Back to Basics
Essentials
of Steam Turbine
Design and Analysis
Jimmy D. Kumana Effective design, analysis, and integration
Kumana & Associates
of steam turbines can help optimize steam
supply reliability and overall energy efficiency
S
team turbines are important components of process
plant utility systems. They offer opportunities for
optimizing steam supply reliability, as well as site-
wide energy efficiency. Steam turbines are most common in
the oil refining, ammonia and urea, methanol, ethylene, and
pulp and paper industries, where they are generally sized
to produce 10–60 MW of power. Good economics are also
possible at smaller sizes as low as 2 MW, which are more
common in the food and beverage industries, as well as
in small to medium-sized plants in the chemical process
industries (CPI).
Achieving favorable steam turbine economics depends
on choosing the right type of turbine (e.g., backpressure vs.
condensing) in the right size, as well as integrating it cor-
rectly with the heat exchanger network (HEN) in accordance
with the appropriate placement principle of pinch analysis.
This article reviews the thermodynamic relationships and
equations that link steam flow conditions and power output,
which are useful for estimating preliminary economics of
new turbines and analyzing the performance of existing units.
The basics
Any device that converts the chemical energy contained
in a fuel into mechanical energy (i.e., shaftwork) via combus-
tion is called a heat engine. Heat engines are generally clas-
sified according to the thermodynamic cycle that they follow.
The most common heat engines in industrial applications are
steam turbines (Rankine cycle), gas turbines (Brayton cycle),
and internal combustion engines (Otto cycle).
Although gas turbines can also play an important role in
the economic optimization of the combined heat and power
(CHP) utilities at manufacturing plants, this article focuses
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
across your plant.
exclusively on steam turbines. Steam turbines have four
typical operating modes:
Backpressure steam turbines (BPSTs) produce low-­
pressure (LP) exhaust steam that can be used for one or
more process heating duties (Figure 1a). The objectives are
to provide the process with steam of the quantity and pres-
sure required by the process, while generating the maximum
amount of power so as to reduce the need for purchased
power. Because BPSTs cogenerate two energy products
(i.e., steam and power) simultaneously, they have an effec-
tive heat rate of 4,500–5,500 Btu/kWh, which represents
an energy efficiency two to three times better than that of
a condensing turbine, even after taking into account both
boiler and turbine energy losses. (Heat rate is the amount of
fuel that is converted by a heat engine into useful power —
the lower the number, the better. The minimum possible heat
rate is 3,413 Btu/kWh, representing 100% conversion of fuel
energy into power.)
Pure BPSTs are used mostly in industrial facilities that
operate continuously, where the goal is high thermodynamic
efficiency and the energy demands are relatively stable.
They are typically sized for 3–60 MW.
Condensing steam turbines (CSTs) exhaust steam to a
condenser at atmospheric pressure or the lowest possible
pressure at which it can be condensed with the available
cooling utility (Figure 1b). In locations with a ready supply
of water, cooling is usually accomplished via a closed loop
that circulates through an evaporative cooling tower. In
arid regions, such as the Middle East, North Africa, and the
Southwestern U.S., air-cooled heat exchangers are usually
more practical than wet cooling towers.
Utility power plants use CSTs exclusively because
CEP  August 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  29
Back to Basics
their objective is to maximize power generation and there
is no use for exhaust heat from BPSTs in the Rankine
power-generation cycle. Power plant CSTs are typi-
cally sized in excess of 100 MW and have heat rates of
11,000–16,000 Btu/kWh, depending on factors such
as the pressure and temperature of the inlet steam, the
temperature of the cooling medium, and the turbine
isentropic efficiency.
Extraction-condensing turbines (ECTs) are hybrids, in
which some of the exhaust steam is extracted at pressures
