Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Research Paper

Advanced exergoeconomic evaluation of a new cryogenic helium

recovery process from natural gas based on the flash separation – APCI
modified process
Hojat Ansarinasab a, Mehdi Mehrpooya b,c,⇑, Mohammadhosein Pouriman d
a
Faculty of Energy Systems Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology (PUT), Iran
b
Renewable Energies and Environment Department, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
c
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Laboratory, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
d
School of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, Mapúa University, Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines

h i g h l i g h t s

Advanced exergoeconomic analysis is done on a new helium extraction process.

Cost of exergy destruction and exergy destruction rate are calculated.

Three different strategies are suggested to improve performance of the components.

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

Article history: An advanced method of exergoeconomic analysis was applied to a newly developed process configura-
Received 16 September 2017 tion used for recovering helium from natural gas. In this process, a three stage propane refrigeration cycle
Revised 1 December 2017 is incorporated to provide a portion of the required refrigeration. Sensitivity analysis was also carried out
Accepted 28 December 2017
for exergoeconomic factors and exergy destruction cost of the effective devices. In comparison with the
Available online 28 December 2017
existing processes, the proposed process has better performance in extracting the helium from the feed
gas. Based on the results of conventional method, HE-105 and HE-104 heat exchangers have the highest
Keywords:
extent of exergy destruction cost equal to 1889.68 $/hr and 1263.58 $/hr, respectively. The outcome of
Cryogenic processes
Helium extraction
the advanced exergoeconomic analysis suggests that the exergy destruction cost (investment cost) of
Natural gas the compressors is avoidable while it is not true for the heat exchangers. Moreover, the exergy destruc-
Advanced exergoeconomic tion costs induced from the remaining components are not considerable, thus the interactions among the
process equipment is not strong.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Helium is the second lightest substance after hydrogen. The
main commercial application of the helium in liquid form is in
MRI scanners. Natural gas reservoirs is one of the major sources
of the helium. Extraction of helium from natural gas is done by
cryogenic processes [1]. Natural gas streams which contain helium
at least 0.1 to 0.5 mol percent are economically feasible for helium
recovery. Helium product concentration from the cryogenic pro-
cesses reaches to 50% mole. More purification should be done in
the downstream processes. Technologies for the helium extraction
from natural gas are reviewed [2]. There are two main methods
⇑ Corresponding author at: Renewable Energies and Environment Department,
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: mehrpoya@ut.ac.ir (M. Mehrpooya).
which can be used for helium extraction: Flashing cycles and dis-
tillation column. Flashing based helium recovery process configu-
rations are introduced and assessed [3]. These processes could be
employed for natural gas products, for instance synthesis gas and
liquefied natural gas (LNG). In the flash based processes three flash
drums are used in three deferent temperature levels. Two flashing
based helium extraction processes, APCI and Linde, are developed
and investigated [4]. In the modified APCI process, a three staged
propane refrigeration cycle provides a fraction of the needed refrig-
eration. This study investigates the effect of helium concentration
and feed flow rate on the process performance. The results also
show that the modified proposed APCI process has the highest
helium extraction rate of 91%. Cryogenic helium recovery pro-
cesses operate at very low temperatures which necessitate apply-
ing the advanced cryogenic cascade refrigeration systems.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.12.108
1359-4311/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380 369

Nomenclature

c unit exergy cost ($/GJ) Subscripts

Ċ exergy cost rate ($/hr) ch chemical
Ė exergy rate (kW) D destruction
f exergoeconomic factor (%) F fuel
G gibbs free energy (kW) i ith component
H enthalpy (kJ) k kth element
m _ flow rate (kg/s) P production
P pressure (bar) ph physical
PEC purchase equipment cost ($) Q heat
r relative cost difference (%) tot total
S entropy (kJ/°C) W work
T temperature (°C)
x mole fraction Abbreviations
y exergy destruction ratio AC air cooler
Z_ investment cost flow rate ($/hr) APCI Air Products and Chemicals, Inc
C compressor
Greek Letters E heat exchanger
e exergy efficiency EOS equation of states
D gradient F flash drum
g helium extraction rate HE multi stream heat exchanger
LNG liquefied natural gas
Superscripts MFC mixed fluid cascade
AV avoidable Mix mixer
EN endogenous NG natural gas
EX exogenous NGL natural gas liquid
tot total NRU nitrogen rejection unit
UN unavoidable V expansion valve

Exergy analysis is an engineering tool which is used for thermo-
dynamic analysis of a process and to determine maximum useful
work achievable by a certain amount of input energy. By combin-
ing the first and second laws of thermodynamics, exergy analysis
has become one of the most powerful tools for conducting qualita-
tive and quantitative investigations of energy consumption in pro-
cesses. Exergy concept is used to evaluate the integration level of
cryogenic natural gas liquid recovery processes [5]. Integrated fuel
cell power plants are investigated by exergy analysis method [6–
9]. Cryogenic natural gas refineries are evaluated by exergy analy-
sis method [10].
Exergy [11] and advanced exergy [12] analysis are used to
investigate five of the conventional LNG processes. The results
show that the exogenous exergy destruction rate is lower than
endogenous exergy destruction of the compressors. Industrial pro-
pane refrigeration cycles are investigated by exergy [13,14] and
advanced exergy [15] analysis methods. The outcomes [15] reveal
that the exergy efficiency of the cycle is about 34% whereas near
60% of the exergy destructions is unavoidable. Using exergy analy-
sis method [16], an integrated natural gas liquefaction process and
fuel cell power plant is investigated. The outcomes reveal exergy
efficiency in heat exchangers is high. Also the highest share of
exergy destruction is related to steam turbine section. Cryogenic
air separation processes using cold of LNG are evaluated by exergy
analysis method [17,18]. Exergoeconomic evaluation of an indus-
trial three stage propane refrigeration cycle is studied [19]. Single
mixed refrigerant liquefaction processes are investigated using
exergoeconomic method [20]. The results show that heat exchang-
ers has high exergy destruction cost and signify that compressors
and air coolers possess the highest exergoeconomic factor. An inte-
grated natural gas liquefaction and hydrocarbon recovery process
is analyzed by exergoeconomic method [21]. LNG based co-
production of LNG and NGL process is evaluated by exergoeco-
nomic analysis method [22]. This process uses mixed fluid cascade
(MFC) cycle. The MFC cycle is introduced as a refrigeration system
[23]. A propane precooled mixed refrigerant LNG process is inves-
tigated by exergoeconomic and multi objective optimization [24].
Overall exergy efficiency of the system and unit cost of exergy
are considered as the objective functions. A trigeneration system
is optimized by exergoeconomic method [25]. The results indicate
that exergy and exergoeconomic parameters can be improved by
the optimization. A power cycle functioning with CO2 as its work-
ing fluid is optimized based on the exergoeconomic parameters
[26]. In this system geothermal energy and cold energy of LNG
are used as hot/cold sources. A combined power system integrated
with solar field [27] and oil shale retorting processes [28] are stud-
ied using exergoeconomic analysis method. Retrofitting of low
temperature heat recovery systems are investigated by employing
multi objective exergoeconomic method [29]. The results demon-
strate that minimization of the exergy destruction can improve
the system cost. An advanced exergoeconomic method is
employed for systems using cascade mixed refrigerants [30]. The
results indicate that the majority of investment cost and exergy
destruction of the devices are endogenous. A new process of natu-
ral gas liquefaction which incorporates absorption refrigeration
system is studied by implementation of advanced exergoeconomic
analysis method [31]. The results of this process show a very small
avoidable exogenous destruction share. An ice rink refrigeration
system which uses ammonia as refrigerant is investigated by
advanced exergoeconomic analysis method [32]. This method is
typically used for analyzing chemical looping systems and com-
bined power plants [33]. Based on the results gained from the gross
avoidable cost of this process, the reactor, the expander and the
compressor have the most importance. An innovative procedure
grounded on advanced exergoeconomic analysis is presented for
optimal deign of cogeneration systems [34].
370 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380

