Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of the multistage mixed refrigerant

systems
Mehdi Mehrpooya a,⇑, Hojat Ansarinasab b
a
Renewable Energies and Environmental Department, Faculty of New Science and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
b
Faculty of Energy Systems Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Advanced exergoeconomic analysis is applied on three multi stage mixed refrigerant liquefaction
Received 16 April 2015 processes. They are propane precooled mixed refrigerant, dual mixed refrigerant and mixed fluid cascade.
Accepted 9 July 2015 Cost of investment and exergy destruction for the components with high inefficiencies are divided into
Available online 17 July 2015
avoidable/unavoidable and endogenous/exogenous parts. According to the avoidable exergy destruction
cost in propane precooled mixed refrigerant process, C-2 compressor with 455.5 ($/h), in dual mixed
Keywords: refrigerant process, C-1 compressor with 510.8 ($/h) and in mixed fluid cascade process, C-2/1 compressor
Liquefaction
with 338.8 ($/h) should be considered first. A comparison between the conventional and advanced exer-
Advanced exergy
Advanced exergoeconomic
goeconomic analysis is done by three important parameters: Exergy efficiency, exergoeconomic factor and
Exergy destruction cost total costs. Results show that interactions between the process components are not considerable because
Investment cost cost of investment and exergy destruction in most of them are endogenous. Exergy destruction cost of the
compressors is avoidable while heat exchangers and air coolers destruction cost are unavoidable.
Investment cost of heat exchangers and air coolers are avoidable while compressor’s are unavoidable.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction for a novel hydrocarbon recovery processes configuration [5,6].

Transmission of natural gas in liquid form is very easy and cost
efficient. This is the main idea behind the development of the nat-
ural gas liquefaction processes. Investment costs and required
power are two key factors that researchers trying to decrease in
order to increase performance of the process. First step in reducing
the investment costs and energy consumption in the process is
detecting the components with improvement potential.
Refrigeration systems are analyzed by conventional exergy and
exergoeconomic analyses for determining the components with
high irreversibility, investment cost and cost of exergy destruction.
Exergy analysis is carried out for four small-scale liquefied natural
gas processes [1]. The results show the single mixed refrigerant
(SMR) process has the best exergy efficiency. Energy and exergy
analyses method are applied on five conventional liquefied natural
gas processes [2]. The results indicate that the maximum coeffi-
cient of performance of the process and exergy efficiency is related
to the mixed fluid cascade (MFC). Exergy analysis is applied on cas-
cade refrigeration cycle for natural gas liquefaction [3]. Multistage
cascade refrigeration systems utilized in olefin plants is analyzed
by exergy method [4]. Energy and exergy analysis is carried out
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 61118564; fax: +98 21 88617087.
E-mail address: mehrpoya@ut.ac.ir (M. Mehrpooya).
Exergy analysis of the multistage refrigeration cycle used for
Ethane and heavier hydrocarbons (C2+) recovery plant is carried
out [7]. A correlation for prediction of standard chemical exergy
of the hydrocarbons is proposed [8]. The impact of the component
inefficiencies on the fuel plant consumption, intrinsic and induced
malfunctions are analyzed and quantified. Exergy analysis of a
multistage cascade low temperature refrigeration system used in
an olefin plant was presented [9]. Exergetic efficiency of the pro-
cess indicates this process has a high potential for improvement.
Exergy analysis is done on an industrial refrigeration cycle with
propane refrigerant in NGL recovery units [10]. For evaluation of
the PRICO liquefaction process and identify options for improving,
it is analyzed by exergy-based methods [11]. Exergoeconomic
analysis is used for single mixed refrigerant natural gas liquefac-
tion processes and sensitivity of exergy destruction cost and exer-
goeconomic factor to operating variables are studied [12].
Thermoeconomic analysis of an industrial refrigeration cycle is
investigated [13]. Exergy and exergoeconomic analyses are used
for evaluation of gas separation process and the results shows that
exergy efficiencies of the depropanizer, debutanizer, and
de-ethanizer columns are the lowest [14]. However exergy and
exergoeconomic analysis are important tools in thermodynamic
and economic analysis of a process, but they cannot examine per-
formance of the components from all aspects. In these analyses,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.07.026
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
706 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716

Nomenclature

c unit exergy cost ($/GJ) Subscripts

C_ exergy cost rate ($/h) D destruction
E_ exergy rate (kW) F fuel
F exergoeconomic factor (%) k kth component
m _ flow rate (kgmole/h) L loss
P pressure (bar) P production
r relative cost difference (%) tot total
T temperature (C)
y exergy destruction ratio Abbreviations
Z_ k capital investment cost flow rate ($/h) AC air cooler
APCI Air Products and Chemicals, Inc
Greek letters C compressor
e exergy efficiency C3MR C3 precooled mixed refrigerant
D gradient D flash drum
DMR dual mixed refrigerant
Superscripts E multi stream heat exchanger
AV avoidable GDHS geothermal district heating systems
ch chemical LNG liquefied natural gas
EN endogenous MFC mixed fluid cascade
EX exogenous MIX mixer
ph physical NG natural gas
tot total P pump
UN unavoidable V expansion valve

each device is studied individually while its location and position
toward the process configuration and its interaction with other
components are neglected. Advanced exergy and advanced exer-
goenvironmental methods is used on a natural-gas degasification
plant which produces electricity [15]. Advanced exergy analysis
is performed on five natural gas liquefaction processes [16].
Conventional and advanced exergy analyses is studied on a cascade
refrigeration system for LNG process [17]. The results show inter-
actions between the process components and improvement poten-
tials. Advanced exergy analysis is used for a combined power plant
[18]. A novel co-generation concept which combines generation of
electricity with LNG regasification is analyzed by advanced exergy
analyses [19]. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis is applied to a
gas-engine-driven heat pump (GEHP) for food drying processes
[20]. The results show that avoidable part of the exergy destruction
cost rate related to the process components is higher than the
unavoidable part. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis is carried
out for economic comparison and evaluation of Afyon and
Sarayköy geothermal district heating systems [21]. Advanced exer-
goeconomic evaluation is used on a heat pump food dryer [22]. The
results indicate the condenser is the most important component of
the system in the heat recovery unit. Advanced exergoeconomic
analysis is investigated for an electricity-generating facility in
Turkey [23]. The results show that condenser, high-pressure steam
turbine and combustion chamber have high exergy destruction
cost, therefore these components have much economic improve-
ment potential. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis is used for
evaluation of the performance of a building heating system [24].
According to the results, in the generation and distribution stages
exogenous part of exergy destruction cost is higher than the
endogenous part and the emission stage has higher endogenous
exergy destruction cost. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis is
applied on a trigeneration system using a diesel-gas engine [25].
Advanced exergy analysis and exergoeconomic is used on a
complex industrial energy supply plant [26]. Advanced exergoeco-
nomic analysis is performed for a power plant with chemical loop-
ing combustion [27]. According to the total avoidable cost value,
compressor, expander and reactor are the most important
components. Evaluation and optimization are investigated on a
multi-effect evaporation–absorption heat pump desalination by
advanced exergy and exergoeconomic method [28]. A geothermal
district heating systems is investigated by conventional and
advanced exergoeconomic analyses [29]. The results indicate that
avoidable part of cost rate related to the components is higher than
the unavoidable part. New procedure for evaluation of cogenera-
tion system based on advanced exergoeconomic and exergoenvi-
ronmental analyses is performed [30].
In advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analysis, technical and
economic performance of the process components are analyzed in
more detail and their interaction are interpreted. These analyses
increase the knowledge and understanding about the process.
Also gives more information about costs of exergy destruction
and investment. In this paper, advanced exergoeconomic analysis
is used on three LNG processes namely C3MR-Linde, DMR-APCI
and MFC-Linde. Scope of this paper is calculation of improvement
potential which can be avoided.
2. Process description
2.1. C3MR-Linde process
Single mixed refrigerant process do not have high efficiency and
production capacity. This matter leads to develop the idea of
implementing one pre-cooling cycle beside the main cycle for
improving both process efficiency and production capacity. C3MR
process have two refrigerant cycles. Pure Propane is used in the
first cycle for pre-cooling and mixed refrigerant is used in the sec-
ond cycle for liquefaction and sub-cooling. Process flow diagram of
C3MR-Linde is presented in Fig. 1 [31]. However this process is
complex and number of their components is more, but it is eco-
nomical because of its high efficiency. It has five multi stream heat
exchangers. Propane cycle have three heat exchangers for precool-
ing the natural gas. In the second cycle two heat exchangers are
used for liquefaction and sub-cooling. Table 1 presents operating
conditions of C3MR-Linde process streams.
 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716 707

