Combined Cycle and Steam Gas-Fired Power Plant Analysis through Exergoeconomic and Extended Combined Pinch and Exergy Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exergy analysis, thermoeconomics, and combined pinch and exergy analyses are useful methods for improving design and performance of processes such as thermal power plants. However, these methods are usually applied separately. In this paper, the methods are applied simultaneously to the 423-MW Neka combined-cycle power plant and the 315-MW Ramin steam power plant to evaluate and compare the performance of the systems and their components under different load conditions. To perform these analyses, a computer simulation and analysis program is developed. The simulator can predict the cycle behavior for different operating conditions with relative errors of less than 1.5%. The models are refined using performance test data from these plants. The system information is displayed graphically to visualize the performance of the systems for different conditions by applying combined pinch-exergy analysis. To better illustrate the plant performance and benefits of knowing the exergy destructions, the exergy destruction level (EDL) and the exergy cost destruction level (ECDL) are proposed and applied. Correspondingly, a new graphical representation is developed to illustrate the performance of each component based on exergoeconomic analysis, providing enhanced combined pinch-exergy and EDL/ECDL representations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".