Supercritical CO

2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado
Modeling Off-Design Operation of a
Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle

John J. Dyreby, Sanford A. Klein, Gregory F. Nellis, and Douglas T. Reindl
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Solar Energy Laboratory
1343 Engineering Research Building, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Email: jjdyreby@wisc.edu


Abstract

In the search for increased efficiency of utility-scale electricity generation, Brayton cycles operating with carbon
dioxide have found considerable interest. Due to the unique properties of carbon dioxide, high design-point
efficiencies can be realized by operating the compressor near the critical point (7.4 MPa and 31C). In this paper,
we show that the thermal efficiency and power production of a cycle using fixed turbomachinery designed to
provide optimal performance under these conditions will decrease as the compressor inlet temperature increases.
Conversely, turbomachinery designed to provide optimal performance at a higher compressor inlet temperature (e.g.,
60C), which results in lower efficiency at the design point, exhibits an increase in both efficiency and power
production under off-design conditions as the inlet temperature is reduced.

The findings of this research are significant in that they suggest the optimal design for the turbomachinery in a
supercritical carbon dioxide (S-CO
2
) Brayton power cycle, considering its overall performance, may not coincide
with the optimal design suggested by a simple on-design thermodynamic analysis. Initial results suggest that
designing for a higher compressor inlet temperature will not significantly degrade plant efficiency and it can yield
better off-design power production, possibly increasing the overall power plant performance evaluated on an annual
basis. These results are particularly relevant to renewable energy applications that are inherently transient, such as
concentrating solar power (CSP) systems.


1. Introduction

This paper reports on the development of models that allow the characterization and evaluation of supercritical
carbon dioxide (S-CO
2
) power cycles for concentrating solar power (CSP) applications. Specifically, the models
developed are used to predict the design point and off-design operation of the cycle in order to characterize the
performance of different cycle configurations for a CSP plant operating on an annual basis. High side cycle
conditions are assumed to be compatible with power tower operating temperatures in the 500C to 650C range and
low side conditions are consistent with dry or hybrid cooling heat rejection systems in an arid climate. Dry cooling
in this context involves the use of ambient air as the sole heat rejection medium, which has potential policy and
water conservation advantages that are moderated by a decrease in cycle efficiency (compared to the more
traditional use of a water-cooled system that uses a cooling tower for heat rejection).

Initial model development focuses on a recuperated Brayton cycle (shown in Figure 1) that consists of a compressor,
a turbine, and three heat exchangers: the precooler, the recuperator, and the primary heat exchanger.

Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado

Figure 1 Diagram of a recuperated Brayton cycle.
The model is flexible with respect to compressor and turbine design but the parameters are currently based on the
radial turbomachinery under investigation by Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) [1]. Specifically, turbomachinery
performance is characterized by a dimensionless head-flow curve based on experimental data from SNL. Heat
exchangers are modeled in a counter-flow configuration using discrete sections that are connected in series; this
representation allows the effect of the rapidly changing properties of carbon dioxide near the critical point to be
accurately captured. Given a particular physical plant (i.e., fixed turbomachinery and heat exchanger parameters)
that is designed for a specific operating point, the model is capable of simulating its performance under off-design
conditions. Further details on component modeling are provided in the section that follows.


2. Modeling Methodology

The three major components of a closed-loop Brayton cycle and variations thereof are the compressor(s), turbine(s),
and heat exchangers. The simple Brayton cycle with recuperation consists of one compressor, one turbine, and three
heat exchangers: the precooler, the primary heat exchanger, and the recuperator. Another cycle variation that shows
promise for S-CO
2
applications is the recompression Brayton cycle [2, 3], which adds a second compressor and a
second recuperator. Although the recompression cycle is more complex than the simple Brayton cycle, the
fundamental components required to analyze the cycle are the same.

The approach followed in the present analysis is to model each component separately and then integrate those
component models into a system-level model; thereby allowing analyses of multiple Brayton cycle variations under
both design and off-design conditions to be performed. To this end, a semi-empirical model for each of the
components was developed in the Fortran programming language with fluid properties provided by REFPROP [4,
5]. The semi-empirical model uses performance parameters that are based on the underlying physics of the
component and therefore allows off-design point operation to be estimated. The advantage of a semi-empirical
model as compared to a completely physics-based model is that it is computationally fast. The disadvantage is that
it is limited to a more narrow range of conditions that correspond to the region where the performance parameters
used in the model remain valid.