However various kinds of the processes have been investigated
by exergoeconomic and advanced exergoeconomic analysis but in
the case of helium extraction from natural gas processes there is no
research. Applying advanced exergoeconomic analysis on the
flashing based helium extraction processes can reveal some valu-
able data about the processes components destruction. Also cost
of the different kinds of the exergy destruction rates can be
calculated.
This article introduces a newly developed process configuration
of extracting helium from natural gas and presents the application
of conventional and advanced exergoeconomic analysis of a new
cryogenic helium recovery process from natural gas. Conventional
and advanced exergoeconomic analysis of this process has not
been investigated up to now, so the results are novel and would
be valuable. This analysis gives more information for costs of
exergy destruction and investment with more sense about
improvement potential of the process. Scope of this paper is calcu-
lation of improvement potential which can be avoided. Also, a sen-
sitivity analysis is done and effect of operating parameters on the
exergoeconomic parameters is investigated. Finally, three strate-
gies are suggested for decreasing the costs and improving the pro-
cess performance.
2. Process description
Fig. 1 presents flow chart of the developed APCI helium extrac-
tion process and the main operating parameters of the process.
Table 1 shows the different products, feeds and streams specifica-
tions of the modified APCI process. Table 2 presents material and
heat balance of the process. Stream 101 enters at 27 °C and 60
bar. Helium concentration in this stream is 0.05% mole. A portion
of stream 101 and 103 follows to heat exchangers HE-103, HE-
104 and HE-105 respectively and its temperature reaches to about
25 °C. Next stream 106 enters E-101 heat exchanger. Another
portion, 102, follows to HE-102 and is cooled to about 90 °C.
Stream 107 at about 142 °C is combined with stream 108 at
about 90 °C and follows to F-101drum through passing from V-
101 expansion valve at about 143 °C. Three flash drums F-101,
F-102 and F-103 are used to separate LNG from the lighter compo-
nents. So stream 118 doesn’t contain helium. F-103 vapor product,
117, at about 160 °C is combined with stream 124 and follows to
HE-102 heat exchanger. Stream 126 enters C-102 compressor and
its pressure reaches to 3 bar. A portion of F-103 flash drum liquid
product, stream 121, after passing from V-104 expansion valve
and HE-101 heat exchanger is combined with F-102 vapor product
and follows to HE-102 heat exchanger. Streams 131 and 127 after
mixing and passing from compressors C-102 and C-103 and heat
exchangers HE-103, HE-104 and HE-105 leave the process at 34
°C and 20 bar as the fuel gas. F-101 flash drum vapor product
which is reach helium stream follows to HE-101 heat exchanger
and its temperature reaches to 175.5 °C and final helium purifica-
tion is done in F-104 separator. Stream 138 is helium product of
the process which its refrigeration is recovered in heat exchangers
HE-101 to HE-105. Crude helium stream with concentration of
35.76% mole is the main product of the process. In this manner, a
three stage propane refrigeration process (presented by red lines)
provides a fraction of the required refrigeration. This cycle is com-
plex and number of its components is much, but it is economical
because of its high efficiency. It has three multi stream heat
exchangers for cooling the feed (natural gas), fuel gas and crude
Helium. Also, this cycle has three compressors for compressing
the pure propane as a refrigerant.
3. Thermodynamic modeling
Selection of a suitable simulation software and a proper equa-
tion of state (EOS) are the first steps to evaluate the process from
thermodynamic viewpoint. Various kinds of equation of states

221 219 217

Power (kW) Pressure ratio Duty (kW) ∆Tmin( C) O O
T ( C) P (bar) Mix-203 Mix-202 Mix-201
222 220 218
C-101 14756 2.39 HE-101 30245 2.47 He (146) 20 25
AC-201 C-203 C-202 C-201
C-102 52035 4.14 HE-102 31039 3.00 Fuel (137) -34 20 223
C-103 17206 1.67 HE-103 103114 2.01 Feed (101) 27 60
203 209 215
C-104 75 1.77 HE-104 69870 2.50 LNG (118) -160 1.3 F-201 F-202 F-203
201 207 213
C-105 52 1.22 HE-105 58777 2.70
C-106 204 2.27 V-201 V-202 V-203
Pure propane
202 206 208 212 214
C-201 6033 1.92 Crude Helium
216
C-202 16363 2.00 Fuel Gas 205 Tee-201 211 Tee-202
204 210
C-203 154 2.86 Process Stream
C-104 C-105 C-106
Crude
Helium
F-104 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
130 131
119 132 133 134 135 136 137
Mix-104 Fuel
Mix-103 C-102 C-103
V-104 126 127 Gas
125
120
121 128 129 104 105
C-101 HE-103 HE-104 HE-105
122 123 124
Mix-102
Tee-102
V-105
HE-101 HE-102
117 114 111
108
F-103 F-102 F-101 102
110 109 Mix-101 FEED
Tee-101 101
V-101
E-101 103
118 116 115 113 112 107
LNG
V-103 V-102 106

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the modified APCI helium extraction process.

 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380 371

Table 1
Specifications of the modified APCI helium extraction process.

Stream name Feed (101) LNG (118) 201 Crude Helium (146) Fuel gas (137)
Flow (kg/s) 1179.41 959.54 820.69 1.57 218.30
Temperature (°C) 27 160 2 20 34
Pressure (bar) 60 1.30 5.00 25 20
Components (mol %)
CH4 87.85 90.69 0 4.56 75.16
C2H6 4.73 5.77 0 0 0
C3H8 1.64 1.99 100 0 0
n-C4H10 0.38 0.46 0 0 0
i-C4H10 0.35 0.41 0 0 0
N2 5 0.68 0 59.68 24.81
He 0.05 0 0 35.76 0.03

Table 2
Heat and material balance specifications for the modified APCI helium extraction process.

Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kg/s)

m h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg. °C) Stream no. T (°C) P (bar) _ (kg/s)
m h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg. °C)

101 27.00 60.00 1179.41 4074 8.27 136 29.30 20.00 218.30 2969 8.12
102 27.00 60.00 58.97 4074 8.27 137 33.64 20.00 218.30 3087 7.68
103 27.00 60.00 1120.44 4074 8.27 138 175.50 5.08 1.57 464 4.79
104 3.72 60.00 1120.44 4134 8.06 139 150.00 5.08 1.57 428 5.12
105 15.00 60.00 1120.44 4185 7.87 140 140.00 5.08 1.57 413 5.23
106 25.00 60.00 1120.44 4214 7.75 141 104.29 9.00 1.57 366 5.31
107 142.00 60.00 1120.44 4791 4.70 142 1.00 9.00 1.57 217 5.99
108 89.83 60.00 58.97 4600 5.91 143 24.83 11.00 1.57 184 6.02
109 139.00 60.00 1179.41 4781 4.77 144 5.00 11.00 1.57 212 5.92
110 143.56 5.08 1179.41 4781 4.86 145 113.45 25.00 1.57 59 6.02
111 143.56 5.08 76.12 2774 6.80 146 20.00 25.00 1.57 194 5.62
112 143.56 5.08 1103.29 4920 4.73 201 1.79 5.00 820.69 2693 2.17
113 150.50 2.90 1103.29 4920 4.74 202 1.79 5.00 621.11 2784 1.84
114 150.50 2.90 70.99 3186 7.34 203 1.79 5.00 199.58 2409 3.20
115 150.50 2.90 1032.30 5039 4.56 204 1.79 5.00 236.02 2784 1.84
116 159.67 1.30 1032.30 5039 4.58 205 36.64 5.00 236.02 2349 3.41
117 159.67 1.30 72.76 3817 8.17 206 1.79 5.00 385.09 2784 1.84
118 159.67 1.30 959.54 5132 4.31 207 19.34 2.50 385.09 2784 1.85
119 175.50 5.08 76.12 3171 3.44 208 19.34 2.50 335.29 2836 1.64
120 175.50 5.08 74.55 3228 3.41 209 19.34 2.50 49.80 2435 3.22
121 175.50 5.08 61.87 3228 3.41 210 19.34 2.50 187.77 2836 1.64
122 175.50 5.08 12.67 3228 3.41 211 19.34 2.50 187.77 2464 3.11
123 185.16 1.30 12.67 3228 3.43 212 19.34 2.50 147.53 2836 1.64
124 154.00 1.30 12.67 2831 7.30 213 36.34 1.30 147.53 2836 1.65
125 158.92 1.30 85.43 3671 8.05 214 36.34 1.30 133.80 2875 1.49
126 22.78 1.30 85.43 3341 9.77 215 36.34 1.30 13.73 2457 3.25
127 110.31 3.10 85.43 3168 9.89 216 22.50 1.30 133.80 2436 3.34
128 176.85 2.90 61.87 3228 3.41 217 23.76 1.30 147.53 2438 3.33
129 146.03 2.90 61.87 2822 7.05 218 4.56 2.50 147.53 2397 3.37
130 148.48 2.90 132.87 3016 7.21 219 18.97 2.50 385.09 2435 3.23
131 136.02 2.90 132.87 2995 7.37 220 11.99 5.00 385.09 2392 3.26
132 30.74 2.90 218.30 3063 8.60 221 16.77 5.00 820.69 2384 3.29
133 101.57 12.00 218.30 2824 8.77 222 67.87 14.30 820.69 2313 3.34
134 15.00 12.00 218.30 2989 8.27 223 35.00 14.30 820.69 2693 2.14
135 16.84 12.00 218.30 3047 8.05

