Proceedings of the ASME 2012 11th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis

ESDA2012
July 2-4, 2012, Nantes, France

ESDA2012-82986

SOURCES AND POTENTIAL UTILIZATION OF WASTE HEAT AT A NATURAL GAS

PROCESSING FACILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Valerie Eveloy and Peter Rodgers

Department of Mechanical Engineering
The Petroleum Institute
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
veveloy@pi.ac.ae, prodgers@pi.ac.ae

ABSTRACT heat. These strategies were found to be thermodynamically and

Waste heat recovery (WHR) has the potential to significantly economically feasible in an accompanying study, and to lead to
improve the efficiency of process industries such as in the oil and substantial energy and cost savings for the plant.
gas sector, and reduce their environmental impact. The design of
an effective WHR strategy requires a comprehensive plant energy NOMENCLATURE
audit, but examples of such information are lacking in the Symbol Description Unit
published literature. In this paper a detailed energy audit is COP Coefficient of performance ---
presented for a major natural gas (NG) processing facility in the Cp Specific heat kJ/kg-K
Middle East, to identify sources of waste heat and evaluate their h Enthalpy kJ/kg
potential for on-site recovery. Waste heat sources are quantified LHV Lower heat value kJ/kg
and evaluated in terms of grade (i.e., temperature), rate, ṁ Mass flow rate kg/s
accessibility (i.e., proximity to potential on-site WHR M Molar mass kg/kmol
applications), and impact of potential WHR on the performance P Power W
Q Heat MW
and safety of existing facilities. Based on the audit undertaken,
T Temperature C
conceptual WHR strategies are proposed, focusing on utilities
V Molar volume m3/kmol
enhancement, i.e., process cooling/heating, electrical/mechanical
V· Volumetric flow rate m3/s
power generation, and steam production. In addition, to permit the
Subscripts
techno-economic feasibility evaluation of the proposed WHR a Ambient air
strategies in modeling work undertaken in parallel with this study, AWH Available waste heat
the operating parameters of waste heat producing equipment are diss Dissipation
compiled, along with the cooling/heating loads and electric exhaust Exhaust
power/fuel consumption of WHR-enhanced processes. flare Flare
A total of 689 MW of waste heat is identified in the plant, furnace Furnace
which consists of 526 MW gas turbine (GT) and 56 MW gas in Inlet
generator exhaust gases, 10 MW flared gases, 5 MW excess out Outlet
process steam, 88 MW process gas air-cooler heat dissipation, 2 process gas Process gas
MW furnace exhaust gases, and 1 MW steam turbine outlet steam. Steam Steam
Waste energy in the form of excess propane cooling capacity is Greek
also identified. The total amount of waste heat meeting the rate,  Efficiency ---
grade, accessibility and minimal performance-and-safety-impact
criteria defined for potential WHR in this study is of approximately INTRODUCTION
547 MW, most of which is produced by GTs. Only 174 MW of Waste heat recovery (WHR) has gained considerable
GT waste heat is presently re-utilized, in addition to excess interest in process industries in recent years, due to rising
propane cooling capacity. Novel absorption refrigeration-based global energy shortages and increasing energy prices. Many
WHR strategies are proposed to recover the available GT waste benefits can be gained from WHR, including enhanced process

