Sabp A 004

Best Practice
SABP-A-004 11 August 2012

Energy Performance Indices
Document Responsibility: P&CSD/Energy Systems Division
Energy Performance Indices
Electricity
Energy Calc Prices:
Steam Feed
Data engine Product
Fuel
Energy
Process Fluid
Flows Densities Data
Recon Balanced
Model Electricity
Steam
Heat & Fuel
Mass Refinery Total Energy
Balance Model Indices
Developed by: Energy Systems Division

Process and Control Systems Department
Issue Date: 11 August 2012
Previous Issue: 19 March 2006 Next Planned Update: TBD

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the right margin Page 1 of 66
Primary Contact: Qahtani, Ali Hussain on phone +966-3-8809451
Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2012. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: P&CSD/Energy Systems Division SABP-A-004
Issue date: 11 August 2012
Next Update: TBD Energy Performance Indices
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Purpose and Scope 3
1.2 Definitions 4
1.3 Conflicts with Other Standards 4
1.4 References and Related Documents 4
2 General 4
2.1 Classification 6
2.2 Data Availability and Quality 7
2.3 Calculation Strategy 9
2.4 Simulation Models 14
2.5 Trend Chart Formatting 15
3 Equipment EPIs 18
3.1 Pumps 18
3.2 Compressors 20
3.3 Fired Heaters 25
3.4 Fired Boilers 31
3.5 Waste Heat Boilers 33
3.6 Steam Turbines 38
3.7 Gas Turbines 43
3.7.1 Calculating Cycle Efficiency 50
3.7.2 Turbine Performance Index 54
3.8 Cogeneration Systems 62
4 Process Unit/Area EPIs 63

4.1 Solomon EII for Oil Refining 64
Page 2 of 66
1 Introduction
Energy is a significant operating cost parameter for Saudi Aramco, and one that is
important to management. The Company’s energy conservation program is overseen by
the Energy Management Steering Committee (EMSC), which determined that the
potential existed to double the company’s energy efficiency (i.e., to halve its energy
consumption index) in the major industrial manufacturing plants. One of the key
elements in the EMSC’s strategy was to develop and monitor effective Energy
Performance Indices (EPIs), and to report the results regularly.
After conducting an exhaustive survey of industry practice, it was determined that while
the indices in common industrial use were indeed of some value for competitive
benchmarking, they are lacking in other important capabilities, chiefly:
 Monitoring trends in energy efficiency by product, by process unit, and by major
equipment.
 Serving as a diagnostic tool for process troubleshooting and operational efficiency
improvement.
Ideally, the EPIs should also screen out the effect of variations in uncontrollable external
factors such as feed rate, feed composition, product mix, and ambient conditions.
This manual is an explanation of the methodology for calculating the new EPIs that
were developed internally within Saudi Aramco to meet the EMSC’s specifications.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this document is to describe proven Best Practices, consistent

with guidelines endorsed by the Company’s Energy Management Steering
Committee (EMSC), in developing and deploying an integrated system of EPIs.
This Manual provides the theoretical basis for developing EPIs, the
methodology for calculating them, and examples of final output. It is intended
as an aid to engineers working in Saudi Aramco plants who are responsible for
maintaining and reporting the departmental EPIs.
It is important to also understand what this manual is not. It is not intended to

provide a comprehensive review of all current or past practices – only to
describe the best ones. It focuses on practices that have been proven to be useful
in the field, not on the theoretical ideal way of doing things. The Best Practices
therefore incorporate necessary compromises that invariably must be made to
adjust to the reality of existing instrumentation, raw data quality, available
software, limited manpower resources, etc. Finally, despite the high level of
detail in some sections, the manual is not intended to be a cookbook giving step
Page 3 of 66
by step procedures for every possible EPI for every facility. The objective is to
outline the general approach and procedure for the major classes of EPIs, and to
illustrate how these EPIs were implemented in their “best” manifestation.
1.2 Definitions
Best Practice: A process or method that, when correctly executed, leads to

enhanced system performance.
Energy Performance Index: An operating policy that distributes the load

between parallel networks of multiple machines/equipment in a way that
minimizes their energy (fuel + power) consumption, without compromising
safety or reliability.
Energy Intensity KPI: It is defined as the energy required to generate a unit of

product. Energy intensity is the standard index used in several industries, and
Saudi Aramco's Energy Management Steering Committee has adopted it as its
standard energy KPI.
1.3 Conflicts with Other Standards
There are no other published Standards, Procedures, or General Instructions that

address the subject of Energy Performance Indices, and therefore no conflicts
are expected.
1.4 References and Related Documents
This manual is based on an unpublished course that was developed and

delivered in June 2005 by the Energy Systems Division of Process and Control
Systems Department to energy engineers from all proponent facilities.
The software referenced in this Manual was originally developed by Energy
Systems Division, and is available to all Saudi Aramco engineers upon request.
2 General
The concept of EPIs for monitoring process and equipment efficiency is not new.
In fact, many different types of EPIs are in use throughout the oil and gas industry.
EPIs have two primary applications:
 Benchmarking
o Historical
o Competitive
o Absolute
 Process Improvement (viz. energy efficiency)
Page 4 of 66
Historical benchmarking is when the current energy efficiency is compared to previous

energy efficiency, usually at some “baseline” period in time.
Competitive benchmarking is when the plant performance is compared against the

performance of other similar plants, usually on an industry-wide basis, although it can
also be applied to different plants making the same products within a single company.
Absolute benchmarking is when the equipment or plant energy efficiency is compared

against a theoretical target or budget.
EPIs can be used to measure and monitor the efficiency of process equipment, process
units, or entire process plants. The proper formulation depends upon the objective.
In all cases, it is imperative that the EPI should accurately reflect the efficiency of energy
consumption. For equipment, the EPI is generally formulated as the thermodynamic
efficiency. The higher the thermodynamic efficiency, the better. For process plants, there
are several formulations, but in general they are all expressed as an “energy intensity”,
i.e., energy consumption per unit of throughput. In general, a high numerical value for
the process EPI indicates high energy intensity, whereas a small EPI indicates low energy
consumption per unit of output. In short, the lower the EPI, the better.
For oil refining, the most widely accepted process EPI is the Solomon Energy Intensity
Index (EII), which was developed in the mid 1970s as a tool for comparing the energy
efficiencies of different oil refineries. This type of index works well when the processes
being used are comparable in all plants. Its primary use is in competitive benchmarking.
In the gas processing industry, the most widely accepted EPI is CGEY’s* Energy
Efficiency Index, which is expressed as energy consumption per unit of feed per GPU
(Gas Processing Unit), or $/MMscfd per GPU. The GPU is a parameter developed by
CGEY to represent the complexity of a plant. Each process unit (e.g., amine treating,
dehydration, NGL recovery, etc.) is characterized by a GPU value, which is determined
based on its theoretical energy consumption per unit of feed flow. The GPU values of
all the units in a plant are summed up to get the overall GPU. The capacity parameter is
combined raw feed gas (MMscfd). CGEY’s EEI was modeled after the Solomon EII,
and is also designed primarily for use as a competitive benchmarking tool.
Plants operating under different feedstock conditions, product specs, and process
technologies are impossible to compare unless there is a mechanism for reducing them
to a common basis. The artifice of creating a GPU is an attempt to partially compensate
for some of the differences in feedstock compositions and pressures, product slates, and
product specification. CGEY freely concedes that the GPU technique is approximate at
best and cannot provide truly accurate benchmarks, but they claim it is the best
available (which at the moment of writing was true).
*
Cap Gemini Ernst and Young, a management consulting firm based in Canada
Page 5 of 66
There is no comparable industry-wide energy efficiency index applicable to oil & gas
exploration and production.
An even more important application of EPIs than benchmarking is to serve as a

diagnostic tool for process troubleshooting and identifying opportunities for process
efficiency improvement. Neither the Solomon nor the CGEY indices have this
capability. To fill the need for timely actionable information, P&CSD’s Energy
Systems Division has developed a different approach to Energy Performance Indices
(EPIs) with the following desired features:
 Energy consumption and cost are expressed per unit of product rather than feed
 Different indices for different user groups – managers, engineers, and operators
 Capable of meeting all EMSC objectives – report card, accurate benchmarking,
diagnostic tool for process trouble-shooting and identifying efficiency improvement
opportunities, and an operator alarm generation system to flag significant deviations
from target performance.
In addition the output from these EPIs can be used for accurate product pricing as well
as calculating a global energy KPI for the entire company, which is of great value and
interest to both the Finance Department and to senior management.
The main structural difference between EMSC’s overall product indices and existing
industry indices is that they are formulated as output-based instead of input-based.
The problem with feed-based indices is that even a reduction in energy consumption
associated caused by declining process yield (something undesirable) will show up as
an improved energy index, which is misleading. Product-based indices, on the other
hand, would clearly show that the index has deteriorated, and reliably indicate both
favorable and adverse trends.
2.1 Classification
The first thing to understand is that there is not just a single EPI but sets of EPIs,
each formulated to meet a specific application. In fact, one can have as many
EPIs as one would like, as long as each one provides some useful actionable
information. The key here is “actionable”, which means the engineer or
manager should be able to take some logical action to improve the index, based
on its numerical value.
Four categories of EPIs are described in this manual, with different objectives
and functions as follows:
Page 6 of 66
Intended Users
Category
Management Engineers Operators
Equipment EPIs x x
Process Area EPIs x x
Individual product EPIs x x
Corporate Energy KPI x
The new EPIs are expected to be developed and deployed by each Department
in 3 phases:
Phase 1: Initial rollout, including on-line implementation, based on simplified
models.
Phase 2: Improved data conditioning and model refinement.
Phase 3: Further improvements, e.g., comparison against dynamic targets,
segregation of indices by shift, etc.
This manual covers implementation of Phase 1 only. Additional manuals will