have been commonly recommended and used for liquefaction and Simulation of the modified process is based on the following
refrigeration systems. In this study, based on the type of compo- general assumptions [36]:
nents, operating condition of the process and the published records
in this area, Peng–Robinson (PR) equation of state is used. The orig-
The process operates at the steady-state condition.
inal Peng-Robinson equation of state provides accurate vapor pres-
Ambient condition is considered as 298 K and 101.3 kPa.
sure prediction for hydrocarbons in the 6–10 carbon number
Air composition is 79% N2 and 21% O2.
range. It is defined as follows [35]:
Kinetic and potential terms in the energy and exergy balance
equations are neglected.
RT a
All of the process components are well insulated, and the pipe
P¼  ð1Þ
t  b t  ðt þ bÞ þ bðt  bÞ connection pressure drop is neglected.

where, For evaluation of the process performance helium extraction

XX index is calculated (Ƞ). It is defined by relation 4. Helium extraction
a¼ Z i Z j ðai aj Þ0:5 ð1  kij Þ ð2Þ increases as Ƞ reaches to one. According to the following parame-
X ter, this process can extract Helium more efficiently compared to
b¼ Z i bi ð3Þ the APCI process.
372 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380

Heliummolar flow rate in product stream Table 4

g¼  100 ð4Þ Main equipment power consumption.
Heliummolar flow rate in feed gas flow
Component Name Power (kW)* Component Name Power (kW)*
The value of g for APCI process is equal to 90% and for the mod-
ified process is equal to 91.11%. Specifications of the heat exchang- C-101 14,756 C-106 240
C-102 52,035 C-201 6033
ers and main equipment power consumption are presented in
C-103 17,206 C-202 16,363
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. C-104 75 C-203 57,844
Thermal efficiency of the propane refrigeration cycle which is C-105 52 AC-201 154
defined as the received refrigeration duty in the heat exchangers *
Mechanical efficiency = 0.75.
to the consumed power in the cycle compressors reaches to 6
which this value is considerable comparing to the similar cases.

Table 5
4. Methodology Cost function of the process components.

Component Purchased equipment cost functions

4.1. Conventional exergy and exergoeconomic analyses
Heat exchanger  A 0:78
PECHE = 130 0:093 [44]
Exergy efficiency and exergy destruction rate of the process ele- PECE = 8500+409(A)0.8 [45]
0.62
Compressor PECC = 7900(HP) [46]
ments are defined by the conventional exergy analysis relations.
Air cooler PECAC = 30(A)0.4 [46]
Total exergy in each point of the process is computed as follows: Flash Drum PECF = 1.218(42 + 163 W) [46]

E_ tot ¼ E_ ph þ E_ ch ð5Þ
The following equations are used for calculation of chemical
and physical exergies [37]: some auxiliary equations by utilizing the P (Product) and F (Fuel)
rules must be defined too [40]. Tables 6 and 7 present the utilized
E_ ph ¼ H  Ho  T o ðS  So Þ ð6Þ main and auxiliary cost balance equations of the process devices,
X X respectively. Table 8 also demonstrates the unit exergy cost values
E_ ch ¼ xi E_ oi þ G  xi G i ð7Þ and exergy of the helium recovery process. Various parameters are
defined using the results of exergoeconomic method to compare
where in expression (5) Gi symbolize the Gibbs free energy and E_ oi economic efficiency of the process equipment as follows [41]:
symbolize the standard chemical exergy for pure ith component.
Exergy analysis results gives significant parameters such as exergy C_ D;k ¼ cF;k E_ D;k ð13Þ
destruction (relation 8), exergy efficiency (relation 9) and exergy
destruction ratio (relation 10) [38]: cP;k  cF;k
rk ¼ ð14Þ
cF;k
E_ D;k ¼ E_ F;k  E_ P;k ð8Þ
Z_ k
E_ P;k E_ D;k fk ¼ ð15Þ
ek ¼ or ek ¼1 ð9Þ Z_ k þ C_ D;k
E_ F;k E_ F;k
where ĊD,k, fk and rk symbolize exergy destruction cost, exergoeco-
E_ D;k nomic factor and the difference of relative cost, respectively. Exer-
yk ¼ ð10Þ goeconomic factor is introduced to define a relationship between
E_ F;tot the investment cost and process performance.
where F, P and D represent exergetic fuel, exergetic product and
exergy destruction rate of the kth element of the system. 4.2. Advanced exergoeconomic and exergy analyses
Exergoeconomic approach merges the exergy concept with eco-
nomic analysis parameters. Estimation of the purchase equipment According to the advanced exergy method, irreversibility of the
cost is the first step of the exergoeconomic analysis. Table 5 shows process equipment can be divided from two viewpoints: (1) origin
cost equation of the components. Exergy cost balance for each of exergy destruction production and (2) capacity to avoid the
equipment can be written as follows [39]: exergy destruction. Based on the first viewpoint, exergy destruc-
tion parts are either endogenous or exogenous. The endogenous
cP;k E_ P;k ¼ cF;k E_ F;k þ Z_ tot ð11Þ
k exergy destruction (E_ EN ) is the portion of exergy destruction within
D;k
the device k and is associated with the performance of the device.
C_ P;k ¼ C_ F;k þ Z_ tot ð12Þ
k
The exogenous exergy destruction (E_ EX
D;k ) is the portion of exergy
where fuel of the kth element and unit average exergy cost of the destruction within the device k and is caused by the remaining
product in this system is shown by cP;k andcF;k , respectively. In the devices. In this study, engineering (graphical) method [42] was
components which number of outputs is not equal to the inputs employed to calculate the endogenous exergy destruction part

Table 3
Thermodynamic data for the heat exchangers.

Heat exchanger name HE-101 HE-102 HE-103 HE-104 HE-105

LMTD (°C) 7.55 8.49 12.51 11.29 17.33
Min approach (°C) 2.47 3.00 2.01 2.50 2.70
Heat duty (kW) 30,245 31,039 103,114 69,870 58,777
Number of sides 4 4 4 4 4
 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380 373

Table 6
Cost balance equations of the process components.

