Design and Optimisation of Organic Ranking Cycle and Absorption Chiller For Heat Recovery of Petroleum Refining

School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science
CHEN61000: MSc Dissertation 2017-2018 Full Year:
DESIGN AND OPTIMISATION OF ORGANIC RANKING CYCLE AND

ABSORPTION CHILLER FOR HEAT RECOVERY OF PETROLEUM
REFINING
Supervisor: Dr. Li Sun

Student: Andrew Stefanus
Student ID: 10149409
2018
1
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1. Background................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2. Motivation .................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.3. Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1. Petroleum Refinery Process........................................................................................................................ 8
2.2. Waste Heat Recovery Identification ........................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Waste Heat Recovery Technologies ......................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1. Organic Rankine Cycle .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.2. Absorption Chillers (AbC) .................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.3. Adsorption Chiller (AdC) ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.4. Absorption Heat Pump (AHP) ............................................................................................................... 14
2.3.5. Absorption Heat Transformers (AHT) .................................................................................................. 15
2.3.6. Phase Change Materials (PCM) ............................................................................................................ 15
2.3.7. Kalina Cycle (KC) ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.4. Summary of WHR Technologies ............................................................................................................. 16
3. Methodology................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1. Waste Heat Source Identification and Choice ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2. Technology used for Waste Heat Recovery ............................................................................................. 21
3.2.2. Absorption Chiller .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3. Design Evaluation and Comparison .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4. Planning ........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5. Impact ........................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6. Summary....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7. References ................................................................................................................................................... 73
2
Abstract
Petroleum refining industry has promising waste heat potential because it has reasonable enough of
energy loss in terms of quality (temperature) and quantity (heat duty). There have been several waste
heat recovery technologies developed in industries and in research such as Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC), Phase Change Materials (PCM), and Kalina Cycle (KC) for power generation, Absorption
and Adsorption Chiller (AbC and AdC) for refrigerant production, and Absorption Heat Pump (AHP)
and Absorption Heat Transformers (AHT) for upgrade heating. The choice of the technologies in
refining processes would be determined by the available heat in terms of temperature, load, potential
mixing from different units, the efficiency of technologies, the user of the recovered
power/refrigerants with the systems, and the economic and environmental performance. This study
purposed to design waste heat recovery technologies that associated to generate power with simple
and pre-heating ORC and provide chilling with AbC.
Design optimisation and evaluation that consider thermal efficiency, economic, and CO2 emission
will also be conducted in this work. The methodological approach taken in this study is firstly to
identify and choose waste heat source of collected stream data (temperature and heat duty) from
petroleum refining simulation based on total site analysis. Then, the selected waste heat is used as a
heat source in simple ORC, pre-heating ORC and AbC systems that simulated in Aspen Hysys. Power
generation of each design will be optimised with varying working fluid types and operating conditions.
The most optimum design of simple ORC, complex ORC, and AbC will be evaluated and compared
based on thermal efficiency, economic, and environmental emission to choose the WHR technology
in the refining processes. The results of this result provide insights for not only energy aspect, but
also economic and environment field.
3
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
International Energy Agency (2015) revealed that the demand of world energy has substantially
escalated by almost 30%. This rapidly increase trend of energy demand has not been supported by
the energy supply from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in each
region which only slightly increase, relatively as shown in Figure 1. The consumption of global
energy has been predicted to rise since 2015 until 2040 with the value of 575 quadrillion Btu to 736
quadrillion Btu, respectively (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017). All these factors has
appeared several issues such as increasing of energy price because of energy resources declining and
increasing of environmental awareness because of fuel emission (CO2).
Figure 1 – World total energy consumption by fuel classification (left); Total primary energy
supply (right) (International Energy Agency, 2015)
Global emission has been significantly influenced by energy sector in two-thirds of the total as shown
in Figure 2. In 2015, it was reported that a high concentration of CO2 emission was produced in the
amount of 32.3 GtCO2 as displayed in Figure 2. In order to tackle this issue, most of worldwide
countries assemble to compile CO2 emission reduction
strategy. The first global comprehensive climate
agreement was signed in 2016 corresponding to Paris
Agreement under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with 175
countries participated. The focus of this agreement is
mitigation, adaption, and finance of greenhouse gas
emission. Previously, Cancun agreement was occurred in 2010 under UNFCCC. In this agreement,
4
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that produced from fossil fuel combustion has been the main
purpose for long-term environment challenge (International Energy Agency, 2017).
Figure 2 – Global emissions by Sectors (IEA, 2017)
British Petroleum (2017) reported that industry sector has dominated the energy consumption among
all final sectors as shown in
Figure 3. It is apparent from this figure that the growth of energy consumption in industry sector has
rapidly increased. Yet, it has previously been observed by International Energy Agency (2015) that
not all of the consumed energy is used which means there are always energy losses up to 60% in
industrial sector. Recently, improving the energy efficiency of industry has been proven in IEA 450
Scenario that abates almost a half of total CO2 emission in the world (International Energy Agency,
2009). Consequently, improving industrial performance in terms of using the energy has risen as a
promising topic as it would directly influences to economic and environmental issues.
Figure 3 – Total energy consumption by final sectors (British Petroleum, 2017)
In industry, energy loss is commonly termed as waste heat which is rejected to the environment from
the process. Linnhoff and Hindmarsh (1983) introduced Pinch Analysis to calculate minimum cold
utility requirement that might be used as the potential waste heat source. The waste heat might be
obtained from various process units with different temperature and heat load. Total site composite
curve was introduced by Dhole and Linnhoff (1992) to provide an overview of the hot and cold utility
requirement of all processes.
5
To enhancing energy efficiency in industrial sector, there are various technologies to recover the
waste heat such as Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC), Absorption Chiller (AC), Absorption Heat Pump
(AHP), Absorption Heat Transformation (AHT), Kalina Cycle (KC), and Phase change materials. For
instance, ORC can be applied to recover waste heat with power generation as the cycle output. Pei,
Li, and Ji (2010) pointed out that typical of ORC efficiency is around 15-20%. On the other hand,
AC utilises waste heat to provide chilling duty as the cycle output. Ali, Noeres, and Pollerberg (2008)
assessed the performance of absorption chiller that using solar energy with lithium-bromide as the
working fluid. It was concluded that AC convert the waste heat to chilling provision up to around
70%. To choose the recovered waste heat and WHR technologies, important aspects such as quality
and quantity of waste heat, economic, CO2 emission, and the user have to be associated and
considered (Naidu and Reddy, 2013).
1.2. Motivation
Petroleum industry (especially refineries) has been recorded by Eidt (2004) that consuming up to 20%
of global energy demand which supplied by crude oil. Recent research has stated that the refining
industry is not only improving the energy efficiency up to 20%, but also has various methods to
recover the waste heat. Thus, recovering the waste heat in refining industry has globally become a
promising issue to explore (Anmar et al., 2012). Song et al. (2014) assessed performance of ORC)
that focused on power generation and total heat transfer area with various waste heat input in China
(Shijiazhuang Refining and Chemical Industry. As a result, it is noted that the optimum thermal
efficiency of this assessment was 10.25%. Oluleye et al. (2016) applied ORC, AC, and AHP in
petroleum industry and discovered that 33% of site energy efficiency was increased. However, there
are only few researches that have investigated and evaluated the waste heat recovery technology in
existing petroleum industry in terms of feasibility, economic, and environment aspects
comprehensively. This project will work on the WHR technologies for the specific refinery processes
with the production scale of 154,000 barrel per day.
1.3. Objectives
This project was focused on recovering the waste heat from refinery process for 154,000 barrel per
day production scale. There are several objectives in this study, including:
1. Identify and choose potential waste heat sources from petroleum refinery simulation which
consist of Atmospheric Distillation Unit, Vacuum Distillation Unit, Reformer, and Fluid Catalytic
Cracking based on heat quality (temperature) and quantity (duty)
2. Justify and choose the WHR technologies based on available waste heat source and temperature
6
3. Design and optimise the produced power of simple and recuperator ORC
4. Design and optimise the COP of AbC that utilise the selected waste heat
5. Evaluate and compare simple ORC, pre-heating ORC, and AbC design in terms of economic,
energy efficiency, and CO2 emission, and provide the final design for selected waste heat source
from petroleum refining simulation.
7
SECTION 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Overview
In this section, literature review and previous researches that related to this research are revealed and
reviewed. First, a brief refining industry was discussed such as the involved process that depends on
the products and recent research about waste heat potential in petroleum industry. Next, potential
waste heat identification was discussed
2.1. Petroleum Refinery Process

Petroleum refinery is defined as industry which consist of several chemical processes that transforms
crude oil as the raw material into refinery products (Gary and Handwerk, 2001). Different chemical
processes are used in petroleum refinery based on crude oil composition and desire products. In
refinery process, typical refinery process consists of Atmospheric Distillation Unit (ADU), Vacuum
Distillation Unit (VDU), Naphtha Hydrotreater (NHT), Naphta Reformer (NR), Naphta Isomerisation
(NI), Kerosene Hydrotreater (KHT), Fluid Catalytic Cracker (FCC), Gasoline Hydrotreater (GHT),
Diesel Hydrotreater (DHT), and Hydrocracker (HC) (Chang, Pashikanti, and Liu, 2012). Figure 2
shows Block Flow Diagram of petroleum refinery
process. Petroleum refinery has been evaluated in terms
of waste heat recovery potential. Jian, Yan, and Li
(2014) analysed potential of heat recovery from
Shijiazhuang Refining and Chemical Company. In that
paper, waste heat from refinery process was used to
ORC with considering thermal performance,
practicability, and economic aspects. Fraser and
Gillespie (1992) has also identified waste heat source in
medium scale of petroleum industry from distillation unit, hydrotreaters, visbreaker, and FCC.
Oluleye (2016) developed Frasaer and Gillespie’s identified waste heat source to be utilised to
generated potential power, cooling utility, and upgraded heat and 15,370 kW, 18,000 kW, and 40,000
kW were obtained to be utilised to generate power, chilling, and heat, respectively. Somers et all.
identified waste heat recovery potential in oil and gas processing plant. In that study, absorption
chiller was modelled to provide chilling utility for on-site process.
8
Figure 4 – BFD of typical petroleum refinery process
2.2. Waste Heat Identification

Energy that could not being recovered due to infeasible economically is described as waste heat
(Ammar et all., 2012). This definition was not considering waste heat recovery technology as
economic analysis. Brückner et all. (2015) defined waste heat as all of heat form including latent and
sensible which unused at process. Industrial waste also can be defined as side-product of heat in
certain industry according to Viklund (2014). However, heat recovery at on-site process is neglected
which would be a potential to reduce utility consumption. Morandin et all. (2014) classified waste
heat as unused thermal energy with low to medium temperature. Similarly, Liu, Chien, and Wang
(2004) also classified waste heat as only from low temperature source. However, the potential of total
site waste heat source is not considered within this definition.
Pinch Analysis (PA) has been widely used in minimising energy consumption of industrial process.
This methodology was firstly introduced by Linnhoff in1989. The fundamental concept of pinch
analysis is targeting energy-site. Target has to be set in order to evaluate particular energy
performance of industrial process (Smith, 2016). Tan and Foo (2007) reveal that using PA would
lead to less energy and emission in process plant thermal. The application of PA methodology is
simple and effective to screening process design that provides minimum energy consumption
(Ludwig et al., 2009). In PA method, Composite Curve or CC (Temperature-Enthalpy Diagram) has
to be performed to achieve feasible heat exchange network and the most optimum energy
performance in terms of minimising hot-cold utility and maximising heat recovery. Smith, Jobson,
and Chen (2010) emphasise that as selected minimum temperature difference approach (∆Tmin) in CC
is directly related to amount of heat recovery network in CC and the area of heat exchanger. A major
problem with CC is not practical to determine load and temperature of waste heat source.
Linnhoff et al. in 1982 proposed Grand Composite Curve (GCC) that provide an overall view of heat
sinks and sources of a process. In chemical industry that consume a lot of amount of energy generally
consists of several on-site processes. The literature on Dhole and Linnhoff in 1993 has highlighted
heat recovery from certain process to other processes by using Total Site Analysis (TSA). More recent
attention has revealed that total site analysis provides more available waste heat to be recovered.
Based on this Total Site Profile analysis, not only whole of waste heat recovery potential (surplus and
deficit) can be observed, and provide heat recovery for all process units.
9
2.3. Waste Heat Recovery Technologies
The wasted energy is delivered to WHR processes as a heat source, update heating, chilling and power
would be generated which results benefits in terms of economic, environmental, and energy saving.
There are several waste heat recovery technologies that discussed in this study such as ORC, AbC,
AdC, AHP, AHT, PCM, and KC.
2.3.1. Organic Rankine Cycle

ORC could utilise waste heat to provide power for the Working Fluid
(1)
users. Typical ORC system is displayed on Figure 3. It
is can be noticed that waste heat is inputted at Turbine
Generated
Power
evaporator whereas the power will be generated at Heat In (2)
Evaporator
(Waste Heat)
turbine and the rest of the heat will be rejected at (4)
Condenser
condenser. Hettiarachchi et all. (2007) mentioned that
Heat Out
Pump
the advantages of using ORC compared to Rankine (3)
Cycle (RC) which used water as the working fluid.

