Optimization Example

Performance and Optimization Examples: Centrifugal Compressor

As part of our monitoring and field services, BETA can assist with performance assessments for rotating
equipment such as gas turbine/centrifugal compressor trains.

1. Centrifugal Performance Assessment: Changing Operating Conditions

A gas plant was planning to increase the inlet gas supply volume. BETA was retained to evaluate the
compressor and gas turbine performance to determine whether the unit could handle a 35% increase in
gas throughput. As discussed, below, the issue becomes complex due to the impact of ambient
temperatures.

Historical and current operating data were used in BETA’s performance model to predict throughput and
power requirements. It was found that the available engine power could handle the additional volume at
certain operating conditions and not at others. The key variables in the analysis were suction pressure
and ambient temperatures.

As shown, below, there is a gap between required power (for the compressor) and available power. The
graph shows compressor input power vs. suction pressure for three different ambient temperatures.
ƒ At higher suction pressures and low ambient temperatures, the unit can handle the increased
throughput (power output exceeds the required power. For example, at 15 C operation is possible
above a suction pressure of 2550 kPa, in the area highlighted below (oval area).
ƒ At lower suction pressures there is insufficient power for the required load. This is illustrated by the
gap between required power and compressor power output (see example at 15 C and 2200 kPa).

Required Power (@15 C gas temp)

Power vs. Suction Pressure Avail. Power (Ambient temp -7 C)
Discharge pressure = 6200 kPa Avail. Power (Ambient temp 15 C
Flow = 5700 E3M3/D Avail. Power (Ambient temp 30 C)
160
Power output (% of rated)

140

120
Gap
100

80

60
1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
Suction pressure (kPa)
kPa(Available Power < Required Power)
Example: Performance Gap at 15C and 2200 kPa

These results were used to investigate various power upgrade possibilities for the gas turbine – an
ongoing analysis.

©2009 Beta Machinery Analysis 1

 Optimization Example-Centrifugal Compressor

2. Should Turbo Expander Be Rebuilt? (Turbo Expander and Centrifugal

Compressor Example)
For this midstream company, the customer was unsure if the turbo expander should be rebuilt. Would the
improved performance (and economics) support the associated repair cost?

The process involves a turbo expander that compresses low pressure gas, which then feeds the
centrifugal compressor. The turbo expander currently has a discharge pressure of 2100 kPa. A major
overhaul of the turbo expander would increase the discharge pressure to 2460 kPa (the suction pressure
for the centrifugal compressor). The benefit of this higher suction pressure is to reduce the load on the
centrifugal compressor – decreasing fuel requirements. The cost for this overhaul is $150,000.

BETA predicted the reduced power requirements and reduced fuel consumption, and evaluated the
economics, using an assumed fuel cost of $5/MCF. As shown, below, the overhaul would payout in 65 to
87 days – a very good investment. On the basis of these findings, the overhaul is being carried out.

This table shows the centrifugal compressor performance results, including fuel savings ($) for the typical
discharge pressure (Pd), two flow rates (Q) – before and after the change in suction pressures (Ps).

Pd = 6200 kPa
Q= 4250 e^3m^3/d Q= 5700 e^3m^3/d
Before overhaul:
11640 15611
Power (Bhp) at Ps = 2100 kPa:
After overhaul:
9795 13136
Power (Bhp) at Ps = 2460 kPa:
Power Savings from
1845.0 2474.1
overhaul (Bhp):
Fuel Savings (MSCF/day): 344.1 461.5
Fuel Savings: ($/day): $1,720.55 $2,307.25
Fuel Savings ($/year): $627,999.69 $842,147.58
Payback on Investment (days): 87 65

©2009 Beta Machinery Analysis 2 http://www.BetaMachinery.com

 Optimization Example-Centrifugal Compressor

3. Centrifugal Compressor Performance Degradation

Centrifugal compressor performance is evaluated against the wheel curve baseline for this particular unit.

As shown below, this unit had an 11% deviation in head at the point shown, likely due to impellor fouling,
impellor wear, and/or increased clearances.

BETA monitors the compressor’s performance to detect changes in performance. The wheel curve is one
of our analytical tools that is tracked regularly.

Cash Flow Impact of Performance Deviation is about $142,500/year. This is based on 63 MMSCFD
throughput and 325 BHP of extra power is required because of the stage performance degradation
(measured as head deviation). Fuel gas costs are based on engine BSFC of 10,000 BTU/BHP-hr and fuel
gas valued at $5/MCF.

©2009 Beta Machinery Analysis 3 http://www.BetaMachinery.com

 Optimization Example-Centrifugal Compressor

4. Gas Turbine: Impact of Improved Blade Wash

1500
Turbine blade wash is a required maintenance
activity. However, the operator will realize
improved cash flow by optimizing the 1400
maintenance cycle for blade washing. Avoiding
unnecessary blade washing improves capacity

G.P. PCD - CORRECTED

1300
throughput, yet excessive delays will result in
pressure deviation (lower performance).

BETA’s monitoring identifies optimal

1200
*
maintenance cycles. Operating data from the 1100
turbine is collected daily and converted into
normalized baseline curves (see figure at right).
1000
This baseline consists of normalized gas
producer speed (horizontal) versus normalized
compressor pressure deviation. 900

Deviations between current operating condition

800
and the baseline curves are trended (see figure 80 100
below). G.P. SPEED - CORRECTED (%)

The pressure and temperature deviation is used to determine the optimal maintenance interval. The
figure below illustrates multiple blade washing activities. In each case the pressure and temperature is
reduced. The deviation starts to increase until the next wash cycle.

Impact:
ƒ Avoiding an unnecessary blade wash will result in reduced downtime and operating costs. The
preserved production can represent hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash flow.
ƒ On the other hand, decreased compressor efficiency causes increased fuel consumption and the
resulting increased T5 temperatures can shorten component life. These factors also represent very
large economic impacts.

Run Hours

Pressure
Blade Wash: Deviation (%)
Maintenance Activity

Temperature
Deviation (%)

Log Date (2 year period)

©2009 Beta Machinery Analysis 4 http://www.BetaMachinery.com

 Optimization Example-Centrifugal Compressor

5. Gas Turbine: Performance Monitoring (Identifies $250,000 per Year Cost

Saving)
Compressor discharge pressure (PCD) is a key factor in gas turbine performance. Beta’s MAO service
determines the deviation in PCD from a baseline relationship with gas producer speed, N1. In the case
shown here, PCD looks unremarkable, but the deviation in PCD tends to be jump between -7% and -3%.

The performance graph below shows the same behavior, with the operating points falling either 3% or 7%
below the baseline.

The most likely cause of this problem is inlet guide vane linkage malfunction (looseness or “hanging up”).

Impact:
Measured fuel flow rate was about 10% higher at the increased PCD deviation condition. Under typical
operating conditions for this unit, this represents incremental fuel valued at about $250,000 per year,
assuming $8/MCF.

For more performance and condition monitoring examples, contact BETA’s application support team.

©2009 Beta Machinery Analysis 5 http://www.BetaMachinery.com