Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Multi-objective optimization and exergetic analysis of a low-grade waste T

heat recovery ORC application on a Brazilian FPSO
⁎
Thiago Gotelip Correa Veloso, César Adolfo Rodriguez Sotomonte, Christian J.R. Coronado ,
Marco A.R. Nascimento
Itajubá Federal University – UNIFEI, Mechanical Engineering Institute – IEM, Av. BPS 1303, Itajubá, MG CEP 37500-903, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents an analysis of the application of an Organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for power generation of a
Organic Rankine Cycle Brazilian FPSO (Floating Product Storage Offload). The peculiarity of this analysis is the investigation of power
Waste heat recovery generation using low-temperature waste heat sources. Low-grade sources represent a significant amount of heat
Optimization rejected on the platform. The primary production in the platform processes was evaluated using ASPEN-HYSYS®
FPSO
software v.8.6. The main sources of low-temperature residual heat were preliminarily identified, and the highest
potential for energy recovery was: the heat rejected in the intercoolers and aftercoolers of the compression
processes in the Main Compression Unit and the CO2 Compression Unit. For the development of this study, a
computational tool was elaborated in MATLAB® to evaluate the thermodynamic performance and to predict the
design of the heat exchanger of the ORC. A multi-objective optimization was conducted to verify the ORC
application at the established sources. The higher net power was obtained at Main Compression Unit heat re-
covery, operating with R245CB2 as working fluid. This application allows to generate up to 2063 kW with a heat
transfer area of 2997 m2, providing a 23.6% increase in exergy efficiency of the system. The results of this study
suggest that the application of ORC cycles on FPSO platforms for heat recovery from low-temperature sources
allows an essential increase in the energy and exergetic efficiency of the production processes of the platform.
Although the ORC doesn’t give a substantial increase in the supply of electricity, they contribute to less gas
consumption in gas turbines. In this way, contributing to a significant reduction of GHG emissions.

1. Introduction
Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO), which is con-
ceptually floating production, storage and transfer units, has become
one of the commercially viable technology options for exploration of
deep-sea oil deposits. Within these perspectives, offshore platforms
have been used to expand the exploration and processing of oil and gas
in several regions of the world.
In Brazil, the expansion of FPSO use is due to the recent oil dis-
coveries in the Pre-salt layer. Significant efforts are being made over-
coming technological and development of national engineering, re-
garding the challenges in the exploration and production of oil and
natural gas in ultra-deep and offshore waters.
The offshore processing of oil and gas is an energy-intensive sector.
Improving the energy generation system in FPSO is an issue of in-
creasing importance, due to the necessity for reducing CO2 and other
greenhouse emissions and improving the efficiency of the platform.
Different methods, such as pinch- and exergy-based methods, are
being investigated to assess the efficiency of offshore oil and gas pro-
cessing [1]. Pinch-based methods are promising tools used to optimize
the efficiency of industrial processes to improve the procedure and the
utility of sites, including fuel cost reduction, process de-bottlenecking,
efficiency improvement, capital planning, and investment reduction
[2].
Exergy analysis is used to characterize the thermodynamic perfor-
mance of these processes and identify possible ways of increasing the
overall performance of platforms. These analyses are essential to pre-
dict different scenarios to improve the energy performance of oil and
gas facilities. Vanner [3] classified these strategies into two categories.
The first possibility is to increase the efficiency of the most energy-
intensive processes to reduce the energy requirements of the processing
plant.
Gallo et al. [4] identified the major sources of irreversibility in an
offshore platform to improve energy use, exergy efficiencies and pos-
sibilities for waste heat recovery. They focused on the diagnosis of the
compression systems of the proposed FPSO. The authors listed the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: christian@unifei.edu.br (C.J.R. Coronado).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.042
Received 2 May 2018; Received in revised form 3 August 2018; Accepted 11 August 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Nomenclature η efficiency
η0 extended surface efficiency [-]
A total heat transfer area [m2] ε heat transfer effectiveness
cp specific heat of fluid at constant pressure [J/kgK] ρ fluid density [kg/m3]
e specific exergy [J/kg] σ ratio of free flow area to frontal area [–]
E exergy [J]
f fanning friction factor [-] Subscriptions
gc proportionally constant in Newton’s second law of motion
[-] 1 evaporator exit/Turbine entrance
Gn fluid mass velocity based on the minimum free area [kg/ 2 turbine exit/Recuperator entrance
m2] 3 recuperator exit/Condenser entrance
h specific enthalpy [J/kg] 4 condenser exit/ Pump entrance
h heat transfer coefficient [W/m2K] 5 pump exit/Recuperator entrance
hf heat transfer coefficient at fin [W/m2K] 6 recuperator Exit/Evaporator entrance
ke contraction loss coefficient for flow at heat exchanger exit 1s saturated vapor condition at evaporator
[-] f super heater entrance (Heat source)*
kc contraction loss coefficient for flow at heat exchanger f1 evaporator entrance*
entrance [-] fout evaporator exit*
L fluid flow (core) length [m] c cold side
ṁ mass flow [kg/s] c1 cooling water entrance
P pressure [Pa] c2 cooling water exit
Q̇ total heat transfer rate [W] con condenser
Rh hot-side film resistance [K/W] evp evaporator
Rh, f hot-side fouling resistance [K/W] rec recuperator
Rw wall thermal resistance [K/W] P pump
R c, f cold-side fouling resistance [K/W] S source
Rc cold-side film resistance [K/W] m mean
S entropy [J/K] max maximum
T temperature [K] min minimum
U overall heat transfer coefficient [W/m2] net net
W power [W] wf working fluid
h hot side
Abbreviations T turbine

CCU CO2 compression unit Superscript

GPP gas processing plant
MCU main compression unit ph physical
ORC organic rankine cycle ch chemical
ODP ozone depletion potencial kn kinetics
PCHE printed circuit heat exchanger pt potential

Greek letters

Δ variation

opportunities for increasing the exergy efficiency of some processes.
Nguyen et al. [5] investigated several technologies for increasing
the energy efficiency of these plants. They aim at reducing electrical or
thermal energy usage, by re-designing some sections of the processing
plant (production manifolds), re-dimensioning the compressors (gas
recompression and treatment), promoting energy and process integra-
tion (heat exchanger network), implementing expanders and waste-
heat recovery cycles. The authors conclude that the most significant
energy saving improvement is associated with the limitation, if pos-
sible, of anti-surge recycling by, for example, adding parallel trains or
re-wheeling them.
Voldsund et al. [6] analyzed and compared the oil and gas proces-
sing plants of four North Sea offshore platforms, based on the exergy
analysis method. The results of the analysis show that 27–57% of the
exergy destruction takes place in the gas treatment sections, 13–29%
take place in the gas recompression sections, and 10–24% occur in the
production manifolds.
Sánchez [7] used a exergy balance formulations to assess the per-
formance of primary petroleum processing operations in offshore
platforms. They simulated the using Aspen HYSYS®. The exergy con-
sumption required for the petroleum heating in the separation process
has a noticeable influence on the whole plant irreversibility.
The second possibility is to improve energy conversion processes.
One way of allowing this improvement is to convert the existing gas
turbines and furnaces into cogeneration plants. The challenges of in-
tegration of steam bottoming cycles are discussed by [8]. Combined
cycle power plants with steam cycles installed on the Oseberg, Snorre
and Eldfisk field to minimize the weight of the heat transfer equipment
are discussed by [9,10]. The air bottoming cycle is evaluated by [11],
and results proved that, despite the low gain in performance, low
weight and short pay-back time are attained.
The difficulties of bottoming cycle implementation are the restric-
tions on weight and physical space, although considerable fuel savings
and reductions of environmental pollutants are achieved. In this re-
spect, alternative energy generation cycles such as ORC are presented
with high potential for this application, because it is a compact system
with a good economic performance due to the simplicity of the cycle
configuration.