Equip. Main equation Equip. Main equation Equip. Main equation Equip. Main equation
C-101 Ċ126 + ĊW + ZC-101 = Ċ127 HE-101 Ċ123 + Ċ128 + Ċ111 + Ċ138 + ZHE-101 = Ċ129 + Ċ124 F-101 Ċ110 + ZF-101 = Ċ111 + Ċ112 V-101 Ċ109 = Ċ110
+ Ċ119 + Ċ139
C-102 Ċ132 + ĊW + ZC-102 = Ċ133 HE-102 Ċ102 + Ċ125 + Ċ130 + Ċ139 + ZHE-102 = Ċ108 + Ċ126 F-102 Ċ113 + ZF-102 = Ċ114 + Ċ115 V-102 Ċ112 = Ċ113
+ Ċ131 + Ċ140
C-103 Ċ135 + ĊW + ZC-103 = Ċ136 HE-103 Ċ103 + Ċ133 + Ċ141 + Ċ204 + ZHE-103 = Ċ104 + Ċ134 F-103 Ċ116 + ZF-103 = Ċ117 + Ċ118 V-103 Ċ115 = Ċ116
+ Ċ142 + Ċ205
C-104 Ċ140 + ĊW + ZC-104 = Ċ141 HE-104 Ċ104 + Ċ134 + Ċ143 + Ċ210 + ZHE-104 = Ċ105 + Ċ135 F-104 Ċ119 + ZF-104 = Ċ120 + Ċ138 V-104 Ċ121 = Ċ128
+ Ċ144 + Ċ211
C-105 Ċ142 + ĊW + ZC-105 = Ċ143 HE-105 Ċ105 + Ċ136 + Ċ145 + Ċ214 + ZHE-105 = Ċ106 + Ċ137 F-201 Ċ201 + ZF-201 = Ċ202 + Ċ203 V-105 Ċ122 = Ċ123
+ Ċ146 + Ċ216
C-106 Ċ144 + ĊW + ZC-106 = Ċ145 E-101 Ċ106 + ZE-101 = Ċ107 + ĊQ F-202 Ċ207 + ZF-202 = Ċ208 + Ċ209 V-201 Ċ223 = Ċ201
C-201 Ċ217 + ĊW + ZC-201 = Ċ218 Mix-101 Ċ107 + Ċ108 = Ċ109 F-203 Ċ213 + ZF-203 = Ċ214 + Ċ215 V-202 Ċ206 = Ċ207
C-202 Ċ219 + ĊW + ZC-202 = Ċ220 Mix-102 Ċ117 + Ċ124 = Ċ125 Mix-201 Ċ215 + Ċ216 = Ċ217 V-203 Ċ212 = Ċ213
C-203 Ċ221 + ĊW + ZC-203 = Ċ222 Mix-103 Ċ114 + Ċ129 = Ċ130 Mix-202 Ċ209 + Ċ211 + Ċ218 = Ċ219 Tee-101 Ċ101 = Ċ102 + Ċ103
AC-201 Ċ222 + ĊW + ZAC-201 = Ċ223 Mix-104 Ċ127 + Ċ131 = Ċ132 Mix-203 Ċ203 + Ċ205 + Ċ220 = Ċ221 Tee-102 Ċ120 = Ċ121 + Ċ122
Tee-201 Ċ202 = Ċ204 + Ċ206 Tee-202 Ċ208 = Ċ210 + Ċ212

Table 7
Ancillary equations of the process components.

Equip. Main equation Equip. Auxiliary equation Equip. Main equation Equip. Main equation
HE-101 C_ 138 C_ 139 C_ 128 C_ 129 C_ 123 C_ 124 HE-105 C_ 214 C_ 216 C_ 106 C_ 105 C_ 137 C_ 136 C_ 146 C_ 145 F-104 C_ 120 C_ 138 TEE-101 C_ 102 _
E_ 138
¼ E_ 139
and E_ 128
¼ E_ 129
and E_ 123
¼ E_ 124 E_ 214
¼ E_ 216
and E_ 106 E_ 105
¼ E_ 137 E_ 136
¼ E_ 146 E_ 145 E_ 120
¼ E_ 138 E_ 102
¼ CE_ 103
103

HE-102 C_ 140 C_ 139 C_ 130 C_ 131 C_ 125 C_ 126 F-101 C_ 111 C_ 112 F-201 C_ 202 C_ 203 TEE-102 C_ 121 _
E_ 140
¼ E_ 139
and E_ 130
¼ E_ 131
and E_ 125
¼ E_ 126 E_ 111
¼ E_ 112 E_ 202
¼ E_ 203 E_ 121
¼ CE_ 122
122

HE-103 C_ 204 _ C_ 104 C_ 103 _ _ _ _ F-102 C_ 114 _ F-202 C_ 208 _ TEE-201 C_ 204 _
E_ 204
¼ CE_ 205 and E_ 104 E_ 103
¼ CE_ 134 C133
E_
¼ CE_ 142  C141
E_ E_ 114
¼ CE_ 115 E_ 208
¼ CE_ 209 E_ 204
¼ CE_ 206
205 134 133 142 141 115 209 206

HE-104 C_ 210 _ C_ 105 C_ 104 _ _ _ _ F-103 C_ 117 _ F-203 C_ 214 _ TEE-202 C_ 210 _
E_ 210
¼ CE_ 211 and E_ 105 E_ 104
¼ CE_ 135  C134
E_
¼ CE_ 144 C143
E_ E_ 117
¼ CE_ 118 E_ 214
¼ CE_ 215 E_ 210
¼ CE_ 212
211 135 134 144 143 118 215 212

Table 8
Extents of exergy and unit exergy cost of the modified APCI system.

Stream ĖPH (kW) ĖCH (kW) ĖTOT (kW) Ċ ($/hr) c ($/GJ) Stream ĖPH (kW) ĖCH (kW) ĖTOT (kW) Ċ($/hr) c ($/GJ)
101 637,666 56,198,432 56,836,098 873,684 4.27 136 84,026 7,206,735 7,290,761 127,408 4.85
102 31,883 2,809,922 2,841,805 43,684 4.27 137 86,748 7,206,735 7,293,483 128,803 4.91
103 605,783 53,388,510 53,994,293 830,000 4.27 138 626 3944 4570 193 11.72
104 608,081 53,388,510 53,996,591 825,919 4.25 139 528 3944 4472 189 11.72
105 614,673 53,388,510 54,003,183 828,889 4.26 140 498 3944 4442 187 11.72
106 620,494 53,388,510 54,009,004 831,872 4.28 141 539 3944 4483 205 12.71
107 993,232 53,388,510 54,381,742 826,085 4.22 142 452 3944 4396 360 22.72
108 42,213 2,809,922 2,852,134 44,027 4.29 143 491 3944 4435 373 23.35
109 1,031,477 56,198,432 57,229,909 870,111 4.22 144 493 3944 4437 374 23.39
110 999,753 56,198,432 57,198,184 870,111 4.23 145 685 3944 4629 420 25.19
111 25,381 2,112,024 2,137,405 32,515 4.23 146 660 3944 4604 407 24.56
112 969,399 54,091,380 55,060,779 837,611 4.23 201 91,518 40,259,369 40,350,887 11,620,000 80.02
113 965,845 54,091,380 55,057,226 837,611 4.23 202 74,040 30,468,911 30,542,951 8,799,000 80.02
114 20,544 2,279,357 2,299,901 34,990 4.23 203 17,478 9,790,459 9,807,937 2,826,000 80.02
115 940,974 51,816,351 52,757,325 802,636 4.23 204 28,135 11,578,186 11,606,321 3,344,000 80.02
116 936,211 51,816,351 52,752,562 802,636 4.23 205 20,376 11,578,186 11,598,562 3,341,000 80.02
117 16,269 2,819,265 2,835,535 43,144 4.23 206 45,905 18,890,725 18,936,629 5,455,000 80.02
118 916,305 49,000,723 49,917,028 759,507 4.23 207 44,779 18,890,725 18,935,503 5,455,000 80.03
119 71,605 2,112,024 2,183,628 92,118 11.72 208 42,026 16,447,971 16,489,997 4,751,000 80.03
120 70,594 2,108,464 2,179,058 91,940 11.72 209 2753 2,442,754 2,445,506 704,567 80.03
121 58,593 1,750,025 1,808,618 76,310 11.72 210 23,535 9,210,864 9,234,398 2,660,000 80.03
122 12,001 358,439 370,440 15,630 11.72 211 11,328 9,210,864 9,222,192 2,657,000 80.03
123 11,901 358,439 370,340 15,630 11.72 212 18,491 7,237,107 7,255,599 2,090,000 80.03
124 2324 358,439 360,763 15,226 11.72 213 18,206 7,237,107 7,255,313 2,090,000 80.03
125 18,587 3,177,600 3,196,188 58,369 44.94 214 17,862 6,563,723 6,581,585 1,896,000 80.03
126 2883 3,177,600 3,180,484 58,083 5.07 215 344 673,384 673,728 194,114 80.03
127 14,690 3,177,600 3,192,290 59,994 5.22 216 2735 6,563,723 6,566,458 1,892,000 80.03
128 58,511 1,750,025 1,808,536 76,310 12.00 217 3070 7,237,107 7,240,177 2,086,000 80.03
129 16,503 1,750,025 1,766,528 17,124 12.00 218 7466 7,237,107 7,244,573 2,087,000 80.02
130 37,036 4,029,342 4,066,378 52,114 3.56 219 21,250 18,890,725 18,911,974 5,448,000 80.03
131 33,422 4,029,342 4,062,764 52,068 3.56 220 33,288 18,890,725 18,924,013 5,451,000 80.01
132 32,143 7,206,735 7,238,878 112,061 4.30 221 70,691 40,259,369 40,330,061 11,610,000 80.02
133 73,382 7,206,735 7,280,117 118,472 4.52 222 115,733 40,259,369 40,375,103 11,620,000 79.98
134 69,908 7,206,735 7,276,643 124,642 4.76 223 97,645 40,259,369 40,357,015 11,620,000 80.01
135 71,135 7,206,735 7,277,870 125,195 4.78
374 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380