ORC uses organic fluid such as propane, cyclopentane, benzene, toluene, etc. This organic fluid can
transform from liquid into vapour phase in lower temperature than water-steam. Hence, organic
working fluid allow ORC to convert low-grade waste heat to useful power from the turbine.
Figure 5 – Basic ORC schematic
Chen, Goswami, and Stefanakos (2010) has investigated working fluids (single and mixed organics)
that conclude working fluid types has significant influences for ORC performance. This study also
noted that working fluids with characteristic of isentropic and dry are preferred for ORC. Victor, Kim,
and Smith (2013) concludes that mixed refrigerants is preferable than single refrigerant in terms of
cycle temperature profile (less temperature difference in condenser and evaporator).
Rogers and Mayhew (1992) emphasise that volume-ratio of organic fluid at turbine outlet and inlet is
lower than water while ORC utilising low-grade waste heat. Saleh et al. (2007) has investigated
various of working fluids in ORC (low temperature heat source). This study points that smaller
volume-ratio through turbine lead to simple design and less capital expenditure of the turbine. In
addition, the this work also concluded that the selection of working fluid has to be considered several
aspects such as chemical safety, environmental impact, and operational costs.
10
Lecompte (2015) discussed several complex ORC modified-
architectures for waste heat recovery. The first one was ORC
with recuperator (pre-heating) as shown in Figure 6.
Recuperator is utilised to recover heat itself at the ORC after
the expander to pre-heat the working fluid before entering
evaporator. The pre-heating lead to the process maintains a
high-power output with decreased heat input of the cycle. However, there is a trade-off between cycle
efficiency and recovered waste heat. In addition, there is additional capital expense of recuperator.
Figure 6 – ORC with pre-heating
ORC with regenerative is displayed at Figure 7. It was noticed

that the hot utility of evaporator II is used to pre-heat the
working fluid before entering expander. As similar to ORC
with recuperator, this cycle also has pre-heating working fluid
before flow to the evaporator. In 2014, Meinel et al. pointed
that ORC with regenerative provide higher thermal efficiency
compared to simple ORC and ORC with recuperator for isentropic fluids. However, Yari and
Mahmoudi (2011) noted that less heat can be recovered to the ORC with regenerative compared to
simple ORC and ORC with recuperator.
Figure 7 – ORC with regenerative
The existing literature on Lu et al. (2016) is extensive and focuses particularly on evaluating ideal
ORC based on Carnot Engine model for analysis and evaluating of recovering industrial waste heat.
This study did not take account of non-ideal working fluid. Previous research evaluated ORC system
with constant efficiency (Viklund and Karlsson, 2015). This research has not dealt with temperature
and working fluid effect to the efficiency.
Wei et all. (2007) point that ORC has drastically lower CO2 and SO2 emission than RC because there
is no combustion process that produce emission as boiler. In addition, this paper also noted that ORC
do not need external fuel to operate this cycle. However, ORC requires high safety study because of
using organic material as the working fluid. ORC commonly has high toxicity and flammability as
its safety data. Several of organic working fluids have environmental issue in terms of contributing
to decreasing of ozone layer in global warming issue. Therefore, working fluid selection has been
11
important to be considered in terms of safety precautions. Tchanche (2009) conducted study that
including several organic working fluids which have been evaluated in terms of energy performance,
safety, and environmental impact. Andersen and Bruno (2005) was clearly point out that the selection
of working fluid is directly affecting economic and energy performance of ORC system.
Invernizzi (2013) have investigated that industrial ORC can recover about 0.5 – 20 MW. Waste heat
source temperature range of depends on the working fluids. Papadopoulos, Stijepovic, and Linke
(2010) noted that typical temperature range of ORC is approximately 30-300oC. In 2015, Oluleye has
conducted ORC design with maximising produced power as the objective function by varying 11
types of working fluids and system’s operating conditions. The most optimum COP of her work was
17% with 140oC of the waste heat temperature.
2.3.2. Absorption Chillers (AbC)

Absorption chillers uses waste heat to supply chilling
utility as a close-cycle. Somers et al. (2011) noted that
AbC could be operated by using waste heat that has low
temperature <150oC if compared to common vapour
compression cycles that need high temperature Figure 8
reveals a schematic of absorption chiller cycle. Li et al.
(2011) mentioned that the generator also can be designed
as an industrial evaporator while the absorber is
commonly heat exchanger (failing flm-type) with vertical
internal tubes design. In 2012, Garimella noted that the
waste heat can be directly recovered to generator. There are several types of AbC such as single- and
double-effect that based on pressure level on desorber unit. Somers (2009) has investigated that multi-
effect AbC provide higher COP but require higher waste heat quality. Characteristic COP for this
technology is generally in the range of 0.5 – 2.0.
Figure 8 – Schematic of Absorption Chiller
COP of AbC can be determined with a fraction of heat received (evaporator) to total input of work
and waste heat which can be illustrated with the following equation:
𝑄𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐴𝑏𝐶 =
𝑄𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 + 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝
12
As a working fluid, the most common of refrigerant-absorber are lithium bromide-water and
ammonia-water. Somers (2009) has investigated that lithium bromide-water has higher COP and less
toxic than ammonia-water. In addition, Popli et al. (2013) also stated that lithium-bromide is more
favourite than ammonia -water because has less operational and installation cost. A literature on Ali,
Noeres, and Pollerberg (2008) has assessed performance of AbC system with lithium bromide-water
as the working fluid and solar as the heat source. The study concluded that the most optimum of its
COP is 0.81 with 35.17 kW as the chilling capacity. Another literature on Figueredo, Bourouis, and
Coronas (2008) has investigated thermodynamic model of AbC with two temperature levels with 200
kW chilling capacity that utilised 170oC waste heat source. Their work resulted that the COP is vary
around 0.53 to 1.23 as the most optimum.
2.3.3. Adsorption Chiller (AdC)

Adsorption chiller (AdC) is one of WHR technologies that provide chilling by utilising waste heat.
High porosity and superficial area of solid material is used as the adsorbent whereas water is used as
the refrigerant (pair of adsorbent-refrigerant). The most common type of pair refrigerants are
zeolite/water and silica gel/water. Wang (2005) has investigated AdC system that produce 10 kW
refrigeration capacity with 0.5 COP with 15-30oC heat temperature quality with silica gel/water as
the working fluid. A literature on Rezk and Al-Dadah has conducted AdC simulation model with
450 kW AdC capacity. This model capacity can be optimised by using Genetic Algorithm (GA) which
consider system temperature and cycle time (dynamic simulation) that result 8.3% capacity
increasement. Solmus et al. (2011) has also investigated AdC system design with zeolite water as the
working fluid. The most optimum COP in their design is 0.25 under temperature conditions of 45 oC
adsorption, 150oC desorption, 30oC condenser, and 10oC evaporator.
13
2.3.4. Absorption Heat Pump (AHP)
Waste heat can be upgrade with AHP technology by increasing the temperature output. Similarly, as
AbC, AHP use generally water-lithium bromide
as the working fluid. Wu et al (2014) mentioned
that there are various of thermal energy sources
that can be obtained from waste heat, fuel
combustion, and geothermal energy. Figure 9
shows the schematic of AHP (Oluleye et al.,
2016). The heat output from condenser is used to
heating other processes. In 2015, Bruckner et al.
mentioned that absorption heat pumps could be
single, double, and triple lift although these
cycles are less common. Although complex cycle of AHP can reduce the driving heat (generator
temperature) and increase the temperature lift (difference between the evaporator and condenser
temperature), they have lower coefficient of performance than simple cycle.
Figure 9 – Schematic of AHP
Costa et al. (2009) noted that the mechanical energy required by the pump in the cycle is neglected
compared to the thermal energy required in the generator. Garimella (2012) investigated waste heat
recovery from a 120oC waste heat source using AHP. Heating duty provision of 3.57 MW and COP
of 1.579 were obtained. The literature on Kiel et al. (2008) 40oC temperature of the waste heat was
upgraded to approximately 80oC by using AHP. COP of AHP can be calculated with a ratio of total
heat rejected in the system (absorber and condenser) and total input of work and waste heat as
described in the following equation:
𝑄𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑒𝑟 + 𝑄𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟
𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐴𝐻𝑃 =
𝑄𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 + 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝
14
2.3.5. Absorption Heat Transformers (AHT)
AHT utilises waste heat to upgrade low heat quality
(temperature) to higher quality. Figure 10 displays the
schematic of AHT. In a contrast with AHP, absorber and
evaporator unit are operating at higher pressure than the
generator and condenser. Therefore, it is possible for AHT
cycle to reject heat in higher temperature although the heat
input temperature has lower value. Wu et al. (2014) has
investigated that AHP is suitable for recovering the waste
heat from sustainable energy source such as geothermal.
The academic literature on Donnellan et al. (2015) has
investigated single and double stage of AHT (for absorber
and generator unit). Even though double-stage has lower COP, it can upgrade higher temperature than
single-stage. In addition, multi-stage AHT will require additional capital expenses of the equipment.
As similar as AbC and AHP, water-lithium bromide is preferable to be used as the working fluid
compared to the water-ammonia.
Figure 10 – Schematic of AHT
2.3.6. Phase Change Materials (PCM)

PCM can receive and store the waste heat before releasing it by using latent heat. Absorbed heat is
occurred when the materials transform from solid to liquid whereas the released heat in vice versa.
Therefore, this technology requires a material that has high latent heat characteristic. PCM has two
classifications of the heat storage medium material such as inorganic (alloys, metals, and salts) and
organic materials (fatty acids/esters and paraffin). Previous study on Kouskou (2010) has evaluated
several materials for this technology and conclude that paraffin is the most prominent material
because of high latent heat and thermally-chemically stable.
However, there is lack of implementation of this technology in industry because its majority still in
research area to date. In addition, the capital cost of this technology is relatively expensive with €3500
per ton (Kenisarin and Mahkamov, 2007).
15
2.3.7. Kalina Cycle (KC)
Kalina Cycle (KC) produce power by utilising waste heat and binary boiling point fluids as the
working fluid. This cycle consists of similar equipment to ORC except the working fluids. Kalina
(1983) introduced first publication of KC which used ammonia-water as the working fluid. This study
concluded that KC has higher thermodynamic efficiency compared than Rankine Cycle. Another
previous literature on Matsuda (2014) noted that mixture working fluid enable to extract more waste
heat because the working fluids have two-stages evaporation in certain temperature range. Ogriseck
(2009) has investigated Combine Heat and Power (CHP) plant which integrated with KC. As a result,
320 kW power can be produced of 2.3 MW waste heat source with 13% cycle efficiency.
2.4. Summary of WHR Technologies