538
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al.
According to [12], it is not economical and practical to have a steam
bottoming cycle to increase the efficiency of electricity production, due
to low gas turbine outlet temperature, space and weight restrictions and
the need for make-up water. A more promising option for use offshore is
the Organic Rankine Cycles (ORC).
1.1. Motivation
This study is based on the basic design data for production modules
of eight standard FPSOs proposed for Pre-salt application, the so-called
“replicant FPSO.” The purpose of standardizing process modules and
utilities is to facilitate manufacturing, construction, and assembly. The
equipment contained in each module, whenever possible, should also
be standardized. The amount of equipment per module may vary to suit
the different fields of oil exploration. Interfaces between modules
should be standardized [13].
Most of the studies for FPSO energy generation by residual heat
recovery are based on the use of exhaust gas heat from the gas turbines
already installed on the platforms, providing medium and high-tem-
perature heat sources [13].
The energy potential of each waste heat source is decisive for the
evaluation of the operating parameters of the ORC cycle, to allow
higher power generation with reduced areas. Heat recovery from ex-
haust gas from gas turbine on an FPSO platform is the best alternative
for this plant power support [14].
This study presents a novel investigation to quantifying the poten-
tial of different sources of waste heat recovery on the FPSO. This re-
search reveal that low-grade sources represent a significant amount of
heat rejected on the platform. In this way the potential of ORC to low-
temperature waste heat recovery from the platform process was eval-
uated. The intention is to increase the electric power generation, in-
crease the overall efficiency of the platform process and contribute to
the reducing of GHG emissions.
The main objective of this study is to develop a computational
calculation tool to optimize ORC cycles, establishing a mathematical
model to evaluate the thermodynamic performance of the ORC cycle,
and a mathematical model to predict the design of the heat exchanger.
With this data, the evaluation of the potential for using the ORC cycle
on a Brazilian FPSO platform proposed for the pre-salt oil character-
istics will be suggested.
The great challenge for power generation to support the demand of
this input on an FPSO is mainly due to its restrictions on physical space,
weight limitation and security. In this respect, the ORC cycle is a
technology with high-potential for this application, since it is a compact
system, as well as having an appreciable economic performance due to
the simplicity of the cycle configuration.
The physical area availability of each platform should be different to
meet the characteristics of the fields where they will be installed.
Because of that, the calculation tool developed allows delimiting a set
of optimal solutions that will be presented from the optimized ORC
operation.
In this way, this analysis allows evaluating the best configuration
according to the available areas on the different platforms.
1.2. Organic Rankine cycle
ORC cycles have the same operating principles as the conventional
Rankine cycle, the difference between both is the used working fluid.
Working fluids in an ORC cycle have a low boiling point and a latent
heat of vaporization below that of the water, allowing evaporation at
lower temperatures. This grant better match with the source, eviden-
cing its use for low and medium temperature sources.
The main applications of ORC cycles correspond to the use of
thermal sources: solar energy [15–17], geothermal [18–20], biomass
[21–23] and waste heat recovery [24–27].
FPSO’s are generally converted from oil ships. Girgin and Ezgi [28]
539
Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551
present the analysis of an ORC that uses waste exhaust energy from a
diesel generator on a naval ship operating with 500 kW when cruising.
The ideal ORC could produce 118 kW power with the working fluid
toluene, saving 25,500 L of diesel fuel and reducing CO2 emission by
67.2 tons at the end of 1000 operating hours.
Mondejar et al.[29] proposed a quasi-steady state simulation of a
regenerative organic Rankine cycle (ORC) integrated into a passenger
vessel for waste heat recovery from the exhaust gases. The maximum
net power production of the ORC during the round trip was estimated
to supply approximately 22% of the total on board power demand.
Suárez et al. [30] analyzed the practical application of exhaust gas
waste heat recovery from the main engines of merchant ships. The
author compared a water-based Rankine Cycle with five organic Ran-
kine cycle systems using benzene, heptane, hexamethyldisiloxane, to-
luene and R245fa. They demonstrated with the aid of a case study that a
marine ORC WHRS could achieve yearly fuel savings of around €154 k
and CO2 emission reductions of around 705 ton, which performs an
EEDI decrease of approximately 1.9%. Furthermore, ORC WHRS could
outperform a simple RC by an increase in power output of about 12.0%.
An ORC WHRS achieves up to 17.0% savings in both fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions when compared to a typical RC. The work also
shows that the use of a marine WHRS on board recovers the initial
investment in less than three years, regardless of the working fluid
selected.
Nguyen and Fülöp et al. [1] conducted a multi-objective optimiza-
tion for evaluating the integration of steam heat recovering from the
turbine exhausts and organic Rankine cycles recovering heat from the
exported gas. The integration of a steam Rankine cycle appeared to be
the most promising option between these two distinct applications.
Pierobon et al. [31] proposed a multi-objective optimization for gas
turbine waste heat recovery on an offshore platform using ORC. The
objectives considered were thermal efficiency, the total volume of the
system and net present value. Results suggest two optimal working
fluids, i.e. acetone and cyclopentane. Barrera et al. [32] presented an
exergy performance analysis of the processes on board a Brazilian FPSO
and proposed the integration of an ORC for improving its efficiency.
Walnum et al. [33] studied the possibility of using heat recovery for
further power generation from the exhaust heat using CO2 bottoming
cycles under design and off-design conditions. The results showed that
this technology can increase plant efficiency under design and part-load
conditions. The CO2 bottoming cycles were analyzed as well, and the
results show that CO2-cycles may be much less space-demanding for
similar efficiencies and capacities [34,35].
Nguyen et al. [5] suggest that importing electricity from the shore
would be an alternative way of improving energy conversion processes,
or by replacing the existing gas turbines with smaller and more effi-
cient-ones, if possible.
Most industrial activities reject about half of all heat generated in
their production processes [36]. Residual heat recovery as a heat source
accounts for about 12.7% of all installed capacity of ORC cycle appli-
cations, with 116.8 MW installed. The main sources of heat used are gas
turbine exhaust gases and internal combustion engines, representing
66.8% of the installed capacity for this application.
Rohde et al. [37] analyzed the power production from compressed
export gas on offshore platforms, with a subcritical propane cycle, a
transcritical CO2 cycle and a transcritical cycle with a mixture of pro-
pane and ethane. The author concludes that more than 10% of the
export gas compression work could be recovered.
2. Technical description
Usually, the technical specifications for FPSO processing capabilities
are designed according to the production field in which it they will be
finally installed, considering the reservoir characteristics (gas-to-oil
ratio, water-to-oil ratio, rock permeability and so on), properties of the
extracted fluid (hydrocarbon characteristics), technical requirements
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al.
and decisions on technology implementations [4].
Oil by itself has a low water content and a small number of light
hydrocarbons in its composition, but its extraction process occurs along
with the presence of water and gases. According to [38], offshore se-
paration of these three phases is necessary to maximize oil production
and minimize its gas and water content for economic reasons and
production process requirements.
Oil extraction activity involves the removal of various materials
such as gas, water, sand, and salt together with the well fluid. These
impurities must be removed from the crude oil before being processed
in refineries or used as fuel. The main objective of an FPSO production
unit is to separate the fluid from reservoir exploration in oil, gas, and
water. Then, each of these streams passes through a series of operations
order to satisfy specifications until their end use, which may be ex-
portation, treatment for use in the process, or disposal.
The FPSO platforms are equipped with storage systems that corre-
spond to large tanks where the oil is stored on deck until it is sent to oil
tankers, or directly to the continent via pipelines. In the Gas Processing
Plant (GPP), the extracted and separated natural gas is subjected to a
series of treatment processes according to its final purpose. The gas can