1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 efficiency, and reduced process cost, equipment size, auxiliary
energy consumption and pollution [1,2].
Natural gas (NG) processing plants consume as much as
10% of their processed gas for plant consumption. Therefore,
any improvement in plant energy efficiency would enhance
profit margins and save fossil fuel. Since most NG facilities
already have a high level of process heat integration, energy
efficiency can essentially only be improved through waste heat
utilization. This approach has been incorporated in many NG
plants in for example the United States, where approximately
72% of all NG plant capacity added in 2009 was based on
combined-cycle units [3]. However, its application has
generally been limited to a fraction of the available waste heat
within the plant, particularly in the Middle East, where WHR
has not been considered a strategically important technology to
date. This may result from (i) a lack of financial incentives to
reduce the energy consumption of plants in the region, (ii) the
fact that licensed process technologies often effectively prevent
integration of energy efficiency enhancements into existing
facilities, which results in recovery applications being confined
to utilities (i.e., enhancement of process cooling/heating,
electrical/mechanical power generation, and steam production),
rather than main plant process operations, and (iii) perceived
safety issues associated with recovery of certain waste heat
sources. However, the emergence of NG as an abundant,
affordable and clean source of energy, combined with growing
environmental concerns and energy shortages, may place
increasing pressure on NG plants to integrate WHR
technologies. Furthermore, as the cooling capacity of NG
facilities in the Middle East is constrained by high ambient
temperatures and humidity during a major part of the year,
cooling process enhancement could significantly benefit from
WHR. An objective of this study is therefore to highlight the
WHR potential of NG plants, with emphasis placed on those
located in the Middle East or exposed to hot or tropical
climates. A detailed energy audit is undertaken in a major NG
processing facility in the Middle East, to identify sources of
waste heat and evaluate their potential for on-site recovery.
The waste heat considered in this study consists of thermal
energy rejected from plant processes.
The suitability of waste heat to meet the needs of a given
application depends on the grade (i.e., temperature), rate, and
accessibility of the waste heat stream relative to potential on-site
WHR applications, as well as the potential impact of WHR on
the performance and safety of existing installations. A waste heat
utilization strategy involves three steps that aim at identifying:
i. Waste heat sources
ii. Utility requirements (e.g., power or steam generation,
process cooling, desalinated water production)
iii. Waste heat utilization technologies suitable to meet
utility requirements.
Development of a WHR system typically requires a review
of plant process flow sheets, plant layout diagrams and piping
isometrics to identify:
i. Sources and potential uses of waste heat
ii. Potential adverse impacts of WHR on plant operations
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
iii.Space availability for implementation of waste heat
recovery systems
iv. Other constraints such as cost and downtime incurred
with the implementation of a WHR scheme.
Waste heat temperature is categorized in Table 1, with
corresponding WHR applications.
Table 1. Categorization of waste heat source temperature and
corresponding recovery applications, based on [4].
Temperature Range Potential Applications
Low (< 100 °C) Water desalination (multi-stage)
Air conditioning (COP = 0.7)
Medium (100 - 180 °C)
Refrigeration (COP = 0.4)
Gas turbine inlet air cooling
Combined refrigeration and heating
High-efficiency air conditioning (COP = 1.2 to 1.4)
High (> 180 °C)
Steam generation
To the authors' knowledge, comprehensive NG plant
energy audits are not available in the published literature.
Although such audits are routinely conducted in most major
facilities, the information compiled is generally either i)
incomplete due to a lack of incentives to accurately and
comprehensively monitor processes for the design of a potential
WHR system, or ii) not shared in the public domain due to
potential commercial sensitivity issues associated with plant
energy efficiency and its associated environmental impact. The
waste heat data that could be extracted from published WHR is
limited, as few analyzes have been conducted for actual NG
plants, with the majority of analyzes being industry- or
application-generic. In addition, published WHR studies for
actual NG facilities are generally confined to a fraction of the
plant and selected processes, with therefore no comprehensive,
plant-wide survey presented to date.
GTs, which are typically employed in the NG industry for
power generation, only utilize one third of their energy input
for power generation, with the remainder being dissipated to
the environment. With exhaust gas temperatures typically in
the range of 350C to 550C [5], GTs are therefore a significant
source of high-grade waste heat in NG plants, which can be
accessed without modification of proprietary processes. GT
waste heat can be recovered using conventional co-generation
to produce electricity, hot water and/or steam [3]. Alternative
cogeneration schemes based on the use of GT waste heat
powered absorption refrigeration have been recently proposed
[4,6,7] to boost the cooling capacity of Middle East liquefied
natural gas (LNG) plants. These studies have highlighted the
significant benefits of WHR, in terms of improved plant
efficiency, fuel and cost savings, and reduced environmental
impact.
However, such studies [4,6,7] did not provide
comprehensive information on the total amount of GT waste
heat available within the plant, and no information on the
amount and characteristics (i.e., grade, accessibility, recovery
impact) of other waste heat sources. Each plant being unique,
in terms of local raw gas composition, hence refined
2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 hydrocarbon composition, the accurate identification and
quantification of potential waste heat sources requires detailed
energy audits. In this context, the objective of this study is to
more comprehensively investigate the WHR potential of a
major NG processing facility in the Middle East. This is
achieved by identifying and evaluating waste heat sources, in
terms of grade (i.e., temperature), amount (i.e., production
rate), accessibility (i.e., proximity to potential waste heat
utilization applications), and potential impact of WHR on the
performance and safety of existing installations. In addition,
operating data for key waste heat producing facilities is
compiled, as well as cooling/heating loads and fuel/utilities
consumption of key equipment to permit the design,
thermodynamic and economic evaluation of WHR schemes
tailored to these facilities. The paper closes with a description
of proposed, conceptual WHR recovery strategies, the detailed
design, technical and economic feasibility of which were
evaluated in an accompanying study [8].
OVERVIEW OF NG PROCESSING PLANT
OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES
The facilities considered are located in the Middle East and
consist of four plants, denoted as A, B, C and D. The energy
audit is concerned with Plants A and B. Plant C was being
commissioned over the course of this study, while Plant D is an
expansion (i.e., additional train) of Plant A and is still under
construction.
