Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress

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

Design and exergy analysis of waste heat recovery system and gas engine for T
power generation in Tehran cement factory
⁎
Abbas Naeimia, Mokhtar Bidia, Mohammad Hossein Ahmadib, , Ravinder Kumarc,
Milad Sadeghzadehd, Mohammad Alhuyi Nazarid
a
Faculty of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, A.C., Tehran, Iran
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
c
School of Mechanical Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara 144411, Punjab, India
d
Renewable Energy and Environmental Engineering Dep., University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

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

Keywords: Cement production is one of the most energy-intensive industries in the world which has high potential for heat
Exergy analysis recovery. This paper has studied the feasibility of technical design of WHR from a gas engine to use in electrical
Energy audit power generation for Unit-8, Tehran Cement factory. Two different approaches for energy recovery are proposed
Waste heat recovery and compared. In the first scenario, which uses only one heat recovery boiler, total mixed gas enters the boiler
Cement plant
before going into the pre-heater and grid cooler; however, in the second scenario, there is a vapor mixture that
goes toward the steam turbine. In the current study, it is focused on analyzing and design of the gas engine which
its calculations are done under FORTRAN codes, and the final configuration is made as a software. It should be
noted that air conditioning of management building in the factory is involved in gas engine heat load calcula-
tions. The third analytical part considered in the codes is calculation processes of the combined heat recovery
system coupled with a gas engine. Based on obtained results, the amount of recovered heat for the 1st and 2nd
scenarios were 23931 kJ/s and 21253 kJ/s, respectively. In addition, the efficiencies of the power generation
cycles for the 1st and 2nd scenarios were equal to 23.5% and 22.2%, respectively.

1. Introduction capacity of generating 2650 kW of electricity [4]. Energy and exergy

Energy consumption in industrial sector varies from 30% to 70% of
total energy used in some countries. The cement production process is
one of the most energy-intensive industrial processes [1]. In some
countries, energy expenditure accounts for 50–60% of the direct pro-
duction cost of cement [2]. Although the new cement plants use the dry
process, which consume less energy compared with wet process, ce-
ment production process still requires considerable amount of energy.
The calcinations and drying processes, like the kiln, require large
quantities of thermal heat. The grinding mills, fans, and other motor
driven equipment rely on electric energy. Although cement cooking
process has been optimized, but still enormous amount of heat is wasted
from the exhaust gases of calciner and cooler and also kiln shell.
Energy and exergy modeling was performed for the first time by
Reistad in the United States in 1975 [3]. Moreover, power generation
from recovered waste heat in cement factory, was performed for the
first time in the Somimoto cement factory in Osaka, Japan, in 1985,
which according to the daily production, 5500 tons per day, had the
analyses are applicable for several systems and cycles [5]. By applying
these analyses, better insight into the defects of systems is achievable
[6].
Developing renewable energy systems and improving efficiency of
cycles and technologies are the most applicable solution to overcome
environmental issues related to energy consumption [7]. Renewable
energy sources are usable for power generation and other purposes such
as cooling and heating purposes [8]. There several approaches to im-
prove efficiency of existing energy systems such as optimizing their
operating condition or using waste heat [9]. Heat recovery is an ap-
propriate method which results in energy efficiency augment and re-
duction in energy utilization. Waste heat recovery is applicable for
several industries. For instance, Mirzaei et al. [10] performed energy
and exergy analyses on an organic Rankine cycle working with different
fluids. The heat source for the mentioned cycle was hot gases of metal
smelting furnace. In order to found the resource of destructions, per-
forming advanced exergy analysis is required [11]. Açıkkalp et al.
carried out Advanced exergy [12] on a tri-generation system which was

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mohammadhosein.ahmadi@gmail.com, mhosein.ahmadi@shahroodut.ac.ir (M.H. Ahmadi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2018.12.007
Received 4 June 2018; Received in revised form 22 December 2018; Accepted 23 December 2018
2451-9049/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Naeimi et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Nomenclature Qclinker Clinker heat, kJ