2.1 Heat Exchanger Model

Heat exchangers are modeled assuming a counter-flow configuration using discrete sections, or sub-heat exchangers,
connected in series; this arrangement allows the effect of the rapidly changing carbon dioxide properties near the
critical point to be accurately captured. A concise description of the sub-heat exchanger analysis is available in
Nellis and Klein [6].

The design heat exchanger conductance (also referred to as the UA value) is specified and an iterative approach is
used to determine the corresponding outlet temperatures, assuming that there is no heat loss through the heat
exchanger jacket to the surroundings. The UA value is strongly dependent on heat exchanger geometry and
relatively constant over a range of conditions and is therefore useful for off-design calculations. The effect of mass
Generator
Compressor Turbine
Precooler
Primary Heat
Exchanger
Recuperator Heat
Rejection
Heat
Addition
Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado
flow rate on heat transfer coefficients, and hence the conductance, is accounted for by scaling the UA value under
off-design conditions according to:


0.8
design
design
m
UA UA
m
| |
= |
|
\ .

(1)

where UA
design
is the conductance of the heat exchanger at the design-point mass flow rate of m
design
. The derivation
of Eq. (1) uses the Dittus-Boelter heat transfer correlation and is presented in Patnode [7]. A similar analysis using
the Darcy friction factor and Blasius correlation is used to scale pressure drop (P) through the heat exchanger
under off-design conditions:


7/ 4
design
design
m
P P
m
| |
A = A |
|
\ .

(2)

Specifying the design heat exchanger conductance as the performance parameter for the model allows for a fair
comparison between cycles because a larger UA value typically corresponds to a larger and more expensive heat
exchanger.

2.2 Compressor Model

The compressor model uses dimensionless flow and ideal head coefficients, which commonly describe compressor
performance and are derived by applying the Buckingham Pi theorem [8]. The ideal head coefficient and the
compressor efficiency are both functions of the flow coefficient, and this functional relation can vary significantly
between different compressor designs. The functional relation used within the model can be based on experimental
data or numerical predictions and therefore the semi-empirical compressor model is flexible with respect to how the
ideal head and efficiency curves are specified.

To facilitate development of the present turbomachine model, the compressor currently being studied for use with
carbon dioxide at Sandia National Laboratory [1] is used to generate the necessary relationships between the ideal
head coefficient, efficiency, and flow coefficient. An additional correction for shaft speed is proposed and used to
collapse the performance map into a single dimensionless head-flow curve. The modified head coefficient (
*
), flow
coefficient (
*
), and efficiency (
*
) are defined as:


1/ 5
*
2
design c c
m N
N U D
|

| |
= |
|
\ .

(3)


( )
3
*
20
*
2
design
i
i
c
N
h
N U
|

| | A
=
|
\ .
(4)


( )
5
*
20
* design
N
N
|
q q
| |
=
|
\ .
(5)

where m is the mass flow rate through the compressor, is the density of the fluid at the compressor inlet, U
c
is the
tip speed of the rotor, D
c
is the diameter of the rotor, N is the shaft speed, N
design
is the design shaft speed (75,000
rpm for the SNL compressor), and h
i
is the isentropic enthalpy rise of the fluid through the compressor. Figure