Plant A is a single train used to extract natural gas liquids
(NGLs) from associated gas produced locally. Plant A
currently processes over 300 million standard cubic feet per day
(MMSCFD) of associated gas, which is supplied by a degassing
station at one of three pressure levels, namely low pressure
(LP), intermediate pressure (IP) and high pressure (HP). NGL
recovery involves cooling the gas to -80 C using compressors.
The NGL produced is subsequently pumped to a NG processing
facility, where it is fractionated into C2 (Ethane), C3 (Propane),
C4 (Butane) and C5+ (Paraffinic Naphtha). The remaining gas,
which is referred to as residue gas or lean gas, is compressed
and sent to gas distribution networks. Plant A process is
comprised of the following stages:
 Booster compression, where LP gas is boosted to meet the
LP compressor suction pressure
 Gas compression, where LP and IP gas are pressurized to
meet the fed gas compressor suction pressure
 Feed gas compression, where feed gas is pressurized to the
NGL extraction process pressure specification
 Propane refrigeration, where the gas is cooled and NGL
extracted
 Chill down and demethanisation, where the gas is cooled
below 0 °C in a chiller to extract NGL, and methane gas is
stripped from NGL in a demethanizer
 Product surge for storage and shipping.
Plant B processes non-associated NG from nearby gas
wells. The plant consists of two identical trains running in
parallel, with a total daily capacity of over 800 MMSCFD of
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
non-associated raw NG. Approximately 80,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of condensate are extracted from the raw feed gas and
pumped to a local oil refinery. The reach gas is processed at
Plant C to extract NGL, while the residue gas is re-injected into
gas reservoirs to maintain reservoir pressure.
Plant B process is comprised of the following key stages:
 High pressure separation, where the incoming gas is
separated into three streams, i.e. hydrocarbon gas, liquid
hydrocarbon and sour water
 Condensate stabilization, which processes incoming liquid
condensate to meet end-product specifications
 Condensate storage and shipping, where condensate is
stored in tanks, and shipped to the oil refinery for further
processing
 Gas dehydration, where water is removed from the rich gas
and transferred to Plant C for processing
 Gas re-injection, where residue gas from Plant C is re-
injected into the reservoir.
WASTE HEAT AUDIT
The sources of waste heat identified at Plants A and B
consist of:
 Gas turbine and gas generator exhaust gases
 Flared gases
 Excess process steam
 Process air cooler heat dissipation
 Furnace exhaust gases
 Steam turbine outlet steam.
At Plant A, waste energy in the form of excess propane
cooling capacity was also identified. Partial recovery this
waste energy is presently being implemented as part of Plant D
project. At Plant B, waste heat from GT exhaust gases is partly
recovered using waste heat recovery steam generators
(WHRSGs) to both drive two steam turbines and generate
process heating. With the above two exceptions, none of the
waste energy sources identified above are presently utilized.
Each waste heat source at Plants A and B is categorized in
terms of rate (in MW), grade (in C), accessibility (i.e.,
proximity to potential on-site waste heat utilization
applications) and potential impact on the performance and
safety of existing facilities in the following sections. The WHR
strategies outlined later in this paper focus on waste heat
sources having a significant rate (> 1 MW), being of high grade
(> 180C), locally available (i.e., in close proximity, defined as
within 50 m) with respect to potential to waste heat utilization
applications, and the recovery of which would not have any
foreseen adverse impact on the operation of existing
installations, including safety. Each waste heat source identified
will be evaluated based on those criteria.
Gas Turbine and Gas Generator Exhaust Gases
High- and medium power GTs are employed at Plants A
and B for driving mechanical compressors and generating
electrical power, respectively. A gas generator generates thrust
for a power turbine, which drives a compressor. At Plant A,
3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 three 18 MW General Electric (GE) GE-MS5001C GTs are produces approximately 18.6 MW of waste heat. However, two
used for electrical power generation, while two 25 MW GE-MS- of the three gas generators are only operating 55% of the year,
5002C GTs are employed for driving mechanical compressors. resulting in 10.2 MW of waste heat effectively available per
In addition, three 8 MW Rolls Royce (RR) / Avon MK 1533 gas gas generator, and are located 2 km from the plant, hence from
generators are used to generate thrust for a power generation potential on-site waste heat utilization applications.
GT. At Plant B, four 35 MW Nouvo Pignone GE / MS5002D Consequently, only the third gas generator would be suitable
GTs are used to drive mechanical process compressors. for waste heat (18.6 MW) recovery based on the proximity
The operating parameters of the GTs and gas generators are criterion set for this study.
listed in Tables 2 to 4, as well as the corresponding rate Based on the data presented in Tables 2 to 4, all GT and
(quantified in either MW and/or kg/s) and temperature of the one gas generator waste heat would be high-grade (T > 180 °C)
waste heat generated by these systems. and abundant (i.e., 256 MW and 289 MW at Plants A and B,
With the exception of operating mode, which refers to respectively), as well as locally accessible for potential
yearly percent usage duration, and proximity to on-site WHR recovery on-site.
applications for gas generators, all parameters in Tables 2 to 4
are manufacturer ISO specifications from [9,10] for normal Table 2. Operating parameters for gas turbines at Plant A.
operation (i.e., equipment running at 100% design capacity). Exhaust
Op. Pressure Compressor Turbine
As all GTs are located within the plants, proximity to potential Manufacturer
Mode ratio efficiency
Tin Tout
efficiency
Gas Mass QAWH
/ Model (C) (C) Flow Rate (MW)
recovery applications is not an issue, but is considered for gas (%) (-) (%) (%)
(kg/s)
generators in Table 3. 3 nos. GE /
Based on the outlet gas temperatures listed in Tables 2 to 4, MS5001C 70 6.7 910 410 123.6 46.7
GT and gas generator waste heat can be categorized as high 18MW
2 nos. 80-85 85-90
grade (i.e., > 180 °C), and therefore meets the grade criterion Thomasson /
defined above for potential WHR. 100 5.9 966 420 125.0 48.6
MS5002C
The available waste heat from GT exhaust gases at Plants 25MW
A and B in Tables 2 and 4, respectively, was calculated by Total 237.3
Note: Op. mode refers to operating mode, i.e. yearly percent usage duration.
assuming steady-state conditions, treating GT working fluid With the exception of operating mode, all parameters are manufacturer ISO
(i.e., air) as an ideal gas with temperature and pressure specifications from [9] for normal operation (i.e., operation at 100% design
dependent thermo-physical properties, and neglecting kinetic capacity). Tin and Tout refer to turbine inlet and outlet gas temperatures,
and potential energy changes, as well as heat losses to the respectively. QAWH given per turbine and does not account for operating mode.
environment. Based on these assumptions, the total amount of
available waste heat from gas turbines, QAWH, was estimated Table 3. Operating parameters for gas generators at Plant A.
using Equation (1) and the turbine exhaust gas flow rates and Manufacturer / Op. Mode
Proximity to
QAWH
Tout(C) potential WHR
temperatures listed in Tables 2 and 4: Model (%)
applications (m)
(MW)