40 AC-2
AC-3 41 39 38 AC-1 37
AC-4 47 46 45 44 43 42 C-3/2 C-3/1 C-2

20 Propane cycle
C-1/1
C-1/3 MIX-4 C-1/2 MIX-3 MIX-2
Mixed refrigerant cycle
49
12
4
25
2 3 11 19 Natural gas line
D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5
V-1 V-2 V-3
7 18
5 MIX-1 LNG
13 21 26
31
32
TEE-2 TEE-1 24 30 36
6 16 E-2A
10 E-1A E-1B E-1C 29 E-2B V-5
17 V-4 35
1 9 15 23 28 34
48
NG 8 14 22 27 33 V-6

E-1A,B,C , E-2/A,B C-1/1,2,3 , C-2 , C-3/1,2 AC-1,2,3,4 V-1,2,3,4,5,6 D-1,2,3,4,5 MIX-1,2,3,4 TEE-1,2
Heat Exchangers Compressors Air Coolers Valves Flash Drums Mixers Tee

Fig. 1. Process flow diagram of C3MR-Linde process [16].

Table 1
Thermodynamic data for C3MR-Linde process material streams.

Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kmol/h)

m E_ (kW) c ($/GJ) Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kmol/h)
m E_ (kW) c ($/GJ)

NG 13.00 60.00 25120 6,406,159 380.79 26 34.00 49.00 23,955 9,587,775 15.09
1 35.00 49.00 33,590 11,813,508 84.54 27 128.00 60.00 25,120 6,442,850 380.81
2 35.00 14.30 32,000 19,275,116 84.56 28 128.00 49.00 9634 2,248,487 380.70
3 1.63 5.00 32,000 19,272,117 84.56 29 128.00 49.00 23,955 9,613,938 380.84
4 1.63 5.00 7963 4,793,903 84.56 30 134.10 3.00 23,955 9,610,293 382.33
5 1.63 5.00 24,036 14,478,213 84.56 31 133.00 3.00 33,590 11,838,632 382.33
6 1.63 5.00 9133 5,501,721 84.56 32 38.84 3.00 33,590 11,758,656 16.12
7 1.63 5.00 14,902 8,976,492 12.95 33 161.00 60.00 25,120 6,459,830 380.88
8 3.40 60.00 25,120 406,356 380.78 34 161.00 49.00 9634 2,255,143 381.12
9 3.40 49.00 33,590 11,814,737 84.56 35 167.10 3.00 9634 2,253,763 381.12
10 19.07 5.00 9133 5,497,966 84.56 36 131.50 3.00 9634 2,228,490 381.37
11 19.37 2.50 14,902 8,975,952 84.56 37 65.45 15.00 33,590 11,792,105 381.41
12 19.37 2.50 1953 1,175,280 84.56 38 35.00 15.00 33,590 11,790,909 380.93
13 19.37 2.50 12,948 7,800,672 12.96 39 85.66 30.00 33,590 11,807,776 381.03
14 17.00 60.00 25,120 6,407,251 380.71 40 35.00 30.00 33,590 11,804,870 380.73
15 17.00 49.00 33,590 11,817,996 84.56 41 71.92 49.00 33,590 11,815,467 84.57
16 19.37 2.50 7251 4,362,272 84.56 42 31.32 1.30 5697 3,425,130 84.55
17 19.37 2.50 7251 4,368,376 84.56 43 3.19 2.50 5697 3,427,119 84.56
18 19.37 2.50 5697 3,432,295 84.57 44 16.46 2.50 14,902 8,964,612 84.54
19 36.24 1.30 5697 3,432,158 84.57 45 14.54 5.00 14,902 8,970,406 84.55
20 36.24 1.30 537 322,859 84.57 46 12.66 5.00 32,000 19,262,221 84.50
21 36.24 1.30 5160 3,109,299 12.98 47 63.70 14.30 32,000 19,283,232 16.13
22 34.00 60.00 25,120 6,408,814 380.61 48 164.00 1.01 25,120 6,455,849 16.13
23 34.00 49.00 33,590 11,822,004 84.57 49 164.00 1.01 1054 182,957 16.13
24 30.81 1.30 5160 3,102,271 380.61 LNG 164.00 1.01 24,065 6,272,892 12.94
25 34.00 49.00 9634 2,234,228 380.61

2.2. DMR-APCI process
After using pure propane in pre-cooling cycle for providing high
efficiency and production capacity, another idea is purposed. In
this idea for reducing the energy consumption and increasing the
process efficiency a mixed refrigerant is used instead of the pure
propane. A double mixed refrigerant process (DMR) which has high
efficiency is introduced by APCI Company [32]. Fig. 2 shows pro-
cess flow diagram of this process. It has four multi stream heat
exchangers. First mixed refrigerant cycle have two heat exchangers
(E-1 and E-2) for precooling. Also E-3 and E-4 heat exchangers are
used for liquefaction and sub-cooling in the second mixed refriger-
ant cycle. Table 2 presents operating conditions of the DMR-APCI
process streams.
2.3. MFC-Linde process
Linde Company is introduced a new LNG process with three
refrigeration cycles [31]. Fixed costs of this process is higher
because of number of components in each cycle while operating
costs is low due to using three different mixed refrigerant cycles.
Fig. 3 shows process flow diagram of MFC-Linde. This process have
four multi stream heat exchangers. First mixed refrigerant cycle
have two heat exchangers (E-1A and E-1B) for precooling and sec-
ond and third cycles use two heat exchangers (E-2 and E-3) for liq-
uefaction and subcooling respectively. Table 3 presents operating
conditions of MFC-Linde process streams.
3. Methodology
3.1. Conventional exergy analyses
Scope of exergy analysis as an engineering tool is to calculate
maximum useful work achievable by specific quantity amount of
energy. Specific exergy in each state is calculated by following
equation:
etot ¼ eph þ ech ð1Þ
708 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716

AC-1 28
10 Liquefaction mixed
C-1 refrigerant cycle (MR-2)
Precooling mixed
refrigerant cycle (MR-1)
D-2
AC-2 1 14
9 8
Natural gas line
C-3 MIX-2 C-2
27-LNG
D-1

14a MIX-1
20
26
3a 19
3c V-1 7 V-2 15b
E-1 3b E-2 E-3
6
V-3 18 E-4 17
2 3 TEE-1 4 5 15a V-4
11 12 13 15 16
21-NG 22 23 24 25 V-5

E-1,2,3,4 C-1,2,3 AC-1,2 V-1,2,3,4,5 D-1,2 MIX-1,2 TEE-1

Heat Exchangers Compressors Air Coolers Valves Flash Drums Mixers Tee

Fig. 2. Process flow diagram of DMR-APCI process [16].