be prepared for Phases 2 and 3 after they are implemented (scheduled for 2007
and beyond).
2.2 Data Availability and Quality
A large number of flow, pressure, temperature and economic data are needed as
input to the EPI models. The primary data sources are expected to be as follows:
 Readings from the PI system
 Manual readings and logs
 Official raw material, product and energy prices as specified by Business
Analysis Department of Corporate Planning
One of the problems with using live PI data directly in the EPI models is that
even if one of the data values is “bad” (i.e., a non-numerical value), the model
fails to complete the calculation and give a numerical result. When we have
hundreds of such PI inputs, the probability of at least one input being “bad” is
quite high. Bad data such as a textual error message or a numerical error
(e.g., division by zero) are easy to recognize. Therefore, it is necessary to screen
live data and substitute default values when bad readings are encountered.
Page 7 of 66
The second and more difficult problem we must deal with is to recognize when
the numerical data that we do get are not correct, and to make necessary
corrections. Two simple error detection techniques are recommended to start
with. One is to set upper and lower bounds for each parameter. These limits
could either be fixed values, or set as a function of some other parameter(s). If the
measured data value is outside these limits, the default value is used, and an error
message is transmitted to the operator and logged. The other technique is to do a
consistency check on a set of inter-related parameters using material and heat
balances and/or physical property correlations. For example, unless the pressure
and temperature measurements of saturated steam are consistent with the Vapor-
Liquid Equilibrium (VLE) equations, we would know that one or the other is
incorrect. When such inter-related data cannot be reconciled, and fail the
consistency checks, an error message should be automatically transmitted by the
system to the operator and the engineer’s logs. All of this logic (see Exhibit 2-1)
must be embedded within the EPI models, reviewed periodically, and revised as
needed.
Exhibit 2-1: Data Validation and Conditioning Logic
Page 8 of 66
There are several options for selecting default values, in order of increasing
accuracy and computational effort:
a) Use a fixed number, based on manual input
b) Use the last good numerical value
c) Use an average over some reasonable period (could be hours, days, or
weeks) prior to encountering the bad value
d) Use a computed value based on statistical regressions
e) Use a computed value derived inferentially (using simulation models) from
other measured data that are known to be good.
The appropriate default value must be selected for each parameter on a case-by-
case basis. For input data that do not change much over time, e.g., HHV of the
fuel, a fixed number is probably the right choice. For parameters that typical
vary from period to period, such as flow, temperature, and pressure, the last
good value may be the right choice for the following 2-4 periods, after which we
might switch to the use of an average value. In the case of power or fuel
consumption readings, the correct choice would be a computed value based on
statistical correlations of historical data, since the energy consumption can be
expected to be a function of throughput as well as ambient temperature.
And so on.
2.3 Calculation Strategy
The general form for expressing energy EPIs (or any KPI for that matter) is
Resource Consumption
EPI 
Throughput
Ideally, the throughput should be expressed in terms of the desired output from
that process, which is the product produced. However, when one has multiple
products from a single feed, as in an oil refinery or gas plant, it becomes
difficult to decide how much of the resource consumed should be allocated to
each product. That is why standard industry practice has been to express the
indices on the basis of feedstock processed.
Unfortunately, the consequent indices are not particularly helpful, and can even
be misleading, as we shall demonstrate, using a simple illustrative example.
Consider the simplified process model illustrated in Exhibit 2-3.
Page 9 of 66
Exhibit 2-3: Simplified Process Model
Waste, W
Feed, F Product, P
PROCESS
Energy, E
E input1 E input
FB   PB  
F input2 P output
Notes: FB = Feed-based, PB = Product-based
Suppose the yield of the process has been improved through continuous process
innovation since it was started up. Suppose that a 10% increase in yield requires
a 5% increase in energy consumption. In this case the feed-based index would
go up by 5%, while the product based index would go down by 4.5%
(= 100-105/110). The feed-based EPI would indicate to management that the
plant has become less efficient, when in fact it has become more efficient.
A similar argument can be made to demonstrate that a feed-based index will not
change if part of the product is used as fuel (which in fact is common practice in
Aramco’s gas plants as well as refineries), and might even improve, if we
account only for purchased fuels and power. A product-based index will
highlight the revenue loss, because using product as fuel is equivalent to a loss
in yield. A product-based EPI gives accurate indications of efficiency trends,
while a feed-based EPI does not. More generally, they could be thought of as
input-based versus output-based. As noted earlier, the CGEY indices are all
input-based. The EMSC has concluded that we need something better.
Page 10 of 66
The type of model required depends upon the type of index being calculated.
For the product indices we need a fairly sophisticated approach – combining a
relatively rigorous process simulation model (including heat and material
balances) with a relatively sophisticated economic resource-allocation model.
For the process unit (area) indices we can use a simpler approach for calculating
EPIs (no economics involved), but which uses the output from the same rigorous
process simulation model. For the equipment indices we do not use these
models at all. Instead, we develop equipment-specific models for directly
calculating energy efficiency.
The general data collection and computational strategy is depicted in Exhibit 2-4.
Exhibit 2-4: EPI Calculation Strategy
Live input data Temporary cache,

collection data stored as
“values”
Data validation
and conditioning
Archive of “Good”
data set (input data
for Model)
Run calc engine to
generate EPIs for
current data set
Archived database
of historical EPI
values
Generate trend
charts and Reports
The following formula is used to calculate the energy KPI:
KPI = E / P
Energy Intensity KPI = (Energy In - EnergyOut) in MBtu / Total Product in BOE
Where:
E = Total energy consumption in 1,000 Btu (MBtu)
P = Total production in barrels of oil equivalent (BOE)
Page 11 of 66
Exhibit 2-5: KPI Calculation Strategy
Energy out, Eout
Feed, F Product, P
PROCESS
Energy in, Ein
E input
PB  
P output
Energy consumption includes any Btu used to convert the original feed into the
final product excluding the yield losses. The yield losses are excluded because
they can be very large compared to the energy consumption and would therefore
dwarf the energy component in the formula and makes it a yield index (which
already exists) rather than an energy index. There is also the issue of energy
consumed from the feed; for example, the fuel gas produced and consumed
internally in a plant. This energy is treated as a product that is consumed as
energy, so it is part of the total energy consumed and the total production.
Electricity exported to the grid would replace the electricity generated by SEC,
and for this reason, it is scaled by SEC's generation efficiency, which is about
30%. Thus, we regard the energy content in one kWh that is exported as
equivalent to 1/0.3 = 3.33 kWh. Note that the electricity generated and
consumed internally is not considered because it would be double counted since
the fuel used to generate it is accounted for. This also applies to steam
generated by the plant. Another issue with the exported electricity is whether to
treat it as a product or as energy credit, i.e. negative energy. The electricity
exported to the grid is trivial when compared to the hydrocarbon production and
would have very little impact on the total production figure, but can be
significant in comparison to energy consumption. Therefore, if we treat
electricity as a product, then the fuel used to generate it would increase the KPI's
numerator, but the generated electricity would have little effect on the
Page 12 of 66
denominator. This would send the wrong message of minimizing the power
export. On the other hand, if we regard electricity as energy credit, then a plant
maximizing its power export would get a better KPI, and that is why we treat
electricity as energy credit.
The KPI calculation for each individual department includes the facilities under
this department. All individual KPIs are product based, and the calculation is
straight forward as there is no double counting within individual departments.
Currently, the calculation is conducted manually, but the calculation process will
be much faster and more reliable if it is automated. Presently, the plants collect
and provide the data including the feed and products flows, the energy
consumed and any excess power that is exported to the power grid.
To continue the formulation, we will use the following definitions:

Em = Energy imported in MBtu
En = Internal energy consumption in MBtu
FGm = Fuel gas imported from the Master Gas System
FGn = Fuel gas used internally
Pm = Power imported from SEC
Px = Power exported to the grid
FO = Fuel oil used internally as energy
L = LPG used internally as energy
D = Diesel used internally as energy
K = Kerosene used internally as energy
C = Crude oil used internally as energy
Om = Other fuel imported and used as energy
On = Other fuel used internally as energy
FP = Final hydrocarbon product
Then,
Em = FGm + Pm + Om - Px
En = FGn + FO + L + D + K + C + On
E = Em (in MBtu) + En (in Btu)
P = FP (in BOE) + En (in BOE)
Page 13 of 66
Individual and Corporate KPI Calculation:
At the corporate level, the KPI can be based either on Feed or Product.
The feed based KPI uses the total feed at the entries points mainly from the
GOSPs and this method has the advantage of avoiding any double counting.
However, the product based KPI reflects better the energy consumed for each
produced barrel. Any double counting of the products feeding other plants
has to be eliminated. A reliable way to get the total products leaving the
outer corporate boundaries is to obtain it from OSPAS. All products are to be
referred to Arabian Medium heating value expressed in MMBtu/bbl.
The total energy consumption is simply obtained by summing up all the
individual consumptions from the individual facilities.
2.4 Simulation Models
All EPIs require some sort of calculations based on measured process

parameters. Equipment EPIs require only very simple models, most
conveniently done using spreadsheets. Process and product EPI calculations,
though somewhat more complex in concept, are also fairly simple to model
using spreadsheets. However, to give meaningful results, process and product
EPIs require relatively good (i.e., consistent and accurate) mass and energy
balance data. Direct measured data from the PI system is seldom of sufficiently
good quality for our purposes, and must be validated using a “data
reconciliation” software package that goes well beyond the rudimentary data
conditioning techniques described in Section 2.2. Such data reconciliation soft-
ware is not currently installed at any Saudi Aramco facility. Therefore, it is
recommended that a stop-gap approach be used on an interim basis.
The proposed solution is to employ commercial software packages such as

AspenPlus, Pro-II, or Hysys to develop simplified heat and mass balance
simulation models for each process unit and also for the plant as a whole.
These simplified models would not do detailed simulations of reactions and
VLE separations (such as distillation) – just the heat and mass balances.
Reactors and separations would be modeled as mixers and splitters – with the
split ratios for the cut streams specified as manual input. The models would
have to be “tuned” using accurate feed and product flow data (which are usually
metered using very high-accuracy “custody-transfer” meters, and certain key
temperature/pressure/composition measurements at “anchor” points within the
process. The simulation models essentially serve as a “virtual metering” system
for intermediate flows between process units, and thereby minimize the reliance
on measured data of dubious quality. While the virtual metering approach
cannot guarantee accuracy, it does guarantee consistency, which is perhaps more
important.
Page 14 of 66
As an alternative to using commercial software, it is also possible to develop

HMB simulation models of adequate accuracy using electronic spreadsheets.
This has been successfully done for all five gas processing plants (by the GO
Center of Excellence in Dhahran), for JGP, and for Safaniya Onshore Producing.
Output from these simulation models is then used as input for the EPI models.
2.5 Trend Chart Formatting
EPI trend charts must be formatted to show time scale on the X axis and the
index or indices on the Y axis.
The time scale should be selected to cover the period of interest. For product
and process EPIs being used within the department, a monthly or weekly EPI
calculation is probably appropriate, and the recommended period is 12 months
preceding the current date. If, on the other hand, the EPI trend chart is being
used for a presentation to management on long-term trends, the time scale
should be on an annual basis. For equipment EPIs, the index should be
calculated on an hourly, shift, or daily basis, depending on the equipment and
process variability for that particular application. The recommended display
period could be the previous 3-10 days (for EPIs calculated frequently) or the
previous 30 days (for EPIs calculated daily).
The Y-axis scale should be selected to provide a balance between perspective

and discrimination. Too narrow a range magnifies variations at the cost of
perspective. A wide range restores perspective, but may lose discrimination.
A good rule of thumb is that the Y-axis scale should be approximately 2-4 times
the difference between the highest and lowest values for the parameter being
displayed.
Page 15 of 66
Some illustrative examples are provided in Exhibits 2-5 through 2-7.
Exhibits 2-5a and b: Product EPIs for Safaniya Onshore Producing
Dry Gas Fuel and Power Indices
1.0 2500
0.8 2000
MMBtu/MB
0.6 1500
KWH/MB
0.4 1000
0.2 Fuel Index 500
Power Index
0.0 0
Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-03 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-
03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03
Dry Gas Energy Cost Index
70
60
50
Energy Cost, $/MB
40
30
20
10
0
Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-03 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-
03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03
Page 16 of 66
Exhibit 2-6: Process EPIs for Abqaiq Plants
30 0.20
25 0.18
MMBtu/bbl crude oil feed
20 0.16
kwh/bbl oil feed

15 0.14
10 0.12
Overall Energy Index

5 Steam Index 0.10
P o wer Index
0 0.08
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Exhibit 2-7: Equipment EPIs for Compressors at HGP
Stabilizer OH Compr Polytropic Efficiency, HGP
100%
95% K-003A
90% K-003B
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
3/29/05 4/3/05 4/8/05 4/13/05 4/18/05 4/23/05 4/28/05 5/3/05
Page 17 of 66
3 Equipment EPIs
Equipment EPIs are the first level of indices, and the simplest to implement. They are
required for only the major energy consuming or conversion equipment within each
process area. These EPIs are most conveniently expressed as equipment efficiencies
thermodynamic or mechanical. The equipment for which energy efficiency is important
can be divided into two categories:
 Energy consumers – e.g., pumps, compressors, furnaces, lighting, distillation columns
 Energy converters – e.g., boilers, turbines, electric motors, generators
EPIs are generally recommended only for major energy consumers, i.e., power > 2 MW,
or fuel > 15 MMBtu/h. The definitions of efficiency for these two categories are
correspondingly different. For consumers, energy efficiency = useful work
accomplished on the process divided by the energy that must be supplied.
For converters, energy efficiency = useful energy output divided by energy input.
Exhibit 3-1: Definitions of Equipment Energy Efficiency
Equipment Type Input (Denominator) Output (Numerator)

Pump Mechanical shaftwork Liquid kinetic energy
Compressor Mechanical shaftwork Vapor/gas pressure energy
Fired process heater Chemical (fuel) energy Process enthalpy
Distillation column Thermal energy Chemical separation of mixture
Electric motor Electrical power Mechanical shaftwork
Generator Mechanical shaftwork Electrical power
Steam Turbine Steam kinetic energy Mechanical shaftwork
Boiler Chemical (fuel) energy Thermal energy (as steam)
Nowhere does a capacity term appear in the calculation of energy efficiency.

One common mistake worth mentioning is that some people refer to condensing steam
turbines as being more “efficient” than back-pressure steam turbines because they
generally produce more shaftwork (kwh) per lb of steam; this is inconsistent with
fundamental thermodynamic principles. An index expressed as “kwh/lb of steam” could
perhaps be considered an indicator of generating capacity, but certainly not of energy
efficiency.
3.1 Pumps
The mechanical efficiency of a centrifugal pump is given by
Eff (fractional) = Flow x P2 - P1 / HP / 1715
Page 18 of 66
To calculate efficiency on-line it is necessary to have four measured data points

– the flow rate, in gpm, the suction and discharge pressures in psi, and the
horsepower (or kilowatt) reading. Normally, we have instrumentation for the
first three but not the last. Without all four readings, it is not possible to
calculate the efficiency. Sometimes, a pump may have an ammeter instead of a
kw meter. The power can then be calculated as:
I .V . 3. cos . M
HP 
746
where I = measured current, amperes
V = applied voltage (known)
cos( = power factor, expressed as a decimal, typically 0.85-0.92
M = motor efficiency (from data sheet), typically 94-97%
Normally the mechanical efficiency of a pump does not fluctuate in the short
term. Rather, it degrades slowly over a period of months or even years.
Therefore on-line efficiency measurement is not especially valuable. For both
of these reasons, pump efficiency monitoring is not a high priority in most cases.
It could be included for selected applications in the future if desired, after the
power meters have been installed.
An alternative diagnostic tool on the pump’s mechanical condition and

performance is to plot the actual pump characteristic curve (flow rate versus P)
and compare it against the design curve as in Exhibit 3-2. If the pump is
delivering less TDH (total discharge head) than design at the measured flow, it
means that the performance has fallen off and needs corrective action.
The efficiency loss can be estimated very roughly as the ratio of actual head to
design head at that particular flow rate.
Page 19 of 66
Exhibit 3-2: Comparison of Actual Pump Performance vs Design
Centrifugal Pump
1000
800
600
Head, ft
400
200 Design
Actual
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Flow, gpm
3.2 Compressors
Large gas compressors are good candidates for efficiency monitoring.