high enough for process heating (cogeneration mode) and
the rest is condensed by a cooling utility for power genera-
tion (noncogeneration mode) (Figure 1c). ECTs are less
common in industry, because they are more expensive to
buy and maintain and are more difficult to control.
Induction turbines are hybrids that offer very high
system efficiencies, because they extract power from steam
that would otherwise have to be let down in pressure through
a throttling valve (Figure 1d). They typically receive two
sources of inlet steam at different pressures (e.g., high pres-
sure and medium pressure) and exhaust at a single lower
pressure (e.g., ambient pressure or vacuum).
Figure 1d illustrates a simple case in which an induction
turbine would be appropriate. The process is exothermic
and generates more LP steam than is needed for process
heating duties, but it needs high-pressure (HP) steam for
other higher-temperature duties. With only two steam pres-
sure levels, the required amount of HP steam is sent straight
to the processes that need it, while the surplus exhaust from
the turbine is condensed by a cooling utility for additional
power generation (noncogeneration mode). Induction
turbines are even less common than extraction turbines,
because they are more expensive to buy and maintain and
more difficult to control.
(a) (b)
HP Steam Header HP Steam Header
Steam
Turbine Generator Steam Turbine
Generator
LP Steam >
15 Psig
Pressure ~ 3 psia
Process
Utility Condenser
p Figure 1. Steam turbines come in many different configurations, including (a) backpressure turbines (BPSTs) operated in cogeneration mode and
(b) condensing turbines (CSTs) for power generation. Hybrid configurations, such as (c) extraction turbines and (d) induction turbines, are less common.
30  www.aiche.org/cep  August 2018  CEP
Design and rating calculations
The expansion process that occurs in a properly insu-
lated steam turbine is essentially an adiabatic process. The
enthalpy difference between the inlet and exhaust steam
(neglecting frictional losses) is almost fully converted into
mechanical energy, which can then be used to drive a pump,
a compressor, or an electric generator.
This process can be followed on an enthalpy-entropy
(H-S) diagram, known as a Mollier chart. In the example
diagram (Figure 2), the path from Point 1 to Point 2 rep-
resents typical BPST operation at a chemical plant, pulp
and paper mill, oil refinery, or food processing facility;
superheated 600-psig steam at 700°F (Point 1) expands as it
passes through the turbine and is exhausted at a pressure of
50 psig (Point 2). The path from Point 1 to Point 3 represents
CST operation with the goal of maximum power genera-
tion to minimize the need for imported power under normal
operation or to compensate for temporary loss of imported
power from the grid. HP steam is exhausted at vacuum con-
ditions and is condensed against a cooling utility.
Steam turbines typically rotate at 3,000–15,000 rpm. At
that speed, water droplets can form and unbalance the tur-
bine blades, causing severe mechanical damage. BPSTs can
usually operate safely at up to 3% moisture (i.e., a minimum
steam quality of 97%). CSTs specially designed for utility-
scale power plants can handle as much as 10–12% moisture.
Process plants should avoid normal operation at this limiting
condition, and should aim to stay at least 20°F above the
exhaust steam dewpoint.
These operational constraints are needed to effectively
analyze turbine power output, whether for design or rating
calculations. To determine the adiabatic power output of the
example BPST (Point 1 to 2, Figure 2), we first determine
the total enthalpy change for isentropic expansion down to
(c) (d)
HP Steam Header HP Steam Header
Steam Turbine Steam Turbine
Generator Generator
LP Steam LP Steam
Vacuum Vacuum
Process Process
Condenser Condenser
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 t Figure 2. The adiabatic expansion of steam
1,580- in a turbine is most conveniently represented
1,200 on the enthalpy-entropy (H-S) Mollier diagram.
600
Point 1 = turbine inlet, Point 2 = low-pressure
1,530- Saturation 300
150 exhaust for process heating (cogeneration
Pressure, psig 50 mode), Point 3 = exhaust to utility condenser
Quality, % stm (power-generation mode).
1,480-
Temperature, °F