2(a) is the
applying E

Figure 2
Curve fits
provide the
limit for th
are charact
0.05, which

The compr
calculated
empirical c
operating u
component

2.3 T

The initial
[9]. The m
dependent



where A
nozz
turbine inle
expanded i

Chen and B
efficiency
performance m
Eqs. (3-5) for sh
(
2 (a) Perform
loop [1] an
to the modified
e relations requ
he unmodified f
terized by aero
h corresponds
ressor model is
without requir
compressor mo
under off-desig
t models. The
urbine Model
model develop
mass flow rate t
on shaft speed
zle
is an effectiv
et, and C
s
(refe
isentropically t
Baines [10] hav
of an ideal turb
map for the com
haft speeds gre
a)
mance map for th
nd (b) result of a
d ideal head co
uired by the sem
flow coefficien
odynamic instab
to an ideal hea
s explicit: given
ring iteration. A
odel typically i
gn conditions a
result is an im
l
pment is applic
through a turbi
d. As a first ord
ve nozzle area
erred to as the s
to the outlet pre
ve proposed a
bine with no in
mpressor overla
eater than 35,00
he main compr
applying the mo
oefficient and e
mi-empirical c
nt is roughly 0.
bility and rapid
ad coefficient o
n the inlet cond
Although this m
s not. The inle
are typically no
mplicit system m
cable to radial t
ine is strongly
der approximat
m =
that is based o
spouting veloci
essure through
general relatio
nternal losses) a
aid onto experi
00 rpm.
ressor in the San
odified efficienc
efficiency, both
compressor mo
.021; operation
d flow reversal
of zero (i.e., no
ditions and ma
model is explic
et conditions an
ot known and m
model that requ
turbines, which
dependent on i
tion, this relati
s nozzle
C A =
on the geometry
ity) is the veloc
h an ideal nozzl
nship between
and velocity ra
Supercritica
imental data, a
ndia National L
cy, ideal head, a
h as a function
odel. For this p
n below this ca
ls. The upper l
o enthalpy rise
ass flow rate, th
cit, the system
nd mass flow r
must be solved
uires iteration.
h are appropria
its pressure rat
ionship is:
y of the turbine
city that would
le.
n the aerodynam
atio (, the ratio
al CO
2
Power
and Figure 2(b)
(b)
Laboratory supe
and flow coeffic
of modified fl
particular comp
an result in surg
limit of the flow
through the co
he outlet condit
model that use
rate for a close
for by integrat
ate for applicat
tio and inlet co
e, is the dens
d be achieved i
mic efficiency
o of rotor tip sp
Cycle Sympo
May 24-25,
Boulder, Col
) shows the res
ercritical CO
2
t
cients.
low coefficient
pressor, the low
ge conditions, w
w coefficient i
ompressor).
tions and powe
es the semi-
d Brayton cycl
ting various
tions up to 50 M
nditions and w
sity of the fluid
if the fluid was
(
turbine,aero
, the
peed to spoutin
osium
, 2011
lorado
sult of
test
t,
wer
which
is
er are
le
MWe
weakly
(6)
d at the
s
e
ng
Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado
velocity) for a turbine based on blade geometry and loading. For a well-designed turbine with a low loading
coefficient, the relationship simplifies to:


2
,
2 1
turbine aero
q v v = (7)

Plotting Eq. (7) results in the familiar relationship between aerodynamic efficiency and velocity ratio for a radial
turbine, shown in Figure 3. Note that the maximum efficiency occurs at a velocity ratio of 0.707, as expected [11].


Figure 3 Aerodynamic efficiency of a radial turbine as a function of velocity ratio.
The aerodynamic efficiency assumes an ideal turbine and does not take into account internal losses (e.g.,
recirculation, viscous effects, etc.). To account for these losses in the semi-empirical model, the efficiency of the
turbine is calculated by scaling the aerodynamic efficiency predicted by Eq. (7) by the efficiency of the turbine at
the design point.

The semi-empirical turbine model and the semi-empirical compressor model are complementary in that the
compressor model uses the mass flow rate as an input and returns the compressor outlet pressure (i.e., there is a
head-flow curve that relates pressure rise to mass flow rate), while the turbine model uses the inlet conditions and
outlet pressure as inputs and returns the mass flow rate (i.e., there is a flow resistance afforded by the fixed area
restriction in the turbine). Matching the head-flow curve of the compressor with the flow resistance of the turbine
(as well as the minor pressure drops through the heat exchangers) allows the operating point of the system to be
determined. Figure 4 illustrates this concept, showing the effects of changing shaft speed and turbine inlet
temperature on the operating point of the cycle. Note the operating characteristics shown are specific to the
geometry of the compressor and turbine used in the analysis, which were chosen arbitrarily for the purpose of model
illustration.