Overall Energy Efficiency of an individual compressor is defined as:
absorbed energy into process gas isentropic HP

o  
delivered energy to the driver brake HP
Unfortunately, it is impossible to measure directly. The best we can do is

calculate efficiency based on measurements of other process parameters such as
flow, temperature, pressure, and estimated gas physical properties.
For compressors, there are two types of efficiencies: the adiabatic efficiency and
polytropic efficiency. As a practical matter, the adiabatic efficiency can be
calculated from process data as
T2'  T1
a 
T2  T1
Where T1 = Suction temperature, F

T2 = Actual discharge temperature before any cooling, F
T2’ = isentropic (adiabatic) discharge temperature, F, calculated as:
Page 20 of 66
 k 1

P 
T  T1  460  2  1  T1
k
'

2
 P1  
 
P1 & P2 = suction and discharge pressures, psia

k = specific heat ratio Cp/Cv
The polytropic efficiency is calculated as:
 n  k  1 
p    
 n  1  k 
where n = polytropic constant, which is a function of gas properties only, and
determined experimentally from the equation PVn=constant,
unique to each machine.
The polytropic constant can be calculated from on-line process measurements by

the equation:
ln( P2 / P1 )
n .
{ln( P2 / P1 )  ln(T2 / T1 )}
Adiabatic efficiency varies with compressor inlet conditions, whereas the

polytropic efficiency is constant for a particular gas mixture, being a function
primarily of mechanical design. The polytropic efficiency is therefore a better
indicator of compressor mechanical condition and performance.
The overall efficiencies are then obtained as:

oa   a . m and op   p . m
where m = mechanical efficiency of the compressor

= fraction of power delivered by the driver (motor) that is actually
transmitted to the gas, usually 97-98%
Spreadsheet templates for calculating compressor efficiency are shown in Exhibits

3-3 and 3-4. It is recommended that compressor efficiencies should be monitored
on-line (at 4 hour intervals) to detect any adverse trends in a timely manner and to
take appropriate corrective action. To see a sample trend chart, refer back to
Exhibit 2-7. The approximate polytropic efficiency for large compressors (suction
flow >5000 acfm) in good condition is Eff = 61 + 1.31 ln (acfm).
Page 21 of 66
Exhibit 3-3: Efficiency Calculation Template for Single Stage Compressors
Page 22 of 66
Exhibit 3-4a: Efficiency Calculation Template for Two-Stage Compressors (LP Section)
Page 23 of 66
Exhibit 3-4b: Efficiency Calculation Template for Two-Stage Compressors (HP Section)
Page 24 of 66
For gas mixtures, the compressibility and specific heat data are most
conveniently determined off-line at average inlet/outlet conditions (using Hysis,
VMGsim or other physical properties simulation software), and entered
manually. For pure component gases (e.g., refrigeration), a higher level of
modeling flexibility and accuracy can be obtained without too much effort by
using correlations (developed off-line for the expected range of operating
conditions) for the compressibility and specific heat, calculating the values
separately at inlet and outlet conditions, and then taking their arithmetic average.
Observe that several checks are built into the EPI models – to check consistency
of measured vs calculated mixture temperatures (for 2-stage compressors), and
measured vs calculated power. The model also checks to ensure that the
measured flow rate does not exceed compressor capacity and that the calculated
horse power does not exceed motor size.
Three-stage compressors are not very common, but can be handled in the same
manner as two stage compressors: i.e., efficiency must be calculated for each
section.
Under field conditions, mechanically identical machines may develop

differences in polytropic efficiencies of as much as 5%. As a general rule, if
they are within 3% of one another, and the trends tend to track in parallel, it is
an indication that the machines are in comparable mechanical condition, and that
the instruments are reading correctly. Wide discrepancies in efficiency or non-
parallel trends could indicate that one machine has deteriorated significantly
compared to others, the instrument readings are not accurate, or that something
abnormal is going on process wise.
3.3 Fired Heaters
Fired heaters or furnaces are found in oil refineries, gas plants (usually in the
Sulfur Recovery Units), and GOSPs.
Losses
PROCESS FURNACE PROCESS
FLOW IN: FLOW OUT:
W, T1, H1 W, T2, H2
Fuel, F
Page 25 of 66
For fired heaters that are supplying sensible heat to the process, the fuel
efficiency is most simply calculated by the heat balance method, also known as
the “direct” method:
W .Cp.(T2  T1 )

F .HHV
where W = mass flow rate of process fluid, lb/h
Cp = average specific heat, Btu/lb°F (varies with composition and
temperature)
T1, T2 = inlet and outlet process temperatures, °F
F = fuel gas flow rate, scfm
HHV = higher heating value, about 1050 Btu/scf on average (spec is
1080). If the lower heating value (LHV) used instead of HHV,
 is called thermal efficiency instead of fuel efficiency.
If the process stream being heated is undergoing both sensible heating and
evaporation, the equation becomes:
W .( H 2  h1 )

F .HHV
where h1, H2 = inlet and outlet enthalpies of the process stream, Btu/lb.
While simple is theory, the heat balance method has a major deficiency – it
gives accurate results only when the data quality is extremely good (generally
less than 1% error), which is hardly ever the case. A more accurate estimate of
furnace efficiency can be obtained by the heat loss method (also known as the
“indirect” method) as follows:
Absorbed duty F .HHV  Losses

 or alternatively  
Absorbed duty  Losses F .HHV
Choose the formulation according which measured value (absorbed duty of fuel
input) is likely to be more accurate.
A spreadsheet template for calculating furnace/heater efficiency is shown in

Exhibit 3-5, with provision for calculating the efficiency for both gaseous and
liquid fuels. It also has the option to calculate either single-phase or two-phase
process heating duty.
Page 26 of 66
Exhibit 3-5a: Efficiency Calculation Template for Fired Heaters (Part A)
Observe the messages saying “OK”. These represent the results of built-in
consistency checks. If the consistency check failed, there would be a warning
error message instead. It may appear that running a full set of calculations
including consistency checks for each set of data is too much work. However, it
is necessary in order to ensure that the results are as accurate and reliable as
possible.
Page 27 of 66
Exhibit 3-5b: Efficiency Calculation Template for Fired Heaters (Part B)
Furnace efficiency monitoring using the heat balance method, without any
consistency checks, is illustrated in Exhibits 3-6 and 3-7. It is an acceptable first
step, but ultimately the efficiency calculation method should be upgraded to the
more rigorous approach.
Page 28 of 66
Exhibit 3-6: Heat Balance Method for Furnace Efficiency
PI DATA
Exhibit 3-7: Sample Trend Chart for Furnace Efficiency
Safaniya Furnace F-212

100 500
80 OUT 400
Thermal Eff, %
Stack Temp, F
60 300
40 200
20 Efficiency 100
Stack Temp
0 0
Mar-03
Oct-03
Jan-03
Feb-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Dec-03
Sep-03
Apr-03
Aug-03
Page 29 of 66
The spreadsheet templates presented in this and the following section on boilers
are intended to serve as guidelines only. There could be many variations from
the illustrated case, depending on the specific situation. The engineer must
apply his knowledge and understanding of the basic principles to adapt the
“base-case” EPI calculation engine. The information provided in Exhibits 3-8 to
3-10 may be useful in this effort.
Exhibit 3-8: Thermo-chemical Properties of Common Fuels and Elements
Exhibit 3-9: Calculation of HHV from Ultimate Analysis (wt%)
Page 30 of 66
Exhibit 3-10: Heating Value of Fuel Oils as Function of API Gravity
Heat of Combustion for Fuel Oils

21000
20000
y = -0.4303x 2 + 68.919x + 17671
Heating Value, Btu/lb
19000
18000
y = -0.3774x 2 + 57.906x + 16786
LHV
17000 HHV
P o ly. (HHV)
P o ly. (LHV)
16000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
deg API gravity
In general, the heat loss method is preferred over heat balance method because it
is less sensitive to errors in measurement. For example, let’s say that the true
fuel firing rate is 100 MMBtu/h and the true efficiency is 85%. i.e., Absorbed
duty = 85 MMBtu/h and Losses = 15 MMBtu/h. Now, suppose the fuel meter
reading is low by 10%, ie it measures 90 MMBtu/h instead of 100 MMBtu/h.
By the heat balance method, the calculated efficiency would be 85/90, or 94.4%
(error of 9.4%), whereas by the heat loss method, it would be (90-15)/90 =
83.3%, an error of only 1.7%. Clearly, the latter is more robust.
3.4 Fired Boilers
A fired boiler converts chemical energy in the fuel to thermal energy in steam.
Saudi Aramco plants appear to have standardized on steam generation pressures
of 600 psig, 375 psig, and 150 psig. However, there is no reason boilers could
not be designed for other pressures. In fact, there are significant advantages in
terms of power generation potential (employing back-pressure steam turbines) to
higher steam pressures, e.g., 900-1200 psig. Usually, the steam is superheated
by at least 200°F in order to avoid condensation inside the turbine casing.
Flue gas
Water BOILER
Steam
In, W Out, S
Fuel, F Air, A Blowdown
Page 31 of 66
As for fired heaters, boiler efficiency can be calculated by either the heat
balance method or the heat loss method. The heat balance method is
straightforward:
S .( H 2  h1 )

F .HHV
where the parameters are identical to those described earlier. ASME

recommends the heat loss method, which though more complicated method, is
far more accurate:
F .HHV  (losses) S .H

 
F .HHV S .H  (losses)
The input data required are usually measured on-line in any case:
Steam flow Flue gas temperature