This literature review gives an overview of WHR technologies with particular user requirement such
as power, chilling, and heating. Mostly, the WHR technologies performance can be assessed by
evaluating how much duty can be produced of total waste heat input. WHR technologies selection
usually based on the available heat in terms of temperature, load, potential mixing from different
units, the efficiency of technologies, the user of the recovered power/refrigerants with the systems,
and the economic and environmental performance. This study focuses on WHR technology that can
provide power and chilling.
WHR technologies that produce power are ORC, KC, and PCM. PCM will not being focus on this
study because it’s not common in industry. Moreover, this technology is relatively quite expensive
than other technology. ORC will be selected technology in this study over KC because it is greater in
terms of thermal efficiency. Moreover, KC generally consist of complex cycle which lead to be more
expensive than ORC relatively. Ultimately, ORC is the most practical and common WHR technology
which also has abundant user in terms of producing power compared to PCM and KC.
On the other context, WHR technology that provide cooling are AbC and AdC. AdC is suitable for
providing chilling utility with low quality heat (temperature) source whereas AbC is suitable for both
low and medium temperature heat source. This study will investigate and utilise waste heat from
petroleum refining which contains typical of waste heat in low to medium quality. Furthermore, AbC
is already commonly used in industry as a mature technology compared to AdC. Therefore, AbC will
be chosen and designed for recovering waste heat from petroleum refining. Table 1 below shows the
brief summary of WHR Technologies.
Table 1 – Summary of WHR Technologies
16
Tech. Notes Advantages Disadvantages
ORC - Generate power to users - Can handle low and medium - Organic fluids require
based on Rankine Cycle heat temperature source high safety precautions
with organic fluid as the - Easy to operate relatively - ORC performance is
working fluid - Mature and common highly related to the
- Can recover about 0.5 to technology for provide power working fluid
20 MW (typical) - Results quite high thermal
- Waste heat temperature efficiency
range: 30 – 300oC - Smaller equipment size
(depends on the working
fluid)
- Typical cycle efficiency
is up to 20%
AbC - Provide chilling to users - Associated to waste heat - High potential for
- Typical COP of source than required power Crystallisation and
industrial AbC is in the compared to typical refrigerant corrosion which caused
range of 0.5-2 cycle by absorbent-refrigerant
- Can handle low heat - Usually only provide low
temperature source chilling duty
- Mature and common requirement
technology for provide
chilling
- Can operate continuously
(contrary as AdC)
AdC - Provide chilling - Suitable for low and medium - Low COP
production by using temperature heat source - Batch processes
waste heat to generate - Suitable for high cooling duty - Lack of implementation
the solvent. requirement in Industry
- Less noise Operation - Cause high
- Low operational cost environmental issue
relatively
AHP - Upgraded heat by - Associated to thermal energy - High potential for
utilising waste heat as the heat input Crystallisation and
- Waste heat temperature - Low operational cost corrosion which caused
range: 40-80oC especially in maintenance by absorbent-refrigerant
- Required relatively large
size of the equipment
AHT - Generate high - Inputted thermal energy - High potential for
temperature heat based temperature is lower than Crystallisation and
on low temperature heat upgraded heat corrosion which caused
source - Low operational cost by absorbent-refrigerant
- Required high capital
cost and area
PCM - Receive and release - Can absorb waste heat with - Still focus in research
waste heat to generate low temperature quality area
electricity power. - Low thermal efficiency
KC - Generate power which - High thermodynamic - Complex schematic
using two pairs of performance - Expensive in capital
refrigerant with different - Can provide high power outlay
boiling points requirement
17
Tech. Notes Advantages Disadvantages
- Lack of
implementation in
industry
18
SECTION 3
METHODOLOGY
3. Overview
The methodology of this study is mainly concentrated on several aspects that following this procedure,
such as:
1) Collect process stream data (hot and cold stream)

2) Produce the total site profile of existing refinery process to identify potential waste heat source
3) Design the waste heat recovery technologies (ORC and AC) based on the potential waste heat
source by using Aspen Hysys v8.8
4) Employ and simulate the waste heat recovery technologies (ORC and AC) to the potential waste
heat source profile
5) Optimise the ORC and AC design that aim to maximise power produced by sensitivity analysis
based on working fluids and operating conditions
6) Compare the performance of ORC and AC in terms of economic and environment
7) Select the final design of waste heat recovery technology
3.1. Data Collection and Identification of Waste Heat Source from Refinery System
An existing petroleum refinery (Caltex Refinery in South Africa) with the production capacity of
110,000 barrels per day (medium-scale) that consists of Crude Distillation Unit (CDU), Vacuum
Distillation Unit (VDU), Saturated Gas Plant, Naphta Hydrotreater (NHT), Reformer, Kerosene
Hydrotreater (KHT), Diesel Hydrotreater (DHT), Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC), and Visbreaker
(VBU) was being evaluated terms of identification of waste heat source. The main products of this
refinery plant are Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG), Gasoline, Jet Fuel, Diesel, and Heavy Fuel Oil
(Fraser and Gillespie). Figure 11 depicts flow diagram of this refinery process.
19
Fuel Gas
Saturated
LPG
Gas Plant
NHT Reformer Reformate

Cracked Gasoline Gasoline
Crude Oil KHT Jet Fuel

CDU
DHT Diesel
FCC
VDU
VBU Heavy Fuel Oil
Figure 11 – Block Flow Diagram of Caltex Refinery in South Africa
Identification of potential waste heat source in terms of quality (temperature) and quantity (heat load)
had to be carried out. First, data collection was conducted which adapted from Fraser and Gillespie
that including stream data such as supply-target temperature, heat capacity flowrate, and heat load of
all the refinery units. The data was collected from the process stream of the refinery (Fraser and
Gillespie, 1993)
To identify potential of waste heat source of the refinery process, total site composite curve method
was used. Problem table was required to constructing total site CC. The following steps were applied
to draw up total site CC.
a) Shift all of hot and cold streams by decreasing and increasing the ∆Tmin, respectively due to
feasibility of heat transfer. ∆Tmin of this study was set as 10oC.
b) Sort down each interval temperature including its interval enthalpy for hot stream
c) Sort up each interval temperature including its interval enthalpy for cold stream
d) Cascade enthalpy cumulatively for each interval temperature for hot and cold stream
20
e) Plot the temperature interval (y-axes) and cumulative enthalpy (x-axes) for both hot and cold
stream
3.2. Technology used for Waste Heat Recovery

Several refinery units yield low waste heat quality (below 155oC) with various heat load. These waste
heat sources were planned to be utilised for power generation or chilling provision. ORC yield
electrical power as its output from waste heat recovery. The power would be exported to the grid to
satisfy user’s power requirement such as building electricity or compressor. ORC will be selected as
waste heat recovery technology because not only it is appropriate with the low heat source quality
relatively but also has simple start up procedure in practical and great part load performance (Oluleye,
2016). In addition, preheating ORC that contains heat recovery in its cycle was developed to increase
thermal efficiency of ORC.
On the other hand, AC will be selected as waste heat recovery technology because its driven by
thermal energy compared to high quality power required by vapour compression system.
The potential users for AbC were CDU/VDU-8, CDU/VDU-9, CDU/VDU-10, Reformer-4,
Reformer-5, Reformer-7, Reformer-8, Reformer-9, Reformer-10, Reformer-11, Reformer-13, DHT-
2, DHT-3, KHT-2, KHT-3, KHT-4, FCCU-3, FCCU-4, CFFU-9, and VBU-1.
Consequently, potential waste heat source is utilised to be recovered by using ORC and AbC after
the justification of WHR technologies. Then, three scenarios were involved in this study which is
displayed in Table 2.
Table 2 – Waste Heat Recovery Technology Scenario
Scenario WHR Technology

1 Basic ORC
2 Pre-heating ORC
3 Absorption Chiller
3.2.1. Scenario 1: Basic ORC Design

Basic ORC design will be carried out by using Aspen HYSYS. Figure 12 shows the block flow
diagram of basic ORC for scenario 1. This scenario consists of evaporator, turbine, condenser, and
pump. The aim of this simulation was to identify the amount of waste heat can be recovered by
producing power from this cycle for waste heat source a, b, c, d, and e (Obtained from section 4.1.2).
21
In addition, the relationship between the power produced and working fluid components was
conducted.
Q(waste heat)
Evaporator
1 2
W(pump)
Pump Turbine W(produced)
4 3
Condensor
Q(reject)
Figure 12 – Block Flow Diagram of basic ORC
11 working fluids (such as cyclo-pentane, n-Pentane, n-Hexane, Iso-butane, Iso-pentane, Propane,

Benzene, Toluene, R113, R114, and R134a) will be used in this design. Different working fluid would
lead to different power production and operational conditions. This system indicates non-ideal vapour
phase behaviour in certain stream process (quite high pressure after pumping) which requires a vapour
phase fugacity coefficient model. In addition, the liquid phase is close to ideal which doesn’t need an
activity coefficient model. Hence, Peng-Robinson was selected as the fluid package in this simulation.
Table 1 shows the scenario 1 that utilise several waste heat sources with different working fluids.
Table 3 – Scenario 1 with various working fluids and waste heat sources
22
No. Working Fluid Waste Heat Source
1 Propane
2 i-Butane
3 n-Pentane
4 i-Pentane
5 Cyclo-Pentane
A B C D E F G
6 n-Hexane
7 Benzene
8 Toluene
9 R113
10 R114
11 R134a
The waste heat was inputted to the evaporator heat load with the value of 13,327 kW for waste heat
source a; 20,470 kW for waste heat source b; 28,927 kW for waste heat source c; 37,385 kW for
waste heat source d; 49,753 kW for waste heat source e. The outlet of evaporator was saturated vapour
(vapour fraction = 1). In stream 2 (outlet evaporator), temperature value was inputted with the value
of 125oC for waste heat source a, 115oC for waste heat source b, 105oC for waste heat source c, 95oC
for waste heat source d, and 85oC for waste heat source e. The outlet temperature of condenser was
defined as 40oC assuming cooling water returned at 30oC. The outlet of condenser was saturated
liquid (vapour fraction = 0). There was no pressure drop for both of evaporator and condenser. The
following shows the equations that were used in simulation to calculate energy balance and pressure
drop.
𝑄𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟 = 𝐻𝑖𝑛 − 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑡 (eq.

1)
𝑄𝐸𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝐻𝑖𝑛 (eq.

2)
𝐹 = √ρ × 𝑘 × √𝑃1 − 𝑃2 (eq.
3)
Where:
QCondensor = duty of condenser (kJ/h)
QEvaporator = duty of evaporator (kJ/h)
23
Hin = inlet heat flow of condenser/evaporator (kJ/kmol)
Hout = outlet heat flow of condenser/evaporator (kJ/kmol)
F = molar flow rate (kmol/h)
ρ = density of stream (kg/m3)
k = constant of frictional pressure loss (-)
In the turbine section, polytropic efficiency was defined as 75% (typical value). The following
displays the equations that were used in simulation to calculate power produced by the turbine and
power required by pump.
𝒏−𝟏
𝒏 𝑷𝟏 𝑷 ( 𝒏 )
𝑾𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄 = 𝑭𝟏 × 𝑴𝑾 × × 𝑪𝑭 × × [(𝑷𝟐 ) − 𝟏] (eq. 4)
𝒏−𝟏 𝝆𝟏 𝟏
𝑃
ln( 2 )
𝑃1
𝑛= 𝜌 (eq. 5)
ln( 2 )
𝜌1
ℎ2 − ℎ1
𝐶𝐹 = 𝑛 𝑃 𝑃 (eq. 6)
( ) × ( 2 × 1)
𝑛−1 𝜌2 𝜌1
𝑊𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝑊𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 × 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 (eq.