Table 2
Thermodynamic data for DMR-APCI process material streams.

Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kmol/h)

m E_ (kW) c ($/GJ) Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kmol/h)
m E_ (kW) c ($/GJ)

1 85.98 19.20 23,007 13,273,259 220.44 14a 33.15 48.60 17,678 7,111,287 95.25
2 36.85 19.20 23,007 13,264,891 220.58 15 128.40 48.60 7521 1,768,839 95.30
3 0.05 19.20 23,007 13,265,520 220.59 15a 128.40 48.60 17,678 7,130,862 95.27
3a 0.05 19.20 13,784 7,947,688 220.59 15b 134.10 3.00 17,678 7,128,226 95.31
3b 2.86 7.60 13,784 7,947,306 220.60 16 160.10 48.60 7521 1,773,816 95.32
3c 34.61 7.60 13,784 7,943,602 220.60 17 166.60 3.00 7521 1,772,736 95.38
4 0.05 19.20 9223 5,317,831 220.59 18 135.10 3.00 7521 1,754,185 95.38
5 33.15 19.20 9223 5,319,272 220.60 19 133.60 3.00 25,200 8,882,288 95.32
6 36.22 2.80 9223 5,318,895 220.61 20 40.20 3.00 25,200 8,821,734 95.32
7 4.88 2.80 9223 5,309,501 220.61 21-NG 26.85 65.00 18,849 4,684,827 12.94
8 42.25 7.60 9223 5,315,164 220.75 22 0.15 65.00 18,849 4,685,118 12.96
9 37.68 7.60 23,007 13,258,755 220.66 23 33.15 65.00 18,849 4,686,763 13.05
10 148.30 48.60 25,200 8,871,725 95.02 24 128.40 65.00 18,849 4,711,910 13.53
11 31.85 48.60 25,200 8,862,627 95.12 25 160.10 65.00 18,849 4,724,099 13.76
12 0.15 48.60 25,200 8,863,929 95.16 26 166.00 1.01 18,849 4,720,634 13.77
13 33.15 48.60 25,200 8,868,890 95.25 27-LNG 166.00 1.01 17,561 4,531,954 13.77
14 33.15 48.60 7521 1,757,602 95.25 28 166.00 1.01 1288 188,679 13.77

AC-5 AC-4 37
35 34 33

C-3/2 C-3/1

Subcooling mixed
AC-3 AC-2 D-1
32 31 30 refrigerant cycle (MR-3)
C-2/2 C-2/1
LNG
28
AC-1
29 27

C-1/2 C-1/1 Precooling mixed Liquefaction mixed

MIX-1 refrigerant cycle (MR-2) Natural gas line
refrigerant cycle (MR-1)
10

8
16 36
11 E-1A V-1 17 E-1B
22 E-2
3 7 TEE-1 9 15 21 26
V-2 V-3
E-3 25 V-4
2 6 14 20
1 5 13 19 24
NG 4 12 18 23 V-5

E-1A/B,2,3 C-1/1,2 , C-2/1,2 , C-3/1,2 AC-1,2,3,4,5 V-1,2,3,4,5 D-1 MIX-1 TEE-1

Heat Exchangers Compressors Air Coolers Valves Flash Drum Mixer Tee

Fig. 3. Process flow diagram of MFC-Linde process [16].

 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716 709

Table 3
Thermodynamic data for MFC-Linde process material streams.

Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kmol/h)

m E_ (kW) c ($/GJ) Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kmol/h)
m E_ (kW) c ($/GJ)

NG 13.00 60.00 25,120 6,406,159 67.37 20 81.50 27.90 25,700 11,167,063 69.14
1 35.00 33.90 18,100 4,580,521 69.08 21 92.09 3.10 25,700 11,164,837 69.14
2 35.00 27.90 25,700 11,147,916 97.13 22 31.92 3.10 25,700 11,115,291 13.45
3 35.00 16.90 34,390 20,785,152 12.94 23 162.00 60.00 25,120 6,460,454 67.42
4 3.00 60.00 25,120 6,406,367 67.37 24 159.00 33.90 18,100 4,624,157 67.45
5 3.00 33.90 18,100 4,580,673 69.10 25 166.20 3.50 18,100 4,622,101 67.45
6 3.00 27.90 25,700 11,149,906 97.13 26 87.08 3.50 18,100 4,558,483 97.10
7 8.80 16.90 34,390 20,785,470 97.13 27 35.31 6.70 13,756 8,310,837 97.12
8 8.80 16.90 20,634 12,471,282 97.13 28 28.73 6.70 34,390 20,776,976 97.07
9 8.80 16.90 13,756 8,314,188 97.13 29 75.07 16.90 34,390 20,797,602 69.08
10 0.53 6.70 20,634 12,470,605 97.13 30 62.68 15.00 25,700 11,140,010 69.09
11 24.30 6.70 20,634 12,466,175 12.97 31 35.00 15.00 25,700 11,139,111 69.07
12 27.00 60.00 25,120 6,408,003 67.38 32 76.94 27.90 25,700 11,149,834 67.37
13 27.00 33.90 18,100 4,581,658 69.12 33 57.72 25.00 18,100 4,577,382 67.37
14 27.00 27.90 25,700 11,155,365 97.13 34 35.00 25.00 18,100 4,577,062 67.36
15 22.00 16.90 13,756 8,315,740 97.14 35 63.03 33.90 18,100 4,580,974 13.46
16 29.58 3.00 13,756 8,315,171 97.14 36 164.30 1.01 25,120 6,456,498 13.46
17 1.41 3.00 13,756 8,304,130 13.15 37 164.30 1.01 922 156,703 13.46
18 85.20 60.00 25,120 6,427,010 67.40 LNG 164.30 1.01 24,197 6,299,794 12.94
19 85.20 33.90 18,100 4,597,243 69.12