be exported to the continent, used for injection in wells, lifting, and
used on platforms for generating power.
The offshore separation of these three phases is necessary to max-
imize oil production and minimize its gas and water content, for eco-
nomic reasons and production process requirements. Fig. 1 summarizes
the operation of an FPSO based on [13], described below:
Production Manifold: Crude oil is extracted from one or more wells
and transferred to the work of ducts and a system of collectors. A system
of valves delivers the fluids to the separation unit.
Separation and oil treatment: In the separation unit, the flow is
separated into oil, water, and gas, by gravity, dehydration and heating
process. The treatment of the oil aims to reduce the water content of the
oil until it reaches the level required for sale, generally evaluated by the
BSW (Bottom Sediments and Water) indicator.
Vapor Recovery Unit: This unit includes a compression step fol-
lowed by condensation, absorption, and adsorption. This system aims to
reduce GHG venting and use the recovered gas in the next stages of the
plant. A screw compressor composes this system with two stages driven
by an electric motor.
Main Compression Unit: In the Main Compression Unit (MCU), there
is a re-compression of the gases from the gas separation processes.
Gas dehydration Unit: Gas dehydration on off-shore platforms is
conventionally achieved by a glycol absorption or adsorption system or
Fig. 1. Summary of Operation in an FPSO.
540
Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551
another dehydrating agent such as methanol. After the re-compression
unit, a dehydration step is necessary to prevent corrosion problems
from forming hydrates in the gas pipes, and to meet the specifications
for sale or injection.
Dew point Control System: This unit is designed to inhibit the for-
mation of solid hydrates in gas streams, and by default, they perform a
level of dehydration. Hydrocarbon condensates that may affect the gas
transportation by pipelines for exportation.
CO2 Removal Unit: Separation of CO2 from natural gas is performed
by membranes to meet gas export specifications.
Gas Exportation Compression: When possible, most of the separated
gas is sold and exported to the mainland via pipelines. The capacity of
the compressors, and therefore their energy consumption, depends on
the gas flow and the pressure drop along the lines. This process consists
of two compressor trains with two stages each, driven by induction
motors.
CO2 Compression Unit: At the CO2 Compression Unit (CCU), the
CO2 removed in the oil and gas processing undergoes two parallel
compression trains with four-compression stages, an intercooler of
printed circuit type switches follows each step. A gas turbine powers
each compression train.
Gas Injection Compression: This unit has two compression trains
driven by induction motors to inject the produced gas into the re-
servoirs.
Produced Water Treatment: The wastewater treatment system re-
moves oil and solid waste from the water stream using hydrocyclones to
meet the specifications for its final use. Seawater is supplied to the
system, pumped and processed in the cooling water system. A large part
is used in the process of re-injecting water into the oil extraction tank to
maintain the oil pressure and provide a secondary oil recovery.
Fuel Gas System: During the operation mode of the gas plant, with
the removal of CO2 through the membrane system, the fuel gas must be
taken on the side of the natural gas, downstream of the membranes.
Fuel gas can also be collected from any stage or downstream of the
export compression system if turbine manufacturers require more
pressure.
The GPP is made up of sectors with high electricity demand.
Substantial exergy destruction is associated with the gas compression
train, as the compressors typically used on offshore oil platforms feature
a relatively low isentropic efficiency and gas recirculation. Therefore,
flow variations are expected and surge must be prevented [39].
According to [1] the efficiency of the compressors is higher at peak
production since they are designed for this operating condition.
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al.
Equipment efficiencies do not vary significantly during the FPSO op-
erating period (5% over the period) since gas flow rates at their inlets
are adjusted by gas recirculation. In addition, the regular service and
constant maintenance activities of the compressors are directed at
eliminating the negative effects of degradation and incrustations.
Using this waste heat to generate electricity is a very attractive
proposition because the heat exchangers must be installed anyway and
thus the added installation weight and cost for a power generation
system are relatively low. The energy recovery potential is still mod-
erate due to the low-temperature level and obviously depends on the
heat source conditions [37].
3. Methodology
In this study a physical model of the systems of interest was de-
veloped, using ASPEN-HYSYS® software v.8.6 for simulation of the
processes according to the operation data, based on measurements
provided by the FPSO replicant project [13]. From this simulation, the
properties and compositions of each material and energy stream of the
FPSO were determined. This analysis comprises a mass, energy and
exergy balances for each process and equipment.
From this analysis, it was possible to identify preliminarily the main
sources of waste heat from the platform. According to this analysis, the
most significant amount of waste heat generated in the platform is due
to the heat generated during gas compression activities by the GPP. The
major exergy losses on the platform are associated with this rejection of
high-temperature exhaust gases since only a minor fraction of this
waste heat is recovered [1].
The measurement of the maximum heat available in the heat source
in GPP operations is calculated by lowering the initial temperature to
the outlet temperature of the FPSO condenser. According to the con-
dition of the operational limit imposed in the platform process.
According to [40] working fluids in ORC cycles can be categorized
into seven major classes: Hydrocarbons; Perfluorocarbons; Siloxanes;
Ethers; Alcohols; Perfluorocarbons and straight chain hydrocarbons
partially substituted by fluorine. In this study 26 different working
fluids of the halogenated classes (with hydrogen atoms partially or
totally replaced by fluorine atoms) were evaluated. These fluids are
considered inert and stable, with a complex molecule structure and
with a significant ODP level (often equal to zero), although not pro-
viding the best thermodynamic conditions.
The characteristics of these fluids make them favorable to their
application in FPSO, mainly in relation to the safety level of the
Fig. 2. ORC integration at CO2 Compression Unit.
541
Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551
operation. Hydrocarbons, Ethers, and Alcohols were disregarded be-
cause of their flammability characteristics. Siloxanes and Inorganics
fluids did not present a good thermodynamic performance for the
analyzed heat sources and were disregarded in the optimization pro-
cess. In Fig. 4 the fluids evaluated in this study are presented, according
to the critical pressure and temperature parameters and the maximum
operating temperature.
3.1. Waste heat evaluation
The focus of the thermodynamic model development is the char-
acterization of the waste heat sources at the production stages in the
GPP. The first step in the development of the thermodynamic model is
to determine the energy potential of each source as a function of its
chemical composition, pressure, temperature and molar flow.
The analysis for integrating these sources into the ORC cycle con-
sists of determining the amount of thermal energy available in each of
these. The modeling of the heat sources allows the equation of these for
integration into the thermodynamic analysis model of the ORC cycle.
The MCU consists of three parallel compressor trains to accom-
modate the gas flow.11 MW induction motors drive each compression
train through variable speed drives. After compression, the gas flow
passes through a printed circuit type aftercooling condenser. The in-
tercooler ensures that the dehydration takes place under optimum
conditions and reduces the power demand of the second compression;
the aftercooling prevents unacceptably high gas temperatures at the
pipeline inlet. The heat is released into the sea and therefore wasted.
The proposed integration of the ORC cycle in the MCU is shown in
Fig. 2.
The CCU presents a high potential for residual heat recovery. A
representation of the process can be seen in Fig. 3. The application of
the ORC cycle was investigated by recovering heat individually, in the
intercoolers between the four stages of compression, and in the after-
cooler after the fourth stage of compression.
The gas flow composition at CCU and MCU are presented in Table 1
according to the general process specification for the FPSO studied.
Table 2 presents the operating conditions of each Unit evaluated using
the ASPEN-HYSYS® software v.8.6.
The results of the simulations of the processes are consistent with
the platform operation data. In this way, it can be affirmed that the use
of the tool was efficient to evaluate the heat recovery potential in the
FPSO.
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Fig. 3. ORC integration at Main Compression Unit.