, (1) 1 no. RR / Avon MK

100 573 < 50 18.6
1533 8MW
where Ta was taken as 55°C, which represents peak ambient air 2 nos. RR / Avon MK
55 528 2,000 18.6
1533 8MW
temperature in summer conditions in the Middle East, thereby
Total 55.8
resulting in conservative estimates of waste heat. Note: Op. mode refers to operating mode, i.e. to yearly percent usage duration.
Using Equation (1), the available amount of waste heat With the exception of operating mode, all parameters are manufacturer ISO
from GT exhaust gases at Plants A and B, for each turbine specifications from [10] for normal operation (i.e., operation at 100% design
model, namely GE-MS5001C, GE-MS5002C, and GE- capacity). QAWH given per generator and does not account for operating mode.
MS5002D, was found to be to be 46.7 MW, 48.6 MW, and 72.3
MW, respectively. This yields a total of approximately 237 Table 4. Operating parameters for gas turbines at Plant B.
MW and 289 MW of GT exhaust gas waste heat at Plants A and Pressure Compressor Turbine
Exhaust
Manufacturer/ Tin Tout Gas Mass QAWH
B, respectively. At Plant B, approximately 60% (174 MW) of Model
ratio efficiency
(C) (C)
efficiency
Flow Rate (MW)
(-) (%) (%)
the total available waste heat (289 MW) are presently recovered (kg/s)
using four WHRSGs, with the remaining 40% (116 MW) being 4 nos.
NouvoPignone
directly dissipated to the environment. GE / MS5002D
6.5 80-85 986 541 85-90 140 72.3
No exhaust gas flow rate data was available to estimate the 35MW
amount of waste heat available from gas generators. However, Total 289.2
this quantity was estimated as: Note: Continuous operating mode. All parameters are manufacturer ISO
specifications from [9] for normal operation (i.e., operation at 100% design
1 (2) capacity). Tin and Tout refer to turbine inlet and outlet gas temperatures,

respectively. QAWH represents total waste heat generated per turbine, 60% of
For a gas generator output power and efficiency of 8 MW which is presently recovered by a HRSG unit, and 40% of which is available
and 30%, respectively, it is estimated that each gas generator for additional recovery.