Steam pressure Oxygen content of flue gas
Steam temperature CO content of flue gas (optional)
Fuel gas flow Deaerator temperature
Fuel gas heating value Blowdown rate
Combustion air flow Ambient temp around boiler wall
Air supply temp Boiler skin temperature
Air supply relative humidity Wind velocity past boiler walls
In addition, it is necessary to provide the following details about boiler geometry

and design as one-time manual inputs: surface area exposed to the environment
(viz. wind), total area of openings through which heat can be radiated out (e.g.,
peepholes), wall thickness, insulation thickness, and type of wall material –
whether metal or brick.
A spreadsheet template for calculating boiler efficiency is shown in Exhibit 3-11,

and a sample trend chart is shown in Exhibit 3-12. An iterative procedure is
required. Assuming the gas flow is more accurate; the steam flow is calculated by
heat balance, and compared against the measured value. Although the
spreadsheet template presented is for gas-fired boilers, which are the most
common type used in Saudi Aramco facilities, it can be easily adapted to other
fuel types, in a manner similar to that shown for oil-fired furnaces in Exhibit 3-5.
Page 32 of 66
3.5 Waste Heat Boilers
Waste heat boilers (WHBs) are similar in function to conventional boilers,

except that the heat source is a hot process stream (e.g., reactor outlet or
incinerator flue gas), and no fuel-firing is employed. Because they generally
operate at much lower temperatures than fired boilers, the construction is quite
different – no refractory linings are required. In fact, they are very similar in
design to shell-and-tube kettle reboilers, with steam generation either on the
shell side or the tube side, depending upon process considerations.
Steam, H2
PROCESS WASTE HEAT PROCESS

FLOW IN: FLOW OUT:
W, T1 BOILER W, T2
Water, h1
For waste heat boilers (WHBs) where the objective is recovery of steam for
process use, the thermal efficiency is given by:
S .( H 2  h1 )

W .Cp.(T2  T1 )
where W = mass flow rate of tail gas, lb/h

T1, T2 = inlet and outlet process temperatures, °F
S = mass flow rate of steam generated, lb/h
h1, H2 = enthalpies of boiler feedwater makeup and steam respectively,
Btu/lb.
For WHBs, we can only use the heat balance method, because the heat loss
method does not apply. As the flow data are usually extremely unreliable, one
has to check for consistency using material balances on the water side, i.e., to
ensure steam plus blowdown flow rates add up to the boiler feedwater supply.
Page 33 of 66
Exhibit 3-11a: Efficiency Calculation Template for Gas-Fired Boilers (Part A)
Page 34 of 66
Exhibit 3-11b: Efficiency Calculation Template for Gas-Fired Boilers (Part B)
Page 35 of 66
Exhibit 3-12: Sample Trend Chart for Boiler Efficiency
Boiler Efficiency, HGP

95%
94% Boiler-1
Boiler-2
93%
Boiler-3
92% Boiler-4
91%
90%
89%
88%
87%
86%
85%
3/29/05 4/3/05 4/8/05 4/13/05 4/18/05 4/23/05 4/28/05 5/3/05
Exhibit 3-13: Efficiency Calculation Template for Waste Heat Boilers
Page 36 of 66
The calculation template and sample trend chart for WHBs are presented in
Exhibits 3-13 and 3-14. The consistency checking method is illustrated in Exhibit
3-15. It should be obvious there is a metering problem from June 2004 to
January 2005, as the generated steam cannot possibly exceed boiler feedwater flow.
Exhibit 3-14: Sample Trend Chart for Waste Heat Boiler Efficiency
RTR Waste Heat Boiler 15-E293

120
100
80
Thermal Eff, %
60
40
20
0
O 4
De 4
De 4
Ja 4
A 4
Ju 4
Se 4
5
Ja 4
Fe 4
04
No 4
Fe 5
M 4
A 4
M 5
M 4
A 5
M 5
0
0
l-0
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
0
0
-0
0
-0
-0
-0
p-
v-
c-
c-
n-
n-
n-
n-
b-
b-
ug
ct
ay
ay
ar
pr
ar
pr
Ju
Ja
Exhibit 3-15: Material Balance Consistency Check for WHB
Steam - BFW mass balance

160%
140%
120%
Stm / BFW mass frac
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
O 4
De 4
De 4
Ja 4
A 4
Ju 4
Se 4
5
Ja 4
Fe 4
04
No 4
Fe 5
M 4
A 4
05
M 04
A 5
M 5
0
0
0
0
l-0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
0
0
-0
-0
-0
p-
v-
c-
c-
n-
n-
n-
n-
b-
b-
-
ug
ct
ay
ay
ar
pr
ar
pr
Ju
Ja
Page 37 of 66
In case the steam is generated at saturated conditions (quite common in the case
of WHBs) for use directly in a process application, there is a risk of steam
hammer problems in the pipework due to condensation. To avoid this problem
the steam should be blended back in to the main header or superheated, even if
by only 20°F, e.g., against flue gas from any nearby furnace. Examples of these
two potential solutions are shown in Exhibits 3-16 and 3-17 (next page).
In the worst case, some HP steam could be injected.
Plant engineers should always be asking themselves if the results they see make
sense, e.g., by comparing them against known industry standards. Consider, for
example, the trend chart of Exhibit 3-12, which shows boiler efficiency values in
excess of 90%. Examination of typical efficiency values for well operated
boilers, as listed in Exhibit 3-18, should lead us to conclude that the input data
are probably wrong, not that the boilers are working exceptionally well.
Exhibit 3-18: Typical Boiler Efficiencies for Well-operated Boilers
Waste heat boilers, on the other hand, should have thermal efficiencies in the
range of 95-99%, as the only losses are due to radiation and convection.
3.6 Steam Turbines
Steam turbines come in many different configurations:

– back-pressure (single exhaust pressure, > 1 atm)
– back-pressure (dual exhaust pressures, > 1 atm)
– condensing (exhaust < 1 atm)
– condensing (exhaust < 1 atm) with extraction (> 1 atm)
The most common steam turbine design used in industrial applications is the single-
exhaust back-pressure type, because it is the most efficient thermodynamically.
Page 38 of 66
Exhibit 3-16: Blending Saturated Steam into Superheated Header
Exhibit 3-17: Superheating Saturated Steam against Hot Process Steam
Page 39 of 66
HP Steam
WORK
BPST
LP Steam
PROCESS
Two kinds of efficiency are important. One is the isentropic efficiency of the
turbine, which is an indicator of how well the machine was designed to begin
with, and its present mechanical condition. This “machine” efficiency is
calculated as:
H1  H 2

H1  H 2 '
where H1 = Enthalpy of HP inlet steam, Btu/lb

H2 = Actual enthalpy of exhaust LP steam, Btu/lb
H2’ = Enthalpy of exhaust LP steam assuming isentropic expansion,
Btu/lb
The other kind of efficiency is the overall or “cycle” energy efficiency, which is
calculated as:
3413 x kw  W.H 2

W.H 1
Since enthalpy cannot be measured directly, it must be inferred from pressure and
temperature measurements using a steam properties database. This is called
Method 1. The recommended properties software is called SteamTab© version 3,
which is an Excel add-in software package, available for about $150 per copy
from ChemicalLogic Corp (Woburn, Mass). It is also possible to manually read
these properties off a Mollier Diagram, but this is not practical to do when
calculating and trending results using a computer.
Some plants have “extraction” steam turbines with two exhausts – at medium and
low pressure. The thermodynamic efficiency is calculated for each stage, and the
overall efficiency is derived from the stage-efficiency results. A spreadsheet
Page 40 of 66
template for calculating isentropic steam turbine efficiency according to Method 1

is presented in Exhibit 3-19a.
The template shown can be used for either single- or dual-exhaust turbines.
Observe that there are two parallel calculation columns, entitled “Approx” and
“Exact”. The Exact calculation requires the SteamTab© software add-in to be
installed on the computer being used. If it is not, then the Approx calculation
results can be used.
Exhibit 3-19a: Efficiency Calculation Template for Back-pressure Steam Turbines
Page 41 of 66
Exhibit 3-19b: Overall Turbine Efficiency Calculation
It may appear that there is not much difference in results between the two sets
of data for the steam pressures selected, but if the pressures are significantly
different, the Approx correlations may no longer be in such close agreement.
The overall system (“cycle”) energy efficiency for this same turbine is shown in
Exhibit 3-19b.
Notice that the overall cycle efficiency is extremely high – approaching 100%.
This is typical of back-pressure steam turbines. Condensing steam turbines, by
contrast, have overall cycle efficiencies in the range of 20-30%, which is why
they should never be considered except in certain extreme conditions, e.g., for
extremely remote locations where electrical power is either not available at all or
is very expensive, or if the fuel is a waste material that requires disposal.
The former condition exists only at Shaybah in Saudi Aramco facilities.
The latter is unlikely to be encountered anywhere in the Kingdom within the
foreseeable future.
The isentropic efficiency is of more practical use from an operational viewpoint,

because it provides a warning of developing mechanical problems. The cycle
energy efficiency is more useful for design and decision-making purposes, such
for calculating the process unit energy balance when conducting plant energy
audits or choosing between project alternatives.
Page 42 of 66
Exhibit 3-20: Sample Trend Chart for Back-pressure Steam Turbine Efficiency
Steam Turbine Efficiency, HGP

