A Gas Turbine Cycle Selection Issue: Recuperated or ICR

Abstract

The intercooled recuperative gas turbine (ICR) potentially offers the advantages of higher specific power, and improved thermal efficiency compared to the recuperative gas turbine, such advantages are however contingent upon the additional parasitic encumbrances of the intercooler heat dissipation or recovery apparatus and pressure losses, plus flowpath ducting and complexity. The thermodynamic performances, relative sizing and relative costs of both an ICR and recuperative gas turbine engine, with a thermal efficiency goal approaching 40%, combined with low exhaust emission requirements were studied. The study encompassed primary candidate engine flowpath configurations comprising of single shaft, two shaft, and two spool designs, with both recuperation (R), and combined Intercooling and Recuperation (ICR). In conducting the study all engine flowpaths were sized for 300kW with a maximum turbine inlet temperature of 1837F (1000C), representative of conservative life limits for conventional un-cooled superalloy turbine rotors. Heat exchanger effectivenesses of the intercooler and recuperator were selected at 80 and 85%, as a compromise between cost, weight, and thermal efficiency considerations. The study confirmed that the simple recuperated cycle is capable of comparable peak thermal efficiency levels to the ICR provided that ICR intercooling parasitic losses are duly accounted, and furthermore has intrinsically lower manufacturing and development costs than the ICR. The cycle performance code used for the studies included prediction of engine exhaust emissions, part load characteristics, and compressor operating lines. The emissions assessment slightly favored the ICR as a consequence of its higher specific power. Assuming part load operation at variable speed and constant turbine exhaust temperature, the two spool ICR showed slightly better part load fuel economy than a recuperated engine.