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Flare Gases
Flare systems are primarily installed in NG plants for
safety purposes to burn gaseous and/or liquid hydrocarbons in
abnormal operating conditions. Such systems are typically
activated when large amounts of hydrocarbons need to be
suddenly disposed of, or during unexpected shutdown. Flare
gas emissions represent both growing environmental and
economic issues for NG plants in general.
The characteristics of pilot flares at Plants A and B are
listed in Table 5. Pilot flares are not operated on main fuel gas
supply lines, but small lines that establish a continuous flame so
as to enable immediate flaring of large quantities of
hydrocarbons from main supply lines in abnormal operating
conditions. In Table 5 for Plant A, "warm flare" and "cold
flare" refer to burning of hot and cold gases, respectively, while
"cold hydrocarbon" refers to burning of cold hydrocarbon
liquid. At Plant B, "hydrocarbon flare" and "acid flare" refer to
burning of high pressure gases and high pressure acid gases,
respectively, while "burn-pit" refers to burning of either liquid
hydrocarbon or low pressure gas.
The pilot flare characteristics given in Table 5 are for
normal operating conditions. In such conditions, all flares
consist of lean gas with approximately 90% (molar %)
methane, with the remaining fraction being ethane and heavy
hydrocarbons, and the flare flow rates listed are continuous.
In abnormal plant operating conditions, such as due to process
equipment failure, or shutdown conditions, flare gas
compositions and flow rates would significantly deviate from
those in normal conditions, with flow rates potentially
reaching considerably higher values. Such conditions could
pose safety and design issues for potential flare gas WHR
equipment, as the system should be able to cope with dramatic
changes in flare flow rate, composition and temperature over
a short time scale. Therefore, as a first step, waste heat from
flare gases is only considered for normal operating conditions
in this study.
Although flare temperature is presently not
comprehensively monitored, the temperature of the flare gases
in Table 5 would be categorized as high grade (i.e., > 180C).
Based on the measured heating value of flare gases, 34.3
MJ/m3 (920 Btu/ft3), and based on the flow rates listed in Table
5, the amount of waste heat available from flare gases in
normal operating conditions may be estimated as:
(3)
Using Equation (3), the total amount of waste heat from
flare gases at Plants A and B combined is estimated to be 9.6
MW, almost all which is generated at Plant A.
Flare gases at Plant A are located on ground level, while
Plant B flares are significantly above ground level and
negligible. However, none of the flares listed in Table 5 meets
the proximity criterion previously defined (i.e., < 50 m of
potential on-site WHR applications). The proximity values
listed in Table 5 consider both horizontal (i.e., on ground level)
and vertical distance (i.e., altitude) from potential WHR
applications.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 5. Characteristics of flare gases at Plants A and B for
normal plant operating conditions.
Flow Rate Proximity to potential QAWH
Plant Flare Type
(m3/s) WHR applications (m) (MW)
Warm 0.14 300 (horizontal) 4.800
A Cold 0.1 300 (horizontal) 3.430
Cold hydrocarbon 0.04 300 (horizontal) 1.370
Hydrocarbon 0.0001
200 (horizontal)
0.003
+ 100 (vertical)
B 200 (horizontal)
Acid 0.0002 0.007
+ 100 (vertical)
Burn-pit 0.00005 200 (horizontal) 0.002
Total 9.612
Note: At Plant A, "warm flare" and "cold flare" refer to burning of hot and cold
gases, respectively, while "cold hydrocarbon" refers to burning of cold
hydrocarbon liquid. At Plant B, "hydrocarbon flare" and "acid flare" refer to
burning of high pressure gases and high pressure acid gases, respectively, while
"bum-pit" refers to burning of liquid or low pressure gas.
Flow rates are continuous.
Flare temperature presently not comprehensively monitored. However, flare
waste heat would be classified as high grade.
Proximity refers to horizontal (i.e., on ground level) or vertical distance (i.e.,
altitude) from potential WHR applications.
Although Plant A flares would constitute high-grade and
abundant waste heat sources, both potential process reliability
and safety issues, as well as their lack of proximity to potential
WHR applications, prevent their use in the foreseeable future.
The implementation of a detailed flare temperature monitoring
system would aid the design of a future WHR system.
Excess Propane Cooling Capacity
Propane cooling is required for process hydrocarbon gas
cooling at Plants A and B, as well as for chilled water production at
Plant B. Propane cooling of process gas is achieved by
compressing propane in a GT-driven and electric motor-driven
centrifugal compressor at Plant A and B, respectively. The cooling
capacities required at Plant A and B are on the order of 54 MW and
9 MW, respectively.
The propane cooling process at Plant A is depicted in Figure 2,
as well as a proposed strategy for utilizing excess propane cooling
capacity. At Plant A, the propane compressor is driven by a GT
operating at maximum capacity in normal conditions, with the
amount of cooling produced exceeding the requirement of 54 MW.
No extra propane cooling capacity exists at Plant B. As illustrated
in Figure 1, in the existing propane cooling cycle, propane is
heated due to compression before being fed to the gas cooler,
where it is air-cooled using a fin-fan aerial cooler configuration.
Propane is then further cooled through expansion in two stages in
the first and second chillers to reach the specified set-point
temperature for NGL extraction. The cooled propane streams from
the first and second chillers are then recycled to the compressor, to
close the cycle. As the propane flow rate at the outlet of the gas
cooler exceeds the process requirement, a proposed strategy for
recovering this excess cooling capacity would be to divert excess
propane to an additional chiller, as illustrated in Figure 1. A
strategy similar to that proposed in Figure 1 is presently being
implemented at Plant A as part of Plant D project. Consequently,
this waste energy source was not analyzed further in this study.
5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 E
Excess LP steam m can be categgorized as meddium grade (i.e.,
100CC < Tin< 180C C). Based on tthe excess steaam temperaturee,
flow rrate, and amouunt (> 1 MW)) in Table 6, L LP steam offerrs
potenttial for recoveery applications such as proccess heating, or
o
processs cooling uusing for exxample absorpption cooling g.
Howeever, it does noot meet the grrade criterion ddefined for thiis
study..