3.2. Thermodynamic model of ORC cycle Table 1

Composition of gases.
The properties of the working fluids, operating parameters and the Component Composition
configuration of the thermal system play a fundamental role in the
thermodynamic efficiency and economic viability of the ORC cycle. CCU [%] MCU [%]
Mass and energy balance equations that describe the performance of
H2O 0.002 0.5562
each component in the thermal system were integrated into a Matlab
N2 0.2034 –
2014ª® computational model. This analysis provides the steady-state CO2 70.7978 2.9909
operating point for a given target application (platform heat source) Methane 27.5123 76.9367
and environmental conditions. The thermodynamic properties of the Ethane 1.2103 9.2106
Propane 0.2140 5.9823
different working fluids are evaluated using the REFPROP 9.1® data-
Others 0.0602 4.3233
base. The diagram in Fig. 5 describes the ORC cycle configuration in-
tegrated with the heat source.
For the system simulation, it was assumed that the cycle operates Table 2
under steady-state conditions, pipe pressure drop is ignored, and heat Operation condition data.
losses to or from the surroundings together with potential and kinetic
Unit Temperature [°C] Pressure Mass flow [kg/ Heat [kW]
energy changes are ignored. The quality of the fluid at the exhaust of
[kPa] s]
the turbine is higher than 0.9. The turbine and pump efficiency are
constant. 1° Stage CCU 415.15 1144.4 55.5 6588.0
Generally, radial-inflow turbine efficiency is assumed to be a con- 2° Stage CCU 417.15 3133.8 55.5 7025.2
3° Stage CCU 418.15 8825.6 55.5 9094.4
stant value in the conventional ORC system analysis. In these analyses a
4° Stage CCU 408.15 25109.9 55.5 10918.8
common value of turbine and pump isentropic efficiency for ORC ap- MCU 431.15 8196.1 61.8 19980.0
plications is 80%, as presented respectively by [41,42].
Song et al. [41] conducted a thermodynamic analysis of the ORC
system with a model-predicted turbine efficiency and a constant turbine lead to different radial-inflow turbine design and then different turbine
efficiency and compared the results with each other. Considering the efficiency, and vice versa. The main design parameters of the turbine
turbine efficiency as constant, it will impact the ORC system parameter geometry are also determinant for the efficiency of the equipment [43],
determination. Different thermal parameters of the ORC system would as well its operation condition [44].

Fig. 4. Working fluid characteristics.

542
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Fig. 5. ORC diagram.

Table 3 ̇ and cycle efficiency ηORC are given by:

Finally, net power Wnet
Thermodynamic model validation.
̇ = WT −WP
Wnet (9)
Parameter EBSILON 12.05 Model Error [%]
̇
Wnet
Temperature Tf [K] 667.910 667.910 0.000% ηORC =
̇ , ORC
Qin (10)
Temperature Tf2 [K] 590.538 590.548 0.002%
Temperature Tfout [K] 573.114 573.128 0.002% The model assumptions and parameters constrain at thermo-
Temperature T1s [K] 490.549 490.548 0.000% dynamic model are, based on [45]:
Temperature T1 [K] 650.540 650.548 0.001%
Temperature T2 [K] 376.680 376.680 0.000% PP = Tf 2−T1s ≥ 3[K ] (11)
Temperature T3 [K] 376.680 376.680 0.000%
Temperature T4 [K] 374.730 374.730 0.000% ΔT = Tf −T1 ≥ 10[K ] (12)
Temperature T5 [K] 375.008 375.007 0.000%
Temperature T6 [K] 375.008 375.007 0.000% ΔT0 = Tfout−T6 ≥ 5[K ] (13)
High pressure (1, 1s, 5, 6) [kPa] 2206.400 2206.400 0.000%
Low pressure (2, 3, 4) [kPa] 107.271 107.271 0.000% The numerical solution of the mathematical model was validated
with EBSILON@Professional 12.05 software, which uses the REFPROP
9.1® data library, as in the proposed model, in which case there is no
The working fluid at the condenser outlet is saturated liquid. The significant error in the results as shown in Tables 2 and 3. These pro-
condensation pressure of the cycle is determined as a function of the fessional software’s are used to describe ORC operation parameters.
condensation temperature T4, the lowest condensing temperature con- Kalina el al. [46] use the EBSILON to modeling a newly built biomass
sidered is 40 °C [13]. Working fluids operate only in subcritical con- fired system, that consists of VAS thermal oil boiler and the Turboden
dition. T6-CHP ORC commercial unit of 606 kW electric power output.
Eqs. (1)–(4) show energy balance and isentropic efficiency defini-
tions for the expander and pump respectively. 3.3. Heat exchanger design
WṪ = ṁ wf (h1−h2) (1)
The ORC cycle equipment design is essential for a more realistic
h1−h2 assessment of the cycle's operating parameters so that it can evaluate
ηT =
h1−h2, is (2) more practical results in the optimization process.
Most of the authors in their ORC cycle optimization proposals as-
ẆP = ṁ wf (h5−h4 ) (3) sume several simplifications concerning the major components of the
cycle. Such simplifications have a significant influence on the perfor-
h5−h4, is
ηP = mance and cost of these technologies, leading to results that are not
h5−h4 (4)
always realistic [47].
Eqs. (5)–(7) give the energy balance of the condenser and eva- An analysis of the performance of a heat exchanger was proposed
porator. for a printed circuit heat exchanger (PCHE) with two different channel
geometries: wavy (zigzag) channels, offset strip fins. The heat ex-
̇ = ṁ wf (h3−h4 ) = ṁ c (hc1−hc 2)
Qcon (5) changer thermal design is based on [48,49] studies, using the classic
̇ = ṁ s (hf −h f ) = ṁ wf (h1−h6) LMTD method summarized in Fig. 6:
Qevp out (6)
The main equations are briefly described below:
Eqs. (7)–(8) show the effectiveness definition and energy balance of
Qḣ = ṁ h cp h (Th, i−Th, o) (14)
the recuperator.
T6−T5 Qċ = ṁ c cp c (Tc, o−Tc, i ) (15)
εrec =
T2−T5 (7)
Q̇ Ch (Th, i−Th, o) Cc (Tc, o−Tc, i )
ε= = =
̇ = ṁ wf (h2−h3) = ṁ wf (h6−h5)
Qrec (8) ̇
Qmax Cmin (Th, i−Tc, i ) Cmin (Th, i−Tc, i ) (16)