7)
(𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑃𝑖𝑛 ) ×𝐹
𝑊𝑝,𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 = (eq.
ρ𝐿
8)
𝑊𝑝,𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙
𝑝 = × 100% (eq.
𝑊𝑝,𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
9)
Where:
n = volume exponent (-)
CF = correction factor (-)
P1 = pressure of inlet stream (kPa)
P2 = pressure of outlet stream (kPa)

24
Pin = inlet pressure of pump (kPa)
Pout = outlet pressure of pump (kPa)
ρ1 = density of inlet stream (kg/m3)
ρ2 = density of outlet stream (kg/m3)
F1 = molar flow rate of inlet stream (kmol/h)
MW = molecular weight of the component (kg/kmol)
Wisentropic = power produced of expander isentropicaly (kW)
Wactual = actual power produced of expander (kW)
𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 = polytropic efficiency of the expander (%)
𝑝 = efficiency of pump (%)
h1 = inlet enthalpy of expander (kJ/kmol)
h2 = outlet enthalpy of expander (kJ/kmol)
Wp, ideal = ideal power required of pump (kW)
Wp, actual = actual power required of pump (kW)
F = molar flow rate through pump (kmol/h)
ρL = liquid density through pump (kg/m3)
3.2.2. Scenario 2: Pre-heating ORC Design

Pre-heating ORC design will be carried out by using Aspen HYSYS. The aim of this simulation was
to identify the amount of waste heat can be recovered by producing power from this cycle for waste
heat source a, b, c, d, and e (Obtained from section 4.1.2). In addition, the relationship between the
power produced and working fluid components was conducted.
Figure 26 shows the block flow diagram of pre-heating ORC for scenario 2. This scenario consists of
pre-heating, evaporator, turbine, condenser, and pump. This cycle was modification of basic ORC
with pre-heating exchanger as the additional equipment. Pre-heating exchanger is proposed to utilise
heat of turbine exhaust to evaporator inlet. In this occasion, the cold stream is the stream of 1a – 1b
25
that located in the tube of exchanger whereas the hot stream is the stream of 3a – 3b that located in
the shell of exchanger. The choice of stream location (shell or tube side) was justified based on safety
consideration which the higher-pressure stream is supposed to be located in the tube side whilst the
lower-pressure stream is on the shell side.
Q(waste heat)
Pre-heating 1b Evaporator
2
1a
3a
W(produced)
W(pump)
Pump Turbine
3b
Condensor
Q(reject)
Figure 13– Simulation flow diagram of pre-heating ORC
11 working fluids (such as cyclo-pentane, n-Pentane, n-Hexane, Iso-butane, Iso-pentane, Propane,

Benzene, Toluene, R113, R114, and R134a) will be also used in this design. This system indicates
non-ideal vapour phase behaviour in certain stream process (quite high pressure after pumping) which
requires a vapour phase fugacity coefficient model. In addition, the liquid phase is close to ideal
which doesn’t need an activity coefficient model. Hence, Peng-Robinson was selected as the fluid
package in this simulation. Error! Reference source not found. shows the scenario 2 that utilise
several waste heat sources with different working fluids.
Table 4 – Scenario 2 with various working fluids and waste heat sources
26
Working Fluid Waste Heat Source
Propane
i-Butane
n-Pentane
i-Pentane
Cyclo-Pentane
A B C D E F G
n-Hexane
Benzene
Toluene
R113
R114
R134a
The equations that used in this scenario were similar to scenario 1 (evaporator, condenser, turbine,
and pump). In this scenario, adjust function was used in order to prevent temperature cross in pre-
heat train. Adjust function contains of adjusted and target variable. Adjusted variable was varied in
order to satisfy the set value of target variable. The outlet of cold stream (stream of 1b) was defined
as the adjusted variable whereas the outlet of hot stream (stream of 3b) was defined as the target
variable. The target value was set to be matched to stream of 1b with the positive offset of 10 oC.
Numerically, secant method was selected as the solving parameters of this adjust function with the
tolerance of 0.01oC and the step size of 5oC. The maximum iteration was defined as 100 iterations.
Another constraint such as minimum value of the adjusted variable (outlet of cold stream) was defined
as the inlet temperature of the cold stream. This constraint was set to prevent the cold stream reject
the heat to the exhaust turbine stream (in case of exhaust turbine temperature is lower than inlet
evaporator temperature).
𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑐𝑒 = [𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 × (𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝐻𝑖𝑛 )𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 − 𝑄𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑘 ] − [𝑚ℎ𝑜𝑡 × (𝐻𝑖𝑛 − 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑡 )ℎ𝑜𝑡 − 𝑄𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 ] (eq. 10)
3.2.3. Scenario 3: Design and Optimisation of Absorption Chiller

The AbC design will be carried out by using Aspen HYSYS. Water/lithium bromide was selected as
the working fluid in this design. The aim of this simulation was to identify the amount of waste heat
can be recovered by calculate chilling duty that provided by evaporator in Absorption Chiller cycle.
27
Q(waste heat) Q(reject)
Generator 2 Separator 3 Condensor
1 4 6
Solution Heat
Valve
Exchanger
9 7
5
Pump 10 Absorber 8 Evaporator
Q(in)
Figure 14 – Block Flow Diagram of Absorption Chiller
Table 5 – Scenario 3 with various waste heat sources
Waste Heat Source

A B C D E F G
12,544.2 kW 23,690.5 kW 1,948.7 kW 5,016 kW 6,234.2 kW 1,421.2 kW 1,920.5 kW
This system used NRTL as the fluid package because the liquid phase need an activity coefficient
model (water/lithium bromide). Lithium bromide was built in Aspen Hysys as hypothetical
component which inputted the following properties. Other physical properties were estimated based
on data bellow.
Table 6 – Inputted properties for lithium bromide
Inputted Properties Value

Molecular Weight (kg/kmol) 86.85
28
Normal Boiling Point (oC) 1265
Density (kg/m3) 3460
The waste heat was inputted to the generator heat load with the value of 13,327 kW for waste heat
source a; 20,470 kW for waste heat source b; 28,927 kW for waste heat source c; 37,385 kW for
waste heat source d; 49,753 kW for waste heat source e. In stream 2 (outlet generator), temperature
value was inputted with the value of 125oC for waste heat source a, 115oC for waste heat source b,
105oC for waste heat source c, 95oC for waste heat source d, and 85oC for waste heat source e. The
outlet temperature of condenser was defined as 40oC assuming cooling water returned at 30oC. The
outlet of condenser was saturated liquid (vapour fraction = 0). There was no pressure drop for both
of evaporator and condenser.
3.2.4. Sensitivity Analysis of waste heat recovery scenario
3.2.4.1. Scenario 1 and 2 sensitivity analysis

Basic and pre-heating ORC of various working fluids were simulated by following design basis above.
The sensitivity analysis of this simulation was carried out with maximise produced power as the
objective. First, working fluid and waste heat source that yield the highest power was selected. Then,
evaporator outlet temperature and condenser outlet temperature were varied as the sensitivity variable.
Table 7 – Sensitivity analysis of scenario 1 and 2
Scenario Sensitivity Variable

Outlet temperature of
1 evaporator
Condenser temperature
2 evaporator
Condenser temperature
3.2.4.2. Scenario 3 sensitivity analysis
29
Absorption chiller with various waste heat sources were simulated by following design basis above.
In order to achieve the maximum cooling duty production, sensitivity analysis was carried out. First,
waste heat source that yield the highest power was selected. Then, generator outlet temperature and
vapour fraction were varied as the sensitivity variable.
Table 8 – Sensitivity analysis of scenario 3
Scenario Sensitivity Variable

generator
3
Vapour fraction at generator
outlet stream
3.3 Economics Analysis

Economic evaluation was carried out to assess scenario 1, 2, and 3 in terms of Capital Expenditure
(CAPEX), Operational Expenditure (OPEX), and revenue. This economic analysis aims to yield the
maximum profit that follows equation 11.
max. profit = (𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 − 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 − 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋) (eq.

11)
CAPEX was calculated by using bar module cost. This method considers purchased cost, material
factor, and pressure factor to calculate the capital cost of specific equipment that showed in equation
12 – 15. Constant data that involved in the following equations was displayed on Table 9 – Table 11
(Turton, 2008).
0
𝐶𝐵𝑀,𝑖 = 𝐶𝑝,𝑖 × 𝐹𝐵𝑀,𝑖 (eq.
12)
𝑜
𝑙𝑜𝑔10 𝐶𝑝,𝑖 = 𝐾1,𝑖 + 𝐾2,𝑖 × 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝐴𝑖 ) + 𝐾3,𝑖 × [𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝐴𝑖 )]2 (eq. 13)
𝐹𝐵𝑀 = 𝐵1 + 𝐵2 × 𝐹𝑚,𝑖 × 𝐹𝑝,𝑖 (eq.

14)
𝑙𝑜𝑔10 𝐹𝑃,𝑖 = 𝐶1,𝑖 + 𝐶2,𝑖 × 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑃𝑖 ) + 𝐶3,𝑖 × [𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑃𝑖 )]2 (eq.
15)
Where:
𝐶𝐵𝑀,𝑖 = Bar module cost of equipment i ($)

30
0
𝐶𝑝,𝑖 = Purchased cost of equipment i ($)
FBM,i = Bar module factor of equipment i (-)
𝐾1,𝑖 = Constant 1 of equipment i for equation 13 (-)
Ai = Capacity of equipment i (kW or m2)
B1 = Constant 1 for bar module factor (-)
B2 = Constant 2 for bar module factor (-)
𝐹𝑚,𝑖 = Material factor for equipment i (-)
𝐹𝑝,𝑖 = Pressure factor for equipment i (-)
𝐶1,𝑖 = Constant 1 of equipment I for equation 15 (-)
𝑃𝑖 = Operating pressure of equipment i (barg)
Table 9 – Purchased cost equipment constant data for equation 13
Equipment Type K1 K2 K3 Capacity Units

Turbine 2.7051 1.4398 -0.1776 Fluid Power kW
Pump 3.3892 0.0536 0.1538 Shaft Power kW
Heat Exchanger 4.1884 -0.2503 0.1974 Area m2
Separator 3.4974 0.4485 0.1074 Volume m3
Table 10 – Material factor data for equation 14
Equipment Type Identification Number Fm

Turbine - 1
Pump 38 1.6
Heat Exchanger 1 1
Separator 1 1
31
Table 11 – Pressure factor constant data for equation 15
Equipment Type C1 C2 C3
Turbine 0 0 0
Pump 3.3892 0.0536 0.1538
Heat Exchanger 4.1884 -0.2503 0.1974
Separator 0 0 0
The purchased costs for these types of equipment were obtained to 2001 (Turton, 2008). Therefore,
it is essential to be able to update these costs to take changing economic conditions (inflation) into
account. This can be achieved by using the following expression:
𝐼
𝐶2 = 𝐶1 × (𝐼2 ) (Eq.
1
16)
Where:
C2 = Purchased cost of equipment i refers to time when cost is desired
C1 = Purchased cost of equipment i refers to base time when cost is known
I2 = Cost index refers to time when cost is desired
I1 = Cost index refers to base time when cos tis known
Next, all of calculated capital expenditure was equalized to the annual cost by dividing the equipment
cost by the annuity factor.
𝐶𝐵𝑀,𝑖
𝐸𝐴𝐶𝑖 = (Eq.
𝐴𝑡,𝑟
17)
1
1−
(1+𝑟)𝑡
𝐴𝑡,𝑟 = (Eq.
𝑟
18)
Where:
EACi = Equivalent annual cost of equipment i ($)
At,r = Annuity factor (-)
32
r = interest rate (%)
t = estimated equipment life time (year)
OPEX was accounted based on annual operational cost.
𝑂𝐶𝑖 = 𝐴𝑖 × 𝑃𝑐,𝑖 (Eq.

19)
Where:
𝑂𝐶𝑖 = Annual operational cost of material i
Ai = Annual requirement capacity of material i
𝑃𝑐,𝑖 = Price per capacity of material i
Table 12 – Operational cost data
Operational Cost List Price per capacity

Cooling Water 0.354 $/GJ
Benzene 3.45 $/US-gal
Water-LiBr (60%) 4.2 $/kg
The revenue was calculated by multiplying the WHR output capacity with its price per unit.
Table 13 – Price of waste heat recovery technology output
WHR Technology Output Price per unit

ORC Power Generation 50 $/MWh
AC Chilling Provision 4.43 $/GJ
3.4. Environment Analysis

Environment evaluation was carried out based on grid emission factor. In this case, the amount of
CO2 emission was related to the output of waste heat recovery technology. Oluleye (2015) was stated
the grid emission factor with the value of 0.485 kg CO2 / kWh.
33
3.5. Ranking Criterion for Industrial Waste Heat Utilisation Opportunities
Waste heat utilisation opportunities can be ranked with respect to the useful energy recovered or the
potential to reduce CO2 emissions or the economic benefits (income less costs). Using any of these
criteria alone cannot capture trade-offs between useful energy (power or cooling) produced from
waste heat, emissions, and economics. Therefore, it is important to develop a rangking criterion to
capture all three. In this work, the proposed ranking criterion measures the economic potential
associated with reduced CO2 emissions resulting from waste heat recovery that follows this equation:
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡
𝑅𝑐,𝑖 = × 𝑐
𝐸𝐶𝑂2
(Eq. 20)
Where:
𝑅𝑐,𝑖 = Ranking criterion
𝐸𝐶𝑂2 = Grid emission factor
𝑐 = Thermal efficiency of the cycle
34
SECTION 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4. Overview
In an overview, this section presents and discusses the results of this study based on proposed
methodology in section 3. In the beginning, the results of waste heat source data collection and
identification are presented and reviewed. The collected and identified potential waste heat sources
are utilised as the heat input for Scenario 1 (basic ORC), Scenario 2 (pre-heating ORC), and Scenario
3 (Absorption Chiller). In the next section, the result of waste heat utilisation on scenario 1 and 2 are
showed and discussed. Then, the sensitivity analysis on Scenario 1 and 2 in terms of power generation
is pointed out and analysed. As similar as Scenario 1 and 2, Scenario 3 (Absorption chiller) also used
waste heat source as the heat input of the cycle to produce chilling duty. In this occasion, Scenario 3
waste heat utilisation results are also provided and discussed. Sensitivity analysis result on Scenario
3 is discussed. Ultimately, final design is determined by using ranking criterion based on economic
and environment analysis.
4.1. Data Collection and Identification of Waste Heat Source Result