Table 6. Characteriistics of excess low pressuree process steam

m
producced at Plant B..
Present process Pressu
ure (bar) Masss Flow Rate (kg/s) Tin(C) Tout(C) QAWH (MW)
Proposed utilizaation of excess pro
opane cooling capaacity 55.3 1.94 163 522 4.95
Note: A
ASV refers to anti-su
urge valve used to reecycle the gas back to
o compressor suctio
on. Note: F
Flow rate is continnuous.
Figurre 1. Schematiic representatio
on of propane cooling cycle at
a
Plant A, and of prooposed strategyy for utilizing excess propan
ne
coolinng capacity. Proce ess Gas Air-Cooler Heat Dissipation
A
At both Plants A and B, process gas is coooled using fan n
drivenn air-coolers ((i.e., finned hheat exchangerrs) electrically
y
Exce ess Process Steam powerred. The disccharged coolinng air is presently dissipated d
N
No steam is geenerated at Plaant A in absen nce of a processs
to thee environmentt, and could bbe considered as a source of o
requirrement. At PlantP B appro oximately 80%% of the steam m
waste heat. Tabless 7 and 8 present the operatting conditions
generrated by WHRS SGs is utilized as high pressurre (HP) steam to
t
and hheat dissipati on of air-coolers in the process areaa,
operaate steam turbin nes that drive compressors and d a pump, whille
boosteer area, and llean gas regenneration sectioon at Plant A,A
20% iis used as mediium pressure (M MP) steam for process heatingg.
and iin the processs area at Plant B, respectively. This
The ssteam process heating cycle is illustrated in n Figure 2. Thhe
equipm ment is operaated continuouusly at Plant A process areaa,
steam
m leaves the pro ocess heating unit
u at a low prressure (LP) (i.e.
but noot in other plannt sections. A
All outlet cooling air streams
< 5.5 bar). This LP steam is then cooled
c and condensed to repeaat
can b e categorizedd as low gradee (i.e., < 100C) sources of o
the cyycle, with oxyg gen and other dissolved
d gases removed from m
waste heat. Negleccting heat losses to the envvironment, and d
the stteam in a dearaator to avoid corrosion
c of pipping equipmen nt.
appro ximating proccess gas speciific heat capaacity to that of
Ratheer than cooling LP steam dow wnstream of the process heatinng
methaane, 2.253 K KJ/Kg-K, coooler heat dissipation was
sectioon, it could re-uused for anothher heating proccess as a sourcce
estimaated as:
of waaste heat as illusstrated in Figurre 2.
T
The characterisstics of excess LP steam are shown in Tablle , (5
5)
6. Thhe amount of available wastte heat from excess LP steam m
was eestimated as: U
Using Equationn (5), it is estimmated that a tootal of 21 MWW
(44) and 677.3 MW of waaste heat would be available at Plant A and d

B, resspectively. T These values ddo not account for operating g
mode.. In absence of discharge aair temperaturee and flow rate
measuurement, the ttemperature off the dischargged air stream ms
could not be determ mined. Measuurement of these quantities is i
recommmended for thhe design of a potential WHR R system in the
futuree, considering that the amouunt of waste heat from airr-
coolerrs is substantiaal.
T
The total electriicity consumpttion of processs gas air-coolerrs
was e stimated at appproximately 1.9 MW and 2.2 MW at Plan nt
A andd B, respectiveely. This consuumption providdes an estimate
of eleectric power savings, hence electricity coost savings thaat
could be achieved using a wasste heat poweered system to o
replacce air-coolers. It should bee noted that eelectricity is an n
advannced form of ennergy, with a primary energgy (i.e., fuel) to o
Present process electriicity conversioon factor of appproximately 300%. Thereforee,
Proposed utilizaation of excess low
w pressure steam when expressed aas equivalent primary enerrgy (i.e. fuell)
Figurre 2. Schemattic representattion of steam process
p heatin
ng savinggs, electricity ssavings wouldd represent appproximately 5.7
cycle generating ex xcess low preessure steam at
a Plant B, annd MW and 6.6 MW W of fuel saavings at Plaant A and B, B
propoosed strategy for utilizing excess presssure steam fo or respecctively.
additiional process heating.
h

6 Copyright © 22012 by ASME

E

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 7. Operating conditions of process gas air-coolers and Table 9. Operating characteristics and exhaust gas waste heat
characteristics of cooled gas streams at Plant A. generated by furnaces used for lean gas re-generation at Plant A.
Operating Mass Flow Tin Tout Qdiss Fuel Heating
Location Burner QAWH
Mode (%) Rate (kg/s) (C) (C) (MW) Operating Mode consumption Load
Type [MW]
14.0 85 41 1.546 (MMSCMD) [MW]
5.6 95 43 0.656 Main 8 hrs. daily 0.0600 15.4 1.54
10.7 100 45 1.330 Pilot Continuous 0.0020 0.2 0.02
4.7 60 43 0.179 Main 12 hrs. every 4 to 6 days 0.0006 2.7 0.27
7.2 97 45 0.847 Pilot Continuous 0.0010 0 0
Process area 100 7.2 104 45 0.962 Main 12 hrs. once a week 0.0007 5.9 0.59
49.2 50 42 0.887 Pilot Continuous 0.0010 0 0
67.0 127 58 10.410 Total 0.0653 24.2 2.42
7.4 65 44 0.348 Note: Fuel gas flow rate, heating load and QAWH account for operating mode.
24.3 96 60 1.968 QAWH estimated based on a furnace efficiency approximated at 90%. Although
24.3 60 50 0.547 exhaust gas temperature is presently not monitored, exhaust gas waste heat
2.1 93 64 0.140 would be classified as high grade.
Booster area 80 1.9 90 59 0.130
3.6 98 68 0.246
gas temperature is presently not monitored, its temperature
Lean gas 2.1 146 57 0.421
55 would be categorized as high grade (i.e., > 180C). Such waste
regeneration 2.1 146 57 0.421
Total 21.0 heat would be locally available. However, considering the
Note: Operating mode refers to yearly percent usage duration. QAWH does not small amount of waste heat available, and the intermittent
account for operating mode.
nature of equipment operation conditions, this waste heat
Table 8. Operating conditions of gas process air-coolers at source is not considered of strategic importance in the
Plant B. foreseeable future.
Mass Flow Tin Tout Qdiss
The heating load requirements and fuel consumption of
Location
rate (kg/s) (C) (C) (MW) Plant A furnaces used for lean gas regeneration in Table 9 were
35.0 124 60 5.0 estimated at 24 MW and 0.0653 MMSCMD, respectively, for
45.8 124 64 6.2
normal, continuous operating conditions (i.e., 100% design
107.8 131 63 16.5
113.1 122 82 10.2 capacity). These heating loads could serve for the design of a
Process area
102.8 129 61 15.7 waste-heat powered regenerative gas heating system, while
111.7 127 85 10.5 furnace fuel consumption would permit to estimate the fuel and
9.4 155 50 2.2
4.4 150 50 1.0
corresponding cost savings achieved by the use of the waste
Total 67.3 heat powered system.
Note: Operating mode (i.e., yearly percent usage duration) is continuous.
Steam Turbines Outlet Steam
Furnace Exhaust Gases Two steam turbines are in operation at Plant B, the outlet
At Plant A, three direct heated furnaces (i.e., burners) are steam of which was evaluated as a potential source of waste
used to heat lean gas for gas re-generation. No such furnaces heat. Characteristics of both steam turbine outlet steams are
are employed at Plant B. presented in Table 10. Outlet steam is cooled in a
The operating mode of Plant A furnaces, fuel gas flow rate, condenser/vacuum cooler and can be categorized as LP steam.
and amount of waste heat available from furnace exhaust, are Steam temperature is medium grade (i.e., 100-180C). The
listed in Table 9 for typical operating conditions (i.e., 100% amount of available waste heat in each stream was calculated
design capacity). Pilot burners are continuously operating to using Equation (4), with the total amount for both streams just
establish a flame, while main burners are only operating during above the minimum criterion considered for potential waste
lean gas regeneration. Furnace heating load may be estimated heat recovery (i.e., 1 MW). However, the two waste heat
from the fuel gas (i.e., lean gas) flow rate as follows: streams are not collated. Furthermore, installation of potential
WHR equipment could interfere with the condenser/vacuum
(6) system used to condensate steam and protect the steam turbine
∗
from condensate backflow. Such vacuum conditions need to
where lean gas lower heating value, LHV, molar volume, V, and
be maintained, which is likely to pose difficulties for the
molar mass, M, were taken as those of methane, namely 42.8
design of a potential WHR system. To conclude, although the
MJ/kg [11], 0.0993 m3/kmol and 16.043 kg/kmol respectively
rate of steam turbine outlet steam at Plant B (i.e., 1.2 MW) is
[5]. Approximating furnace efficiency as 90%, the rate of
available waste heat may be estimated as:
Table 10. Characteristics of steam turbine outlet steam at Plant B.
1  (7) Pressure Tin Tout QAWH
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)
(barg) (C) (C) (MW)
As shown in Table 9, the amount of heat produced -0.7 7.77 120 65 0.81
continuously by pilot burners is negligible, with main burners -0.7 3.75 120 65 0.39
generating approximately 2.4 MW. Although furnace exhaust Total 1.2