543
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Fig. 6. Heat exchanger design diagram.
e = e ph + e ch + e kn + e pt (20)
In this study, the kinetic and potential effects on the exergy asso-
ciated with material flows are considered negligible compared to the
physical and chemical contributions. The terms of potential exergy are
negligible in compressible fluids, which are the object of study of this
work. The term kinetic exergy is important in turbine-related flows but
can be discarded considering that this term in the output of equipment
is used in the following equipment and does not affect the analysis of
the whole [51].
According to a study by [1], in practice, there is energy consump-
tion in the elevation of water and other fluids in the platform, and
height differences are considered in the calculations of pressure and
physical exergy. The kinetic exergy is destroyed in the wells and ducts
as there is a reduction of the velocity of the oil and gas flows to facil-
itate the separation between the vapor and liquid phases. Likewise, in
the exergy evaluation of an oil exploration plant, Nguyen et al. [52]
states that the estimation of kinetic and potential exergy in a plant is
impaired by the lack of measurement of these parameters throughout
the processes and their effects can be neglected.
In this way, the exergy of the evaluated systems is only a function of
the physical exergy component. According to [53], in the particular
case of a mass flow of a stable open system, the physical exergy off a
mass flow can be obtained by the following expression:
EPH = (H −H0)−T0 (S−S0) (21)
Bejan et al. [50], defines that those flows that act as sources of
exergy are called resources (F) necessary for the manufacture of a given
product (P). It can be affirmed that every thermal system interacts with
its environment consuming external resources (F) that are later trans-
formed into products (P). Besides, it is probable that within the system
there are flows whose utility is zero, and these are considered as losses
(L). The application of these concepts is used to apply the balance of
exergy in the evaluated FPSO systems, Table 4.

3.5. Optimization
Table 4
Thermodynamic model validation (Equipment).
Defining the best ORC cycle configuration integrated with residual
Parameter EBSILON 12.05 Model Error [%]
heat sources in an FPSO is not a simple intelligible process. The para-
Turbine power [kW] 2794.057 2794.074 0.001% metric evaluation is not sufficient for a satisfactory analysis of the
Pump power [kW] 14.995 14.994 0.007% thermodynamic performance of the system since the implementation of
Condenser duty [kW] 12323.304 12323.308 0.000% the ORC cycle for FPSO application considers conflicting objectives: the
Evaporator duty [kW] 15107.994 15108.016 0.000%
maximization of the power generation and the minimization of the area
UA condenser [kW/K] 174.498 174.494 0.002%
UA evaporator [kW/K] 131.031 131.032 0.001%
of the equipment that composes the cycle.
The multi-objective optimization proposed in this study aims to
better configure the ORC cycle by evaluating the objective functions
2gc η Δp ⎛ j ⎞ ⎤
1/2 independently. In this aspect, the optimization process evaluates dif-
Gn = ⎡ · o ferent combinations of cycle design parameters (working fluid, pinch
⎢ (1/ ρ)m ·Pr 2/3 ntu ⎜ f ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ (17) point in the evaporator and condenser, overheating, vaporization
pressure and heat recovery efficiency).
1 1 1
= Rh + Rh, f + Rw + R c, f + R c = + + Rw A multi-objective problem requires the simultaneous satisfaction of
UA (ηo hA)h (ηo hf A)h
many different and often conflicting objectives, making it impossible to
1 1 find a solution that satisfies all the objectives simultaneously.
+ +
(ηo hf A)c (ηo hA)c (18) Therefore, it is necessary to find the set of optimal solutions.
The optimal Pareto solution is the critical concept to establish a
hierarchy among the solutions of a multi-objective optimization pro-
Δp =
⎡ 2 ρi
( ) L
Gn2 ⎢ (1−σ + K c ) + 2 ρo −1 + f rh ρi ( ) ⎤⎥
1
ρ m blem, determining if this solution is indeed one of the possible best
2gc ρi ⎢ ρ
− (1−σ 2−K e ) ρ i ⎥ results. Thus, a solution is an optimal Pareto point if no other point in
⎢
⎣ o ⎥
⎦ (19)
the search space is better for all goals.
In this research, the NSGA-II method described by [54] is used,
which is a multi-objective Genetic Algorithm that classifies the optimal
3.4. Exergy analysis solutions according to the concept of Pareto dominance.
Each optimization case considers two objective functions:
In the absence of nuclear, magnetic and electrical interactions, the
exergy associated with the flow of matter is a function of the physical
• Maximization of net electric power Wn [kW]
exergy components eph, chemical ech, kinetics ekn and potential ept, and
is expressed as [50]:
• Minimization of the heat exchanger area [m ]. 2

544
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Fig. 7. Results of Stage 1 CCU optimization.

Fig. 8. Results of Stage 2 CCU optimization.