where eph is physical exergy and ech is chemical exergy. Physical the greatest influence on overall process performance but conven-
exergy (eph) of a material stream can be defined as the maximum tional exergy analysis determines the components with high ther-
work (useful energy) that can be obtained from when it is taken modynamic inefficiencies. Advanced exergy analysis estimates
to physical equilibrium state with the environment [2]: exergy destruction in each component which is caused by itself
and remaining components but conventional exergy analysis eval-
eph ¼ h  h0  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ ð2Þ
uates the individual component performance. Total exergy
where h and s are the enthalpy and entropy, respectively, and T0 is destruction associated with kth component, is divided into
the reference environmental temperature. Chemical exergy (ech) is endogenous and exogenous parts as below [38,39]:
equal to the maximum amount of work obtainable when the sub-
E_ D;k ¼ E_ EN _ EX
D;k þ ED;k ð6Þ
stance under consideration is brought from the environmental state
to the dead state. Chemical exergy is obtained from the following Endogenous exergy destruction is related to irreversibilities of
equation [2]: the component itself and is calculated when the other components
X X operate in an ideal conditions. Exogenous part of exergy destruc-
ech ¼ xi e0i þ G  xi Gi ð3Þ
tion is caused by irreversibilities in the remaining components of
where Gi is Gibbs free energy, e0i is standard chemical exergy and xi the overall process and is calculated as bellow [38]:
is mole fraction of pure ith component. E_ EX _ _ EN
D;k ¼ ED;k  ED;k ð7Þ
Important parameters that is obtained from exergy analysis are
exergy destruction and exergy efficiency. Exergy destruction can According to the removing ability of irreversibility, total exergy
be calculated by writing the equation of the exergy balance around destruction related to the kth component, is divided into unavoid-
each system, but exergy efficiency of various steady flow devices able and avoidable parts as below [38,39]:
can be determined from its general definition, e = (Exergy
E_ D;k ¼ E_ UN _ AV
D;k þ ED;k ð8Þ
recovered)/(Exergy supplied) [33]. A comparison of exergy effi-
ciency definitions with focus on low temperature processes is car- Since components of the process operate under the economical
ried out [34]. Two classes of exergy efficiency definitions are and technological limitations, therefore a part of exergy destruc-
compared and applied on a simple process for liquefaction of nat- tion (unavoidable part) cannot be decreased. While a part of exergy
ural gas [35]. In this study, these parameters are formulated as bel- destruction that can be eliminated is called avoidable destruction.
low [36,37]: Table 4 provides the assumptions used in advanced exergoeco-
E_ D ¼ E_ F  E_ P ð4Þ nomic analysis for calculation of the unavoidable part. By using
the following equations unavoidable and avoidable exergy destruc-
tions can be obtained [38]:
E_ E_
e ¼ _ P or e ¼ 1  _ D ð5Þ !UN
EF EF E_ D;k
E_ UN _
D;k ¼ EP;k ð9Þ
E_ P;k
3.2. Advanced exergetic analyses
E_ AV _ _ UN
D;k ¼ ED;k  ED;k ð10Þ
Advanced exergy analysis is a more up-to-date tool compared
to the conventional analyses which can provide a more profound
Table 4
understanding of the process and its elements and their interac- Assumptions for the advanced exergoeconomic analysis.
tions. This analysis divides the irreversibilities of the process com-
Component Z_ UN (operating conditions or % Z_ k )
ponents to their origins, endogenous and exogenous parts. Also
component irreversibilities is divided based on the capacity to Compressor [23] 90%
avoid the irreversibilities into two parts, avoidable and unavoid- Multi stream heat exchanger [16] DT min = 0.5 °C, DP ¼ DP real
Air cooler [16] DT min = 5 °C, DP ¼ DP real
able. Advanced exergy analysis determines the components with
710 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716

By combining the unavoidable/avoidable and endoge- Z_ k

nous/exogenous destructions more details about the rule of the fk ¼ ð19Þ
Z_ k þ C_ D;k
components in the process irreversibility’s is gained. A part of
unavoidable exergy destruction that cannot be decreased due to
technical and economical limitations in a kth component is 3.4. Advanced exergoeconomic analyses
unavoidable endogenous exergy destruction which can be calcu-
lated as follows [40,41]: In advanced exergoeconomic analysis, functional and economic
!UN performance of the components are investigated in a more com-
E_ D;k prehensive scale and their interaction with other components are
E_ UN;EN
D;k ¼ E_ EN
P;k ð11Þ
E_ P;k also take into account. This analysis increases knowledge about
the process. Also it examines the exergy destruction cost and
Similarly, a part of unavoidable exergy destruction for kth com- investment cost associated with the components based on two
ponent that cannot be decreased due to technical and economical perspectives: their origin and improvement potential level. Costs
limitations in the other components of the overall process is of exergy destruction and investment costs related to the kth com-
unavoidable exogenous exergy destruction which can be calcu- ponent are divided into endogenous and exogenous parts.
lated as follows [40,41]: Endogenous cost rates related to the kth component caused by
the component itself are calculated as below [42]:
E_ UN;EX
D;k ¼ E_ UN _ UN;EN
D;k  ED;k ð12Þ
C_ EN _ EN
D;k ¼ cF:k ED;k ð20Þ
A part of avoidable exergy destruction that can be decreased by
improving thermodynamic efficiency of kth component is avoid- !real
able endogenous exergy destruction which can be calculated as fol- Z_
Z_ EN _ EN
k ¼ EP;k ð21Þ
lows [40,41]: _EP
k

E_ AV;EN
D;k ¼ E_ EN _ UN;EN
D;k  ED;k ð13Þ The exogenous cost rates related to the kth component caused
by other components of the overall process are calculated as bel-
Similarly, a part of avoidable exergy destruction that can be low [42]:
decreased by improving thermodynamic efficiency of other com-
ponents of the overall process is avoidable exogenous exergy C_ EX _ EX
D;k ¼ cF:k ED;k ð22Þ
destruction which can be calculated as belows [40,41]:
Z_ EX _ _ EN
k ¼ Zk  Zk ð23Þ
E_ AV;EX
D;k ¼ E_ AV _ AV;EN
D;k  ED;k ð14Þ
Costs of exergy destruction and investment costs related to the
kth component are divided into avoidable and unavoidable parts.
3.3. Conventional exergoeconomic analyses
Unavoidable cost rates related to the kth component caused by
economical and technological limitations are calculated as bellow
Scope of this analysis is to determine cost rate related to the
[42]:
process components by combining economic concepts and exergy
analysis. Components costs rate are cost of exergy destruction and C_ UN _ UN
D;k ¼ cF:k ED;k ð24Þ
investment cost. Exergoeconomic factor and relative cost differ-
ence are other important parameters that can be gained from exer- !UN
Z_
goeconomic analysis. Cost balance for the overall system can be Z_ UN _
k ¼ EP;k ð25Þ
_EP
written as follows [36,37]: k

cP;k E_ P;k ¼ cF;k E_ F;k þ Z_ tot

k ð15Þ Avoidable cost rates related to the kth component that shows
improvement potential of the process are calculated as bellow
C_ P;k ¼ C_ F;k þ Z_ tot ð16Þ [42]:
k

where cF;k , cP;k , and Z_ tot

C_ AV _ AV
D;k ¼ cF;k ED;k ð26Þ
k are the unit average exergy cost of the fuel,
unit average exergy cost of the product, and cost rate associated
with the operating and maintenance and capital investment Z_ AV _ _ UN
k ¼ Zk  Zk ð27Þ
expenses, respectively. To obtain better information from the cost rate of exergy
In a detailed exergoeconomic analysis, cost of exergy destruc- destruction and investment related to the process, unavoidable
tion, relative cost difference, and exergoeconomic factor of the pro- and avoidable cost of exergy destruction and investment cost
cess are presented as below [36,37]: should be divided to sub-parts. Unavoidable endogenous cost rates
C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k ð17Þ related to the kth component that cannot be decreased due to tech-
nical and economical limitations in a component are calculated as
cP;k  cF;k bellow [42]:
r¼ ð18Þ
cF;k

Table 5
Results of exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of C3MR-Linde process.

Component E_ D (kW) cF ($/GJ) cP ($/GJ) C_ D ($/h) _

Z($/h) e (%) r (%) f (%)

C-1/3 6067 19.72 30.09 430.7 353.7 77.60 52.58 45.09

C-2 9840 19.72 29.45 698.7 473.2 77.27 49.34 40.38
C-3/1 4499 19.72 30.01 319.4 305.4 78.94 52.17 48.88
C-3/2 2950 19.72 31.25 209.5 230.2 78.22 58.44 52.36
E-2A 5518 382.33 410.89 7595.8 60.4 95.98 7.47 0.79
 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716 711

Table 6
Results of exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of DMR-APCI process.

Component E_ D (kW) cF ($/GJ) cP ($/GJ) C_ D ($/h) _

Z($/h) e (%) r (%) f (%)

C-1 11,293 19.72 27.44 801.8 586.9 81.57 39.13 42.26

C-3 3851 19.72 30.29 273.4 278.6 79.02 53.60 50.47
AC-1 5538 19.72 21.41 393.2 7.9 92.25 8.57 1.96
E-3 4595 95.32 103.15 1576.8 0.9 95.54 8.22 0.06

Table 7
Results of exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of MFC- Linde process.