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 acceptable, the two streams are not collated. Furthermore, the temperature is presently not monitored, the waste heat
grade of waste heat is medium, and its recovery could cause would be categorized as high grade (i.e., > 180C) and
potential interference with existing steam turbine installations. would be locally accessible. However, considering the
Consequently, this waste heat source will not be considered small amount of waste heat available, and the intermittent
for potential recovery. No steam turbine is in operation at nature of equipment operation, this waste heat source is not
Plant A. considered of strategic importance in the foreseeable
future. No furnace waste heat exists at Plant B.
Summary  Approximately 1.2 MW of waste heat from steam turbine
Sources of waste heat within the plant were identified in outlet steam is available at Plant B. However, this waste
the form of GT and gas generator exhaust gases, flared gases, heat is produced from two streams that are not co-located.
excess process steam, process gas air-cooler heat dissipation, Furthermore, the waste heat is of medium grade, and its
furnace exhaust gases and steam turbine outlet steam. Excess recovery could cause potential interference with existing
propane cooling capacity was also identified. steam turbine installations. Consequently, this waste heat
Of the above waste heat sources, only exhaust gases from source will not be considered for potential recovery. No
all five GTs and one gas generator at Plant A, as well as from steam turbine is in operation at Plant A.
all four GTs at Plant B, were found to meet the rate (i.e., > 1 Although the above waste heat sources were not found to
MW), grade (i.e., > 180C), accessibility (i.e., < 50 m from meet the criteria for potential recovery in this study, more
potential on-site WHR applications) and minimal impact comprehensive process monitoring, facility layout
criteria on the performance and safety of existing installations modifications, and future advancements in WHR technology
for potential waste heat recovery. The total amount of waste may enable their utilization. Therefore, such sources could
heat meeting these criteria were estimated at 256 MW and 289 form the scope of future work.
MW at Plants A and B, respectively, both of which are The findings of the waste heat survey conducted at Plants
substantial. The portion of waste heat not presently recovered A and B are summarized in Table 11.
from GTs by WHRSGs at Plant B was found to be of 116 MW.
Even partial recovery of this waste heat could permit significant Table 11. Summary of the waste heat source survey conducted
economic and environmental benefits at both facilities. at Plants A and B.
Candidate strategies for recovery of this waste heat are Amount Accessibility WHR Impact
proposed in the next section of this paper, focusing on GT (MW) (Yes/No) (High/Low)
Waste Heat Source Grade
exhaust gases. Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant
A B A B A B
All other waste heat sources identified failed to meet at GT Exhaust gases High 237 289* Yes Yes Low Low
least one of the above criteria, with details as follows: Gas generator
High 56 0 33% N/A Low N/A
 Although Plant A flares would constitute high-grade and Exhaust gases
Excess LP Steam Medium 0 5 N/A Yes N/A Low
abundant waste heat sources (9.6 MW for normal operating
Furnace Exhaust
conditions), both potential process reliability and safety gases
High 2 0 Yes N/A Low N/A
issues, as well as the lack of flare proximity to potential Flares High 10 Negligible No No High High
WHR applications, would prevent their use in the Steam Turbine Outlet
Medium 0 1 N/A No N/A Medium
Steam
foreseeable future. The amount of waste heat from flare Process Air-Cooler
gases at Plant B was found to be negligible. Low 21 67 Yes Yes Low Low
Heat Dissipation
 A strategy for utilizing excess propane cooling capacity at Note: Low, medium and high grade defined as waste heat source temperature
Plant A was proposed. As a similar approach is presently being < 100C, 100 to 180C, and > 180C, respectively. Accessibility defined
as within 50 m of potential on-site WHR applications. WHR impact refers to
being implemented at Plant A as part of Plant D project, impact on performance and/or safety of existing facilities.
this waste heat source was not analyzed further in this *174 MW of GT waste heat at Plant B is presently recovered, leaving 116 MW available.
study. No excess propane capacity exists at Plant B.
 Approximately 5 MW of excess low pressure process PROPOSED WASTE HEAT RECOVERY STRATEGIES
steam are available at Plant B, but its medium grade would As a first step, the WHR recovery strategies proposed
constrain its use to medium heat recovery applications (i.e., focus on waste heat sources having a significant rate (> 1 MW),
< 180C). No steam is generated at Plant A. being of high temperature grade (> 180C), locally available
 A total of 21 MW and 67 MW of waste heat from process (i.e., in close proximity, defined as within 50 m) with respect to
air-coolers would be available at Plant A and B, potential waste heat utilization applications, and the recovery of
respectively, which is of low grade (< 100C). In absence which would not have any foreseen significant adverse impact
of discharge air temperature and flow rate measurement, on the performance and safety of existing installations. Waste
the temperature of the discharged air streams could not be heat from GT exhaust gases were found to meet these criteria at
determined. both Plants A and B, and were estimated at 237 MW and 289
 Furnace exhaust gas waste heat waste at Plant A was MW (116 MW of which is not yet recovered), respectively.
estimated at 2.4 MW. Although furnace exhaust gas To avoid modification of licensed processes, the recovery