82
80
Isentropic Efficiency, %
KT-361
78
KT-461
76
74
72
4/1/05 4/8/05 4/15/05 4/22/05 4/29/05
If the turbine is equipped with a torque meter it is possible to determine the

actual power output directly, from which the overall energy efficiency can be
calculated by energy balance. This is called Method 2. Most existing steam
turbines in Saudi Aramco plants do not have such torque meters, but a revision
to the standards is under consideration that will in the future require torque
meters on all turbines larger than about 5 MW.
Energy efficiency for condensing type steam turbines cannot be calculated by

method 1; only by method 2 (based on torque meter reading). Fortunately, the
point is moot because as a matter of policy, the Company should not be using
condensing turbines due to their extremely low cycle efficiency, as noted earlier.
3.7 Gas Turbines
Gas Turbines, also called Combustion Gas Turbines (CGTs) are widely used in
Saudi Aramco plants, both as direct process drivers and as electrical power
generators. Two kinds of energy efficiency are important – the equipment
efficiency, and the cycle efficiency (not the same as “process” efficiency, which
is covered in the next section). The energy efficiency of individual components
can be estimated using the methods of sections 3.2 and 3.6. This section focuses
on cycle efficiency.
Page 43 of 66
A gas turbine is an internal combustion engine that operates on a

thermodynamic cycle known as the Brayton cycle. The principal components
consist of an air compressor, a combustion chamber, and a turbo-expander.
Atmospheric air is drawn into the compressor and compressed to several times
atmospheric pressure. The pressure of the compressed air is further increased by
burning it in a confined space (the combustion chamber). The hot, pressurized
combustion gases are then expanded through a series of stationary nozzles and
rotating turbine wheel and blade assemblies, which results in rotation of the
output shaft. The mechanical energy of the shaft rotation is used to drive the gas
turbine compressor and gas turbine accessories, as well as the “process load”
such as a generator, pump, or compressor. After giving up energy in expansion,
the gases may be discharged directly to the atmosphere or to a heat recovery
system. The flow of air, fuel, and combustion products through the gas turbine
cycle is shown schematically in Exhibit 3-21.
Exhibit 3-21: Basic Brayton Cycle Configuration
The ideal Brayton cycle consists of the four processes that are shown on the
pressure – volume and temperature – entropy diagrams in Exhibit 3-22.
The points identified in Exhibit 3-22 correspond to the similarly labeled points
on the turbine in Exhibit 3-21, and they indicate where the processes are
occurring.
Page 44 of 66
Exhibit 3-22: Thermodynamic Representation of Basic Brayton Cycle
Page 45 of 66
There are several different variations of the Brayton cycle, and each has a
different calculation procedure for determining the efficiency. Therefore, a brief
overview of cycle types and the governing thermodynamic equations is provided
here as background. For additional details, the reader is referred to Saudi
Aramco’s PEDD course MEX-214.
The Brayton cycle for power generation is usually employed in one of the
following four configurations:
 Simple (or open)
 Regenerative
 Combined Cycle
 Steam Injection (Cheng Cycle)
Only the simple cycle and combined cycle configurations are currently used in
Saudi Aramco plants. Nevertheless, it is important to be aware of the other
configurations in case they are used in the future.
For the ideal simple cycle, the optimum pressure ratio to produce maximum net
output is that for which the compressor discharge and turbine exhaust
temperatures are the same. In real life, the pressure ratio at which maximum net
work is produced is considerably lower, due to the effect of compressor and
turbine inefficiencies and combustion section pressure drop. Consequently, the
turbine exhaust temperature is considerably higher than the compressor
discharge temperature. For example, the typical exhaust temperature in a heavy
duty industrial turbine is about 1000°F, while the compressor discharge
temperature is only about 650°F.
Simple cycle energy efficiency can be increased by as much as 25% using a

“regenerator”, which recovers some of the waste heat in the exhaust gas to
preheat the compressor discharge air before it enters the combustor, as shown in
Figure 3-23.
Page 46 of 66
Exhibit 3-23: Regenerative Configuration of Brayton Cycle
Although the regenerative cycle exhibits improved efficiency over the simple
cycle, it is not widely used in industrial gas turbine applications because the
recuperative heat exchanger required is invariably too large and expensive.
In addition to capital cost, the large heat exchanger size offsets one of the main
advantages of using a gas turbine, which is its compact size and small footprint.
Pressure drops occurring through the heat exchanger further reduce the
theoretical improvement in efficiency that could be obtained.
The Combined Cycle is a combination of the Brayton cycle and the Rankine
cycle, as illustrated schematically in Exhibit 3-24. Heat in the CGT exhaust is
used to generate HP steam in a type of boiler called a Heat Recovery Steam
Generator (HRSG). The HP steam is used to generate additional power in a
condensing steam turbine according to the Rankine cycle.
Page 47 of 66
Exhibit 3-24: Combined Cycle Configuration
Because CGT exhaust usually contains about 15% oxygen, it is capable of

sustaining combustion. This characteristic can be exploited to generate
additional steam and power by employing supplementary firing in duct burners
(not shown).
Because much of the waste heat in the gas turbine exhaust is used, the efficiency
of the combined cycle is considerably greater than that of the simple cycle, as
follows:
CC = GT + HRSGST - GTHRSGST
where:
GT = Gas turbine simple cycle efficiency
HRSG = Heat recovery steam generator efficiency
ST = Steam turbine cycle (Rankine cycle) efficiency
Page 48 of 66
Thus, for example, the combined cycle efficiency of a plant that utilizes a 30%
efficient gas turbine with a heat recovery steam generator that is 80% efficient
and a 32% Rankine cycle efficiency will be:
CC = 0.30 + (0.80)(0.32) - (0.30)(0.80)(0.32) = 0.479 = 47.9%
This is typical, although advanced cycles have been reported with operating
efficiencies in the range of 50-55% even under field conditions.
One of the drawbacks of the combined cycle is that the efficiency drops off
significantly at part load. Another is that the steam/power ratio is fixed.
This makes it unsuitable for processes that have variable steam and power
demands. For such applications, the Cheng cycle can be a better solution, as it
has the flexibility to produce varying amounts of steam and power to match
plant process loads (see Exhibit 3-25). This is accomplished by injecting a
portion of the generated HP steam back into the combustion chamber, which is
why it is also known as a Steam Injection Gas Turbine (or STIG). Most of the
applications have been in the 2-12 MW size range, with process steam demands
of 0-100 Klb/h. The drawbacks are (a) the water content of the injected steam is
lost up the stack, which can becomes uneconomic when makeup water costs are
high, and (b) higher maintenance costs due to increased corrosion of turbine
internals.
Exhibit 3-25: Schematic of Cheng (STIG) Cycle
It should be emphasized that the thermodynamic cycles described here are for
power production only, whether mechanical or electrical. If the turbine exhaust
gases are used for process heating, that is called cogeneration, which is covered
in Section 3.8.
Page 49 of 66
3.7.1 Calculating Cycle Efficiency
The efficiency of the gas turbine is equal to the ratio of turbine power
output to fuel heat input, as shown in the following equation:
w net c p TC  TD  TB  TA  TC  TD  TB  TA T  TA
η    1 D
q c p TC  TB  TC  TB TC  TB
Since the compression (A to B) and the expansion (C to D) are both

isentropic in the ideal cycle of Exhibit 3-22, the pressure ratio for these
two processes is the same, viz.
k 1
TB  PB  k TC
  
TA  PA  TD
where:
PB = Compressor discharge pressure, psia or kPa abs
PA = Compressor inlet pressure, psia or kPa abs
k = Cp/Cv = 1.4 for air (assumed to be constant)
The substitution of these variables in the efficiency equation results in

the following equation:
T  TA 1
η  1 D
k 1 k 1
 1 k 1
P  k P  k  PB  k
TD  B   TA  B   
 PA   PA   PA 
Thus, for the ideal simple cycle, the efficiency is a function only of the
pressure ratio developed by the gas turbine compressor, and the
performance of the compressor is extremely important in overall gas
turbine efficiency. In the real simple cycle, turbine efficiency is also
dependent on the turbine inlet temperature (Point C), and decreases as
turbine inlet temperature increases for a given pressure ratio.
Using the formula presented above for the efficiency of an ideal Brayton
cycle, the calculated efficiency of an ideal cycle with a pressure ratio of
11.5 would be
1
η  1 1.4 1
 0.5  50%
1.4
11.5
Page 50 of 66
A real cycle that is operating at this pressure ratio might only have an
efficiency of 30 – 32%, because of the following critical differences
between the real simple cycle and the ideal cycle:
 In the real cycle, the compression in the compressor section and the
expansion in the turbine are not isentropic due to compressor and
turbine inefficiencies. Consequently, the real cycle turbo-expander
provides less power, and the compressor uses more. Compressor
efficiency is especially important. For each 1% decrease in
compressor efficiency, there is about a 1.5 to 2% reduction in net
power output.
 Factors such as compressor fouling can rapidly reduce compressor
efficiency. Because of the importance of compressor efficiency in
overall CGT performance, compressor performance should be
routinely monitored during operation so that corrective action, such
as a compressor section water wash, can be taken in a timely manner.
 In the real cycle, a pressure drop through the combustion system between
the compressor discharge and the turbine inlet occurs, which reduces
the available pressure ratio for expansion across the turbine.
 Due to frictional resistance in the exhaust system ductwork, the gases
do not exhaust at atmospheric pressure, but rather at a slightly higher
pressure, typically about 4 to 10 inches WC (0.14 to 0.36 psi, or 1 to
2.5 kPa) above atmospheric. This exhaust pressure loss also
contributes to a smaller pressure ratio that is available across the
turbine. Each 4-inch WC increase in exhaust pressure results in a
decrease of about 0.4% in both output power and efficiency.
 There are also inlet pressure losses due to the ducting and filters, and
these losses are typically also about 4 inches WC (0.14 psi, or 1 kPa).
Each 4 inch WC of inlet pressure drop results in a decrease of about
1.4% in output and 0.5% in efficiency.
 The properties of the air and combustion gases, CP and k, are not
constant, but rather vary with temperature in a way that makes the
real performance worse than the ideal predicted performance.
Exhibit 3-26 compares these differences on a T-S diagram.
Page 51 of 66
Exhibit 3-26: Comparison of Ideal and Real Brayton Cycle (Simple)
The most common parameter for measuring thermal energy efficiency of