Component E_ D (kW) cF ($/GJ) cP ($/GJ) C_ D ($/h) Z_ ($/h) e (%) r (%) f (%)

C-1/1 2171 19.72 33.42 154.1 176.6 75.55 69.46 53.40

C-1/2 5693 19.72 29.88 404.2 349.9 78.37 51.49 46.40
C-2/1 7306 19.72 29.97 518.7 393.3 77.19 51.96 43.12
C-2/2 2938 19.72 31.17 208.6 233.3 78.49 58.04 52.79
C-3/1 5833 19.72 30.71 414.1 333.3 76.42 55.69 44.59
AC-1 7078 19.72 22.40 502.5 43.2 88.87 13.60 7.91
E-2 3256 69.14 74.01 810.3 0.9 97.25 7.04 0.11
E-3 3260 67.45 71.10 791.5 0.9 94.74 5.41 0.12

Table 8
Advanced exergy destruction rates of C3MR-Linde process [16].

Component E_ D (kW) E_ EN
D;k (kW) E_ EX
D;k (kW) E_ UN
D;k (kW) E_ AV
D;k (kW) E_ AV;EN
D;k
(kW) E_ AV;EX
D;k
(kW) E_ UN;EN
D;k
(kW) E_ UN;EX
D;k
(kW)

C-1/3 6067 4540 1527 2087 3980 2996 984 1545 542
C-2 9840 9504 336 3425 6415 6106 309 3398 27
C-3/1 4499 4337 162 1567 2932 2849 83 1488 79
C-3/2 2950 2730 220 1017 1933 1795 138 935 82
E-2A 5518 3961 1557 5420 98 35 63 3926 1494

Table 9
Advanced exergy destruction rates of DMR-APCI process [16].

Component E_ D (kW) E_ EN
D;k (kW) E_ EX
D;k (kW) E_ UN
D;k (kW) E_ AV
D;k (kW) E_ AV;EN
D;k
(kW) E_ AV
D;k
;EX
(kW) E_ UN;EN
D;k
(kW) E_ UN;EX
D;k
(kW)

C-1 11,293 10,039 1254 4099 7194 6548 646 3491 608
C-3 3851 3674 177 1339 2512 2495 17 1180 159
AC-1 5538 1434 4104 4684 854 252 602 1182 3502
E-3 4595 3443 1152 4505 90 86 4 3358 1147

Table 10
Advanced exergy destruction rates of MFC-Linde process [16].

Component E_ D (kW) E_ EN
D;k (kW) E_ EX
D;k (kW) E_ UN
D;k (kW) E_ AV
D;k (kW) E_ AV;EN
D;k
(kW) E_ AV;EX
D;k
(kW) E_ UN;EN
D;k
(kW) E_ UN;EX
D;k
(kW)

C-1/1 2171 2090 81 734 1437 1395 42 695 39

C-1/2 5693 5461 232 1968 3725 3650 75 1811 157
C-2/1 7306 7270 36 2534 4772 4748 24 2521.5 12.22
C-2/2 2938 2857 81 1017 1921 1855 66 1003 14
C-3/1 5833 5789 44 2036 3797 3774 23 2016 20
AC-1 7078 5265 1813 2404 4674 3468 1206 1797 607
E-2 3256 3203 53 2616 640 606 34 2597 19
E-3 3260 2536 724 2976 284 256 28 2280 696

Table 11
Advanced exergy destruction cost rates of C3MR-Linde process.

Component C_ D ($/h) C_ EN
D;k ($/h) C_ EX
D;k ($/h) C_ UN
D;k ($/h) C_ AV
D;k ($/h) C_ AV;EN
D;k
($/h) C_ AV;EX
D;k
($/h) C_ UN;EN
D;k
($/h) C_ UN;EX
D;k
($/h)

C-1/3 430.7 322.3 108.4 148.1 282.6 212.7 69.9 109.6 38.5
C-2 698.7 674.8 23.9 243.2 455.5 433.5 22.0 241.3 1.9
C-3/1 319.4 307.9 11.5 111.2 208.2 202.3 5.9 105.6 5.6
C-3/2 209.5 193.9 15.6 72.2 137.3 127.5 9.8 66.4 5.8
E-2A 7595.8 5452.2 2143.6 7460.8 135.0 48.2 86.8 5403.9 2056.9
712 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716

Table 12
Advanced investment costs of C3MR-Linde process.

Component Z_ k ($/h) Z_ EN
k ($/h) Z_ EX
k ($/h) Z_ UN
k ($/h) Z_ AV
k ($/h) Z_ AV;EN
k
($/h) Z_ AV;EX
k
($/h) Z_ UN;EN
k
($/h) Z_ UN;EX
k
($/h)

C-1/3 353.7 261.8 91.9 318.3 35.4 26.2 9.2 235.6 82.7
C-2 473.2 469.5 3.7 425.9 47.3 46.9 0.4 422.5 3.4
C-3/1 305.4 289.9 15.5 274.9 30.5 29.0 1.5 260.9 14.0
C-3/2 230.2 211.6 18.6 207.2 23.0 21.2 1.8 190.5 16.7
E-2A 60.4 43.7 16.7 27.2 33.2 24.1 9.1 19.7 7.5

Fig. 4. Splitting of component cost of exergy destruction to endogenous/exogenous and avoidable/unavoidable parts: C3MR-Linde.

Table 13
Advanced exergy destruction cost rates of DMR-APCI process.

Component C_ D ($/h) C_ EN
D;k ($/h) C_ EX
D;k ($/h) C_ UN
D;k ($/h) C_ AV
D;k ($/h) C_ AV;EN
D;k
($/h) C_ AV;EX
D;k
($/h) C_ UN;EN
D;k
($/h) C_ UN;EX
D;k
($/h)

C-1 801.8 712.7 89.1 291.0 510.8 464.9 45.9 247.8 43.2
C-3 273.4 260.9 12.5 95.1 178.3 177.1 1.2 83.8 11.3
AC-1 393.2 101.8 291.4 332.6 60.6 17.9 42.7 83.9 248.7
E-3 1576.8 1181.6 395.2 1545.8 31.0 29.4 1.6 1152.1 393.7

Table 14
Advanced investment costs of DMR-APCI process.

Component Z_ k ($/h) Z_ EN
k ($/h) Z_ EX
k ($/h) Z_ UN
k ($/h) Z_ AV
k ($/h) Z_ AV;EN
k
($/h) Z_ AV;EX
k
($/h) Z_ UN;EN
k
($/h) Z_ UN;EX
k
($/h)

C-1 586.9 499.8 87.1 528.2 58.7 49.98 8.72 449.8 78.4
C-3 278.6 245.5 33.1 250.7 27.9 24.55 3.35 220.9 29.8
AC-1 7.9 2.0 5.9 7.1 0.8 0.20 0.60 1.8 5.3
E-3 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.07 0.03 0.6 0.2

C_ UN;EN
D;k ¼ cF:k E_ UN;EN
D;k ð28Þ C_ AV;EN
D;k ¼ cF:k E_ AV;EN
D;k ð32Þ

!UN
Z_ Z_ AV;EN
k ¼ Z_ EN _ UN;EN
k  Zk ð33Þ
Z_ UN;EN
k ¼ E_ EN
P;k ð29Þ
E_ P k Avoidable endogenous cost rates related to the kth component
that can be decreased by improving thermodynamic efficiency of
Unavoidable exogenous cost rates related to the kth component
other components are calculated as bellow [42]:
that cannot be decreased due to technical and economical limita-
tions in the other components are calculated as bellow [42]: C_ AV;EX ¼ cF:k E_ AV;EX ð34Þ
D;k D;k

C_ UN;EX
D;k ¼ cF:k E_ UN;EX
D;k ð30Þ
Z_ AV;EX
k ¼ Z_ EX _ UN;EX
k  Zk ð35Þ
Z_ UN;EX
k ¼ Z_ UN _ UN;EN
k  Zk ð31Þ Key performance parameters in the advanced exergoeconomic
Avoidable endogenous cost rates related to the kth component analyses, modified exergy efficiency (emodified ), modified exergoeco-
AV;EN
that can be decreased by improving thermodynamic efficiency of nomic factor (f ) and total cost (C_ AV;EN ) are calculated based on
k tot
the component are calculated as bellow [42]: the avoidable endogenous part as bellows [22,43]:
 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716 713

Fig. 5. Splitting of component cost of exergy destruction to endogenous/exogenous and avoidable/unavoidable parts: DMR-APCI.