1,430- 800 1.0

1,380- 700
1

1,330- 600

1,280- 500
Enthalpy, Btu/lb

–12

400
1,230-
2
300
1,180-
215
1,130- 2*

Saturation Line
1,080-
97%

1,030- 3
92% Quality

980-

930- 3*
1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10
Entropy, Btu/lb-°F

the exhaust pressure of 50 psig (Point 1 to Point 2*). Then
we apply the isentropic efficiency (ηT), which is a combined
indicator of the original machine design and its present
mechanical condition:
where H1 is the enthalpy of the HP inlet steam (Btu/lb), H2
is the actual enthalpy of exhaust LP steam (Btu/lb), and H2*
is the enthalpy of the exhaust LP steam assuming isentropic
expansion (Btu/lb).
The adiabatic power output can then be calculated by:
of steam (lb/hr), and 3,412 is the approximate conversion
factor to convert Btu to kWh.
The isentropic efficiency cannot be determined exactly,
but it can be estimated fairly accurately using empirical
correlations based on historical industry experience, which
are usually available from steam turbine vendors. When
purchasing a steam turbine, it is good practice to require all
bidders to provide values of ηT for each machine over the
range of expected load conditions. Monitoring an existing
turbine’s efficiency loss can provide advance warning of
impending turbine problems.
Reference 1 provides some data on real turbine opera-
tion, but the dataset is too small to draw general conclusions.
The most reliable and useful correlations for new turbines
can be found in Ref. 2. The ηT for a steam turbine can be
determined iteratively using:

where W is the work output (kW), M is the mass flowrate

Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP  August 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  31
Back to Basics

Table 1. Empirical parameters for estimating steam turbine isentropic efficiency from Ref. 2
and adjusted values of parameter a for a smoother transition at W = 2,000 kW.
Mode Parameter W<2,000 kW W>2,000 kW
a (original) 1.08ΔT 4.23ΔT
BPST a (modified) 1.26ΔT —
b 1.097 + 0.00172ΔT 1.155 + 0.000538ΔT
a (original) 0.622ΔT 3.53ΔT – 463
CST a (modified) — 3.9ΔT – 463
b 1.191 + 0.000759ΔT 1.22 + 0.000148ΔT

Table 2. These sample calculations for a steam model compare power output in both
cogeneration (BPST) and power-generation (CST) operating modes.
BPST Exhaust CST Exhaust
Variable Inlet
(Cogeneration) (Power)
Steam Pressure, psig 600 50 –12
Steam Pressure, psi 614.7 64.7 2.7
Saturation Temperature, °F 489 298 137
Saturated Steam Enthalpy, Btu/lb 1,204 1,179 1,120
Target Steam Temperature, °F 700 334 137
Superheat, °F 211 37 0
Steam Enthalpy, Btu/lb 1,350 1,199 1,032
Steam Entropy, Btu/lb-°F 1.5844 – –
Exhaust/Extraction Flow klb/hr – 100 100
Saturated Liquid Enthalpy, Btu/lb – 267.3 105.3
Isentropic Vapor Enthalpy Out, Btu/lb – 1,139 935
Isentropic Change in Enthalpy, Btu/lb – 211.6 414.8
Isentropic Turbine (estimated), % – 71.3 76.6
Isentropic Turbine (assumed), % – 71.3 76.6
Adiabatic Change in Enthalpy, Btu/lb – 150.9 317.7
Actual Steam Temperature, °F – 334.4 137.3
Allowable Minimum Steam Quality, wt% – 97 91
Exhaust Steam Quality, wt% vapor – 100 91.3
Actual Superheat, °F – 36.7 0
Generator Efficiency, % – 98 98
Power Output, kW-hr/klb – 44.2 93.1
Power Output, kW – 4,332 9,122
System Energy Balance: Total Inlet Energy = 135 MMBtu/hr, Boiler Efficiency (assumed) = 84%
LP Exhaust Steam to Process, MMBtu/hr – 119.9 0
Useful Heat in LP Exhaust Steam, MMBtu/hr – 91.2 0
Energy in Electric Power, MMBtu/hr – 14.8 31.1
Total Useful Energy Out, MMBtu/hr – 106 31.1
Effective Turbine Efficiency, % – 78.5 23.1
Overall System Efficiency, % – 65.9 19.4
Power Generation Heat Rate, Btu/kW-hr – 3,483 14,800
Overall Cogeneration Heat Rate, Btu/kW-hr – 6,703 14,800