a power generation cycle is the “heat rate”, defined as Btu of fuel input
(usually HHV) per MW of net power generated. Net power is defined as
the gross power output of the expander minus the parasitic power
consumption of the air compressor and other essential components.
The lower the heat rate, the more thermally efficient the machine.
Fuel Input, Btu/h F.HHV

Heat Rate  
Net Pow er Output, kw W
It is customary to measure the power output of the turbine in kilowatts

(kW) if the turbine is used as a generator drive and horsepower (HP) if it
is used as a direct mechanical drive for a pump or compressor. The two
measures are related as follows:
1 HP = 0.7457 kW
Page 52 of 66
For power generation applications, the same manufacturer is generally

responsible for supplying both the gas turbine and the generator as a set,
and the power output is specified as the kW output at the generator
terminals; therefore, the performance measured also includes the
efficiency of the generator. Because large generators are generally very
efficient (~ 98%), the measured performance is still mainly that of the
gas turbine.
For mechanical drive units, the power output is measured as the power
delivered at the turbine shaft coupling to the driven piece of equipment,
even if the same manufacturer is supplying the driven equipment;
therefore, only the performance of the turbine is being measured.
Measuring the power output of a gas turbine for a generator drive is

straightforward, as the electric metering instrumentation measures electric
power directly in kW. For mechanical drive turbines, SAES-K-502,
“Combustion Gas Turbines,” requires that the load coupling be a torque-
metering coupling designed for continuous operation. The shaft torque at
the coupling is measured in ft-lb (Nm in SI units). The power output is
then calculated as follows:
2 NT
HP 
33,000
where:
HP = shaft horsepower
T = measured torque, ft-lb
N = shaft rotational speed, rpm
Since the theoretical minimum heat rate (at 100% efficiency) of any
thermodynamic cycle is 3412.14 Btu/kwh, the thermal efficiency can
also be expressed as:
3412.14
η
Heat Rate
These equations are general, and apply to all power generation cycles.
Page 53 of 66
Industrial gas turbines normally are normally manufactured in certain

standard sizes and for certain fixed design parameters, e.g.
Normally, the published design and performance parameters are for

“ISO” conditions, defined to be:
Parameter Assumption
Suction air pressure 14.7 psia
Suction air temperature 59°F (15°C)
Suction air Relative Humidity 60%
Inlet pressure losses none
Exhaust pressure losses none
Gearbox and transmission losses none
Mechanical deterioration none
These conditions are almost never found in practice. Therefore the

published ISO performance has to be re-rated at actual site conditions.
The site ambient conditions to be used in calculating site turbine
performance can be found in SAES-A-112, “Meteorological and Seismic
Design Data.” The procedure for re-rating a turbine is described in the
next section.
3.7.2 Turbine Performance Index
The recommended energy performance index for the turbine is

Actual Heat Rate
Cycle Efficiency Index 
Design Heat Rate at Site Conditions
The actual heat rate over any operating period is easy to determine from
measured power output and fuel consumption. The design heat rate at
site conditions requires adjustment of the ISO heat rate for changing site
conditions of temperature, pressure, humidity, and mechanical
conditions, as described below.
Page 54 of 66
Since the power produced by a gas turbine is directly related to the mass
flow through the machine, anything that reduces the density of the inlet
air will reduce the mass flow through the machine and, as a result, the
power output.
Inlet air temperature has the greatest impact on gas turbine performance.
Gas turbine power output will decrease approximately 0.5 % for each 1°F
increase in inlet air temperature (0.9% for each 1°C). This is because as
the air temperature rises, the density of the air decreases, which results in
reduced mass flow through the turbine. Also, the pressure ratio developed
by the compressor will decrease, which results in a lower expansion ratio
available across the turbine. The reduced pressure ratio results in lower
turbine efficiency and therefore, lower power output.
Barometric pressure also has a significant effect on power output.

At higher altitudes, the lower barometric pressure means lower air
density, which results in reduced mass flow through the turbine and
consequent reduction in gas turbine power output. However, there will
be no net effect on overall turbine efficiency, as the benefit of lower
discharge pressure (to atmosphere) will offset the penalty due lower
suction pressure.
Humidity variations generally have an insignificant minor effect on gas

turbine performance and are usually neglected in performance
calculations. For a given total atmospheric pressure, the density of the
mixture decreases as the amount of water vapor in the air increases,
resulting in reduced mass flow through the turbine and consequently
lower power output. An increase in the amount of water vapor increases
the heat capacity of the mixture also, which reduces the efficiency of the
machine, but only very slightly.
Turbine manufacturers provide curves, charts, or other data that show the
effects of ambient conditions on gas turbine performance (see Exhibit 3-27
as an example).
Page 55 of 66
Exhibit 3-27: Inlet Temperature Correction Factors (Typical)
Instead of charts, it may be more convenient for computerized

calculations to use the following correlations that represent an acceptably
accurate approximation for most industrial gas turbines:
Temperature Correction factor for Power Output,

TCFPWR = 1.22 – 0.375 (T/100)
Temp Correction factor for Heat Rate,

TCFHR = 0.9656 + 0.0304 (T/100) + 0.0473 (T/100)2
where T = ambient temperature, °F
The correction factors for changes in atmospheric pressure, generally due

to altitude are more straightforward:
Pressure Correction factor for Power Output,

PCFPWR = PATM / 14.7 = Altitude (ft) /7500
Pressure Correction factor for Heat Rate,

PCFHR = 1.0
Page 56 of 66
Exhibit 3-28: Atmospheric Pressure (Altitude) Correction Factor
As indicated earlier, the correction factors for humidity variations are

very small, but can be estimated either from the chart or the equations
given below.
Humidity Correction factor for Power Output,

HCFPWR = 1.008 - 0.1335 Y
Humidity Correction factor for Heat Rate,

HCFHR = 0.9976 + 0.373 Y
where Y = absolute humidity, lb water vapor / lb dry air
Page 57 of 66
Exhibit 3-29: Ambient Humidity Correction Factors
Obstructions to air flow in the inlet air path (inlet filters, silencers, and
duct work) cause the total pressure at the compressor inlet to decrease,
which reduces the gas turbine's power output in two ways. First, the
lower density reduces the mass flow rate of the working fluid (air).
Second, it causes a decrease in compressor discharge pressure, which in
turn results in a lower turbine pressure ratio, and therefore power output.
The decrease of the compressor inlet pressure also affects the heat rate.
A lower turbine pressure ratio reduces thermal efficiency, which
increases the heat rate.
The magnitude of the inlet pressure correction as a percentage of

machine rating will vary, generally being a larger percentage for smaller
machines. Typically, a 4 in. H2O decrease in inlet air pressure will cause
a 1.7% decrease in the turbine power output, a 0.7% increase in the heat
rate, and a 2°F increase in the exhaust temperature. Exhibit 3-30 shows
the effect of inlet pressure loss on turbine power and heat rate.
Page 58 of 66
Exhibit 3-30: Inlet Pressure Drop Correction Factors
Page 59 of 66
In equation form, the correction factors for inlet pressure drop are:
DPCFPWR = 1.0 – P/250, and
DPCFHR = 1.0 + P/625
where DP = inlet pressure losses, inches of water column
Flow restrictions in the exhaust system (heat recovery equipment,

silencers, and duct work) have a similar effect, for comparable reasons.
Exhibit 3-31 shows the effect of outlet pressure loss on turbine power
and heat rate; the corresponding equations for correction factors are:
DPCFPWR = 1.0 – P/600, and
DPCFHR = 1.0 + P/590
Exhibit 3-31: Exhaust Pressure Drop Correction Factors
Page 60 of 66
SAES-K-502 requires a power correction factor for mechanical

transmission losses as well, if applicable. A power correction factor will
typically be a data item submitted by the turbine vendor for base load.
For example, if the reduction gear has a 97.5% mechanical efficiency,
the power correction factor would be 0.975.
Since the mechanical transmission losses are a direct reduction of output