The considered area is the sum of the whole of the heat exchange
surface area of this equipment. This area is calculated using the sub-
routine (Fig. 6) design program to design a printed circuit and plate-fin
heat exchanger.
4. Results
The multi-objective optimization process maps the decision vari-
ables to find a series of procedures for how to combine the input con-
ditions, such that the values of the objective functions are acceptable, or
in some sense optimal. The optimization of the problem evaluation led
to the set of optimal solutions in the search space, thus determining the
Pareto frontier according to the established objective functions.
The results for heat recovery in low-temperature platform sources
are presented below for the CCU and MCU. In this procedure, the op-
timization of the operating parameters of the cycle, for each working
fluid evaluated and for the different heat sources investigated, allowed
the determination of the set of operating conditions that guarantee the
best performance of the ORC cycle, according to the objective func-
tions. The minimum power generation limited for each source was
200 kW. Lower values were considered not appropriate for this appli-
cation [13].
The results presented are the Pareto frontiers of the optimization
process. Different fluids made up the Pareto frontier for maximizing
power generation in parallel with the minimization of the total area of
the ORC cycle. In this way, the results presented from the lowest es-
tablished net power up to the maximum generated, are results of the
combination of ORC cycle parameters that allow the smallest possible
area for that condition. The choice of a single optimal result will depend
preponderantly on the constraint of the physical area of each platform.
At CCU the ORC application was investigated to heat recovery from
the intercoolers between the four stages of compression, and in the
aftercooler after the fourth stage of compression individually.
In the first stage of compression two working fluids make up the
frontier of optimal results. The different combinations of ORC cycle
operation parameters allow the generation of power with the minimum

545
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al.
Fig. 9. Results of Stage 3 CCU optimization.
Fig. 10. Results of Stage 4 CCU optimization.
area of 220 [m2] operating with R245fa fluid. The highest net power
generated by the ORC cycle was 597.7 kW, with a total heat transfer
area of 2312.2 [m2] with R236fa working fluid, Fig. 7.
In the intermediate stage of the second compression stage, the range
of results requires the minimum total area from 179.6 [m2] to the
maximum area of 2261.2 [m2] for the highest power of 692.2 [kW].
Two working fluids determined the optimal results, R245ca for a range
between 200 and 300 kW, and R236fa above that, Fig. 8.
The recovery of residual heat from the third compression stage al-
lowed the generation of 888.6 [kW] of net power, with an area of
2228.3 [m2]. As in the first two stages, the highest power generation
resulting from the optimization of the ORC cycle was obtained with
R236fa working fluid. For power ratings below 230 [kW], the selected
working fluid would be R1233ZD, with the minimum area of
179.2 [m2], Fig. 9.
In the heat recovery of the aftercooler after the fourth stage of
compression, only RC318 fluid composes the optimal results. At this
546
Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551
stage, it was possible to generate 938.8 kW of net power requiring a
total heat transfer area of 1340 [m2], and the minimum area of
163 [m2], Fig. 10.
The analysis of heat recovery at CCU reveals an increase in the
amount of energy from the waste heat flow rejected by the condenser in
each stage. In this way the energy generation by the ORC cycle in-
creases at each stage, followed by the decrease of the required heat
transfer area.
At MCU three fluids make up the optimal results frontier for dif-
ferent operating ranges of the ORC cycle, Fig. 11. For the generation of
lower net power, between 200 and 470 kW, the optimum fluid was
R1233ZD with a minimum area of 130 [m2]. For average net power
between 470 and 750 kW the best operating condition is with R245FA.
Above this range, the fluid that provided the highest net power gen-
eration was R245CB2 reaching 2063 kW with a heat transfer area of
2997 m2.
The comparison of the ORC cycle optimization results for heat
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Fig. 11. Results of Stage MCU optimization.

Fig. 12. Low-grade waste heat recovery comparison.

recovery in low-temperature sources in the FPSO is presented in Fig. 12.
From this analysis, it was concluded that among the low-quality
sources, the most significant potential for heat recovery would be the
MCU. In this way, this application should be considered the most sui-
table for the implementation of an ORC cycle, providing the highest net
power generation aligned with smaller areas. Evaluating only CCU
sources, the third stage of compression allows the highest power gen-
eration combined with smaller areas in the range of 200–700 kW.
Above this value, heat recovery from the compressor aftercooler pro-
vides the optimal ORC results.
The relation between the net power produced by the ORC cycle and
the total heat transfer shown in Fig. 13 confirms the most considerable
advantages of using heat recovery in the MCU and the best range of
operation in the CCU. There is a significant decrease in this relation as
the power generation increases. The low quality and temperature of the
waste heat source cause the required heat exchange area to increase
significantly for higher power generation.
The use of low-quality waste heat sources has less potential for
electricity generation than turbine heat recovery. However, this ana-
lysis has an impact on increasing the efficiency of the systems. The net
power produced by the ORC cycle in the aftercooler of the fourth
compression stage represents 21.4% of the consumption of this com-
pressor, Table 5.
The evaluation of exergy in the systems presented reveals the po-
tential of implementing ORC cycles in FPSO processes. In Fig. 14, an
exergetic analysis is presented concerning the optimized results of ORC
cycles. The increase in the exergy efficiency of the ORC cycle is directly
related to the increase of the net power produced by the cycle, and
consequently an increment of the efficiency of the compression system.
The use of ORC cycles promotes a significant gain in exergetic efficiency

547
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Fig. 13. Net power Ratio.

Table 5
Schematic diagram of exergy evaluation.
Resources Product Efficiency

FPSO compressor Wc ̇ −EFa

EFb ̇ ̇ − EFa
EFb ̇
ηII =
Wc

ORC EḞ −EFout

̇ Wn =WT −WP ηII =
Wn
̇ − EFout
EF ̇

FPSO compressor + ORC Wc ̇ −EFa

EFb ̇ + Wn ̇ − EFa
EFb ̇ + Wn
ηII =
Wc

in all evaluated systems. The implement of the ORC cycle in the
aftercooler of the CCU provides the highest exergy efficiency increases
for the compression stage.
In Table 6 the results of the exergy evaluation for the conditions of
greater generation of net power by the cycle ORC are presented. The
thermal efficiency values of the ORC cycles are between 9.23 and
10.84%, the current amount for the operation of these cycles. The ex-
ergetic efficiency of the ORC cycles under these conditions is in the
range of 50.9–56.14%. It can be observed that the use of the ORC cycle
provided an increase in exergetic efficiency at each of the compression
stages of the CCU and in the MCU. In the aftercooler of the CCU, the
exergetic efficiency of the compression stage is increased from 43.94 to
65.36%, representing an increase of 48% (see Table 7).
In a scenario of operation with ORC cycles at each of the com-
pression stages of the CO2, Compression Unit the cumulative capacity of
the power generation cycles would be 3117.3 [kW]. This power gen-
eration represents 14% of the unit's total power consumption. Also, the
exergy efficiency of the whole unit would increase from 55.61% to
69.64%, an increase of more than 25%. This scenario is not a realistic
option regarding the availability of the physical area on the platform.
The heat recovery only in the last stage of compression of the CCU
allows a power generation by the ORC cycle which represents 4.22% of

548
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al. Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551

Fig. 14. Exergetic analysis of ORC cycle application.