Qconvection Convection heat transfer, kJ/kg
A Area, m2 Qinput Input heat, kJ
D Diameter, m Qrad Radiation heat transfer, kJ/kg
Cp Specific heat, kJ/kg.°C Qsensible Sensible heat, kJ/kg
Ex Exergy flow, kJ Qused Useful heat, kJ/kg
Eẋ D Destruction exergy rate, kJ/kg R Universal gas constant, J/mol K
Eẋ input Input exergy flow rate, kJ/kg Re Reynolds number, –
Eẋ Q Heat exergy flow rate, kJ/kg S Entropy, kJ/kg.K
Eẋ used Used exergy flow rate, kJ/kg T Temperature, K
Eẋ w Work exergy flow rate, kJ/kg Tw Wall temperature, K
ex Exergy flow rate, kJ/kg T∞ Surrounding temperature, 298 K
ex chemical Chemical exergy flow rate, kJ/kg X Molar fraction, %
ex physical Physical exergy flow rate, kJ/kg WHR Waste Heat Recovery
Hfuel Heating value of the fuel, kJ/kg
H Convection heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K Greek Symbols
0
h Enthalpy at ambient condition, kJ/kg
K Conductive heat transfer coefficient, W/mK ε Emissivity coefficient, –
M Mass flow rate, kg/s σ Stefan Boltzmann constant, 5.67 × 10−8, W/m2K
NuD Nusselt number, – ηth Thermal efficiency, %
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle η2 Exergy efficiency, %
0
P Pressure, atm Ambient condition
Pr Prandtl number, –
Qcombustion Combustion heat, kJ

driven by a diesel-gas engine in a building of a refrigerator manu- heat recovery are investigated and analyzed. Afterwards, two config-
facturer. Results demonstrated the feasibility of this idea for power uration are compared based on energy and exergy concepts in order to
generation. Waste heat from other sources, such as gas turbine and get the best one, through a software which has been written by authors
cement industry, can be used for heat recovery and power generation with FORTRAN code, in a cement plant in Iran.
[6,13].
In order to reduce energy consumption in cement production pro- 2. Process description
cesses, using the cogeneration power plant can recover the waste heat
to generate electrical energy with no additional fuel consumption and Tehran cement factory works based on the dry process with a five-
thus reduce the high cost of electrical energy and carbon dioxide stage preheater and one calciner. Production capacity of unit-8 in this
emission. Alongside this, a part of waste heat can be used for heating in factory is 3400 tons cement per day. Since each ton of clinker is
cement factory. Worell et al. [14] performed an energy analysis for the equivalent to 0.96 ton cement; therefore, clinker production capacity is
US for the years 1970 and 1997. They reported an analysis of the US 3541 tons per day. The kiln of this unit is 4.55 m in diameter and 54 m
cement industry, identifying carbon dioxide saving, cost-effective en- long. Specifications of clinker and raw materials are given in table 1.
ergy efficiency measures and potentials between these years. Khurana The system includes set of preheater, calciner, kiln and cooler as shown
et al. [15] performed an energy balance of a cogeneration system for a schematically in Fig. 1. The Kiln process is individually shown in Fig. 2.
cement plant in India. They found that about 35% of the input energy Preheater and grate cooler characteristics are given in Table 2.
was being lost with the waste heat streams. Engin and Ari [16] made an
energy audit analysis of a dry type rotary kiln system working in a
cement plant in Turkey. 3. Energy auditing and analysis
Cement is mixed through two major approaches: Dry process and
Wet process. In the latter method, raw materials are primarily crushed 3.1. Mass balance
into smaller pieces (2–5 cm). Then the smaller pieces get finer in a tube
mill. Screening is performed over all the grinded materials and then Mass balance for clinker was performed along the system boundary,
stored to be used in rotary kiln. In the latter, the grinded powders are including preheater, kiln and grid cooler. The input data consist of
firstly washed to remove extra organic materials which are adhered to composition of the raw material, final analysis of the fuel, the amount
the clay. Then a mixer is used to form a paste known as slurry. Finally, of dust in the exhaust gases from the preheater and cooler and
the wet slurry (40% water) is sent to the rotary kiln. Dry process are
performed faster and also consumed less fuel in comparison to wet Table 1
Mass percent of components in clinker and raw materials.
process. The production cost is higher in the dry process. On the other
hand, wet process is cheaper and the resulted product have superior Clinker Raw materials
quality.
SiO2 21.7 13.9
In similar study in the fields of cement industry, Han et al. [17] Al2O3 4.5 2.9
combined pinch and exergy analyses to evaluate waste heat recovery Fe2O3 3.8 2.5
power generation in a cement plant in China. Amiri Rad and Mo- CaO 65.6 42.3
hammadi [18] used Rankine cycle for thermal recovery of a cement MgO 2.9 1.7
SO3 0.3 0.4
plant. Ahmed et al. [19] hybridized an Organic Rankine cycle (ORC) to
NaO2 0.3 0.2
a cement plant and evaluated the feasibility of 1 MW power production K2O 0.5 0.5
for the proposed system. In the current study, based on the data ob- Moisture 0 0.5
tained from Tehran cement factory, the energy auditing and methods of Loss of ignition 0.4 34.7

300
A. Naeimi et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Fig. 1. Schematic of the analyzed system.

energies are shown with inward and outward arrows, respectively.