E_ EX _ _ EN
D;k ¼ ED;k  ED;k ð19Þ

Based on the second viewpoint, the exergy destruction parts are

either avoidable or unavoidable. Unavoidable exergy destruction
(E_ UN ) is the portion of exergy destruction inside of device k which
D;k

ɛk=const. is not reducible because of economic and technical limitations.

ĖF,tot - ĖP,tot

However, improving performance of the device k can decrease

the exergy destruction. Table 9 presents the assumptions of the
advanced exergoeconomic analysis method. These parameters are
obtained by the following equations [43]:
!UN
E_ D;k
ĖN
ĖD,k E_ UN _
D;k ¼ EP;k ð20Þ
E_ P;k
Ė D,others

Fig. 2. Illustration of engineering method. E_ AV _ _ UN

D;k ¼ ED;k  ED;k ð21Þ

Combining the avoidable and unavoidable sections with

through drawing a diagram such as Fig. 2 based on Eq. (18) which endogenous and exogenous reveals further details about exergy
is established for any real energy conversion system (exergy destruction of devices. Unavoidable endogenous (E_ UN;EN ) is the D;k
balance): unavoidable exergy destruction portion within device k that is
associated with the performance of the device, and the unavoid-
E_ F;tot ¼ E_ P;tot þ E_ D;tot þ E_ L;tot ð16Þ
able exogenous (E_ UN;EX ) is the unavoidable exergy destruction por-
D;k
tion within the device k which arises from other devices. Moreover,
E_ D;tot ¼ E_ F;tot  E_ P;tot  E_ L;tot ð17Þ the avoidable exergy destruction portion in device k that is associ-
On the other hand, total exergy destruction is summation of the ated with its performance, is avoidable endogenous (E_ AV;EN ) and the D;k
exergy destructions produced within the components individually: avoidable exergy destruction portion within the device k which is
X caused by other devices is avoidable exogenous (E_ AV;EX ).
E_ D;tot ¼ E_ D;k ¼ E_ D;k þ E_ D;others ð18Þ D;k

k !UN
E_ D;k
Target device is kth component and other components in the E_ UN;EN ¼ E_ EN ð22Þ
E_ P;k
D;k P;k
process are remaining components namely ‘‘others” (E_ D;others ). The
diagram shows variations of total irreversibility of the process
(E_ D;tot ) versus irreversibility of all components except under consid- E_ UN;EX ¼ E_ UN _ UN;EN
D;k D;k  ED;k ð23Þ
eration component (E_ D;others ), thus intercept of the line will be
endogenous exergy destruction (E_ EN ) in the kth component. Exoge-
D;k
E_ AV;EN
D;k ¼ E_ EN _ UN;EN
D;k  ED;k ð24Þ
nous exergy destruction is found by Eq. (19) as follows:

E_ AV;EX
D;k ¼ E_ AV _ AV;EN
D;k  ED;k ð25Þ
Table 9
Assumptions of the advanced exergoeconomic method.
Advanced exergoeconomic analysis was implemented to enrich
Component Z_ UN (operating conditions or % Z_ k) the study of economic performance of this system. In this analysis,
Compressor 90%
investment and exergy destruction costs are categorized into
Heat exchanger DTmin = 0.5 °C, DP = DPreal unavoidable/avoidable and exogenous/endogenous sections.
Table 10 shows the equations used for advanced exergy and

Table 10
Equations used for advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analysis.

TERM Definition Splitting the exergy Splitting the exergy Splitting the
destruction destruction costs investment costs
 real
Endogenous Exergy destruction and cost rate within component k associated with the E_ EX
D;k Calculated by C_ EN _ EN
D;k ¼ c F:k ED;k Z_ EN _ EN Z_
operation of the component itself k ¼ EP;k E_ P k
engineering method
Exogenous Exergy destruction and cost rate within component k caused by the E_ EX ¼ E_ D;k  E_ EN
D;k D;k C_ EX _ EX
D;k ¼ c F:k ED;k
Z_ EX _ _ EN
k ¼ Zk  Zk
remaining components
 UN
Unavoidable Exergy destruction and cost rate that cannot be avoided
E_ UN
E_
E_ P;k ð E_ D;k Þ
UN
C_ UN _ UN
D;k ¼ c F:k ED;k Z_ UN _ Z_
D;k ¼ k ¼ EP;k E_ P k
P;k

Avoidable Exergy destruction and cost rate that can be avoided E_ AV _ _ UN

D;k ¼ ED;k  ED;k C_ AV _ AV
D;k ¼ c F:k ED;k
Z_ AV _
k ¼ Zk  Zk
_ UN
 UN  UN
Unavoidable Unavoidable exergy destruction and cost rate within component k E_ D;k C_ UN;EN ¼ c E_ UN;EN Z_ UN;EN
¼ E_ Z_
E_ UN;EN ¼ E_ EN D;k F:k D;k EN
P;k E_ k P;k E_ P
endogenous associated with the operation of the component itself D;k P;k
k

Unavoidable Unavoidable exergy destruction and cost rate within component k caused E_ UN;EX
D;k
¼ E_ UN
D;k  E_ UN;EN
D;k
C_ UN;EX
D;k
¼ cF:k E_ UN;EX
D;k
Z_ UN;EX
k
¼ Z_ UN _ UN;EN
k  Zk
exogenous by the remaining components
Avoidable Avoidable exergy destruction and cost rate within component k E_ AV;EN
D;k
¼ E_ EN _ UN;EN
D;k  ED;k C_ AV;EN
D;k
¼ cF:k E_ AV
D;k
;EN
Z_ AV;EN
k
¼ Z_ EN _ UN;EN
k  Zk
endogenous associated with the operation of the component itself
Avoidable Avoidable exergy destruction and cost rate within component k caused by E_ AV;EX
D;k
¼ E_ AV _ AV;EN
D;k  ED;k C_ AV;EX
D;k
¼ cF:k E_ AV;EX
D;k
Z_ AV;EX
k
¼ Z_ EX _ UN;EX
k  Zk
exogenous the remaining components
 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380 375

exergoeconomic analyses. The following equations introduces new 1889.68 $/hr and 1263.58 $/hr, respectively, it is because of high
parameters based on the avoidable endogenous section to evaluate flow rate of fuel cost in these devices (80.03 $/GJ). Meanwhile, C-
performance of each the equipment. 105, C-104 and C-106 compressors have the smallest values of
exergy destruction cost, being 0.94 $/hr, 2.42 $/hr and 3.40 $/hr,
E_
emodified ¼ _ P;k
ð26Þ respectively, it is because of low exergy destruction in these
EF;k  E_ UN  E_ AV;EX
D;k D;k devices. Based on the reported numbers in twelfth column of
Table 11 (exergoeconomic factor), heat exchangers own the lowest
AV;EN Z_ AV;EN values of exergoeconomic factor because investment cost of these
fk ¼ k
ð27Þ devices is very low against their exergy destruction cost. This fact
C_ D;k þ Z_ AV;EN
AV;EN
k reveals that improving the efficiency of heat exchangers reduces
total cost of the system. Compressors C-105, C-106 and C-104 pos-
C_ AV;EN
tot ¼ C_ AV;EN
D;k þ Z_ AV;EN
k ð28Þ sess the highest values of exergoeconomic factor equal to 88.76%,
84.85% and 79.34%, respectively. Decreasing exergoeconomic fac-
Eqs. (20), (21) and (22) are related to the modified exergy effi-
tor of the compressors decreases the gross cost of the system.
ciency, modified exergoeconomic factor and the total cost,
respectively.