Table 6 and minimize the area. A mathematical model to evaluate the ther-
Relevance of ORC application. modynamic performance of the ORC cycle and to predict the design of
Unit ORC Net ORC Area Compressor Rate [%]
the heat exchanger was developed in MATLAB®.
power [kW] [m2] consumption [kW] The results presented constitute the Pareto frontier of the proposed
optimization. In this way, each of these is an optimal result, which
1° Stage 597.7 2312.1 6181.8 9.66 guarantees the best combination of ORC cycle parameters. Since the
CCU
2° Stage 692.2 2261.1 6062.9 11.4
physical area availability of each platform should be different to meet
CCU the characteristics of the fields, the presented methodology allows
3° Stage 888.6 2228.3 5585.5 15.9 evaluating different configurations according to the area possibility of
CCU each platform.
4° Stage 938.8 1340.1 4383.5 21.4
The FPSO process analyses indicate that there is a very significant
CCU
MCU 2063.3 2997.7 14809.5 13.9 amount of waste heat at the compression systems in CCU and MCU.
Heat recovery in MCU and CCU aftercoolers are the most promising
options for FPSO low-temperature heat recovery. In the MCU it was
the overall consumption of the compressor, and an increase of the ex- possible to generate higher net power by operating with R245CB2 fluid.
ergetic efficiency of each unit in the order of 7%. The implementation This operation allows the generation of up to 2063 kW with a heat
of the system in the MCU allows a more significant power generation, transfer area of 2997 m2, providing a 23.6% increase in exergy effi-
which represents 13.93% of the compressor consumption in the unit, in ciency of the system.
addition to a 23.6% increase in exergy efficiency of the operation. The highest net power generated in the CCU was 938.8 kW oper-
ating with RC318 fluid, requiring a total heat transfer area of 1340 m2.
Net power generation at this stage represents 21.4% of the stage's
5. Conclusion power consumption and 4.22% of all compression compressors, in ad-
dition to an increase of 48.74% in the exergetic efficiency of the stage
This study presented a multiobjective optimization of the ORC ap- and 7.0% about the unit’s entire compressor system. Different working
plication for low-quality residual heat recovery for the Brazilian FPSO. fluids made up the Pareto frontier at the different sources.
This analysis is based on the basic design data for production modules The results of this study suggest that the application of ORC cycles
of eight standard FPSOs proposed for application in the Pre-salt. The on FPSO platforms for heat recovery from low-temperature sources
optimization objective functions were maximizing the ORC net power

Table 7
Exergetic analysis.
Unit Net Power [kW] ORC ηI [%] ORC ηII [%] CSηII [%] CS + ORC ηII [%] ηII increase [%]

1° Stage CCU 597.7 10.47 51.87 63.06 72.73 15.33

2° Stage CCU 692.2 10.84 54.85 61.00 72.42 18.71
3° Stage CCU 888.6 10.48 56.14 54.70 70.61 29.10
4° Stage CCU 938.8 9.23 50.97 43.94 65.36 48.74
MCU 2063.3 11.37 56.13 59.05 73.00 23.60