Based on the collected data, energy balance for the kiln system was
performed. Physical properties, formulas and the energy required for
reaction can be found in Perry’s Handbook [20]. The reference enthalpy
in the calculation is considered at zero degrees centigrade [21]. Input
and output flows of energy are calculated for 1 kg of clinker production.
Descriptions of these energy streams and energy balance results are
represented in Table 4. Energy balances and governing equations are as
follows:

Table 3
Mass balance in production process.
Description Mass flow Percentage Temperature (°C) Cp (kJ/
rate (kg/ kg.°C)
Fig. 2. Dry kiln process. kg-Cl)

Input – – – –
Table 2 Fuel 0.07 1.31 25 2.34
Preheater and grate cooler characteristics. Primary air inlet into 0.03 0.6 30 1.00
kiln burner
Preheater Grate cooler Primary air inlet into 0.07 1.24 30 1.02
calciner burner
Temperature of the gas mixture (°C) 340 270 Inlet air into cooler 2.83 51.38 30 1.02
Pressure of the gas mixture (mbar) −40 −2.5 Preheater feed 1.74 31.56 60 0.93
Density of the gas mixture (kg/m3) 0.6 0.6 Airlift air 0.11 1.93 60 1.05
Volumetric flow rate (m3/hr) 520,654 405,410 Cooler air leakage 0.66 11.96 30 1.02
Mass flow rate (kg/s) 86.8 71 Total 5.5 100 – –
Output – – – –
Kiln feed moisture 0.01 0 – –
composition of the exhaust gases in accordance with Table 3 is used for Preheater exhausted 2.30 41.76 340 1.08
gas
the mass balance. The result of the mass balance for 1 kg produced
Preheater exhausted 0.19 3.54 340 0.97
clinker is shown in Table 3. dust
Cooler exhausted air 1.88 34.14 270 1.05
Cooler exhausted dust 0.119 2.163 270 1.03
3.2. Energy balance
Output clinker 1 18.18 140 0.98
Total 5.5 100 – –
As shown in Fig. 3, the input energies, and the output and waste

301
A. Naeimi et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Fig. 3. Inlet and outlet energy streams.

Table 4
Description of energy streams.
# Type Description Value (kJ/kg-Cl) Percentage

Inlet 1 Combustion Energy from fuel combustion 353.12 94.21

2 Sensible Sensible heat of fuel 3.96 0.10
3 Sensible Heat of inlet air to preheater burner 0.97 0.02
4 Sensible Heat of inlet air to calciner burner 2.08 0.05
5 Sensible Heat of inlet air to cooler 86.95 2.31
6 Sensible Heat of inlet feed to preheater 96.62 2.57
7 Sensible Heat of airlift’s air 6.7 0.18
8 Sensible Heat of air leakage in grate cooler 20.25 0.54
Total Inlet 3756.6 100

9 Consumable Energy consumption for clinker production 1781.32 47.42

10 Consumable Energy of kiln feed moisture evaporation 16.04 0.43
Outlet 11 Sensible Energy of preheater exhaust gas 843.46 22.45
12 Sensible Energy of preheater exhaust dust 64.29 1.71
13 Sensible Energy of cooler exhaust air 530.38 14.12
14 Sensible Energy of cooler exhaust dust 33.22 0.88
15 Sensible Energy of exhaust air with clinker 137.62 3.66
16 Radiation Energy of kiln radiation 103.12 2.74
17 Convection Energy of kiln convection 33.68 0.90
18 Sensible Energy of calciner radiation 18.82 0.50
19 Convection Energy of calciner convection 10.39 0.28
20 Sensible Energy of preheater radiation 33.98 0.91
21 Convection Energy of preheater convection 27.02 0.72
22 Sensible Energy of cooler radiation 0.76 0.02
23 Convection Energy of cooler convection 0.97 0.03
24 Radiation Energy of tertiary air pipe radiation 27.66 0.74
25 Convection Energy of tertiary air pipe convection 18.75 0.50
26 Other losses 75.12 2
Total Outlet 3756.6 100