U
C
s

E
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado

Figure 4 Head-flow and flow resistance curves for different shaft speeds and turbine inlet temperatures;
the curves intersect at the corresponding operating point of the cycle.
The intersection of the compressor and turbine curves corresponds to the operating point of the system. Note that
changing the speed of the compressor has a significant impact on the operating point, whereas a change in turbine
inlet temperature has a much smaller effect.


3. Recuperated Brayton Cycle Modeling

The compressor and turbine inlet temperatures are specified as inputs for each respective model. These
specifications remove the need for modeling the precooler and primary heat exchanger explicitly using a sub-heat
exchanger analysis and allow the effect of compressor or turbine inlet temperatures to be investigated more directly.
The design-point efficiency of the cycle shown in Fig. 1 is determined for a range of compressor inlet temperatures
and pressures. A 10 MW power plant is modeled while holding constant the compressor and turbine isentropic
efficiency (0.9), the recuperator conductance (2,000 kW/C), and the turbine inlet temperature (550C). The
compressor outlet pressure is set to either 25 MPa or the maximum possible outlet pressure that could be achieved
while maintaining the tip speed of the compressor and turbine at Mach 0.9. The relative pressure drop through the
heat exchangers (P/P) is assumed to be 0.5% , which was chosen based on the average values presented by Dostal
[12]. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 5; note that every point in Fig. 5 corresponds to a unique set of
system hardware designed specifically to optimize the plant efficiency at that condition.

Turbine
25,000 rpm
35,000 rpm
30,000 rpm
550C
650C
450C
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

R
a
t
i
o
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado

Figure 5 Parametric design point efficiency for three compressor inlet pressures (solid lines) and the optimal
compressor inlet pressure (dotted black line) as a function of inlet temperature.
The abrupt decrease in thermal efficiencies shown in Fig. 5 for the 7.7 and 9 MPa cases with increasing inlet
temperature (corresponding to the transition from a solid to a dashed line) occur when the compressor tip speed
reaches a Mach number of 0.9; this constraint reduces the compressor outlet pressure and overall pressure ratio of
the cycle. As expected from literature, the highest design point efficiency is realized at pressures approaching the
critical pressure [2]. However, as the design-point compressor inlet temperature increases, the optimal inlet pressure
increases and the cycle operation moves away from the critical point. Allowing the inlet pressure to vary in order to
maximize the thermal efficiency of the cycle for a given inlet temperature results in the dotted black line in Fig. 5.
The thermal efficiency shown in Fig. 5 does not include any pumping or fan energy associated with heat rejection
from the cycle.

The two designs identified in Fig. 5 (Design 1 and Design 2) were selected in order to investigate the effect of
design-point compressor inlet temperature on the off-design performance of the cycle. At the design point, the two
cycles are identical with the exception of the turbomachinery parameters; both cycles have the same recuperator
conductance and operate at a high side pressure of 25 MPa. The fixed turbomachinery parameters are calculated by
setting the flow coefficient to the value that maximizes compressor efficiency and the turbine velocity ratio to the
value that maximizes turbine efficiency. Due to page space limitations here, the parameters for these two designs
will not be listed, but in general designing for a higher compressor inlet temperature (Design 2) results in slightly
larger turbomachinery operating at a lower shaft speed at the design point. An off-design analysis was run for each
design over a range of compressor inlet temperatures and pressures. The shaft speed was allowed to vary such that
thermal efficiency was maximized. Cycle efficiency as a function of temperature is plotted in Figure 6(a) for Design
1 and Figure 6(b) for Design 2.

Compressor Inlet Temperature (C)
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

E
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
7.7 MPa
9 MPa
10 MPa
Optimal Inlet Pressure
Design 1
Design 2
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado
(a) (b)
Figure 6 Off-design thermal efficiency for (a) Design 1 and (b) Design 2.
Actively controlling compressor inlet pressure (also referred to as inventory control) is clearly advantageous when
operating the cycle at an off-design inlet temperature. This is especially true for the low temperature Design 1,
which, for a fixed design compressor inlet pressure of 7.7 MPa, shows a large decrease in thermal efficiency as the
inlet temperature increases. Using both inventory and shaft speed control in order to maximize thermal efficiency
results in the thermal performance curve mapped by the dotted black lines shown in Fig. 6. Note that while Design
2 exhibits a larger efficiency at its design point of 60C, Design 1 has a slightly greater efficiency over a larger
range of temperatures (Figure 7(a) overlays the two dotted black lines from Fig. 6 for easier comparison). However,
increasing the compressor inlet temperature decreases the net power output of the cycle, which results in Design 2
possibly being able to take advantage of cooler conditions in order to produce more power, as shown in Figure 7(b).