Table 14 – Data Collection of Process Stream of Refinery process
Tsupply Ttarge CP
Process No. Q (kW)
(oC) (oC) (kW/oC)
1 172.5 67.6 116.951 12268
2 260 189.8 75.104 5272.3
3 309 269.5 95.138 3758
4 333.4 189.4 14.91 2147
5 116.8 49.7 72.242 4847.4
6 272 210 303.711 18830
7 210 79.8 58.8 7655.8
CDU/VDU 8 146 18.2 144.92 18521
9 50.5 18.2 152.687 4931.8
10 189 26.1 69.661 11348
11 198.9 171.1 13.477 374.66
12 26 261.7 221.887 52299
13 261.7 356.5 430.191 40782
14 338.2 409.8 257.147 18412
15 26.7 96.1 136.283 9458
1 328.3 33.9 57.471 16919
2 67.2 50 191.086 3286.7
3 101.7 61.7 108.792 4351.7
NHT 4 168.9 88.3 27.527 2218.7
5 253.9 146.1 45.556 4910.9
6 39.1 325 57.85 16539
7 33.9 130.3 44.252 4265.9
35
Tsupply Ttarge CP
Process No. Q (kW)
(oC) (oC) (kW/oC)
8 175.6 183.5 589.627 4658.1
9 168.9 171.1 1208.13 2657.9
1 503.9 366.1 67.382 9285.2
2 366.1 178.9 3.807 712.67
3 366.1 253.9 26.094 2927.7
4 303.3 36.7 63.175 16842
5 76.7 26.7 24.568 1228.4
6 232.2 112.2 15.107 1812.8
7 79.4 32.2 39.78 1877.6
8 112 23.9 0.738 65.018
9 67.2 27.2 78.556 3142.2
10 157.2 32.2 7.905 988.13
11 43.3 26.3 4.773 81.141
Reformer
12 92 65 1.773 47.871
13 107 32.2 7.671 573.79
14 66.1 370.6 76.121 23179
15 232.2 247.2 195.269 2929
16 36.7 125.6 20.378 1811.6
17 112 112.8 22506.9 18006
18 157.2 163.9 106.929 716.42
19 92 97.2 38.98 202.7
20 370.6 495.6 94.091 11761
21 452.8 497.2 106.519 4729.4
22 480.6 496.1 114.065 1768
1 327.8 256.7 86.372 6141
2 256.7 30 14.882 3373.7
3 127.2 24.4 3.815 392.18
4 253.9 146.1 45.556 4910.9
DHT
5 241.9 245.6 47.556 175.96
6 221.1 308.9 81.7 7173.3
7 168.9 171.1 1208.13 2657.9
8 83.9 130.3 44.252 2053.3
1 312.8 205 31.9 3438.8
2 205 30 5.032 880.6
KHT 3 136.1 27.2 0.178 19.384
4 176.7 33.3 26.798 3842.8
5 157.8 310 31.015 4720.5
1 165.5 90 22.616 1707.5
FCCU 2 282 196.5 54.389 4650.3
3 274 37.5 9.163 2167
36
Tsupply Ttarge CP
Process No. Q (kW)
(oC) (oC) (kW/oC)
4 164 27 36.141 4951.3
5 327 261 44.321 2925.2
6 363 246 26.74 3128.6
7 327 165 16.772 2717.1
8 204 104 5.405 540.5
9 140.9 38 162.055 16675
10 144.5 51 15.252 1426.1
11 74 295 62.462 13804
12 143 164 129.383 2717
13 94 125 126.44 3919.6
1 135.6 30 19.506 2059.8
2 255 176.1 9.887 780.08
3 353.3 198.9 43.165 6664.7
4 198.9 171.1 13.477 374.66
VBU
5 171.1 75 19.279 1852.7
6 327.8 457.8 54.685 7109.1
7 158.3 160 221.49 376.53
8 126.7 17601 15.599 272582
Figure 15 – Total Site Composite Curve of Petroleum Refining Process without heat recovery
37
Table 15 – Hot and Cold Utility Load with no heat recovery
Utility Temperature Source Load Sink Load

Utility o
C kW kW
Hot Oil 500 - 125,000
HP 250 50,000* 9,500
MP 210 25,000* 34,000
LP 155 35,000 * 81,500
Cooling Water 30 107,500 -
Refrigeration 10 17,500 -
Total potential heat recovery for hot utility 110,000
Total hot utility duty (kW) 260,000
Total cold utility duty (kW) 240,000
*
Potential Generated
Figure 16 – Total Site Composite Curve of Petroleum Refining Process with Heat Recovery
Table 16 – Hot and Cold Utility Load with heat recovery
Utility Temperature Source Load Sink Load
Utility o
C kW kW
Hot Oil 500 - 125,000
HP 250 - 9,500
MP 210 28,500* 5,500
LP 155 81,500 * -
Cooling Water 30 107,500 -
Refrigeration 10 17,500 -
Total heat recovery for hot utility 110,000
Total hot utility duty (kW) 150,000
Total cold utility duty (kW) 130,000
*
Potential Generated
38
Table 14 shows the data collection of hot and cold streams based on medium-scale petroleum refining.
Table 15 exhibits the hot and cold utility duty for the refinery process with no heat recovery. Figure
15 shows the total site composite curve of the process without heat recovery. In this occasion, 260,000
kW hot utility need to be supplied to the process by hot utility (Sink Site) which consists of 135,000
kW of hot steam and 125,000 kW of hot oil as the heat load. On the source site, there is 240,000 kW
of heat load that need to be rejected. It is observed that 110,000 kW heat load of source site can be
recovered for steam generation. In Figure 16, potential heat recovery of the source site is applied to
reduce the hot utility consumption to 150,000 kW (110,000 kW savings). It is also noticed in Figure
16 that there is further potential of heat recovery at below temperature of 155oC. According to Galanis
et al. (2009), typical of waste heat temperature of vapour and gases industrial is between 80 to 500oC.
Therefore, temperature range 95 – 155oC is selected as the waste heat source temperature. As a result,
there is potential of 52,775 kW waste heat source at this temperature range.
Table 17 – Waste Heat Recovered from Refinery Process
Waste Heat Source Temperature Range (oC) Heat Load (kW)

A FCCU 12,544.2
B CDU 23,690.5
C VBU 1,948.7
D Reformer 95 - 155 5,016.0
E NHT 6,234.2
F DHT 1,421.2
G KHT 1,920.5
Total Heat Load 52,775.3
Fuel Gas
Saturated
LPG
Gas Plant
WHS B
WHS E WHS D
NHT Reformer Reformate
Cracked Gasoline Gasoline
WHS G
Crude Oil KHT Jet Fuel
CDU
WHS F
DHT Diesel
WHS A
FCC
VDU
WHS C
VBU Heavy Fuel Oil
39
Figure 17 – Waste Heat Recovery Identification from Refinery Process
Table 18 – Waste Heat Source A Operational Condition
Tsupply Ttarget CP Q
Stream o o
C C kW/K kW
FCCU1 155 95 22.616 1357.0
FCCU3 155 95 9.163 549.8
FCCU4 155 95 36.141 2168.5
FCCU8 155 104 5.405 275.7
FCCU9 140.9 95 162.055 7438.3
FCCU10 144.5 95 15.252 755.0
Total Head Load 12544.2
Table 19 – Waste Heat Source B Operational Condition
Stream o o
C C kW/K kW
CDU1 155 95 116.951 7017.06
CDU5 116.8 95 72.242 1574.8756
CDU7 155 95 58.8 3528
CDU8 146 95 144.92 7390.92
CDU10 155 95 69.661 4179.66
Table 20 – Waste Heat Source C Operational Condition
Stream o o
C C kW/K kW
VBU1 135.6 95 19.506 791.9436
VBU5 155 95 19.279 1156.74
Table 21 – Waste Heat Source D Operational Condition
Stream o o
C C kW/K kW
REFORMER4 155 95 63.175 3790.5
REFORMER6 155 112.2 15.107 646.5796
REFORMER8 112 95 0.738 12.546
REFORMER10 155 95 7.905 474.3
REFORMER13 107 95 7.671 92.052
Table 22 – Waste Heat Source E Operational Condition
Stream o o
C C kW/K kW
40
NHT1 155 95 57.471 3448.26
NHT3 101.7 95 108.792 728.9064
NHT4 155 95 27.527 1651.62
NHT5 155 146.1 45.556 405.4484
Table 23 – Waste Heat Source F Operational Condition
Stream o o
C C kW/K kW
DHT2 155 95 14.882 892.92
DHT3 127.2 95 3.815 122.843
DHT4 155 146.1 45.556 405.4484
Table 24 – Waste Heat Source G Operational Condition
Stream o o
C C kW/K kW
KHT2 155 95 5.032 301.92
KHT3 155 95 0.178 10.68
KHT4 155 95 26.798 1607.88
Table 17 the collected waste heat source and detailed scenarios of this study. The waste heat sources
were classified by the process source due to feasibility of the implementation in practical. As a result,
there are seven potential waste heat sources from different units such as WHS-A (FCCU), WHS-B
(CDU), WHS-C (VBU), WHS-D (Reformer), WHS-E (NHT), WHS-F (DHT), and WHS-G (KHT)
as shown in Figure 17. Table 18 – Table 24 presents the stream data of each waste heat sources
including the temperature, heat capacity, and heat load. It is clear that the highest load duty of waste
heat source is on WHS-B from CDU with the value of 23,690 kW followed by WHS-A (FCCU)
12,544 kW whereas WHS-F (DHT) yields the lowest heat load. These waste heat sources were
applied to waste heat recovery technology such as ORC (Scenario 1 and 2) to provide power and AC
(Scenario 3) to yield chilling provision.
4.2. Waste Heat Recovery Technology Simulation

4.2.1. Scenario 1: Basic ORC Design Result
Figure 18 shows the simulation of basic ORC in Aspen Hysys. The simulation results are shown in
Figure 19 to Figure 25 and Table 25 to Table 44.
41
Figure 18 - Simulation flow diagram of basic ORC
42
Figure 19 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 1 with WHS-A
Table 25 – Operating condition of scenario 1 with WHS-A
Stream
1 2 3 4
No Working Fluid
P T P T P T P T
(kPa) (OC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC)
1 Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
2 i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 40.0
3 n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 40.0
4 i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 40.0
5 Cyclo-Pentane 371.0 40.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 40.0
6 n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 40.0
7 Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 40.0
8 Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 40.0
9 R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 40.0
10 R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 40.0
11 R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Table 26 – Power Produced of scenario 1 with WHS-A
Efficiency
Flowrate Power Produced
No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
1 Propane 309.4 1229.7 9.80
2 i-Butane 212.4 1218.0 9.71
3 n-Pentane 160.8 1211.8 9.66
4 i-Pentane 172.6 1203.6 9.59
5 Cyclo-Pentane 131.1 1283.9 10.24
6 n-Hexane 297.6 1206.8 9.62
7 Benzene 107.6 1307.4 10.42
43
Efficiency
Flowrate Power Produced
No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
8 Toluene 111.8 1295.2 10.33
9 R-113 159.3 1221.8 9.74
10 R-114 205.8 1206.3 9.62
11 R-134a 217.3 1209.0 9.64
Figure 20 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 1 with waste heat source B
Table 27 – Operating condition of scenario 1 with waste heat source B
Stream
Working 1 2 3 4
No
Fluid P T P T P T P T
(kPa) m3/h (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC)
1 Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
2 i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 40.0
3 n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 40.0
4 i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 40.0
5 Cyclo-
Pentane 371.0 40.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 40.0
6 n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 40.0
7 Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 40.0
8 Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 40.0
9 R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 40.0
10 R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 40.0
11 R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
44
Table 28 – Power Produced of scenario 1 with WHS-B
Flowrate Power Produced Efficiency