302
A. Naeimi et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Fig. 4. Inlet and outlet exergy streams.

Table 5
Description of exergy streams.
# Description Value (kJ/kg-Cl) Percentage

Inlet 1 Chemical exergy of fuel combustion 3662.98 99.35

2 Physical exergy of fuel 0 0
3 Exergy of inlet primary air to kiln burner 0 0
4 Exergy of inlet primary air to calciner burner 0 0
5 Exergy of inlet air to cooler 0 0
6 Exergy of inlet feed to preheater 23.63 0.64
7 Exergy of airlift’s air 0.21 0.005
8 Exergy of air leakage in grate cooler 0 0
Total inlet 3686.82 100

9 Exergy consumption for clinker production 1743.86 47.31

10 Energy of kiln feed moisture evaporation 6.15 0.14
11 Exergy of preheater exhaust air 454.51 12.33
12 Exergy of preheater exhaust dust 33.87 0.92
13 Exergy of cooler exhaust air 138.09 3.75
14 Exergy of cooler exhaust dust 137.65 3.73
15 Exergy of output clinker 1040.74 28.23
16 Exergy of kiln radiation and convection 67.45 1.83
17 Exergy of calciner radiation and convection 10.20 0.28
18 Exergy of preheater radiation and convection 8.35 0.23
19 Exergy of grate cooler radiation and convection 0.29 0.01
20 Exergy of tertiary air pipe radiation and convection 18.35 0.50
21 Other losses 26.76 0.73
Total outlet 3686.82 100

The amount of generated heat in the combustion chamber is ob- Qsensible = m × CP × (T − T0) (2)
tained as follows:
The following equation is used to compute the amount of heat in the
QCombustion = m × Hfuel (1) clinker, Xi denotes the molar fraction of the feed:

The amount of sensible heat is calculated as:

303
A. Naeimi et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Fig. 5. Schematic power generation cycle in the heat recovery system (scenario 1).

Fig. 6. Schematic power generation cycle in the heat recovery system (scenario 2).

Table 6 Table 7
Energy and exergy for scenario 1. Energy and exergy for scenario 2.
Energy parameters Value Energy parameters Value

Temperature of recovery system exhaust steam (°C) 295 Temperature of recovery system exhaust steam (°C) 277
Pressure of recovery system exhaust steam (bar) 13 Pressure of recovery system exhaust steam (bar) 10
Flow rate of recovery system exhaust steam (kg/s) 7.98 Flow rate of recovery system exhaust steam (kg/s) 77.16
Heat recovered from the inlet gases to recovery system (kJ/s) 23930.85 Heat recovered from the inlet gases to recovery system (kJ/s) 21253.12
Net power (kW) 5224.39 Net power (kW) 4375.34
Efficiency of power generation cycle (%) 23.53 Efficiency of power generation cycle (%) 22.19
Exergetic efficiency of HRSG (%) 73.46 Exergetic efficiency of HRSG (%) 74.86

304
A. Naeimi et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Fig. 7. The power production of gas engine power plant with heat recovery system.