(a) (b)
Figure 7 Off-design thermal efficiency (a) and net power production (b) for Design 1 (blue) and Design 2 (red).





Compressor Inlet Temperature (C)
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

E
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
7.7 MPa
9 MPa
10 MPa
8 MPa
11 MPa
Optimal Inlet Pressure
Design Point
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Compressor Inlet Temperature (C)
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

E
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
7.7 MPa
9 MPa
10 MPa
8 MPa
11 MPa
Optimal Inlet Pressure Design Point
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Compressor Inlet Temperature (C)
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

E
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
Design Point
Design Point
Design 1
Design 2
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Compressor Inlet Temperature (C)
N
e
t

P
o
w
e
r


(
M
W
)Design Point
Design Point
Design 1
Design 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposium
May 24-25, 2011
Boulder, Colorado
4. Summary & Conclusions

The off-design modeling efforts presented in this paper are ongoing, with initial results indicating that the selection
of the design point for the cycle has a relatively small effect on thermal efficiency in off-design operation provided
that both shaft speed and pressure can be controlled, but it can have a large effect on net power production.
Designing for a warmer compressor inlet temperature (e.g., 60C), which would be advantageous for a dry-cooled
power plant, results in only a slight decrease in thermal efficiency over a range of ambient temperatures compared to
a lower temperature design (e.g., 33C). However, the high temperature design may able to take advantage of cooler
conditions and, depending on available solar radiation, produce more power over a range of ambient temperatures.

While the current results highlight the importance of design point selection on off-design operation, ongoing work is
focused on modeling the off-design performance of power plants on an annual basis. Specifically, weather
information for various locations will be used in conjunction with the developed off-design models in order to
characterize and evaluate various cycles and designs on an annual basis.


Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Concentrating Solar Power Program at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory for their sponsorship of this work. The collaboration with Steven Wright at the Sandia National
Laboratory is also greatly appreciated.


References

1. Wright, S. A. et al., Operation and Analysis of a Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle, Sandia Report, No.
SAND2010-0171, (2010).
2. Dostal, V., P. Hejzlar, and M. J. Driscoll, The Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycle: Comparison to
Other Advanced Power Cycles, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 154, pp. 283-301, (2006).
3. Moisseytsev, A. and J. J. Sienicki, Investigation of alternative layouts for the supercritical carbon dioxide
Brayton cycle for a sodium-cooled fast reactor, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 239, pp. 1362
1371, (2009).
4. Lemmon, E. W., M. L. Huber, and M. O. McLinden, NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid
Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP, Version 9.0, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg, (2010).
5. Span, R. and W. Wagner, A New Equation of State for Carbon Dioxide Covering the Fluid Region from the
Triple-Point Temperature to 1100 K at Pressures up to 800 MPa, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Vol. 25, No. 6,
pp. 1509-1596, (1996).
6. Nellis, G. and S. Klein, Heat Transfer, 1st Ed., Cambridge University Press, New York, (2009).
7. Patnode, A. M., Simulation and Performance Evaluation of Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plants, M.S. Thesis,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, (2006).
8. Peng, W. W., Fundamentals of Turbomachinery, 1st Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, (2008).
9. Gibbs, J. P., P. Hejzlar, and M. J. Driscoll, Applicability of Supercritical CO2 Power Conversion Systems to
GEN IV Reactors, Sandia Topical Report, No. MIT-GFR-037, pp. 1-97, (2006).
10. Chen, H. and N. C. Baines, The Aerodynamic Loading of Radial and Mixed-Flow Turbines, International
Journal of Mechanical Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 63-79, (1994).
11. Japikse, D. and N. C. Baines, Introduction to Turbomachinery, 1
st
Ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, (1994).
12. Dostal, V., A Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycle for Next Generation Nuclear Reactors, Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2004).