for a given fuel flow, a heat rate correction factor can be calculated
simply as the reciprocal of the power correction factor: 1/0.975 = 1.026
in the example cited.
The vendor’s stated ratings are invariably for a brand new gas turbine.
Some deterioration of performance occurs naturally with turbine
operation due to mechanical wear. To account for this deterioration,
SAES-K-502 requires that the following factors be applied:
 0.90 for generator drive, both single shaft and multiple shaft units.
 0.90 for mechanical drive - multiple shaft units.
 0.85 for mechanical drive - single shaft units.
Gas turbine heat rate will also deteriorate (increase) as the turbine ages.
The percentage change in efficiency or heat rate will typically be less than
the percentage change in power output. No standard correction for heat
rate deterioration is specified in SAES-K-502. If the engineer wants to
predict future heat rate for the turbine, a percentage change equal to about
one-half of the percentage change in output is a reasonable estimate.
Finally, if any of the shaft-driven auxiliaries, other than those auxiliaries

included in the turbine manufacturer’s rating, are driven by the turbine,
the power they require must be subtracted from the turbine power output.
Once all the correction factors have been determined, they are applied as
multipliers to the ISO rated conditions, with the exception of the
auxiliary power correction. The auxiliary power correction is subtracted
from the turbine power output after the other corrections have been
applied. Thus, the site rated power is calculated as follows:
Site Rated Power = ISO Rated Power x Temperature Correction x
Altitude Correction x Humidity Correction x Inlet
Losses Correction x Exhaust Losses Correction x
Transmission Loss Correction x Deterioration and
Contingency Correction - Auxiliary Power
Page 61 of 66
Site Rated Heat Rate = ISO Rated Heat x Temperature Correction x

Humidity Correction x Inlet Losses Correction
x Exhaust Losses Correction x Transmission
Loss Correction x Deterioration and
Contingency Correction
3.8 Cogeneration Systems
An EPI trend chart for the cogeneration system at Abqaiq Plants is presented in
Exhibit 3-32 as a sample. Observe that the heat rate is considerably lower than
the typical value of 10,000 Btu/kwh for simple cycle gas turbine installations.
Exhibit 3-32: Heat rate Trend Chart for Cogeneration Facilities
Abqaiq Plants CGTs Energy Efficiency
8000
7000
6000
Heat Rate, Btu/kwh
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
A detailed description of the methodology and instructions on how to calculate

the net heat rate will be added during the next revision.
Page 62 of 66
4 Process Unit/Area EPIs
EPIs for Process Units and Process Areas are intended to measure the energy efficiency
of an entire process system, rather than a single item of equipment. Examples of
process units in an oil refinery are the Crude Distillation, Fluid Catalytic Cracking,
Reforming, Hydro-treating, etc. Examples of process units in gas processing plants are
Sweetening, Dehydration, and Sulfur Recovery. Examples of process units/areas in a
GOSP are Degassing, Stabilization, Desalting, Dehydration and Gas Compression.
The Solomon Energy Intensity Index (EII) for oil refining builds up the overall plant
energy index from the energy indices for individual process units. The process unit EIIs
are an acceptable measure of energy efficiency, provided that the data being used are
accurate. No further model development work is required. All that each refinery has to
do is calculate and monitor the EII values for the major energy-consuming process units.
The CGEY Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) for gas processing, on the other hand, is
formulated as Fuel Consumption per GPU for the entire plant, where:
This formulation cannot be disaggregated into EEIs for individual process areas such as
inlets, stabilization, gas treating, DDPC, Sales Gas compression, and sulfur recovery.
Therefore, the process area EPIs have to be computed on the basis of output from the
HMB simulation model.
Process area indices for E&P plants also have to be computed from HMB simulation
model output, because there is no established industry-standard energy index for such
process operations.
Page 63 of 66
In general, each process unit or area will have only two energy indices: a fuel index and
a power index:
FuelConsum ption PowerConsumption

FuelIndex  and PowerIndex 
CapacityPa rameter CapacityPa rameter
In cases where the process unit uses both steam and direct fuel, it may be desirable to
have three indices – a process fuel index, a steam index (= boiler fuel index), and a
power index. The energy consumed in the Utilities area of the plant and by common
facilities (e.g., admin buildings, perimeter lighting) must be properly allocated to the
process units. The process area indices are expressed in terms of a single “capacity
parameter”, which should be chosen to represent the operating rate of each process area
– e.g., combined feed gas flow, combined condensate flow, sweet wet gas, sweet dry
gas, sales gas, or dry crude oil flow. The process areas do not have a cost index, as the
capacity parameter is not a distinct salable “product”.
4.1 Solomon EII for Oil Refining
All Saudi Aramco refineries subscribe to the benchmarking service from Solomon
Associates (Dallas, Texas). As a subscriber, Saudi Aramco has access to their
proprietary equations and calculation procedures, which have been encoded into
an Excel spreadsheet available from the Energy Systems Division of Process and
Control Systems Department in Dhahran. The basic data required are shown in
Exhibit 4-1a. The calculation for Complexity Factor is shown in Exhibit 4-1b.
The EII calculations for the process units are shown in Exhibit 4-1c.
Exhibit 4-1a: Basic Data for Solomon EII Calculation
Exhibit 4-1b: Calculation of Complexity Index
Page 64 of 66
Exhibit 4-1c: Solomon EII Calculation Template
Page 65 of 66
To effectively use the EII for process efficiency improvement, we should

monitor the EII of each unit preferably every shift, but at least on a daily basis.
The EII should be calculated for each set of data (easily done using a macro).
Once done, however, the results can be archived for future reference as a “flat
file”, so that the calculation does not have to be repeated for past periods.
A sample trend chart of monthly data is shown in Exhibit 4-2.
Exhibit 4-2: Sample EII Trend Chart
Whole Refinery
180
160
140
120
Solomon E I I
100
80
60
40
A ctual Index
20 Wo rld's B est
0
2/13/02 5/24/02 9/1/02 12/10/02 3/20/03 6/28/03
Revision Summary
19 March 2006 New Saudi Aramco Best Practice.
11 August 2012 Minor revision removing confidential portions of the document.
Page 66 of 66

Sabp A 004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabp A 004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Practice

SABP-A-004 11 August 2012

Energy Performance Indices

Developed by: Energy Systems Division

Previous Issue: 19 March 2006 Next Planned Update: TBD

Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2012. All rights reserved.

4 Process Unit/Area EPIs 63

1.1 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this document is to describe proven Best Practices, consistent

It is important to also understand what this manual is not. It is not intended to

Best Practice: A process or method that, when correctly executed, leads to

Energy Performance Index: An operating policy that distributes the load

Energy Intensity KPI: It is defined as the energy required to generate a unit of

1.3 Conflicts with Other Standards

There are no other published Standards, Procedures, or General Instructions that

1.4 References and Related Documents

This manual is based on an unpublished course that was developed and

Historical benchmarking is when the current energy efficiency is compared to previous

Competitive benchmarking is when the plant performance is compared against the

Absolute benchmarking is when the equipment or plant energy efficiency is compared

An even more important application of EPIs than benchmarking is to serve as a

This manual covers implementation of Phase 1 only. Additional manuals will

2.2 Data Availability and Quality

Exhibit 2-1: Data Validation and Conditioning Logic

2.3 Calculation Strategy

Exhibit 2-3: Simplified Process Model

Notes: FB = Feed-based, PB = Product-based

Exhibit 2-4: EPI Calculation Strategy

Live input data Temporary cache,

The following formula is used to calculate the energy KPI:

Energy Intensity KPI = (Energy In - EnergyOut) in MBtu / Total Product in BOE

Exhibit 2-5: KPI Calculation Strategy

Energy out, Eout

Energy in, Ein

To continue the formulation, we will use the following definitions:

Individual and Corporate KPI Calculation:

2.4 Simulation Models

All EPIs require some sort of calculations based on measured process

The proposed solution is to employ commercial software packages such as

As an alternative to using commercial software, it is also possible to develop

2.5 Trend Chart Formatting

The Y-axis scale should be selected to provide a balance between perspective

Some illustrative examples are provided in Exhibits 2-5 through 2-7.

Exhibits 2-5a and b: Product EPIs for Safaniya Onshore Producing

Dry Gas Fuel and Power Indices

0.2 Fuel Index 500

Dry Gas Energy Cost Index

Exhibit 2-6: Process EPIs for Abqaiq Plants

kwh/bbl oil feed

Overall Energy Index

Exhibit 2-7: Equipment EPIs for Compressors at HGP

Stabilizer OH Compr Polytropic Efficiency, HGP

Exhibit 3-1: Definitions of Equipment Energy Efficiency

Equipment Type Input (Denominator) Output (Numerator)

Nowhere does a capacity term appear in the calculation of energy efficiency.

The mechanical efficiency of a centrifugal pump is given by

Eff (fractional) = Flow x P2 - P1 / HP / 1715

To calculate efficiency on-line it is necessary to have four measured data points

An alternative diagnostic tool on the pump’s mechanical condition and

Exhibit 3-2: Comparison of Actual Pump Performance vs Design

Large gas compressors are good candidates for efficiency monitoring.

absorbed energy into process gas isentropic HP

Unfortunately, it is impossible to measure directly. The best we can do is