8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 applications consist of utilities, i.e., enhancement of process
cooling/heating, electrical/mechanical power generation, and
steam production. The added process cooling and power
generation capacities are to be provided by absorption cooling,
which is considered the most mature, commercially-available
thermally activated cooling technology for combined cooling
heating and power [12,13]. Based on a review of plant
processes, the following areas of plant energy efficiency
enhancement were identified:
i. Both Plants A and B require on-site electric and mechanical
power generation to drive propane mechanical vapor
compression chillers and air-coolers for cooling of process
gas. As such chillers are significant energy consumers, their
partial replacement by a waste heat powered absorption
refrigeration system (ARS) could contribute to improve the
efficiency of process gas cooling. ARSs offers advantages
over vapor compression systems, including lower energy
consumption and thus lower operating costs [14], and their
capability to utilize waste heat [15].
ii. GT power generation at both Plants A and B is adversely
affected by high ambient temperature, particularly in
summer. Typically, GT output power decreases by 0.5%
to 0.9% per °C rise in GT inlet air temperature [16]. GT
inlet air cooling provided by a waste heat powered
refrigeration system could enhance turbine efficiency and
power output at both Plants A and B. While GT inlet air
cooling in oil and gas plants exposed to high ambient
temperatures is generally achieved using evaporative
media coolers because of low initial investment and
operating costs, their cooling capacity is limited in high
ambient temperature and humidity conditions. Several
studies have highlighted the advantages of absorption
refrigeration over evaporative coolers in waste heat
powered cogeneration schemes [17-19]. For an uncooled
GT inlet air temperature of 55°C in summer conditions,
cooling inlet air to for example 15°C could result in
approximately 20% enhancement in GT output power.
iii. The heating load of lean gas re-generation at Plant A is
supplied by direct heating furnaces. As such furnaces are
significant energy consumers, the use of waste heat
powered steam generation to reduce furnace heating load
could contribute to improve the efficiency of lean gas
heating for lean gas re-generation.
To meet the needs of the above applications, tri- and
cogeneration strategies tailored to Plants A and B, respectively,
were developed, which are schematically represented in Figure 4.
At Plant A, it is proposed that exhaust gases from all five
GTs be used to power WHRSGs. The steam generated by the
WHRSG would both i) drive an ARS for GT inlet air cooling
(which would result in additional electric or mechanical power
generation) and pre-cooling of process gas (which could reduce
the need for or eliminate air coolers and reduce propane chiller
load), and ii) serve for heating of lean gas (which would reduce
furnace load).
In parallel with this study, Popli [8] analyzed both the
thermodynamic performance and economic feasibility of this
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
GT Inlet Air Cooling
150 MW Process gas
ARS
QAWH= Steam
cooling
GT
237MW
WHRSG
1.5 MW
Lean Gas Heating
(Re-generation)
a) Plant A
GT Inlet Air Cooling: 0.75 QAWH
Process gas
QAWH= Steam
GT WHRSG ARS cooling:
116 MW 0.75 QAWH
b) Plant B
Figure 4. Proposed waste heat recovery strategies for Plants A
and B.
strategy. It was found that of the 237 MW available GT waste
heat at Plant A, approximately 151.5 MW could be utilized.
150 MW were used for turbine inlet air cooling and process gas
cooling using absorption chillers, and 1.5 MW for lean gas
heating (i.e., re-generation). GT power generation increased by
approximately 21 MW due to inlet air cooling, while all process
gas air-coolers were eliminated and propane chiller load
reduced. The capital investment, operating cost and annual
savings of the energy recovery scheme proposed for Plant A
were estimated to be 64.1 million US$, 3 million US$, and 27.4
million US$ respectively, with a payback period of
approximately three years.
At Plant B, it is proposed that exhaust gases from all four
GTs be used to generate steam in WHRSGs that would drive an
ARS for either gas turbine inlet air cooling for additional
electric or mechanical power generation, or pre-cooling of
process gas to eliminate air-coolers and reduce propane chiller
cooling load. Considering the smaller amount of waste heat
available at Plant B (116 MW) relative to Plant A (237 MW),
the above two recovery options could not be implemented
simultaneously at Plant B, and the most feasible option, in
terms of thermodynamic performance and economics, requires
to be determined.
Of the 116 MW available GT waste heat at Plant B, it was
found that 75% could be utilized using absorption chillers for
either turbine inlet air cooling or process gas cooling [8]. In the
first option, GT power generation was increased by approximately
20%, and in the second option air cooler electric power
consumption was reduced by approximately 3.3%. The capital and
operating cost of the waste heat powered ARS were estimated to
be approximately 49.3 million US$, and 2.2 million US$,
respectively. Annual savings for the GT inlet air cooling option
were estimated to be 8.9 million US$, with a payback period of
approximately 5 years. For the process gas cooling option, annual
savings would amount 21.8 million US$, with a payback period of
3 years. Therefore, the additional cooling capacity could be
utilized for process gas cooling rather than GT inlet air cooling,
considering the shorter payback period of the first option.
9 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 CONCLUSIONS
With rising global energy shortages and environmental
regulations, the NG industry is likely to place greater emphasis
on WHR in the foreseeable future. The design of an effective
WHR strategy requires comprehensive plant energy audits, but
such data is generally not accessible in the public domain.
A detailed survey of waste heat sources in a major NG
processing facility in the Middle East was presented, and their
suitability to potential on-site recovery was evaluated in terms
of grade, rate, proximity to on-site applications, and potential
impact on plant performance and safety.
A total of 689 MW of waste heat was identified within the
plant, which consists of 526 MW GT and 56 MW gas generator
exhaust gases, 10 MW flared gases, 5 MW excess process
steam, 88 MW process gas air-cooler heat dissipation, 2 MW
furnace exhaust gases, and 1 MW steam turbine outlet steam.
Waste energy in the form of excess propane cooling capacity
was also identified. At present only 174 MW of GT waste heat
and excess propane cooling capacity are re-utilized.
This audit permitted to design plant-specific tri- and co-
generation schemes to utilize waste heat from GT exhaust
gases, to provide enhanced power generation, cooling and/or
heating capacities to the plant. In work undertaken in parallel
with this study [8], recovery of available GT waste heat (372
MW) alone was found to significantly enhance utilities, namely
process cooling and heating, as well as GT electrical power and
steam generation. The annual savings achieved were estimated
at 49.2 million US$, with a payback period of 3 years.
In future work, further plant efficiency enhancements
through WHR at the same facilities could be obtained through:
 Analyzes of WHR equipment footprint, modification of
existing plant layout and WHR environmental impact for
the schemes already designed. For example, if
accessibility to two of the three gas generators could be
resolved at Plant A, an additional 37 MW of high-grade
waste heat would become available.
 Recovery of untapped high-grade sources, namely flared
gases and furnace exhaust gases. Stack exhaust heat
losses, which occur with all fuel-fired processes in
equipment such as furnaces, steam-generating boilers or
steam generators, and large combustion devices, are an
abundant source of waste heat in NG processing plants. At
stack gas temperatures greater than 500 °C, the heat
dissipated is likely to be the single largest loss in the
process. Above 950 °C, stack losses consume at least 50%
of the total fuel input to the process [20]. Recovery of
stack exhaust waste heat could therefore contribute to
significant reductions in overall energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions for any NG plant. However,
utilization of stack exhaust waste heat would involve plant
retrofitting, hence modification of proprietary gas
treatment processes, leading to potential warranty or
technical support issues by technology providers.
 Recovery of low- to medium grade waste heat, i.e. excess
process steam, process gas air-cooler heat dissipation, and
steam turbine outlet steam.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The waste heat auditing methodology employed here could
be extended to other oil and gas plants, to establish their waste
heat utilization prospectives, and elaborate plant-specific WHR
strategies. NG extraction and LNG regasification facilities, as
well as NG distribution networks, for example, contain
abundant amounts of waste heat residing in LNG's physical
and/or cryogenic energy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mr. Alyas Ali Alshehhi is gratefully acknowledged for his
assistance in sourcing the waste heat data presented.
REFERENCES
[1] Thekdi, A., and Bennett, R., 2005, “Identifying
Opportunities for Waste Heat Reduction,” Energy Matters,
DOE/GO-102005-2151, August 2005.
[2] US Department of Energy, 2008, “Waste Heat Recovery:
Technologies and Opportunities in US Industry,” March 2008,
http://www.gulfcoastcleanenergy.org/Portals/24/Reports_studi
es/WHR_DOE%20ITP.pdf, last accessed December 23 2011.
[3] US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2011,
“Electric Power Annual 2009,” 2011 Revision,
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html,
last accessed December 23, 2011.
[4] Mortazavi, A., Hwang, Y., Radermacher, R., Hashimi, S.,
and Rodgers, P., 2008, “Enhancement of LNG Propane
Cycle through Waste Heat Powered Absorption Cooling,”
The Second International Energy 2030 Conference, Abu
Dhabi, UAE, November 4-5, 2008, pp. 104-115.
[5] Dorgan, C.B., Leight, S.P., and Dorgan, C.E., 1995,
“Application Guide for Absorption Cooling/Refrigeration
Using Recovered Heat,” American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),
Atlanta, GA, USA.
[6] Kalinowski, P., Hwang, Y., Radermacher, R., Al Hashimi,
S., and Rodgers, P., 2009, “Application of Waste Heat
Powered Absorption Refrigeration System to the LNG
Recovery Process,” International Journal of Refrigeration,
Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 687-694.
[7] Mortazavi, A., Somers, C., Alabdulkarem A., Hwang, Y.,
and Radermacher, R., Enhancement of APCI Cycle
Efficiency with Absorption Chillers, Energy, Vol. 35, No.
9, September 2010, pp. 3877-3882.
[8] Popli, S., 2011, “An Assessment of Waste Heat Powered
Absorption Cooling in the Oil and Gas Industry,” M.Sc.
Thesis, The Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates.
[9] GE Energy, 2004, “GE gas turbine technical comparison
catalog,”
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines
_cc/en/downloads/GEH12985H.pdf, last accessed on
December 23, 2011.
[10] Rolls Royce, Avon MK 1533 gas generator,
http://www.energymanager-online.com/, last accessed on
December 23, 2011.
10 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 [11] Al-Rabghi, O.M., Bemuttv, M., Akvurt, M., Najjar, Y, and
Alp, T., 1993, “Recovery and Utilization of Waste Heat,” Heat
Recovery Systems and CHP, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 463-470.
[12] Wu, D. W., and Wang, R. Z., 2006, “Combined Cooling,
Heating and Power: a Review,” Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science, Vol. 32, No. 5-6, pp. 459–495.
[13] Deng J., Wang R. Z., and Han G. Y., 2011, “A Review of
Thermally Activated Cooling Technologies for Combined
Cooling, Heating and Power Systems,” Progress in Energy
and Combustion Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 172–203.
[14] Kuehn, T. H. Ramsey, J. W. and Threlkeld, J.,1998, Thermal
Environmental Engineering. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
[15] Somers, C., Mortazavi, A., Hwang, Y., Radermacher, R.,
Rodgers, P., and Al-Hashimi, S., “Modeling
Water/Lithium Bromide Absorption Chillers in Aspen
Plus,” Applied Energy, Vol. 88, No. 7, pp. 4197-4205.
[16] Meher-Homji, C.B., Messersmith, D., Hattenbach, T.,
Rockwell, J., Weyermann, H.P., Masani, K., Thatcher, S.,
and Maher, M., 2008, “Aeroderivative Gas turbines for
LNG Liquefaction Plants-Part 1: The Importance of
Thermal Efficiency,” Proceedings of ASME Turboexpo,
Berlin, Germany, June 9-13, ASME, pp. 8.
[17] Dawoud, B., Zurigat, Y. H., and Bortmany, J., 2005,
“Thermodynamic Assessment of Power Requirements and
Impact of Different Gas-Turbine Inlet Air Cooling Techniques
at Two Different Locations in Oman,” Applied Thermal
Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 11-12, pp. 1579-1598.
[18] Kakaras, E., Doukelis, A., and Karellas, S., 2004,
"Compressor Intake-air Cooling in Gas Turbine Plants,"
Energy 2004, Vol. 29, pp. 2347-2358.
[19] Yang, C., Yang, Z., Cai, R., 2009, "Analytical Method for
Evaluation of Gas Turbine Inlet Air Cooling in Combined
Cycle Power Plant," Applied Energy, Vol. 86, pp. 848-856.
[20] Rishel, J.B. and Kincaid, B.L., 2007, “Reducing Energy
Costs with Condensing Boilers and Heat Recovery
Chillers,” ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 46-55.

11 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use