No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
1 Propane 584.3 2322.4 9.80
2 i-Butane 401.2 2300.2 9.71
3 n-Pentane 303.7 2288.6 9.66
4 i-Pentane 325.9 2273.1 9.59
5 Cyclo-Pentane 247.7 2424.7 10.23
6 n-Hexane 285.8 2279.0 9.62
7 Benzene 203.3 2469.0 10.42
8 Toluene 211.2 2446.1 10.33
9 R-113 300.9 2307.5 9.74
10 R-114 388.6 2278.1 9.62
11 R-134a 410.4 2283.3 9.64
Figure 21 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 1 with waste heat source C
Table 29 – Operating condition of scenario 1 with waste heat source C
Stream
Working 1 2 3 4
O o o o
(kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C)
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 40.0
Cyclo-
Pentane 371.0 40.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 40.0
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 40.0
45
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Table 30 – Power Produced of scenario 1 with WHS-C

No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
1 Propane 48.1 191.0 9.80
2 i-Butane 33.0 189.2 9.71
3 n-Pentane 25.0 188.3 9.66
4 i-Pentane 26.8 187.0 9.60
5 Cyclo-Pentane 20.4 199.4 10.23
6 n-Hexane 23.5 187.5 9.62
7 Benzene 16.7 203.1 10.42
8 Toluene 17.4 201.2 10.32
9 R-113 24.8 189.8 9.74
10 R-114 32.0 187.4 9.62
11 R-134a 33.8 187.8 9.64
Figure 22 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 1 with waste heat source D
Table 31 – Operating condition of scenario 1 with waste heat source D
Stream
Working 1 2 3 4
O o o o
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 40.0
46
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 40.0
Cyclo-
Pentane 371.0 40.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 40.0
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Table 32 – Power Produced of scenario 1 with WHS-D

No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
1 Propane 123.7 491.7 9.80
2 i-Butane 85.0 487.0 9.71
3 n-Pentane 64.3 484.6 9.66
4 i-Pentane 69.0 481.3 9.60
5 Cyclo-Pentane 52.4 513.4 10.24
6 n-Hexane 60.5 482.5 9.62
7 Benzene 43.0 522.8 10.42
8 Toluene 44.7 517.9 10.32
9 R-113 63.7 488.6 9.74
10 R-114 82.3 482.3 9.62
11 R-134a 86.9 483.4 9.64
Figure 23 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 1 with waste heat source E
Table 33 – Operating condition of scenario 1 with waste heat source E

47
Stream
Working 1 2 3 4
(kPa) (OC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC)
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 40.0
Cyclo-
371.0 40.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Table 34 – Power Produced of scenario 1 with WHS-E

No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
1 Propane 153.8 611.1 9.80
2 i-Butane 105.6 605.3 9.71
3 n-Pentane 79.9 602.3 9.66
4 i-Pentane 85.8 598.2 9.60
5 Cyclo-Pentane 65.2 638.1 10.24
6 n-Hexane 75.2 599.7 9.62
7 Benzene 53.5 649.7 10.42
8 Toluene 55.6 643.7 10.33
9 R-113 79.2 607.2 9.74
10 R-114 102.3 599.5 9.62
11 R-134a 108.0 600.9 9.64
48
Figure 24 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 1 with waste heat source F
Table 35 – Operating condition of scenario 1 with waste heat source F
Stream
1 2 3 4
Working Fluid
P T P T P T P T
O o o o
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 40.0
Cyclo-Pentane 371.0 40.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 40.0
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Table 36 – Power Produced of scenario 1 with WHS-F

No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
1 Propane 35.1 139.3 9.80
2 i-Butane 24.1 138.0 9.71
3 n-Pentane 18.2 137.3 9.66
4 i-Pentane 19.6 136.4 9.60
5 Cyclo-Pentane 14.9 145.5 10.24
6 n-Hexane 17.1 136.7 9.62
7 Benzene 12.2 148.1 10.42
8 Toluene 12.7 146.7 10.32
49
No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
9 R-113 18.1 138.4 9.74
10 R-114 23.3 136.7 9.62
11 R-134a 24.6 137.0 9.64
Figure 25 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 1 with waste heat source G
Table 37 – Operating condition of scenario 1 with waste heat source G
Stream
Working 1 2 3 4
O o o o
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 40.0
Cyclo-
371.0 40.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Table 38 – Power Produced of scenario 1 with WHS-G
50
No Working Fluid
m3/h (kW) (%)
1 Propane 47.4 188.3 9.80
2 i-Butane 32.5 186.5 9.71
3 n-Pentane 24.6 185.5 9.66
4 i-Pentane 26.4 184.3 9.60
5 Cyclo-Pentane 20.1 196.6 10.24
6 n-Hexane 23.2 184.8 9.62
7 Benzene 16.5 200.2 10.42
8 Toluene 17.1 198.3 10.33
9 R-113 24.4 187.1 9.74
10 R-114 31.5 184.7 9.62
11 R-134a 33.3 185.1 9.64
In Scenario 1 simulation, the working fluid that yield highest output of power generated and cycle
thermal efficiency is benzene for all waste heat sources. Although benzene yield the highest value,
there is only a little gap of the output while using toluene and cyclo-pentane as working fluid in ORC.
The other working fluids yield quite lower value in terms of power generation and thermal efficiency
than these three working fluids. These discrepancy results are likely to be related to working fluid’s
properties such as latent heat of vaporisation, saturation curve, entropy, and temperature difference
between evaporator and condenser. Benzene, cyclo-pentane, and toluene has respectively high latent
heat of vaporisation compared to other working fluids. In similar waste heat source quality
(temperature), benzene, cyclo-pentane, and toluene were running at lower pressure because of higher
boiling point than other working fluids. Consequently, the envelope area in T-S diagram that indicates
the ORC work output inevitably increased. Benzene is the most stable compound (less disorder or the
most negative of entropy) among the other working fluids. This factor induces benzene has higher
expander isentropic efficiency as well as produce the highest power.
4.2.2. Scenario 2: Pre-heating ORC Design Result

Figure 26 shows the simulation of pre-heating ORC in Aspen Hysys. The simulation results are shown
in Figure 27 to Figure 33 and Table 33 to Table 52.
51
Figure 26 – Simulation flow diagram of pre-heating ORC
Figure 27 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 2 with waste heat source A
Table 39 – Operating condition of scenario 2 with waste heat source A

Stream
Working 1a 1b 2 3a 3b 4
Fluid P T P T P T P T P T P T
(kPa) (OC) (kPa) (OC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (kPa) (oC)
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 45.4 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 50.5 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 53.8 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 48.4 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 54.2 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 48.5 150.9 40.0
Cyclo- 371.0 40.2 371.0 46.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 49.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 56.9 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 48.0 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 41.9 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 49.8 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 46.5 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 49.0 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 53.3 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 48.4 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 48.2 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 49.5 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Table 40 – Operating condition of scenario 2 with waste heat source A

Working Fluid
m3/h kW %
Propane 309.37 1229.7 9.80
i-Butane 218.54 1252.9 9.99
n-Pentane 173.49 1307.4 10.42
i-Pentane 187.13 1305.3 10.41
Cyclo-Pentane 134.29 1314.7 10.48
n-Hexane 165.56 1302.1 10.38
Benzene 108.3 1315.5 10.49
52
Toluene 114.46 1314.8 10.48
R-113 170.93 1310.6 10.45
R-114 216.17 1267.1 10.10
R-134a 217.29 1209 9.64
Figure 28 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 2 with waste heat source B
Stream
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 45.4 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 50.5 527.8 40.0
n- 527.9 40.3 527.9 53.8 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 48.4 115.0 40.0
Pentane
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 54.2 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 48.5 150.9 40.0
Cyclo- 371.0 40.2 371.0 46.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 49.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 56.9 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 48.0 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 41.9 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 49.8 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 46.5 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 49.0 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 53.3 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 48.4 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 48.2 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 49.5 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0

Working Fluid
m3/h kW %
Propane 584.26 2322.4 9.80
i-Butane 412.72 2366.1 9.99
n-Pentane 327.65 2469.1 10.42
53
i-Pentane 353.41 2465.1 10.41
Cyclo-Pentane 253.61 2482.9 10.48
n-Hexane 312.68 2473 10.44
Benzene 204.53 2484.4 10.49
Toluene 216.17 2483.8 10.48
R-113 322.81 2475.2 10.45
R-114 408.26 2393.1 10.10
R-134a 410.36 2283.3 9.64
Figure 29 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 2 with waste heat source C
Stream
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 45.4 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 50.5 527.8 40.0
n- 527.9 40.3 527.9 53.8 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 48.4 115.0 40.0
Pentane
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 54.2 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 48.5 150.9 40.0
Cyclo- 371.0 40.2 371.0 46.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 49.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 56.9 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 48.0 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 41.9 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 49.8 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 46.5 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 49.0 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 53.3 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 48.4 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 48.2 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 49.5 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0
Working Fluid Flowrate Power Produced Efficiency
54
m3/h kW %
Propane 48.06 191.03 9.80
i-Butane 33.949 194.63 9.99
n-Pentane 26.952 203.1 10.42
i-Pentane 29.07 202.77 10.41
Cyclo-Pentane 20.861 203.24 10.43
n-Hexane 25.72 204.07 10.47
Benzene 16.824 204.36 10.49
Toluene 17.781 203.95 10.47
R-113 26.553 203.6 10.45
R-114 33.582 196.85 10.10
R-134a 33.755 187.81 9.64
Figure 30 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 2 with waste heat source D
Stream
1a 1b 2 3a 3b 4
Working Fluid
P T P T P T P T P T P T
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 45.4 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 50.5 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 53.8 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 48.4 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 54.2 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 48.5 150.9 40.0
Cyclo-Pentane 371.0 40.2 371.0 46.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 49.2 75.6 40.0
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 56.9 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 48.0 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 41.9 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 49.8 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 46.5 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 49.0 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 53.3 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 48.4 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 48.2 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 49.5 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0

55
Working Fluid
m3/h kW %
Propane 123.71 491.72 9.80
i-Butane 87.385 500.98 9.99
n-Pentane 69.374 522.78 10.42
i-Pentane 74.827 521.93 10.41
Cyclo-Pentane 53.697 525.71 10.48
n-Hexane 66.203 522.85 10.42
Benzene 43.305 526.03 10.49
Toluene 45.77 525.13 10.47
R-113 68.348 524.08 10.45
R-114 86.44 506.69 10.10
R-134a 86.886 483.43 9.64
Figure 31 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 2 with waste heat source E

Stream
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 45.4 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 50.5 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 53.8 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 48.4 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 54.2 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 48.5 150.9 40.0
Cyclo- 371.0 40.2 371.0 46.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 49.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 56.9 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 48.0 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 41.9 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 49.8 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 46.5 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 49.0 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 53.3 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 48.4 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 48.2 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 49.5 336.8 40.0
56
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0

Working Fluid
m3/h kW %
Propane 153.75 611.14 9.80
i-Butane 108.61 622.65 9.99
n-Pentane 86.223 649.74 10.42
i-Pentane 93 648.69 10.41
Cyclo-Pentane 66.738 653.38 10.48
n-Hexane 82.282 652.04 10.46
Benzene 53.822 653.78 10.49
Toluene 56.886 652.87 10.47
R-113 84.947 651.36 10.45
R-114 107.43 629.74 10.10
R-134a 107.99 600.84 9.64
Figure 32 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 2 with waste heat source F

Stream
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 45.4 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 50.5 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 53.8 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 48.4 115.0 40.0
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 54.2 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 48.5 150.9 40.0
Cyclo- 371.0 40.2 371.0 46.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 49.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 56.9 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 48.0 37.1 40.0
57
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 41.9 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 49.8 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 46.5 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 49.0 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 53.3 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 48.4 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 48.2 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 49.5 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0

Working Fluid
m3/h kW %
Propane 47.364 139.3 9.86
i-Butane 33.458 141.9 10.05
n-Pentane 26.562 148.2 10.49
i-Pentane 28.65 147.9 10.47
Cyclo-Pentane 20.559 148.9 10.54
n-Hexane 25.348 147.6 10.45
Benzene 16.58 149.1 10.56
Toluene 17.524 148.2 10.49
R-113 26.169 148.5 10.52
R-114 33.096 143.5 10.16
R-134a 33.266 137 9.70
Figure 33 – Power produced of basic ORC for scenario 2 with waste heat source G