5. Results and discussion 5.2. Sensitivity analysis

5.1. Conventional exergoeconomic and exergy analyses
Conventional exergoeconomic and exergy analyses was used to
analyze the process of extracting Helium from feed gas stream.
Table 11 lists results of exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. Based
on the data of the fourth column in Table 11, C-203 and C-102
compressors possess the highest exergy destruction equal to
12801.76 kW and 10796.06 kW, respectively. HE-105 and HE-104
heat exchangers possess the highest exergy destruction cost,
Sensitivity analysis was executed to determine effects of the
key parameters on performance of the components considering
exergoeconomic factors. These key parameters are pressure ratio
in compressors C-102 and C-104 and pressure drop in valve V-
203. Fig. 3 presents variation of exergoeconomic factor and exergy
destruction cost of the compressors C-102 and C-103 against the
pressure ratio in compressor C-102. By increasing the compression
ratio of the compressor C-102, value of exergy destruction cost of
C-102 and C-103 compressors rises, whereas for exergoeconomic

Table 11
Exergy and exergoeconomic analyses results of the modified APCI process.

Component ĖF (kW) ĖP (kW) ĖD (kW) cF ($/GJ) cP ($/GJ) ĊD ($/hr) Z_ ($/hr) e (%) yD (%) r (%) f (%)

C-101 14,756 11,807 2949 19.72 30.41 209.39 244.97 80.01 1.79 54.21 53.92
C-102 52,035 41,239 10,796 19.72 28.49 766.43 535.12 79.25 6.55 44.46 41.11
C-103 17,206 12,891 4315 19.72 32.13 306.33 269.44 74.92 2.62 62.92 46.80
C-104 75 41 34 19.72 98.69 2.42 9.28 54.72 0.02 400.48 79.34
C-105 52 39 13 19.72 79.08 0.94 7.40 74.72 0.01 301.04 88.76
C-106 240 192 48 19.72 52.20 3.40 19.06 80.03 0.03 164.70 84.85
C-201 6034 4396 1638 19.72 35.96 116.28 140.71 72.85 0.99 82.35 54.75
C-202 16,363 12,039 4324 19.72 32.83 307.00 261.18 73.57 2.62 66.48 45.97
C-203 57,844 45,042 12,802 19.72 28.85 908.82 571.41 77.87 7.77 46.29 38.60
AC-201 115,887 113,645 2242 19.72 20.15 159.17 17.70 98.07 1.36 2.19 10.01
HE-101 51,683 46,223 5459 11.72 13.16 230.34 8.53 89.44 3.31 12.25 3.57
HE-102 19,347 10,329 9018 11.72 22.17 380.48 8.19 81.34 5.47 89.18 2.11
HE-103 7759 5859 1899 80.02 106.32 547.07 7.78 75.52 1.15 32.87 1.40
HE-104 12,206 7821 4386 80.03 125.17 1263.58 7.37 75.18 2.66 56.41 0.58
HE-105 15,127 8568 6559 80.03 141.52 1889.68 7.03 81.54 3.98 76.84 0.37
E-101 379,498 372,738 6759 2.66 2.71 64.73 6.68 98.22 4.10 2.00 9.36

Fig. 3. Effect of compression ratio variation in compressor C-102 on the exergoeconomic factor and cost of exergy destruction in compressors C-102 and C-103.
376 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380

Fig. 4. Effect of pressure drop in V-203 expansion valve on the exergoeconomic factor and cost of exergy destruction in compressor C-201 and heat exchanger HE-105.

Fig. 5. Effect of compression ratio variation in compressor C-104 on the exergoeconomic factor and exergy destruction of compressors C-104 and C-105.

AV,EN AV,EX UN,EN UN,EX

ĖD,K ĖD,K ĖD,K ĖD,K
100 %
230
222

218

102

166
307
688

437

538
UN=3702

90 %
UN=4303
UN=1452
UN=1455
3480
EX=648

EX=303
1350
1237
EX=647

EX=2048
3615

80 %
Exergy destruction (kW)

UN=4732

70 %
UN=3070

EX=237
UN=7665
UN=4367
426

4566
UN=5378
2763
EN=4022
201

EX=271

EX=439
EN=10148

429

60 %
1360

EX=546
EN=10753

4840
EN=3668

EX=656
7435
3931

50 %
EN=6523
EN=3947
AV=7094

EN=8747

40 %
AV=2860

EN=4913

EN=5903
AV=2872

AV=8499
6668

71
2671

30 %
132
2431

7139

AV=2028

20 %
109

AV=1316

1063 118

1957
1312 41

1184

AV=1181
AV=1092

AV=1353
983

10 %

0%
C-102 C-103 C-202 C-203 HE-101 HE-102 HE-104 HE-105 E-101

Fig. 6. Exergy destruction of the process components.

 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380 377

factor it is vice versa. The reason is that power of C-103 compressor ior is that by increasing the pressure drop more electrical power
decreases with pressure ratio of C-102 compressor. is required in compressor C-201 and more cold energy is required
Fig. 4 illustrates variation of exergoeconomic factor as well as in heat exchanger HE-105.
exergy destruction cost of compressor C-201 and heat exchanger Fig. 5 illustrates variation of exergoeconomic factor and exergy
HE-105 with pressure in V-203 expansion valve. Decreasing the destruction cost of C-104 and C-105 compressors versus compres-
pressure in V-203 expansion valve, increases exergy destruction sion ratio of C-104 compressor. By increasing the pressure ratio of
cost of compressor C-201 and heat exchanger HE-105 and compressor C-104, exergy destruction cost of C-105 increases
decreases their exergoeconomic factor. The reason for this behav- while it is decreases for C-104. Also in this figure exergoeconomic

AV,EN AV,EX UN,EN UN,EX

ĊD,K ĊD,K ĊD,K ĊD,K
100 %

10
16

2
15

155
88
49

18
90 %
UN=263

UN=306
UN=103
UN=103
247
EX=47
Exergy destruction cost ($ hr -1)

EX=21
96
EX=45

EX=146
80 %
88

257
70 %

UN=46
UN=884
UN=324
UN=184

EX=3
UN=1550
31

44
796
EX=126
EN=286
14

EX=12
EN=720

60 %
30

EX=23
97

1395
EX=189
EN=261

EN=764

314
166
50 %

EN=62
EN=1137
40 %
AV=504

EN=369
AV=203

EN=207

EN=1701
AV=204

AV=604
473

1
30 %
190

38
173

507

20 %

AV=19
AV=379
5

34

18
2

341
AV=46

AV=340
AV=57

10 %
41

306
55

0%
C-102 C-103 C-202 C-203 HE-101 HE-102 HE-104 HE-105 E-101

Fig. 7. Exergy destruction cost of the process components.

AV,EN AV,EX UN,EN UN,EX

Ż D,K Ż D,K Ż D,K Ż D,K
100 %
0.1
24.72

13.89

0.08
0.38

0.31
0.36
77.71
33.55

90 %

UN=2.34
UN=3.28
EX=0.25

EX=0.23
UN=3.84

UN=3.10

2.26
3.18

80 %
UN=3.61

EX=0.70
EX=0.74
3.25

2.79
EX=0.85
3.45
Investment cost ($ hr-1)

UN=198.50

70 %
UN=412.05
387.32

EX=18.28
UN=223.64

UN=485.70

0.15
EX=40.42

184.60

EN=6.45
EN=7.95
0.15

60 %
EX=32.11

EX=91.43
190.09

EN=6.33
EN=6.64
407.99

0.39
EN=7.67
0.47

0.38

50 %

40 %
AV=4.34
EN=503.02

EN=229.03

EN=242.90

AV=4.92
EN=479.99

AV=3.94

4.19
AV=4.69

AV=3.76

30 %
4.77

3.55
7.38

4.22

3.38
4.39

20 %
AV=123.08

AV=62.68
38.93 6.87

72.0 13.71
AV=45.81
115.69

58.30

AV=85.7

10 %

0%
C-102 C-103 C-202 C-203 HE-101 HE-102 HE-104 HE-105 E-101

Fig. 8. Investment cost of the process components.