Table 8 Cl is utilized for clinker production, and the rest (1959.24 kJ/kg-Cl) is
Technical parameters and the results of energy and exergy analysis of gas en- lost. In other words, more than 52% of the total input energy is lost.
gines. Contribution of waste gases of cooler and preheater is considerable. In
Parameter Value fact, more than 70 percent of the energy loss is related to preheater and
cooler hot exhaust gases; which have a high potential for heat recovery.
Electric power (kW) 6000 Now the first law efficiency (which is based on the energy of the
Electrical efficiency (%) 41
system) can be calculated as follows:
Temperature of inlet fuel (°C) 25
Temperature of inlet air (°C) 25 Qused (1781.32 + 16.042)
Thermal efficiency (%) 90 ηth = × 100 = × 100 = 47.86%
Qinput 3756.6 (7)
Flow rate of inlet fuel (kg/s) 0.30
Flow rate of inlet air (kg/s) 4.40
Flow rate of outlet gases from gas engine (kg/s) 4.70
Temperature of outlet gases from gas engine (°C) 869 3.3. Exergy balance
Temperature of HRSG outlet steam (°C) 500
Pressure of HRSG outlet steam (MPa) 2 Exergy analysis is a relatively new alternative approach that is
Flow rate of HRSG outlet steam (kg/s) 3.83
Temperature of HRSG outlet gases (°C) 57.83
based on the concept of exergy. Exergy is a measure of the potential of
Heat recovered from input gases to HRSG (kJ/S) 13284.68 different forms of energy or quality of work performed in connection
Exergetic efficiency (%) 64.8 with an environment. Exergy balance applied to a process or whole
Power of steam turbine (kW) 4257.47 system, indicates that how much of usable work potential (i.e. exergy),
Power of pump (kW) 233.08
that is given as input to the system, is used by the process. Exergy loss
Net power (kW) 4024.40
Efficiency of power production cycle (%) 32.66 or irreversibility, generally gives a quantitative measure of the in-
efficiency of the process.
In the absence of magnetic, nuclear and surface tension effects,
Qclinker = 17.196XAl2 O3 + 27.112XMgO + 32XCaO − 21.105XSiO2 exergy can be divided into separate components: physical, chemical,
kinetic and potential. In this study, the two latter components are as-
− 2.468XFe2 O3 (3) sumed to be negligible as the elevation and speed have small changes.
The amount of radiation heat transfer in the process is calculated as: Physical exergy is the maximum obtainable work, when the material
stream is reached from its original state to the environmental state
Qrad = ε × σ × A × (Tw4 − T∞4 ) (4) (with temperature P0 and T0 ), by thermal interaction with environment.
The other possible mechanisms of heat transfer in the process is Chemical exergy is the maximum work obtainable, when the material is
convection and obtained as: reached from an environmental state to a dead state, by heat and mass
transfer processes. In fact, chemical exergy is the exergy of the material
Qconv = h × A × (TW − T∞) (5) stream when the material is in the environmental state. Applying the
To obtain the heat transfer coefficient, h, the following experimental first and second laws of thermodynamics, an exergy balance can be
expression of the Nusselt number was considered: obtained as:

hD Eẋ Q + Σi ṁ i ex i = Σe ṁ e ex e + Eẋ w + ExD

̇ (8)
NuD = = CRe mPr 1/3
K (6)
Where the subscripts i, e and D denote the inlet and outlet of a control volume, and the
Energy balance shows that only 1797.36 kJ/kg-Cl of 3756.6 kJ/kg- exergy destruction, respectively. Other terms are as follows:

305
A. Naeimi et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307

Fig. 8. Hot water production cycle in gas engine plant.

x x
Table 9
Gas engine parameters in the heating section.
ech, M = ∑ ech, M, i + RT0 ∑ lnx i
i i (14)
Parameters Value
where x i and ech, M , i are the mole fraction and the molar exergy of
Flow rate of produced hot water (kg/s) 2.8 component i of the mixture, respectively.
Temperature of produced hot water (°C) 800 As shown in Fig. 4, the input exergies, output and waste exergies are
Temperature of hot water output from consumer unit (°C) 70
Recovered heat from lubricating oil exchanger (kJ/s) 23.45
shown with inward and outward arrows, respectively. The amounts of
Recovered heat from cooling shell exchanger (kJ/s) 93.87 exergy for each stream of the whole system are represented in Table 5.
Recovered heat from exhaust exchanger (kJ/s) 117.51 The second law efficiency (which is based on the exergy of the
Total heat recovered in the heating section (kJ/s) 234.83 system) can be calculated as follows:
Temperature of stack output gases (°C) 50
Ex used (1743.86 + 6.15)
η2 = × 100 = × 100 = 47.76%
Ex input 3686.82 (15)
The amount of exergy associated to the heat source is:

T
Eẋ Q = ⎛1 − 0 ⎞ Q̇
⎜ ⎟
4. Waste heat recovery
⎝ Tw ⎠ (9)