Stream
Propane 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 43.8 4129.8 95.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0 1372.9 40.0
i-Butane 1812.8 41.2 1812.8 45.4 1812.8 95.0 527.8 56.1 527.8 50.5 527.8 40.0
n-Pentane 527.9 40.3 527.9 53.8 527.9 95.0 115.0 66.1 115.0 48.4 115.0 40.0
58
i-Pentane 641.8 40.3 641.8 54.2 641.8 95.0 150.9 66.4 150.9 48.5 150.9 40.0
Cyclo- 371.0 40.2 371.0 46.2 371.0 95.0 75.6 57.2 75.6 49.2 75.6 40.0
Pentane
n-Hexane 214.0 40.1 214.0 56.9 214.0 95.0 37.1 69.3 37.1 48.0 37.1 40.0
Benzene 155.8 40.1 155.8 41.9 155.8 95.0 25.0 52.3 25.0 49.8 25.0 40.0
Toluene 64.5 40.0 64.5 46.5 64.5 95.0 8.3 57.6 8.3 49.0 8.3 40.0
R-113 395.0 40.2 395.0 53.3 395.0 95.0 81.4 65.5 81.4 48.4 81.4 40.0
R-114 1283.5 40.8 1283.5 48.2 1283.5 95.0 336.8 59.6 336.8 49.5 336.8 40.0
R-134a 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 42.7 3605.4 95.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0 1016.7 40.0

Working Fluid
m3/h kW %
Propane 43.3 188.21 9.80
i-Butane 33.6 191.86 9.99
n-Pentane 26.2 200.12 10.42
i-Pentane 28.2 199.92 10.41
Cyclo-Pentane 20.8 201.27 10.48
n-Hexane 24.9 200.88 10.46
Benzene 16.9 201.46 10.49
Toluene 17.7 201.08 10.47
R-113 25.9 200.69 10.45
R-114 33.0 193.97 10.10
R-134a 31.9 185.14 9.64
In this scenario, the pre-heating ORC with benzene as the working fluid yield the highest power
produced than other working fluid as similar as scenario 1. It is noticed that mostly the power
produced of ORC with pre-heating slightly increase if compared to basic ORC. The increasement
occurs because additional pre-heating exchanger lead to the cycle could accommodate more flowrate
of the working fluid in certain waste heat sources (heat loads and temperatures are same to Scenario
1). As a result, power generation from the expander and thermal efficiency of the cycle increase. In
contrast to other working fluids, there is no difference results on power generation between basic and
pre-heating ORC with propane as the working fluid. This result may be explained by the fact that
there is no sufficient heat available to be recovered in pre-heating exchanger.
59
4.2.3. Sensitivity Analysis of Scenario 1 and 2
The result of sensitivity analysis of basic ORC and pre-heating ORC are shown at Figure 34 to Figure
37 below.
Figure 34 – Sensitivity analysis of Scenario 1 and 2 with benzene as the working fluid in terms
of evaporator outlet temperature
Figure 35 – Composite curve of Scenario 1 with various outlet of evaporator temperature
60
Figure 36 – Composite curve of Scenario 2 with various outlet of evaporator temperature
Figure 37 – Sensitivity analysis of Scenario 1 and 2 with benzene as the working fluid in terms
of condenser outlet temperature
61
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Based on Figure 34, the power production in both of Scenario 1 and 2 increases as the evaporator
outlet temperature rises. This sensitivity analysis may explain the relatively correlation between
expander inlet temperature and power output. However, there is no significant difference of power
production between basic and pre-heating ORC in lower temperature. At the evaporator temperature
of 135oC, it is noticed that there is a significant gap of power output for Scenario 1 and 2.
Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the feasibility of heat transfer in evaporator which waste heat source
as the hot stream whilst evaporator stream as the cold stream for Scenario 1 and 2, respectively. In
Scenario 1, the result indicates all of outlet evaporator temperature variants are feasible. Therefore,
temperature of 145oC was selected as outlet evaporator temperature because yield the maximum
62
power generation. On the other hand, not all of waste heat source could be utilised if the evaporator
outlet temperature is increased to 145oC in Scenario 2. In order to utilise all heat load from waste heat
source and maximise the power generation, temperature of 140oC was chosen as the evaporator outlet
temperature.
Figure 37 shows the relationship between power production and condenser outlet temperature for
both of Scenario 1 and 2. It is clear that power production decreases as the condenser temperature
increase. A clear explanation for this might be that the net area that represents work output in
saturation curve (T-S diagram) decreases as the evaporator temperature remains constant whereas
condenser temperature rises.
4.2.4. Scenario 3: Absorption Chiller
The results of Scenario 3 simulation are shown in Figure 38, Table 53, and Table 54.
Figure 38 – Absorption Chiller Simulation

Table 53 – Operating condition of scenario 3
Stream
Waste Heat 1 2 3 4 5
Source P T P T P T P T P T
O O o o o
(kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C)
A 16.9 45.8 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 30.1
B 16.9 45.8 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 30.1
C 16.9 45.8 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 30.1
D 16.9 45.8 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 30.1
E 16.9 45.8 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 30.1
F 16.9 45.8 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 30.1
G 16.9 45.8 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 95.0 16.9 30.1
6 7 8 9 10
Waste Heat
P T P T P T P T P T
Source O O o o o
(kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C) (kPa) ( C)
A 16.9 56.5 1.2 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.9 24.5 1.2 24.5
B 16.9 56.5 1.2 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.9 24.5 1.2 24.5
C 16.9 56.5 1.2 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.9 24.5 1.2 24.5
D 16.9 56.5 1.2 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.9 24.5 1.2 24.5
E 16.9 56.5 1.2 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.9 24.5 1.2 24.5
F 16.9 56.5 1.2 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.9 24.5 1.2 24.5
63
G 16.9 56.5 1.2 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.9 24.5 1.2 24.5
Table 54 – Cooling Duty Production of scenario 3
Waste Heat Cooling Duty Flowrate Efficiency

Source kW m3/h %
A 10,650 83.14 84.90
B 20,110 157 84.89
C 1,654 12.92 84.88
D 4,259 33.25 84.91
E 5,293 41.32 84.90
F 1,207 9.42 84.93
G 1,631 12.73 84.93
In this scenario, absorption chiller that utilising WHS-B as the heat input in generator yields the
highest cooling duty provision and thermal efficiency in the cycle with the value of 20,110 kW and
84.89%. This amount of chilling load is adequate to satisfy cold utility demand (refrigeration) which
requires 17,500 kW as mentioned in section 4.1.
4.2.5. Sensitivity Analysis of Scenario 3
20200
20000
Cooling Duty Production (kW)
19800
19600
19400
19200
19000
18800
18600
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Generator Outlet Temperature (oC)
Figure 39 – Sensitivity analysis of cooling duty production in terms of generator outlet

temperature
64
Figure 40 – Sensitivity analysis of cooling duty production in terms of generator outlet vapour
fraction
4.3. Economic Analysis Result