378 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380

Table 12
Comparison between the results of exergy/exergoeconomic analysis of the conventional and advanced techniques.

Component Conventional Advanced

e (%) f (%) Ċtot ($/hr) e modified (%) f AV,EN
(%) ĊAV,EN
tot ($/hr)
C-102 79.25 41.11 1301 86.08 19.64 589
C-103 74.92 46.80 576 84.13 18.41 212
C-202 73.57 45.97 568 81.84 23.51 248
C-203 77.87 38.60 1480 86.32 12.44 579
HE-101 89.44 3.57 239 97.92 9.24 46
HE-102 81.34 2.11 389 88.73 7.93 60
HE-104 75.18 0.58 1271 86.85 0.98 345
HE-105 81.54 0.37 1897 88.97 1.14 309
E-101 98.22 9.36 71 99.48 18.28 23

Table 13
Comparison between different methods of reducing avoidable cost in exergy destruction.

Component Cost of exergy destruction categories ($/hr) Focusing section Methods of reducing of exergy destruction cost

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

C-102 766 504 473 31 EN./EX. * *

C-103 306 203 173 30 EN./EX. * *
C-202 307 204 190 14 EN. *
C-203 909 604 507 97 EN./EX. * * *
HE-101 230 46 41 5 EN. *
HE-102 380 57 55 2 EN. *
HE-104 1264 379 341 38 EN./EX. * * *
HE-105 1890 340 306 34 EN./EX. * *
E-101 65 19 18 1 EN. *
a
Strategy A: Improving the efficiency of the kth device or replacing it with an efficient one.
b
Strategy B: Improving the efficiency other devices.
c
Strategy C: Optimizing the configuration of the whole system.

factor trend for both compressors is reversed. This is because
power of C-105 compressor decreases when pressure ratio of C-
104 compressor increases.
5.3. Advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analysis
Advanced exergy and exergoeconomic method was carried out
to understand about the interaction between the process devices
and computation of improvement potential that could be avoided.
Fig. 6 shows the different parts of exergy destruction in each
device. Exergy destruction is endogenous in all components, hence,
the interactions between the equipment are not considerable. The
extent of avoidable exergy destruction in compressors, is higher
than of the unavoidable. This signifies that to increase efficiency
of the process, performance of the compressors must be improved.
In the meanwhile, majority of exergy destruction in heat exchang-
ers is unavoidable. Compressors C-203 and C-102 also possess the
highest values of avoidable endogenous exergy destruction equal
to 7139 kW and 6668 kW, respectively. It is therefore necessary
to modify these devices first. Fig. 7 shows exergy destruction cost
of the components by detail. Endogenous portion of exergy
destruction cost in all of the components is higher than their
exogenous portion. In heat exchangers, unavoidable exergy
destruction cost section is greater than their avoidable section. This
fact declares that heat exchangers do not have improvement
potential while exergy destruction cost of the compressors is con-
sidered avoidable. The avoidable endogenous part in exergy
destruction cost is the portion that is reducible by improving the
efficiency of the device. According to this part, compressors should
be modified first.
Fig. 8 shows different parts of the investment cost of the com-
ponents. Similar to the exergy destruction and exergy destruction
cost, investment cost of the components is endogenous. The contri-
bution of avoidable investment cost in compressors, is smaller than
their unavoidable part whereas in heat exchangers it is vice versa.
Total costs, exergy efficiency and exergoeconomic parameter of
some process equipment are compared before and after modifica-
tion. As could be seen in Table 12, based on the exergy efficiency,
performance of the components improves after modification. After
modification, exergoeconomic factor of the compressors and heat
exchangers decreases and increases, respectively, whereas the
total costs of all components decreases.
Based on the preventable endogenous portion in exergy
destruction cost, improving performance of the components (strat-
egy A) and replacing inefficient equipment with an efficient one
(strategy A) are proposed to reduce the costs related to irreversibil-
ity of the devices. Based on the preventable exogenous portion of
exergy destruction cost, improving the performance of devices
(strategy B) and optimizing the process structure (strategy C) are
proposed. Table 13 shows the details of these strategies for several
devices.
6. Conclusions
A new flashing based helium extraction process integrated with
a three stage propane refrigeration cycle was modeled and ana-
lyzed by advanced exergy and exergoeconomic methods. Based
on the suggested parameter (g), the proposed process has better
performance (91.11%) to extract the Helium from feed gas stream
comparing to the base APCI process (90%). Results of conventional
exergy method, C-203 and C-102 compressors have the highest
value of exergy destruction, being 12801.76 kW and 10796.06
kW, respectively, and the lowest irreversibility is related to C-
105, C-104 and C-106 compressors respectively. Also, HE-105
 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380
and HE-104 heat exchangers have the highest value of exergy
destruction cost, being 1889.68 $/hr and 1263.58 $/hr, respectively
and similar to the irreversibility, the lowest value of exergy
destruction cost is related to C-105, C-104 and C-106 compressors
respectively. The value of exergoeconomic factor in compressors is
greater than the rest of the devices and it is negligible in heat
exchangers. The main results of the advanced method are summa-
rized as follows:

Irreversibility and exergy destruction costs induced from
remaining equipment are low, therefore the interactions (from
technical and economical viewpoint) between the process
equipment are not strong. On the other hand, investment cost
and exergy destruction of process components is endogenous.

Investment cost of compressors is unavoidable while invest-
ment cost of the heat exchangers is avoidable.

Exergy destruction cost of compressors is avoidable while
exergy destruction cost of heat exchangers is unavoidable.

Based on avoidable endogenous exergy destruction cost, com-
pressors should be subjected for modifications, because this
part of exergy destruction cost plays a main role in the
compressors.

Based on the avoidable endogenous investment cost rate, heat
exchangers have higher priorities for modification.