Table 15
Advanced exergy destruction cost rates of MFC-Linde process.

Component C_ D ($/h) C_ EN
D;k ($/h) C_ EX
D;k ($/h) C_ UN
D;k ($/h) C_ AV
D;k ($/h) C_ AV;EN
D;k
($/h) C_ AV;EX
D;k
($/h) C_ UN;EN
D;k
($/h) C_ UN;EX
D;k
($/h)

C-1/1 154.1 148.4 5.7 52.1 102.0 99.0 3.0 49.4 2.7
C-1/2 404.2 387.7 16.5 139.7 264.5 259.1 5.4 128.6 11.1
C-2/1 518.7 516.1 2.6 179.9 338.8 337.1 1.7 179.0 0.9
C-2/2 208.6 202.8 5.84 72.2 136.4 131.7 4.7 71.2 1.0
C-3/1 414.1 411.0 3.1 144.5 269.6 267.9 1.7 143.1 1.4
AC-1 502.5 373.8 128.7 170.7 331.8 246.2 85.6 127.6 43.1
E-2 810.3 797.1 13.2 651.0 159.3 150.9 8.4 646.2 4.8
E-3 791.5 615.7 175.8 722.6 68.9 62.1 6.8 553.6 169.0

Table 16
Advanced investment costs of MFC-Linde process.

Component Z_ k ($/h) Z_ EN
k ($/h) Z_ EX
k ($/h) Z_ UN
k ($/h) Z_ AV
k ($/h) Z_ AV;EN
k
($/h) Z_ AV;EX
k
($/h) Z_ UN;EN
k
($/h) Z_ UN;EX
k
($/h)

C-1/1 176.6 167.4 9.2 158.9 17.7 16.7 1.0 150.6 8.3
C-1/2 349.9 322.1 27.8 314.9 35.0 32.2 2.8 289.9 25.0
C-2/1 393.3 391.4 1.9 353.9 39.4 39.2 0.2 352.2 1.7
C-2/2 233.3 230.0 3.3 210.0 23.3 23.0 0.3 207.0 3.0
C-3/1 333.3 330.0 3.3 300.0 33.3 33.0 0.3 297.0 3.0
AC-1 43.2 32.3 10.9 19.4 23.8 17.8 6.0 14.5 4.9
E-2 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0
E-3 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1

E_
P;k C3MR-Linde process shows that E-2A heat exchanger has the max-
emodified ¼ _ ð36Þ imum cost of exergy destruction (7595.8 $/GJ) and the minimum
EF;k  E_ UN  E_ AV;EX
D;k D;k
exergy destruction cost is related to the AC-3 air cooler (42.47
$/GJ). Results for DMR-APCI process shows that E-3 heat exchanger
AV;EN Z_ AV;EN
k and C-2 compressor have maximum (1576 $/GJ) and minimum
fk ¼ ð37Þ
_C AV;EN þ Z_ AV;EN (126.8 $/GJ) cost of exergy destructions respectively. Results for
D;k k
MFC-Linde process shows that E-2 heat exchanger has the maxi-
C_ AV;EN
tot ¼ C_ AV;EN
D;k þ Z_ AV;EN
k ð38Þ mum cost of exergy destruction (810.3 $/GJ) and the minimum
exergy destruction cost is related to AC-4 air cooler (14.31 $/GJ).
Tables 5–7 presents detailed results of the conventional exergy
4. Results and discussion and exergoeconomic parameters.

4.1. Conventional exergy and exergoeconomic analysis 4.2. Advance exergy and exergoeconomic analysis

Results of exergy analysis show that exergy efficiency of
C3MR-Linde, DMR-APCI and MFC-Linde processes are 50.98%,
47.78% and 51.82%, respectively. Results obtained from the con-
ventional exergoeconomic analysis can be explained as follows:
Cost of exergy destruction is an important parameter that can
be gained by conventional exergoeconomic analysis. Results for
Table 8 shows results of the advanced exergy analysis of
C3MR-Linde process. Endogenous exergy destructions is higher
than the exogenous part in C-2, C-3/1 and C-3/2 compressors and
exergy destructions in components except E-3 heat exchanger
are avoidable. Table 9 illustrates results of the advanced exergy
analysis of DMR-APCI process. Compressors and heat exchangers
714 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716

destruction is endogenous unlike AC-1 air cooler. Exergy destruc- Table 17

tions of the compressors are avoidable while in the heat exchang- Comparison of the evaluated results between the exergetic and exergoeconomic
analyses for the conventional and advanced methods, C3MR-Linde process.
ers and air coolers portion of unavoidable exergy destruction is
high. Results of the advanced exergy analysis of DMR-APCI process Component Conventional Advanced
is provided in Table 10. Portion of endogenous exergy destruction e ð%Þ f ð%Þ C_ tot emodified ð%Þ f
AV;EN
ð%Þ C_ AV;EN
tot
is higher than the exogenous part for each component, also com- ($/h) ($/h)
pressors and air cooler destruction is avoidable. C-1/3 77.60 45.09 784.44 87.52 10.96 238.89
Tables 11 and 12 and Fig. 4 illustrates results of advanced exer- C-2 77.27 40.38 1171.84 84.56 9.77 480.45
goeconomic analysis of C3MR-Linde. Table 11 present the results C-3/1 78.94 48.88 624.84 85.55 12.53 231.31
gained from splitting the exergy destruction cost of the selected C-3/2 78.22 52.36 439.69 85.51 14.24 148.63
E-2A 95.98 0.79 7656.20 99.95 33.27 72.32
components. Cost of exergy destructions in the components are
endogenous. Therefore interactions between the process compo-
nents do not affect the exergy destruction cost significantly.
Exergy destruction cost rate of E-2A heat exchanger is unavoidable Table 18
due to economic and technological limits while compressors have Comparison of the evaluated results between the exergetic and exergoeconomic
analyses for the conventional and advanced methods, DMR-APCI process.
potential for improvement. Fig. 4 shows that in compressors, per-
centage of avoidable cost of exergy destructions is higher than the Component Conventional Advanced
heat exchangers. Results gained from splitting the investment e ð%Þ f ð%Þ C_ tot emodified ð%Þ f
AV;EN
ð%Þ C_ AV;EN
tot
costs is given in Table 12. Similar to the cost of exergy destruction, ($/h) ($/h)
investment cost is endogenous for most of the components. C-1 81.57 42.26 1388.79 88.42 9.71 514.90
Unavoidable investment costs are higher than the avoidable C-3 79.02 50.47 552.01 85.33 12.17 201.66
investment costs for compressors. AC-1 92.25 1.96 401.07 99.62 1.10 18.09
Tables 13 and 14 and Fig. 5 illustrate results of advanced exer- E-3 95.54 0.06 1577.71 99.85 0.23 29.48