549
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al.
allows an essential increase in the energy and exergetic efficiency of the
production processes of the platform. Although the ORC doesn’t give a
substantial increase in the supply of electricity, they contribute to less
gas consumption in gas turbines. In this way, contributing to a sig-
nificant reduction of CO2 emissions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank BG E&P Brazil (BG-20) for the fi-
nancial support to the project “BG18: Waste Heat Recovery FPSO Units
Using Non-Conventional Rankine Cycles”, and Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES (DS) – Brazil for
funding this study.
References
[1] Van Nguyen T, Fülöp TG, Breuhaus P, Elmegaard B. Life performance of oil and gas
platforms: site integration and thermodynamic evaluation. Energy
2014;73:282–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.021.
[2] Abdul Aziz E, Wan Alwi SR, Lim JS, Abdul Manan Z, Klemeš JJ. An integrated pinch
analysis framework for low CO2 emissions industrial site planning. J Clean Prod
2017;146:125–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.175.
[3] Vanner R. Energy use in offshore oil and gas production: trends and drivers for
efficiency from 1975 to 2025. Policy Stud Inst; 2005.
[4] Gallo WLR, Gallego AG, Acevedo VL, Dias R, Ortiz HY, Valente BA. Exergy analysis
of the compression systems and its prime movers for a FPSO unit. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
2017;44:287–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.04.023.
[5] Nguyen T, Voldsund M, Breuhaus P, Elmegaard B. Energy efficiency measures for
offshore oil and gas platforms. Energy 2016;117:325–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2016.03.061.
[6] Voldsund M, Nguyen T-V, Elmegaard B, Ertesvåg IS, Røsjorde A, Jøssang K, et al.
Exergy destruction and losses on four North Sea offshore platforms: a comparative
study of the oil and gas processing plants. Energy 2014;74:45–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.080.
[7] Orlando W, Bohorquez I, Johan R, Bastiaans M. Stationary gas turbine combustors
using conventional and 2014:1–13.
[8] Nord LO, Bolland O. Design and off-design simulations of combined cycles for off-
shore oil and gas installations. Appl Therm Eng 2013;54:85–91. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.01.022.
[9] Kloster P. Reduction of Emissions to air through energy optimization on offshore
installations. SPE Int Conf Heal Safety, Environ Oil Gas Explor Prod 2000 2017.
[10] Energy Kloster P. Optimization on offshore installations with emphasis on offshore
combined cycle plants. Offshore Eur Oil Gas Exhib Conf 1999 2017. https://doi.
org/10.2118/56964-MS.
[11] Nord L, Bolland O. Steam bottoming cycles offshore – challenges and possibilities. J
Power Technol 2013.
[12] Pierobon L, Benato A, Scolari E, Haglind F, Stoppato A. Waste heat recovery
technologies for offshore platforms. Appl Energy 2014;136:228–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.109.
[13] Group B. Project BG18: waste heat recovery in FPSO units using non-conventional
Rankine Cycles, Itajubá; 2016.
[14] Gotelip T. Otimização da Implantação de Sistemas ORC em uma FPSO Brasileira.
Federal University of Itajubá; 2015.
[15] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Investigation of a hybrid ORC driven by waste heat and solar
energy. Energy Convers Manage 2018;156:427–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.11.058.
[16] Boyaghchi FA, Sohbatloo A. Assessment and optimization of a novel solar driven
natural gas liquefaction based on cascade ORC integrated with linear Fresnel col-
lectors. Energy Convers Manage 2018;162:77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.02.013.
[17] Cioccolanti L, Tascioni R, Bocci E, Villarini M. Parametric analysis of a solar
Organic Rankine Cycle trigeneration system for residential applications. Energy
Convers Manage 2018;163:407–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.02.
043.
[18] Peña-Lamas J, Martinez-Gomez J, Martín M, María Ponce-Ortega J. Optimal pro-
duction of power from mid-temperature geothermal sources: scale and safety issues.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;165:172–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2018.03.048.
[19] Behnam P, Arefi A, Shafii MB. Exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis of a tri-
generation system producing electricity, hot water, and fresh water driven by low-
temperature geothermal sources. Energy Convers Manage 2018;157:266–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.014.
[20] Fiaschi D, Manfrida G, Rogai E, Talluri L. Exergoeconomic analysis and comparison
between ORC and Kalina cycles to exploit low and medium-high temperature heat
from two different geothermal sites. Energy Convers Manage 2017;154:503–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.11.034.
[21] Camporeale SM, Pantaleo AM, Ciliberti PD, Fortunato B. Cycle configuration ana-
lysis and techno-economic sensitivity of biomass externally fired gas turbine with
bottoming ORC. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:1239–50. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2015.08.069.
[22] Jang Y, Lee J. Optimizations of the organic Rankine cycle-based domestic CHP
550
Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551
using biomass fuel. Energy Convers Manage 2018;160:31–47. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2018.01.025.
[23] Borsukiewicz-Gozdur A, Wisniewski S, Mocarski S, Bańkowski M. ORC power plant
for electricity production from forest and agriculture biomass. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;87:1180–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.098.
[24] Baccioli A, Antonelli M. Organic flash cycles: off-design behavior and control
strategies of two different cycle architectures for waste heat recovery applications.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;157:176–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2017.12.004.
[25] Wang Y, Tang Q, Wang M, Feng X. Thermodynamic performance comparison be-
tween ORC and Kalina cycles for multi-stream waste heat recovery. Energy Convers
Manage 2017;143:482–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.026.
[26] Yang F, Cho H, Zhang H, Zhang J, Wu Y. Artificial neural network (ANN) based
prediction and optimization of an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for diesel engine
waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manage 2018;164:15–26. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2018.02.062.
[27] Oyewunmi OA, Kirmse CJW, Pantaleo AM, Markides CN. Performance of working-
fluid mixtures in ORC-CHP systems for different heat-demand segments and heat-
recovery temperature levels. Energy Convers Manage 2017;148:1508–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.05.078.
[28] Girgin I, Ezgi C. Design and thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analysis of an
organic Rankine cycle for naval surface ship applications. Energy Convers Manage
2017;148:623–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.033.
[29] Mondejar ME, Ahlgren F, Thern M, Genrup M. Quasi-steady state simulation of an
organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery in a passenger vessel. Appl Energy
2017;185:1324–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.024.
[30] Suárez de la Fuente S, Roberge D. Safety and CO2emissions: implications of using
organic fluids in a ship’s waste heat recovery system. Mar Policy 2017;75:191–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.008.
[31] Pierobon L, Van Nguyen T, Larsen U, Haglind F, Elmegaard B. Multi-objective op-
timization of organic Rankine cycles for waste heat recovery: application in an
offshore platform. Energy 2013;58:538–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2013.05.039.
[32] Barrera JE, Bazzo E, Kami E. Exergy analysis and energy improvement of a Brazilian
floating oil platform using Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy 2015;88:67–79. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.091.
[33] Walnum HT, Nekså P, Nord LO, Andresen T. Modelling and simulation of CO2
(carbon dioxide) bottoming cycles for offshore oil and gas installations at design
and off-design conditions. Energy 2013;59:513–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2013.06.071.
[34] Mazzetti M, Nekså P, Walnum H, Hemmingsen A. Novel energy efficiency tech-
nologies for reduction of offshore CO2 emissions. Offshore Technol Conf, Houston
2013:p. 1e12.
[35] Mazzetti M, Ladam Y, Walnum H, Hagen B, Skaugen G, Nekså P. Flexible combined
heat and power systems for offshore oil and gas facilities with CO2 bottoming cy-
cles. ASME 2014 Power Conf Am Soc Mech Eng 2014.
[36] Carcasci C, Ferraro R, Miliotti E. Thermodynamic analysis of an organic Rankine
cycle for waste heat recovery from gas turbines. Energy 2014;65:91–100. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.080.
[37] Rohde D, Walnum HT, Andresen T, Nekså P. Heat recovery from export gas com-
pression: analyzing power cycles with detailed heat exchanger models. Appl Therm
Eng 2013;60:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.06.027.
[38] Svalheim S, Directorate NP, King DC. Exploration BP. Life of field energy perfor-
mance. Offshore Eur 2003:5.
[39] Van Nguyen T, Pierobon L, Elmegaard B, Haglind F, Breuhaus P, Voldsund M.
Exergetic assessment of energy systems on North Sea oil and gas platforms. Energy
2013;62:23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.011.
[40] Bao J, Zhao L. A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic
Rankine cycle. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:325–42. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2013.03.040.
[41] Song J, Gu C wei, Ren X. Influence of the radial-inflow turbine efficiency prediction
on the design and analysis of the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system. Energy
Convers Manag 2016;123:308–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.06.
037.
[42] Bahadormanesh N, Rahat S, Yarali M. Constrained multi-objective optimization of
radial expanders in organic Rankine cycles by firefly algorithm. Energy Convers
Manage 2017;148:1179–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.070.
[43] Alshammari F, Karvountzis-Kontakiotis A, Pesiridis A, Minton T. Radial expander
design for an engine organic Rankine Cycle waste heat recovery system. Energy
Procedia 2017;129:285–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.155.
[44] Zheng Y, Hu D, Cao Y, Dai Y. Preliminary design and off-design performance
analysis of an Organic Rankine Cycle radial-inflow turbine based on mathematic
method and CFD method. Appl Therm Eng 2017;112:25–37. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.036.
[45] Wang YZ, Zhao J, Wang Y, An QS. Multi-objective optimization and grey relational
analysis on configurations of organic Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng
2017;114:1355–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.075.
[46] Kalina J, Świerzewski M, Szega M. Simulation based performance evaluation of
biomass fired cogeneration plant with ORC. Energy Procedia 2017;129:660–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.137.
[47] Walraven D, Laenen B, D’Haeseleer W. Comparison of shell-and-tube with plate
heat exchangers for the use in low-temperature organic Rankine cycles. Energy
Convers Manage 2014;87:227–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.07.
019.
[48] Hesselgreaves JE. Compact heat exchangers: selection , design and operation. vol. 3;
2001.
T. Gotelip Correa Veloso et al.
[49] Shah RK, Sekulic DP. Fundamentals of heat exchanger design. 2003.
[50] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal Design & Optimization. New York, USA:
John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[51] Alconchel JA. Modelizacion Exergetica de Ciclos de Vapor en Plantas
Termoelectricas. Universidad de Zaragoza España; 1988.
[52] Van Nguyen T, Jacyno T, Breuhaus P, Voldsund M, Elmegaard B. Thermodynamic
551
Energy Conversion and Management 174 (2018) 537–551
analysis of an upstream petroleum plant operated on a mature field. Energy
2014;68:454–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.040.
[53] Moran MJ. Engineering thermodynamics; 1999. < http://doi.org/10.1038/
1811028b0>.
[54] Deb K. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms : an introduction
2011:1–24.