The value of exergy related to input work to the control volume:
Eẋ w = Ẇ
The total exergy is obtained by summing the two terms of physical
exergy and chemical exergy:
ex = exPh + ex Ch
The physical exergy is:
ePh = (h − T0 s ) − (h 0 − T0 s0)
Q
Here, Eẋ and Eẋ W are the corresponding exergy rates associated
with heat transfer and work across the boundary of a control volume
respectively, T is the absolute temperature, and the subscripts 0 and w
refer to the reference ambient conditions and control area, respectively.
Substituting the ideal gas equation in the physical exergy equation, the
specific physical exergy equation for an ideal gas is obtained as:
T P
ePh = CP (T − T0) − T0 ⎛CP ln − Rln ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ T0 P0⎠
In many important applications, the working fluid is a mixture of
ideal gases; for example, gaseous fuels, combustion products and so on.
Exergy of these mixtures can be calculated as follow:
One way to optimize the energy consumption and increase the
thermal efficiency of cement plants is the reduction of heat loss during
(10)
the cement production process. Since the majority of the energy waste
in a cement plant is related to preheater exhaust air and grate cooler
outlet hot air, waste heat recovery by an HRSG results in reduction of
heat dissipation. Waste heat recovery leads to increase in efficiency and
(11)
power generation for utilization in the factory.
In order to maximize the power produced by the heat recovery
system, two heat recovery designs are proposed. Evaluation and com-
(12)
parison of the energy and exergy of both designs, represents the best
heat recovery system design.
4.1. First scenario
In the first scenario, only one HRSG is used to recover waste heat.
Therefore, the exhaust gases from preheater mix with the hot air dis-
charged from the cooler in a mixing chamber; afterwards, enters into
the HRSG. Due to heat transfer between the hot gases and the water in
(13)
the HRSG, in different parts of HRSG including the super heater, eva-
porator and economizer, water converts into steam. This steam is di-
rected to a steam turbine to produce power. Schematic diagram of this
recovery cycle is shown in Fig. 5.