goeconomic analysis of DMR-APCI process. Table 13 present the

results gained from splitting the exergy destruction cost of the
selected components. Cost of exergy destruction of E-3 heat Table 19
Comparison of the evaluated results between the exergetic and exergoeconomic
exchanger and C-1 and C-3 compressors are endogenous unlike
analyses for the conventional and advanced methods, MFC-Linde process.
AC-1 air cooler. For improvement, C-1 and C-2 compressors should
be considered because exergy destruction cost of them are avoid- Component Conventional Advanced
able while exergy destruction cost of E-3 heat exchanger and e ð%Þ f ð%Þ C_ tot ($/h) emodified ð%Þ f AV;EN ð%Þ C_ AV;EN ($/h)
tot
AC-1 air cooler is unavoidable. C-1 compressor has the maximum
C-1/1 75.55 53.40 330.74 82.78 14.46 115.77
percentage of avoidable cost of exergy destructions in comparison C-1/2 78.37 46.40 754.09 84.97 11.06 291.32
with other components (Fig. 5). Table 14 presents the obtained C-2/1 77.19 43.12 911.95 83.89 10.40 376.24
results from splitting of the investment costs. Similar to the cost C-2/2 78.49 52.79 441.88 85.25 14.87 154.68
of exergy destruction, investment cost is almost endogenous for C-3/1 76.42 44.59 747.37 83.35 10.97 300.93
AC-1 88.87 7.91 545.70 94.22 6.73 263.95
most of the components. According to the avoidable endogenous E-2 97.25 0.11 811.18 98.71 0.33 151.42
investment costs, the process can potentially be improved through E-3 94.74 0.12 792.39 99.58 0.62 62.47
improvements of C-1 and C-3 compressors.
Tables 15 and 16 and Fig. 6 show results of advanced exergoe-
conomic analysis of MFC-Linde process. Table 15 present the
results gained from splitting the exergy destruction cost of the considered because exergy destruction cost of this components are
selected process components. Cost of exergy destructions in the avoidable while exergy destruction cost of the heat exchangers are
components are endogenous. Therefore interactions between the unavoidable. The results gained from splitting the investment costs
process components do not affect the exergy destruction cost sig- is given in Table 16. Similar to the cost of exergy destruction,
nificantly. For improvement, compressors and air cooler should be investment cost is almost endogenous for most of the components.

Fig. 6. Splitting of component cost of exergy destruction to endogenous/exogenous and avoidable/unavoidable parts: MFC-Linde.
 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716 715

Table 20
Strategies for reducing avoidable cost of exergy destruction.

Process Component Cost of exergy destruction categories ($/h) The part should be focused Possible strategies to reduce cost of exergy
destruction

C_ D C_ AV C_ AV;EN C_ AV;EX Strategy Aa Strategy Bb Strategy Cc

D;k D;k D;k

⁄ ⁄ ⁄
C3MR-Linde C-1/3 430.7 282.6 212.7 69.9 EN./EX.
⁄ ⁄
C-2 698.7 455.5 433.5 22 EN.
⁄
C-3/1 319.4 208.2 202.3 5.9 EN.
⁄
C-3/2 209.5 137.3 127.5 9.8 EN.
⁄ ⁄
E-2A 7595.8 135 48.2 86.8 EN./EX
⁄ ⁄
DMR-APCI C-1 801.8 510.8 464.9 45.9 EN.
⁄
C-3 273.4 178.3 177.1 1.2 EN.
⁄ ⁄
AC-1 393.2 60.6 17.9 42.7 EN./EX
⁄
E-3 1576.8 31 29.4 1.6 EN.
⁄
MFC-Linde C-1/1 154.1 102 99 3 EN.
⁄
C-1/2 404.2 264.5 259.1 5.4 EN.
⁄
C-2/1 518.7 338.8 337.1 1.7 EN.
⁄
C-2/2 208.6 136.4 131.7 4.7 EN.
⁄
C-3/1 414.1 269.6 267.9 1.7 EN.
⁄ ⁄ ⁄
AC-1 502.5 331.8 246.2 85.6 EN./EX
⁄
E-2 810.3 159.3 150.9 8.4 EN.
⁄
E-3 791.5 68.9 62.1 6.8 EN.
a
Strategy A: Improving the efficiency of the kth component or replacing the component with efficient devices.
b
Strategy B: Improving the efficiency of the remaining components.
c
Strategy C: Structural optimization of the overall system.