Strategy A i.e. improving performance of devices and replacing
inefficient equipment with efficient one is the best method to
decrease the exergy destruction cost of the process equipment.
References
[1] D. Kim, Helium Extraction from LNG End Flash, 2014.
[2] T.E. Rufford, K.I. Chan, S.H. Huang, E.F. May, A review of conventional and
emerging process technologies for the recovery of helium from natural gas,
Adsorpt. Sci. Technol. 32 (1) (2014) 49–72.
[3] M.J. Roberts, J.M. Repasky, Method and Apparatus for Producing Products from
Natural Gas Including Helium and Liquefied Natural Gas, Google Patents, 2008.
[4] M. Mehrpooya, A. Shafaei, Advanced exergy analysis of novel flash based
Helium recovery from natural gas processes, Energy 114 (2016) 64–83.
[5] M. Mehrpooya, A. Vatani, S.A. Moosavian, Introducing a new parameter for
evaluating the degree of integration in cryogenic liquid recovery processes,
Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 50 (9) (2011) 916–930.
[6] M. Mehrpooya, H. Dehghani, S.A. Moosavian, Optimal design of solid oxide fuel
cell, ammonia-water single effect absorption cycle and Rankine steam cycle
hybrid system, J. Power Sources 306 (2016) 107–123.
[7] M. Mehrpooya, P. Bahramian, F. Pourfayaz, M.A. Rosen, Introducing and
analysis of a hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell-supercritical carbon dioxide
Brayton cycle system, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 18 (Suppl. C) (2016)
100–106.
[8] M. Mehrpooya, S. Sayyad, M.J. Zonouz, Energy, exergy and sensitivity analyses
of a hybrid combined cooling, heating and power (CCHP) plant with molten
carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and Stirling engine, J. Cleaner Prod. 148 (Suppl. C)
(2017) 283–294.
[9] M. Mehrpooya, C. Rahbari, S.A. Moosavian, Introducing a hybrid multi-
generation fuel cell system, hydrogen production and cryogenic CO2
capturing process, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. (2017).
[10] B. Ghorbani, M.-H. Hamedi, M. Amidpour, M. Mehrpooya, Cascade
refrigeration systems in integrated cryogenic natural gas process (natural
gas liquids (NGL), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nitrogen rejection unit
(NRU)), Energy 115 (2016) 88–106.
[11] A. Vatani, M. Mehrpooya, A. Palizdar, Energy and exergy analyses of five
conventional liquefied natural gas processes, Int. J. Energy Res. 38 (14) (2014)
1843–1863.
[12] A. Vatani, M. Mehrpooya, A. Palizdar, Advanced exergetic analysis of five
natural gas liquefaction processes, Energy Convers. Manage. 78 (2014) 720–
737.
[13] M. Mehrpooya, A. Jarrahian, M.R. Pishvaie, Simulation and exergy-method
analysis of an industrial refrigeration cycle used in NGL recovery units, Int. J.
Energy Res. 30 (15) (2006) 1336–1351.
[14] B. Tirandazi, M. Mehrpooya, A. Vatani, S.A. Moosavian, Exergy analysis of C+2
recovery plants refrigeration cycles, Chem. Eng. Res. Design 89 (6) (2011) 676–
689.
[15] M. Mehrpooya, R. Lazemzade, M.S. Sadaghiani, H. Parishani, Energy and
advanced exergy analysis of an existing hydrocarbon recovery process, Energy
Convers. Manage. 123 (2016) 523–534.
379
[16] M. Mehrpooya, Conceptual design and energy analysis of novel integrated
liquefied natural gas and fuel cell electrochemical power plant processes,
Energy 111 (2016) 468–483.
[17] M. Mehrpooya, M. Kalhorzadeh, M. Chahartaghi, Investigation of novel
integrated air separation processes, cold energy recovery of liquefied natural
gas and carbon dioxide power cycle, J. Cleaner Prod. (2015).
[18] M. Mehrpooya, M.M.M. Sharifzadeh, M.A. Rosen, Optimum design and exergy
analysis of a novel cryogenic air separation process with LNG (liquefied
natural gas) cold energy utilization, Energy 90 (2015) 2047–2069.
[19] Ã. Mehdi Mehrpooya, F. Gharagheizi, A. Vatani, Thermoeconomic analysis of a
large industrial propane refrigeration cycle used in NGL recovery plant, Int. J.
Energy Res. 33 (2009) 960–977.
[20] M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab, Exergoeconomic evaluation of single mixed
refrigerant natural gas liquefaction processes, Energy Convers. Manage. 99
(2015) 400–413.
[21] B. Ghorbani, M. Mehrpooya, M.-H. Hamedi, M. Amidpour, Exergoeconomic
analysis of integrated natural gas liquids (NGL) and liquefied natural gas (LNG)
processes, Appl. Therm. Eng. (2016).
[22] H. Ansarinasab, M. Afshar, M. Mehrpooya, Exergoeconomic evaluation of LNG
and NGL co-production process based on the MFC refrigeration systems, Iran. J.
Oil Gas Sci.Technol. 5 (3) (2016) 45–61.
[23] H. Ansarinasab, M. Afshar, M. Mehrpooya, Comprehensive multi-criteria
comparison and ranking of natural gas liquefaction process by analytic
hierarchy process (AHP), Gas Process. J. 3 (2) (2015) 27–48.
[24] M.-H.H. Bahram Ghorbani, Reza Shirmohammadi, Mohsen Hamedi, Mehdi
Mehrpooya, Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective Pareto optimization
of the C3MR liquefaction process, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 17 (2016)
56–67.
[25] H. Ghaebi, M. Saidi, P. Ahmadi, Exergoeconomic optimization of a
trigeneration system for heating, cooling and power production purpose
based on TRR method and using evolutionary algorithm, Appl. Therm. Eng. 36
(2012) 113–125.
[26] M.H. Ahmadi, M. Mehrpooya, F. Pourfayaz, Exergoeconomic analysis and multi
objective optimization of performance of a Carbon dioxide power cycle driven
by geothermal energy with liquefied natural gas as its heat sink, Energy
Convers. Manage. 119 (2016) 422–434.
[27] E.J.C. Cavalcanti, Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an
integrated solar combined cycle system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67
(2017) 507–519.
[28] Q. Yang, Y. Qian, A. Kraslawski, H. Zhou, S. Yang, Framework for advanced
exergoeconomic performance analysis and optimization of an oil shale
retorting process, Energy 109 (2016) 62–76.
[29] M.-A. Deslauriers, M. Sorin, B. Marcos, M.-A. Richard, Retrofit of low-
temperature heat recovery industrial systems using multiobjective
exergoeconomic optimization, Energy Convers. Manage. 130 (2016) 207–218.
[30] M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab, Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of the
multistage mixed refrigerant systems, Energy Convers. Manage. 103 (2015)
705–716.
[31] H. Ansarinasab, M. Mehrpooya, Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of a novel
process for production of LNG by using a single effect absorption refrigeration
cycle, Appl. Therm. Eng 114 (2017) 719–732.
[32] G.O. Erol, E. Açıkkalp, A. Hepbasli, Performance assessment of an ice rink
refrigeration system through advanced exergoeconomic analysis method,
Energy Build 138 (2017) 118–126.
[33] F. Petrakopoulou, G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk, Evaluation of a power plant with
chemical looping combustion using an advanced exergoeconomic analysis,
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 3 (2013) 9–16.
[34] M.K. Manesh, P. Navid, A.B. Marigorta, M. Amidpour, M. Hamedi, New
procedure for optimal design and evaluation of cogeneration system based
on advanced exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses, Energy 59
(2013) 314–333.
[35] H. Ansarinasab, M. Mehrpooya, Evaluation of novel process configurations for
coproduction of LNG and NGL using advanced exergoeconomic analysis, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 115 (2017) 885–898.
[36] M. Mehrpooya, M.M.M. Sharifzadeh, H. Ansarinasab, Investigation of a novel
integrated process configuration for natural gas liquefaction and nitrogen
removal by advanced exergoeconomic analysis, Appl. Therm. Eng. (2017).
[37] H. Ansarinasab, M. Mehrpooya, A. Mohammadi, Advanced exergy and
exergoeconomic analyses of a hydrogen liquefaction plant equipped with
mixed refrigerant system, J. Cleaner Prod. 144 (2017) 248–259.
[38] M. Mehrpooya, H. Ansarinasab, M.M.M. Sharifzadeh, M.A. Rosen, Process
development and exergy cost sensitivity analysis of a hybrid molten carbonate
fuel cell power plant and carbon dioxide capturing process, J. Power Sources
364 (2017) 299–315.
[39] E. Açıkkalp, H. Aras, A. Hepbasli, Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of an
electricity-generating facility that operates with natural gas, Energy Convers.
Manage. 78 (2014) 452–460.
[40] A. Lazzaretto, G. Tsatsaronis, On the quest for objective equations in exergy
costing, in: Conference On the Quest for Objective Equations in Exergy Costing,
vol. 37, AES, pp. 197–210.
[41] I. Janghorban Esfahani, S. Lee, C. Yoo, Evaluation and optimization of a multi-
effect evaporation–absorption heat pump desalination based conventional and
advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses, Desalination 359 (2015) 92–
107.
[42] S. Kelly, Energy Systems Improvement Based on Endogenous and Exogenous
Exergy Destruction, 2008.
380 H. Ansarinasab et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 368–380

[43] G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk, Advanced exergetic analysis of a refrigeration
system for liquefaction of natural gas, Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 1 (1) (2010)
1–18.
[44] V. Eveloy, W. Karunkeyoon, P. Rodgers, Alili A. Al, Energy, exergy and economic
analysis of an integrated solid oxide fuel cell–gas turbine–organic Rankine
power generation system, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy (2016).
[45] D.F. Cheddie, R. Murray, Thermo-economic modeling of a solid oxide fuel
cell/gas turbine power plant with semi-direct coupling and anode recycling,
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (20) (2010) 11208–11215.
[46] J.R. Cooper, W.R. Penney, J.R. Fair, S.M. Walas, Chemical Process Equipment-
Selection and Design, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2010.