engineering applications. Results show that the present design
method can adequately satisfy the designer requirements and
can be sufficiently used in problems with more complicated
conditions.
References
[1] A. Ongiro, V.I. Ugursal, A.M. Al Taweel, JD. Walker, Modeling of heat recovery
steam generator performance, Appl. Therm. Eng. 16 (1997) 427444.
[2] N. Subhramanyam, S. Rajaram, N. Kamalnathan, HRSGs for combined cycle
power plants, Heat Recov. Syst. CHP 15 (1997) 153161.
[3] M. Valds, M.D. Durn, A. Rovira, Thermoeconomic optimist of combined cycle
gas tribune power plants using genetic algorithms, Appl. Therm. Eng. 23 (2003)
21682180.
[4] M. Mohagheghi, J. Shayegan, Thermodynamic optimization of design variable
and heat exchanger layout in HRSGs for CCGT, using genetic algorithm, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 290298.
[5] M.D. Durn, M. Valds, A. Rovira, E. Rincn, A methodology for the geometric
design of heat recovery steam generators applying genetic algorithms, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 52 (2013) 77e83.
[6] S. Naemi, M. Saffar-Avval, S. Behboodi Kalhori, Z. Mansoori, Optimum design of
dual pressure heat recovery steam generator using non-dimensional
parameters based on thermodynamic and thermoeconomic approaches,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 52 (2013) 371384.
[7] S. Bracco, S. Siri, Exergetic optimization of single level combined gas steam
power plants considering different objective functions, Energy 35 (2010)
53655373.
[8] J.I. Manassaldi, S.F. Mussati, N.J. Scenna, Optimal synthesis and design of Heat
Recovery Steam Generation (HRSG) via mathematical programming, Energy 36
(2011) 475485.
[9] R. Carapellucci, L. Giordano, A comparison between exergetic and economic
criteria for optimizing the heat recovery steam generators of gas-steam power
plants, Energy 58 (2013) 458472.
[10] J.I. Manassaldi, A.M. Aria, N.J. Scenna, M.C. Mussati, S.F. Mussati, A discrete and
continuous mathematical model for the optimal synthesis and design of dual
pressure heat recovery steam generators coupled to two steam turbines,
Energy 103 (2016) 807823.
[11] M. Badami, M. Mura, Exergetic analysis of an innovative small scale combined
cycle cogeneration system, Energy 35 (6) (2010) 25352543.
[12] A. Datta, R. Ganguly, L. Sarkar, Energy and exergy analyses of an externally
fired gas turbine (EFGT) cycle integrated with biomass gasifier for distributed
power generation, Energy 35 (1) (2010) 341350.
[13] M. Nadir, MA. Ghenaiet, Thermodynamic optimization of several (heat
recovery steam generator) HRSG configurations for a range of exhaust gas
temperatures, Energy 86 (2015) 685695.
[14] M. Tajik Mansouri, P. Ahmadi, A. Ganjeh Kaviri, M. Nazri, Exergetic and
economic evaluation of the effect of HRSG configurations on the performance
of combined cycle power plants, Energy Convers. Manage. 58 (2012) 4758.
[15] D. Sanchez, R. Chacartegui, JM. Munoz, A. Munoz, T. Sanchez, Performance
analysis of a heavy duty combined cycle power plant burning various syngas
fuels, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010) 337345.
[16] A. Bejan, Shape and Structure From Engineering to Nature, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.
[17] A. Bejan, S. Lorente, Constructal theory of generation of configuration in nature
and engineering, J. Appl. Phys. 100 (2006) 041301.
 M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour / Applied Thermal Engineering 122 (2017) 601617
[18] A. Bejan, S. Lorente, Design with Constructal Theory, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Hoboken, 2008.
[19] Y. Kim, S. Lorente, A. Bejan, Constructal steam generator architecture, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 23622369.
[20] Y. Kim, S. Lorente, A. Bejan, Steam generator structure: continuous model and
constructal design, Int. J. Energy Res. 35 (2011) 336345.
[21] E. Norouzi, M. Amidpour, Optimal thermodynamic and economic volume of a
heat recovery steam generator by constructal design, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transfer 39 (2012) 12861292.
[22] S. Lorente, J. Lee, Y. Kim, A. Bejan, Power from a hot gas stream with multiple
superheaters and reheaters, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 67 (2013) 153158.
[23] M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour, Constructal design of humidification-
dehumidification desalination unit architecture, Desalination 271 (2011) 6271.
[24] M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour, Derivation of optimal geometry of a multi-effect
humidificationdehumidification desalination unit: A constructal design,
Desalination 293 (2012) 6977.
[25] M. Mehrgoo, M. Amidpour, Constructal design and optimization of a direct
contact humidificationdehumidification desalination unit, Desalination 293
(2012) 6977.
[26] L. Lorenzini, L.A. Oliveira, Constructal design of Y-shaped assembly of fins, Int.
J. Heat Mass Transf. 49 (2006) 45524557.
[27] L. Lorenzini, L.A. Oliveira, Constructal design of T-Y assembly of fins for an
optimized heat removal, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 14581463.
[28] S. Lorente, A. Bejan, Heterogeneous porous media as multiscale structures for
maximum flow access, J. Appl. Phys. 100 (2006) 114909.
[29] V.D. Zimparov, A.K. Da Silva, A. Bejan, Constructal tree-shaped parallel flow
heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 49 (2006) 45584566.
[30] Y. Muzychka, Constructal multi-scale design of compact micro-tube heat sinks
and heat exchangers, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 46 (2007) 245252.
617
[31] V.A.P. Raja, T. Basak, SK. Das, Thermal performance of a multi-block heat
exchanger designed on the basis of Bejans constructal theory, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 51 (2008) 35823594.
[32] L. Luoa, Z. Fan, H. Gall, X. Zhou, W. Yuan, Experimental study of constructal
distributor for flow equi-distribution in a mini cross flow heat exchanger
(MCHE), Chem. Eng. Process. 47 (2008) 229236.
[33] A. Vahdat Azad, M. Amidpour, Economic optimization of shell and tube heat
exchanger based on constructal theory, Energy 36 (2011) 10871096.
[34] Y. Azoumah, N. Mazet, P. Neveu, Constructal network for heat and mass
transfer in a solidgas reactive porous medium, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 47
(2004) 29612970.
[35] T. Azoumah, P. Neveu, N. Mazet, Constructal design combined with entropy
generation minimization for solidgas reactors, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 45 (2006)
716728.
[36] A. Bejan, J. Lee, S. Lorente, Y. Kim, The evolutionary design of condensers, J.
Appl. Phys. 117 (2015) 125101.
[37] S. Lorente, Constructal law applications to efficient design: electrokinetics
systems and enclosures for heat transfer, ASME J. Heat Transfer 137 (2015)
061005.
[38] D. Gonzlez, J. Amigo, S. Lorente, A. Bejan, F. Surez, Constructal design of salt-
gradient solar pond fields, Int. J. Energy Res. 40 (2016) 14281446.
[39] S. Lorente, A. Bejan, J.L. Niu, Phase change heat storage in an enclosure with
vertical pipe in the center, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 72 (2014) 329335.
[40] V. Ganaphathy, Industrial Boilers and Heat Recovery Steam Generators.
Design, Applications and Calculations, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 2003.
[41] F.P. Incropera, D.P. DeWitt, T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavine, Fundamentals of Heat
and Mass Transfer, seventh ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2011.