According to the avoidable endogenous investment costs, the pro- 5. Conclusions

cess can potentially be improved through improvements of C-2/1
and C-3/1 compressors.
After calculation of cost of exergy destruction and investment
costs for each component next step will be comparison of compo-
nents before and after modification. Exergy efficiency, exergoeco-
nomic factor and total costs are selected for comparison.
Table 17 provides the results gained from comparison of conven-
tional and advanced analyses for C3MR-Linde. Modified exergy
efficiency is higher than the exergy efficiency for each component.
According to the total costs, C-2 compressor should be modified
first. E-2A heat exchanger has the maximum modified exergoeco-
nomic factor (33.27%) while in the conventional exergoeconomic
analysis C-3/2 compressor has the maximum exergoeconomic fac-
tor (52/36%). Table 18 presents the results gained from comparison
of the conventional and advanced analyses for DMR-APCI.
According to the total costs, C-1 compressor should be modified
first. Similar to the conventional exergoeconomic analysis, in the
advanced exergoeconomic analysis C-3 compressor has the maxi-
mum modified exergoeconomic factor (12.17%). Table 19 provides
the results gained from comparison of conventional and advanced
analyses for MFC-Linde. According to the total costs, C-2/1 com-
pressor should be modified first. C-2/2 compressor has the maxi-
mum modified exergoeconomic factor (14.87%) while in the
conventional exergoeconomic analysis C-1/1 compressor has the
maximum exergoeconomic factor (53.40%).
Three strategies for decreasing the cost of exergy destruction
associated with the components is introduced. For reducing exergy
destruction cost, an engineer must focus on the avoidable part of
exergy destruction cost. Three strategies are proposed for improv-
ing the efficiency of the component or replacing the component
with efficient devices (Table 20). These procedures can be used
for high avoidable endogenous part of exergy destruction cost,
improving the efficiency of the remaining components that can
be used for component with high avoidable exogenous part of
exergy destruction cost and structural optimization of the overall
system. Strategies B and C should be used in the same time for
the component with high avoidable exogenous and endogenous
part of exergy destruction cost such as C-1/3 compressor in
C3MR-Linde process.
Advanced exergoeconomic analysis is applied on multi stage
mixed refrigerant liquefaction processes. Scope of this study is
identifying the improvement potential for C3MR-Linde,
DMR-APCI and MFC-Linde processes. Results of conventional exer-
goeconomic analysis suggests that maximum exergy destruction
cost in C3MR-Linde process is related to E-2A heat exchanger
(7595.80 $/h), in DMR-APCI process is related to E-3 heat exchan-
ger (1576.8 $/h) and in MFC-Linde process is related to E-2 heat
exchanger (810.28 $/h). Results obtained from the advanced exer-
goeconomic analysis are as follows:
 According to the avoidable exergy destruction cost, the most
important components for improving the liquefaction processes
are compressors. According to the avoidable exergy destruction
cost in C3MR-Linde process, C-2 compressor with 455.5 $/h, in
DMR-APCI process, C-1 compressor with 510.8 $/h and in
MFC-Linde process, C-2/1 compressor with 338.8 ($/h) should
be considered first. Because these devices have higher improve-
ment potential than the other ones.
 The most important components of the liquefaction processes,
in term of avoidable investment cost, are multi stream heat
exchangers.
 Interactions between the process components is not strong
because investment costs and exergy destruction costs in most
of the components are endogenous
 Improving efficiency of the component or replacing with effi-
cient devices is useful for reducing exergy destructions costs
because most of the components destruction is endogenous.
References
[1] Remeljeja CW, Hoadley AFA. An exergy analysis of small-scale liquefied natural
gas (LNG) liquefaction processes. Energy 2006;31:2005–19.
[2] Vatani A, Mehrpooya M, Palizdar A. Energy and exergy analyses of five
conventional liquefied natural gas processes. Int J Energy Res
2014;38:1843–63.
[3] Kanoglu M. Exergy analysis of multistage cascade refrigeration cycle used for
natural gas liquefaction. Int J Energy Res 2002;26:763–74.
716 M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab / Energy Conversion and Management 103 (2015) 705–716
[4] Mafi M, Mousavi Naeynian SM, Amidpour M. Exergy analysis of multistage
cascade low temperature refrigeration systems used in olefin plants. Int J
Refrig 2009;32:279–94.
[5] Mehrpooya M, Vatani A, Sadeghian F, Ahmadi MH. A novel process
configuration for hydrocarbon recovery process with auto-refrigeration
system. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.01.01.
[6] Mehrpooya M, Hossieni M, Vatani A. Novel LNG-based integrated process
configuration alternatives for coproduction of LNG and NGL. Ind Eng Chem Res
2014;53:17705–21.
[7] Tirandazi B, Mehrpooya M, Vatani A, Moosavian SMA. Exergy analysis of C2+
recovery plants refrigeration cycle. Chem Eng Res Des 2011;89:676–89.
[8] Gharagheizi F, Mehrpooya M. Prediction of standard chemical exergy by a
three descriptors QSPR model. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:2453–60.
[9] Mehrpooya M, Vatani A, Moosavian SMA. Introducing a new parameter for
evaluating the degree of integration in cryogenic liquid recovery processes.
Chem Eng Process 2011;50:916–30.
[10] Mehrpooya M, Jarrahian A, Pishvaie MR. Simulation and exergy-method
analysis of an industrial refrigeration cycle used in NGL recovery units. Int J
Energy Res 2006;30:1336–51.
[11] Morosuk T, Tesch S, Hiemann A, Tsatsaronis G, Bin Omar N. Evaluation of the
PRICO liquefaction process using exergy-based methods. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.007.
[12] Mehrpooya M, Ansarinasab H. Exergoeconomic evaluation of single mixed
refrigerant natural gas liquefaction processes. Energy Convers Manage
2015;99:400–13.
[13] Mehrpooya M, Gharagheizi F, Vatani A. Thermoeconomic analysis of a large
industrial propane refrigeration cycle used in NGL recovery plant. Int J Energy
Res 2009;33:960–77.
[14] Ghorbani B, Salehi GR, Amidpour M, Hamedi MH. Exergy and exergoeconomic
evaluation of gas separation process. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2012;9:86–93.
[15] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G, Boyano A, Gantiva C. Advanced exergy-based
analyses applied to a system including LNG regasification and electricity
generation. Int J Energy Environ Eng 2012;3:1–9.
[16] Vatani A, Mehrpooya M, Palizdar A. Advanced exergetic analysis of five natural
gas liquefaction processes. Energy Convers Manage 2014;78:720–37.
[17] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis of a refrigeration
system for liquefaction of natural gas. Int J Energy Environ Eng 2010;1:1–17.
[18] Petrajopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Carassai A. Conventional and
advanced exergetic analysis applied to a combined power plant. Energy
2012;41:146–52.
[19] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis of a novel system for
generating electricity and vaporizing liquefied natural gas. Energy
2010;35:820–9.
[20] Gungor A, Tsatsaronis G, Gunerhan H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic
analysis of a gas engine heat pump (GEHP) for food drying processes. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;91:132–9.
[21] Keçebas P, Gökgedik H, Alkan MA, Keçebas A. An economic comparison and
evaluation of two geothermal district heating systems for advanced
exergoeconomic analysis. Energy Convers Manage 2014;84:471–80.
[22] Erbay Z, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic evaluation of a heat pump food
dryer. Biosyst Eng 2014;124:29–39.
[23] Açıkkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of an
electricity-generating facility that operates with natural gas. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;78:452–60.
[24] Acıkkalp E, Yucer CT, Hepbasli A, Hikmet Karakoc T. Advanced low
exergoeconomic (ALEXERGO) assessment of a building along with its heating
system at various stages. Energy Build 2015;87:66–73.
[25] Açıkkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of a
trigeneration system using a diesel-gas engine. Appl Therm Eng
2014;67:388–95.
[26] Vuckovic GD, Stojiljkovic MM, Vukic MV, Stefanovic GM, Dedeic EM. Advanced
exergy analysis and exergoeconomic performance evaluation of thermal
processes in an existing industrial plant. Energy Convers Manage
2014;85:655–62.
[27] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Evaluation of a power plant with
chemical looping combustion using an advanced exergoeconomic analysis.
Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2013;3:9–16.
[28] Janghorban Esfahani I, Lee SC, Yoo C. Evaluation and optimization of a multi-
effect evaporation–absorption heat pump desalination based conventional and
advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses. Desalination
2015;359:92–107.
[29] Keçebas A, Hepbasli A. Conventional and advanced exergoeconomic analyses
of geothermal district heating systems. Energy Build 2014;69:434–41.
[30] Khoshgoftar Manesh MH, Navid P, Blanco Marigorta AM, Amidpour M. New
procedure for optimal design and evaluation of cogeneration system based on
advanced exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses. Energy
2013;59:314–33.
[31] Foerg W, Bach W, Stockman R. A new LNG base load process and the
manufacturing of the main heat exchangers, Linde AG – Stat oil.
[32] Roberts MJ, Agrawal R. Dual mixed refrigerant cycle for gas liquefaction. U.S.
patent no. 6,119,479.
[33] Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. 5th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Science; 2005.
[34] Marmolejo-Correa D, Gundersen T. A comparison of exergy efficiency
definitions with focus on low temperature processes. Energy 2012;44:477–89.
[35] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical, and
metallurgical processes. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1988.
[36] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New
York: Wiley; 1996.
[37] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:1257–89.
[38] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Advanced exergy analysis for chemically reacting
systems – application to a simple open gas-turbine system. Int J Thermodyn
2009;12(3):105–11.
[39] Yazdanfar J, Mehrpooya M, Yousefi H, Palizdar A. Energy and exergy analysis
and optimal design of the hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell power plant and
carbon dioxide capturing process. Energy Convers Manage 2015;98:15–27.
[40] Kelly S, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis: approaches for
splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and exogenous parts. Energy
2009;34:384–91.
[41] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. A new approach to the exergy analysis of absorption
refrigeration machines. Energy 2008;33:890–907.
[42] Petrakopoulou F. Comparative evaluation of power plants with CO2 capture:
thermodynamic, economic and environmental performance (PhD thesis).
Berlin, Germany: Berlin Technical University; 2011.
[43] Tsatsaronis G, Park M-H. On avoidable and unavoidable exergy destructions
and investment costs in thermal systems. Energy Convers Manage
2002;43:1259–70.