Table 55 – Summary of all scenario
Working Waste Heat Output Value Efficiency
Output
Fluid Source (kW) (%)
Scenario 1 Benzene 3,917 16.5
WHS-B Power
Scenario 2 Benzene 3,992 16.9
(CDU)
Chilling
Scenario 3 Water-LiBr 23,690 kW 20,110 84.89
Provision
Table 56 – Scenario 1 (ORC) Economic Analysis
Capital Expenditure
Annualization
Equipment List Equipment Cost Annual Cost
Factor
Evaporator $432,635 4.89 $88,484
Cooler $607,334 4.89 $124,213
Pump $60,345 4.89 $12,342
Expander $3,142,406 4.89 $642,692
Total of Capital Expenditure $867,731
Operational Expenditure
Capacity Price Annual Cost
65
Benzene 58,929 US-gal 3.45 $/US-gal. $25,413
Cooling Water 19,810 kW 0.354 $/GJ $61
Total of Operational Expenditure $25,475
Revenue
Yield Price Annual Revenue
Power Generation 3917 kW 50 $/MWh $1,715,646
Profit (Revenue – CAPEX – OPEX) $822,440
Table 57 – Scenario 2 (Preheating ORC) Economic Analysis
Capital Expenditure
Annualization
Factor
Evaporator $432,306 4.89 $88,416
Pre-heating $461,916 4.89 $94,472
Cooler $1,043,917 4.89 $213,504
Pump $58,320 4.89 $11,928
Expander $3,152,083 4.89 $644,672
Total of Capital Expenditure $1,052,992
Benzene 62,510 US-gal 3.45 $/US-gal. $26,958
Cooling Water 19,730 kW 0.354 $/GJ $61
Revenue
Power Generation 3992 kW 50 $/MWh $1,748,496
Profit (Revenue – CAPEX – OPEX) $668,485
Table 58 – Scenario 3 (AC) Economic Analysis
Capital Expenditure
Annualization
Factor
Generator $961,338 4.89 $196,615
Condenser $581,014 4.89 $118,830
Evaporator $551,075 4.89 $112,707
Absorber $2,796,500 4.89 $571,947
Separator $730,809.20 4.89 $149,467
Pump $360,450 4.89 $73,720
Solution Heat Exchanger $806,050 4.89 $164,855.29
Total of Capital Expenditure $1,388,142
Water-LiBr Solution 51,800 kg/h 4.2 $/kg $217,728
Cooling Water 43920 kW 0.354 $/GJ $136
Revenue
66
Chilling Duty Generation 20,490 kW 4.43 $/GJ $2,862,545
Profit (Revenue – CAPEX – OPEX) $1,256,539
$700,000 4500
$600,000 4000
$500,000 3500
$400,000
Annual Profit ($)
3000
Power (kW)
$300,000
2500
$200,000
2000
$100,000
1500
$0
85 95 105 115 125 135 145 1000
-$100,000
-$200,000 500
-$300,000 0
Waste Heat Source Temperature (oC)
Profit Power Produced
Figure 41 – Sensitivity analysis of annual profits in terms of varying waste heat source
temperature for Scenario 1
$1,000,000 5000
$900,000 4500
$800,000 4000
$700,000 3500
Annual Profit ($)
Power (kW)
$600,000 3000
$500,000 2500
$400,000 2000
$300,000 1500
$200,000 1000
$100,000 500
$0 0
20691 21691 22691 23691 24691 25691 26691
Waste Heat Source Heat Load (kW)
Figure 42 – Sensitivity analysis of annual profits in terms of varying waste heat source load
for Scenario 1
67
$400,000 4500
$300,000 4000
$200,000 3500
$100,000
3000
Annual Profit ($)
Power (kW)
$0
85 95 105 115 125 135 145 2500
-$100,000
2000
-$200,000
1500
-$300,000
-$400,000 1000
-$500,000 500
-$600,000 0
$600,000 5000
4500
$500,000
4000
3500
Annual Profit ($)
$400,000
Power (kW)
3000
$300,000 2500
2000
$200,000
1500
1000
$100,000
500
$0 0
20691 21691 22691 23691 24691 25691 26691
for Scenario 2
68
$1,600,000 20600
$1,400,000 20400
20200
$1,200,000
20000
Annual Profit ($)
Power (kW)
$1,000,000 19800
$800,000 19600
$600,000 19400
19200
$400,000
19000
$200,000 18800
$0 18600
85 90 95 100 105 110 115
Profit Chilling Load Produced
$2,000,000 25000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000 20000
$1,400,000
Annual Profit ($)
Power (kW)
$1,200,000 15000
$1,000,000
$800,000 10000
$600,000
$400,000 5000
$200,000
$0 0
20691 21691 22691 23691 24691 25691 26691
for Scenario 3
69
Figure 47 – Annual profit comparison
4.4. Environment Analysis Result
70
4.5. Ranking Criterion Result
0.03
0.025
Ranking Criterion 0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
ORC pre-heating AC
WHR Technology
71
SECTION 5
CONCLUSION
72
APPENDIX
MW TBP L Pc Tc Vc
Working Fluid o 3 o 3
kmol/kg C kg/m kPa C m /kmol [-]
Propane 44.1 -42.1 506.7 4257 96.75 0.2 0.1524
i-Butane 58.12 -11.73 562 134.9 3648 0.2630 0.1848
n-Pentane 72.15 36.06 629.7 196.5 3375 0.311 0.2539
i-Pentane 72.15 27.88 623.4 187.2 3334 0.3080 0.2222
Cyclo-Pentane 70.14 49.25 748.9 238.5 4509 0.26 0.192
n-Hexane 86.18 68.73 662.7 234.7 3032 0.368 0.301
Benzene 78.11 80.09 882.2 288.9 4924 0.26 0.215
Toluene 92.14 110.6 870 318.6 4100 0.316 0.2596
R113 187.4 47.57 1580 214.1 3436 0.3253 0.245
R114 170.9 3.677 1474 145.9 3261 0.3071 0.2502
R134a 102 -26.07 1242 101 4056 0.1988 0.3269
6. References
1. Ali, A.H.H., Noeres, P. and Pollerberg, C., 2008. Performance assessment of an integrated free
cooling and solar powered single-effect lithium bromide-water absorption chiller. Solar
Energy, 82(11), pp.1021-1030.
2. Andersen, W.C. and Bruno, T.J., 2005. Rapid screening of fluids for chemical stability in organic
Rankine cycle applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 44(15):5560-5566.
3. Brückner, S., Liu, S., Miró, L., Radspieler, M., Cabeza, L.F. and Lävemann, E., 2015. Industrial
waste heat recovery technologies: an economic analysis of heat transformation technologies.
Applied Energy, 151, pp.157-167.
4. Chang A-F, Pashikanti K and Liu YA (2012) “Refinery Engineering”, Wiley-VCH.
5. Chen, H., Goswami, D.Y. and Stefanakos, E.K., 2010. A review of thermodynamic cycles and
working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews,
14(9), pp.3059-3067.
6. Donnellan, P., Cronin, K. and Byrne, E., 2015. Recycling waste heat energy using vapour
absorption heat transformers: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42,
pp.1290-1304.
7. Fraser, D.M. and Gillespie, N.E., 1992. Application of pinch technology to retrofit energy
integration of an entire oil refinery. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers Part
A: Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 70, pp.395-406.
8. Figueredo, G.R., Bourouis, M. and Coronas, A., 2008. Thermodynamic modelling of a two-stage
absorption chiller driven at two-temperature levels. Applied Thermal Engineering, 28(2-3),
pp.211-217.
9. Gary JH and Handwerk GE ,2001, “Petroleum Refining: Technology and Economics”, Marcel
Dekker.
10. Hettiarachchi, H.M., Golubovic, M., Worek, W.M. and Ikegami, Y., 2007. Optimum design
criteria for an organic Rankine cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Energy,
32(9), pp.1698-1706.
11. Kalina, A.I., 1983, September. Combined cycle and waste heat recovery power systems based on
a novel thermodynamic energy cycle utilizing low-temperature heat for power generation. In 1983
Joint Power Generation Conference: GT Papers (pp. V001T02A003-V001T02A003). American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
73
12. Kapil, A., Bulatov, I., Smith, R. and Kim, J.K., 2012. Site-wide low-grade heat recovery with a
new cogeneration targeting method. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 90(5), pp.677-
689.
13. Kenisarin, M. and Mahkamov, K., 2007. Solar energy storage using phase change materials.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(9), pp.1913-1965.
14. Kousksou, T., Jamil, A., El Rhafiki, T. and Zeraouli, Y., 2010. Paraffin wax mixtures as phase
change materials. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 94(12), pp.2158-2165.
15. Lecompte, S., Huisseune, H., Van Den Broek, M., Vanslambrouck, B. and De Paepe, M., 2015.
Review of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) architectures for waste heat recovery. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, pp.448-461.
16. Linnhoff, B., 1989. Pinch technology for the synthesis of optimal heat and power systems. Journal
of Energy Resources Technology, 111(3), pp.137-147.
17. Liu, B.T., Chien, K.H. and Wang, C.C., 2004. Effect of working fluids on organic Rankine cycle
for waste heat recovery. Energy, 29(8), pp.1207-1217.
18. Lolos, P.A. and Rogdakis, E.D., 2009. A Kalina power cycle driven by renewable energy
sources. Energy, 34(4), pp.457-464.
19. Ludwig, J., Treitz, M., Rentz, O. and Geldermann, J., 2009. Production planning by pinch analysis
for biomass use in dynamic and seasonal markets. International Journal of Production Research,
47(8), pp.2079-2090.
20. Matsuda, K., 2014. Low heat power generation system. Applied Thermal Engineering, 70(2),
pp.1056-1061.
21. Meinel, D., Wieland, C. and Spliethoff, H., 2014. Effect and comparison of different working
fluids on a two-stage organic rankine cycle (ORC) concept. Applied Thermal Engineering, 63(1),
pp.246-253.
22. Morandin, M., Hackl, R. and Harvey, S., 2014. Economic feasibility of district heating delivery
from industrial excess heat: A case study of a Swedish petrochemical cluster. Energy, 65, pp.209-
220.
23. Ogriseck, S., 2009. Integration of Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant, a case
study. Applied Thermal Engineering, 29(14-15), pp.2843-2848.
24. Oluleye, G., Jobson, M., Smith, R. and Perry, S.J., 2016. Evaluating the potential of process sites
for waste heat recovery. Applied Energy, 161, pp.627-646.
25. Papadopoulos, A.I., Stijepovic, M. and Linke, P., 2010. On the systematic design and selection of
optimal working fluids for Organic Rankine Cycles. Applied thermal engineering, 30(6-7),
pp.760-769.
26. Popli, S., Rodgers, P. and Eveloy, V., 2013. Gas turbine efficiency enhancement using waste heat
powered absorption chillers in the oil and gas industry. Applied Thermal Engineering, 50(1),
pp.918-931.
27. Rezk, A.R. and Al-Dadah, R.K., 2012. Physical and operating conditions effects on silica
gel/water adsorption chiller performance. Applied Energy, 89(1), pp.142-149.
28. Rogers G, and Mayhew Y. Engineering thermodynamics, work and heat transfer, 4th ed. Harlow:
Longman Scientific & Technical; 1992 (p. 239–243).
29. Saleh, B., Koglbauer, G., Wendland, M. and Fischer, J., 2007. Working fluids for low-temperature
organic Rankine cycles. Energy, 32(7), pp.1210-1221.
30. Smith, R., 2016. Chemical Process Design and Integration. John Wiley & Sons.
31. Smith, R., Jobson, M. and Chen, L., 2010. Recent development in the retrofit of heat exchanger
networks. Applied Thermal Engineering, 30(16), pp.2281-2289.
32. Solmuş, İ., Kaftanoğlu, B., Yamalı, C. and Baker, D., 2011. Experimental investigation of a
natural zeolite–water adsorption cooling unit. Applied energy, 88(11), pp.4206-4213.
33. Somers, C., Mortazavi, A., Hwang, Y., Radermacher, R., Rodgers, P. and Al-Hashimi, S., 2011.
Modeling water/lithium bromide absorption chillers in ASPEN Plus. Applied Energy, 88(11),
pp.4197-4205.
74
34. Song, J., Li, Y., Gu, C.W. and Zhang, L., 2014. Thermodynamic analysis and performance
optimization of an ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) system for multi-strand waste heat sources in
petroleum refining industry. Energy, 71, pp.673-680.
35. Tan, R.R. and Foo, D.C., 2007. Pinch analysis approach to carbon-constrained energy sector
planning. Energy, 32(8), pp.1422-1429.
36. Tchanche, B.F., Papadakis, G., Lambrinos, G. and Frangoudakis, A., 2009. Fluid selection for a
low-temperature solar organic Rankine cycle. Applied Thermal Engineering, 29(11-12), pp.2468-
2476.
37. Victor, R.A., Kim, J.K. and Smith, R., 2013. Composition optimisation of working fluids for
organic Rankine cycles and Kalina cycles. Energy, 55, pp.114-126.
38. Wang, D.C., Xia, Z.Z., Wu, J.Y., Wang, R.Z., Zhai, H. and Dou, W.D., 2005. Study of a novel
silica gel–water adsorption chiller. Part I. Design and performance prediction. International
Journal of Refrigeration, 28(7), pp.1073-1083.
39. Wei, D., Lu, X., Lu, Z. and Gu, J., 2007. Performance analysis and optimization of organic
Rankine cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery. Energy conversion and Management, 48(4),
pp.1113-1119.
40. Wu, W., Wang, B., Shi, W. and Li, X., 2014. Absorption heating technologies: a review and
perspective. Applied Energy, 130, pp.51-71.
41. Yang, F., Dong, X., Zhang, H., Wang, Z., Yang, K., Zhang, J., Wang, E., Liu, H. and Zhao, G.,
2014. Performance analysis of waste heat recovery with a dual loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC)
system for diesel engine under various operating conditions. Energy Conversion and
Management, 80, pp.243-255.
42. International Energy Agency, Key world energy statistics 2015
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf
Accessed: 12nd March 2018
43. U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2017
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2017).pdf
Accessed: 12nd March 2018
Galanis N, Cayer E, Roy P, Denis ES, Désilets M. Electricity generation from low temperature
sources. J Appl Fluid Mech 2009;2:55–67.
International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, vol. 2009, OECD/IEA,

Paris, 2009.
Ali, A.H.H., Noeres, P. and Pollerberg, C., 2008. Performance assessment of an integrated free
cooling and solar powered single-effect lithium bromide-water absorption chiller. Solar Energy,
82(11), pp.1021-1030.
Song, J., Li, Y., Gu, C.W. and Zhang, L., 2014. Thermodynamic analysis and performance optimization of an
ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) system for multi-strand waste heat sources in petroleum refining
industry. Energy, 71, pp.673-680.
75

Design and Optimisation of Organic Ranking Cycle and Absorption Chiller For Heat Recovery of Petroleum Refining

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Optimisation of Organic Ranking Cycle and Absorption Chiller For Heat Recovery of Petroleum Refining

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science

CHEN61000: MSc Dissertation 2017-2018 Full Year:

DESIGN AND OPTIMISATION OF ORGANIC RANKING CYCLE AND

Supervisor: Dr. Li Sun

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Introduction .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.2. Motivation .................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.3. Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Petroleum Refinery Process........................................................................................................................ 8

2.2. Waste Heat Recovery Identification ........................................................................................................... 9

2.3. Waste Heat Recovery Technologies ......................................................................................................... 10

2.3.1. Organic Rankine Cycle .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.2. Absorption Chillers (AbC) .................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.3. Adsorption Chiller (AdC) ...................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.4. Absorption Heat Pump (AHP) ............................................................................................................... 14

2.3.5. Absorption Heat Transformers (AHT) .................................................................................................. 15

2.3.6. Phase Change Materials (PCM) ............................................................................................................ 15

2.3.7. Kalina Cycle (KC) ................................................................................................................................. 16

2.4. Summary of WHR Technologies ............................................................................................................. 16

3. Methodology................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2. Technology used for Waste Heat Recovery ............................................................................................. 21

3.2.2. Absorption Chiller .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

4. Planning ........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. Impact ........................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. Summary....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2 – Global emissions by Sectors (IEA, 2017)

Figure 3 – Total energy consumption by final sectors (British Petroleum, 2017)

2.1. Petroleum Refinery Process

2.2. Waste Heat Identification

2.3.1. Organic Rankine Cycle

Cycle (RC) which used water as the working fluid.

Figure 5 – Basic ORC schematic

Figure 6 – ORC with pre-heating

ORC with regenerative is displayed at Figure 7. It was noticed

Figure 7 – ORC with regenerative

2.3.2. Absorption Chillers (AbC)

Figure 8 – Schematic of Absorption Chiller

2.3.3. Adsorption Chiller (AdC)

Figure 9 – Schematic of AHP

Figure 10 – Schematic of AHT

2.3.6. Phase Change Materials (PCM)

2.4. Summary of WHR Technologies

Table 1 – Summary of WHR Technologies

1) Collect process stream data (hot and cold stream)

NHT Reformer Reformate

Crude Oil KHT Jet Fuel

VBU Heavy Fuel Oil

Figure 11 – Block Flow Diagram of Caltex Refinery in South Africa

3.2. Technology used for Waste Heat Recovery

Table 2 – Waste Heat Recovery Technology Scenario

Scenario WHR Technology

3.2.1. Scenario 1: Basic ORC Design

Figure 12 – Block Flow Diagram of basic ORC

11 working fluids (such as cyclo-pentane, n-Pentane, n-Hexane, Iso-butane, Iso-pentane, Propane,

𝑄𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟 = 𝐻𝑖𝑛 − 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑡 (eq.

𝑄𝐸𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝐻𝑖𝑛 (eq.

QCondensor = duty of condenser (kJ/h)

QEvaporator = duty of evaporator (kJ/h)

Hout = outlet heat flow of condenser/evaporator (kJ/kmol)

F = molar flow rate (kmol/h)

ρ = density of stream (kg/m3)

k = constant of frictional pressure loss (-)