306
A. Naeimi et al.
4.2. Second scenario
In this scenario, instead of using one HRSG, two recovery boilers are
utilized to recover heat. Exhaust gases from the preheater enter the
preheater HRSG, and hot air at the outlet of the cooler goes in the cooler
HRSG. The steams produced by each HRSG, mixed together in the
mixing chamber and eventually enter the steam turbine (see Fig. 6).
5. Results
5.1. Energy and exergy analysis for scenario 1
Energy and exergy analysis for the 1st scenario is given in Table 6.
5.2. Energy and exergy analysis for scenario 2
Energy and exergy analysis for the 2nd scenario is given in Table 7.
Comparing the energy parameters of both scenarios shows that in
the first scenario, the temperature and pressure of produced steam are
higher than the second one. In addition, the amount of recovered heat,
steam flow rate, efficiency and net power production in the first sce-
nario is higher than the second one; therefore, it can be concluded that
the first scenario is preferable to the second one.
5.3. Thermodynamics analysis and design of the dispersed generation gas
engine system
Dispersed generation gas engine system can be one of the scenarios
for electric power generation at the Tehran cement factory.
Implementation of heat recovery from preheater and grate cooler flue
gases can interfere with the cement production or even may require
stopping the cement production line for several days; therefore, it is
better to implement waste heat recovery at the time of establishing the
factory. All these disadvantages, cause using the independent gas en-
gine for producing the electric power in this plant.
The amount of electric power consumption in unit-8 of Tehran ce-
ment factory, is 17,431 kW. Therefore, 3 gas engines with 6 MW ca-
pacity can be used. Schematic diagram of the power generation cycle
with the heat recovery system is shown in Fig. 7.
As discussed in the previous section, the technical parameters of the
first heat recovery scenario are better than the second one; conse-
quently, for heat recovery in gas engines, the first scenario is discussed.
Technical parameters and the results of energy and exergy analysis of
gas engines are given in Table 8.
Eventually, schematic diagram and output parameters of the gas
engine heat recovery cycle to produce hot water for heating purposes in
Unit 8 Factory are given in Fig. 8 and Table 9, respectively.
6. Conclusion
Power analysis showed that over half of the fuel energy is wasted in
various ways. The maximum amount of this loss is associated with
exhaust gases from the preheater and cooler, which indicates the high
potential of these gases for heat recovery. Comparison of the two pro-
posed heat recovery systems showed that the system in which uses only
one recovery boiler, has more ability to produce power. According to
documentation of Tehran cement factory, required electric power of
unit-8 is 17,732 kW; therefore, by using the heat recovery system about
307
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 9 (2019) 299–307
30% of the electric power can be provided. Requirement for heating of
unit-8 is hot water with 6168.9 L per hour flow rate and 80 degrees
Celsius temperature. Using the heat recovery system can produce hot
water with flow rate 7668 l/hr and 80 degrees Celsius, which can
completely secure the heating demand of unit-8. In addition, using the
heat recovery system reduces heating waste up to 32.32%. Finally,
using 3 of 6 MW gas engines was investigated and it was found that
applying these engines, can completely provide electrical and heating
requirement of this unit.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2018.12.007.
References
[1] J. Wang, Y. Dai, L. Gao, Exergy analyses and parametric optimizations for different
cogeneration power plants in cement industry, Appl. Energy 86 (6) (Jun. 2009)
941–948.
[2] N.A. Madlool, R. Saidur, M.S. Hossain, N.A. Rahim, A critical review on energy use
and savings in the cement industries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (4) (May
2011) 2042–2060.
[3] M. H. Saeedi, S. Kazemzadeh, and A. J. Dehkordi, “The partially energy and exergy
analysis of Iran,” in The 4th national conference of energy, 2003.
[4] G. Arab, A. Jalali, Technical and economical feasibility of cogeneration in cement
plant, J. Cem. Technol. 29 (2010) 54–58.
[5] A. Mohammadi, M. Ashouri, M.H. Ahmadi, M. Bidi, M. Sadeghzadeh, T. Ming,
Thermoeconomic analysis and multiobjective optimization of a combined gas tur-
bine, steam, and organic Rankine cycle, Energy Sci. Eng. (2018) 1–17.
[6] A. Noroozian, A. Mohammadi, M. Bidi, M.H. Ahmadi, Energy, exergy and economic
analyses of a novel system to recover waste heat and water in steam power plants,
Energy Convers. Manage. 144 (2017) 351–360.
[7] M. Alhuyi Nazari, A. Aslani, R. Ghasempour, Analysis of solar farm site selection
based on TOPSIS Approach, Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 9 (1) (2018) 12–25.
[8] M. Alhuyi Nazari, et al., A review on pulsating heat pipes: From solar to cryogenic
applications, Appl. Energy 222 (2018) 475–484.
[9] M.H. Ahmadi, M.A. Nazari, M. Feidt, Thermodynamic analysis and multi-objective
optimisation of endoreversible Lenoir heat engine cycle based on the thermo-eco-
nomic performance criterion, Int. J. Ambient Energy (2018) 1–10.
[10] M. Mirzaei, M.H. Ahmadi, M. Mobin, M.A. Nazari, R. Alayi, Energy, exergy and
economics analysis of an ORC working with several fluids and utilizes smelting
furnace gases as heat source, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 5 (2018) 230–237.
[11] Y. Şöhret, E. Açikkalp, A. Hepbasli, T.H. Karakoc, Advanced exergy analysis of an
aircraft gas turbine engine: Splitting exergy destructions into parts, Energy 90
(2015) 1219–1228.
[12] E. Açikkalp, H. Aras, A. Hepbasli, Advanced exergy analysis of a trigeneration
system with a diesel-gas engine operating in a refrigerator plant building, Energy
Build. 80 (2014) 268–275.
[13] A. Mohammadi, M. Bidi, M.H. Ahmadi, Economic evaluation of different scenarios
for gas turbine waste heat recovery to produce water and power, Int. J. Ambient
Energy 38 (7) (2017) 727–734.
[14] E. Worrell, N. Martin, L. Price, Potentials for energy efficiency improvement in the
US cement industry, Energy 25 (12) (Dec. 2000) 1189–1214.
[15] S. Khurana, R. Banerjee, U. Gaitonde, Energy balance and cogeneration for a ce-
ment plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 22 (5) (Apr. 2002) 485–494.
[16] T. Engin, V. Ari, Energy auditing and recovery for dry type cement rotary kiln
systems––A case study, Energy Convers. Manag. 46 (4) (Mar. 2005) 551–562.
[17] T. Han, C. Wang, C. Zhu, D. Che, Optimization of waste heat recovery power
generation system for cement plant by combining pinch and exergy analysis
methods, Appl. Therm. Eng. 140 (Jul. 2018) 334–340.
[18] E. Amiri Rad, S. Mohammadi, Energetic and exergetic optimized Rankine cycle for
waste heat recovery in a cement factory, Appl. Therm. Eng. 132 (2018) 410–422.
[19] A. Ahmed, K.K. Esmaeil, M.A. Irfan, F.A. Al-Mufadi, Design methodology of organic
Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery in cement plants, Appl. Therm. Eng. 129
(2018) 421–430.
[20] K.E. Peray, Cement Manufacturer’s Handbook, Chemical Pub Co, 1979.
[21] D.W. Green, R.H. Perry, Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, (1999).