32  www.aiche.org/cep  August 2018  CEP Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
where a and b are functions of W (Table 1). Determining the
values of a and b from Table 1 requires iteratively calculat-
ing the difference between the saturation temperature at the
inlet (Tsat,i) and outlet (Tsat,o) in degrees Celsius (ΔT).
My experience at multiple large industrial sites suggests
that a practical optimum steam-generating pressure for most
process plants is 600 psig, with about 200–250°F of super-
heat. Above those conditions, capital costs for the boiler and
water treatment system rise rapidly.
Consider again the BPST represented by Figure 2. We
want to determine the work output of this turbine. At a flow-
rate of 100,000 lb/hr, ηT is 71.3%, from which we can then
calculate the actual work output from the BPST using Eq. 2:
W = [100,000 (1,350 – 1,139) 0.713]/3,412 = 4.4 MW
Notice that the steam exhaust temperature of 334°F
(Point 2) is well above the dewpoint of 298°F, so condensa-
tion inside the turbine casing is not a concern.
Now, consider the CST represented by Figure 2. The
exhaust pressure is 2.7 psia (–12 psig) and the dewpoint is
137°F (Point 1 to Point 3*). The isentropic efficiency based
on the Table 1 correlations is 76.6%. With this information,
we can use Eq. 2 to calculate the adiabatic power output
before generator losses to be 9.3 MW. The exhaust steam is
firmly in the wet zone, with 9% moisture content (Point 3),
which is dangerously close to even the higher moisture
tolerance of power plant turbines, so this is not a technically
feasible solution.
The Baumann rule (3) states that for every 1% increase
(a) Losses
0.3 MMBtu/hr
91.2 MMBtu/hr
HP Steam
LP Steam Process
135 MMBtu/hr BPST 111.9 MMBtu/hr
Net Steam Shaft Work (Power) Condensate
Efficiency = 78.5% 14.8 MMBtu/hr 28.7 MMBtu/hr
(b) Losses
0.6 MMBtu/hr
Power 31.1 MMBtu/hr
HP Steam
135 MMBtu/hr CST
Net Steam
Efficiency = 23.1%
Condensate
103.3 MMBtu/hr
p Figure 3. The Sankey diagrams for (a) the BPST and (b) the CST
described in Table 2 show that the CST loses much more energy than
the BPST.
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
in average steam wetness in the turbine, efficiency drops by
about 1%. Thus, the actual work output of the CST is closer
to 8.5 MW.
These calculations are most easily performed using a
spreadsheet linked to a steam properties database (Table 2).
I use SteamTab (4), which is a Microsoft Excel add-in.
Figure 3 depicts the BPST (cogeneration) and CST
(power generation) examples using the data in Table 2. The
width of the arrows is roughly proportional to the energy
flows. At a glance, it is clear that the loss of energy (mostly
to condensate) is far greater in the CST case than in the
BPST case.
Part-load operation
Plants typically do not operate at a steady rate or at the
exact design conditions. Instead, the norm is part-load opera-
tion, which typically averages 95% of the design rate. There-
fore, it is critically important to request part-load efficiency
data from steam turbine vendors as an essential deliverable
during the purchasing process, and to store this information
where plant engineers can readily access it. In the absence of
vendor data, part-load efficiency can be approximated by:
where y is the relative efficiency index (design rate = 100),
x is the relative power index (design rate = 100), and α is a
correlation constant that must be extracted from available
machine data (Figure 4). The value of α is typically approxi-
mated to be 3, but it can vary from turbine to turbine and
can change over time due to wear. Accounting for expected
part-load operation is vital when evaluating the economics
Useful
of a proposed steam turbine project.
Heat Article continues on next page
100
90
80
Relative Efficiency, %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative Power, %
p Figure 4. The isentropic efficiency of steam turbines falls off rapidly
under part-load conditions. The expected load profile should be accounted
for during economic feasibility analyses at the design stage to avoid invest-
ing in a bad project. Source: Adapted from (5).
CEP  August 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  33
 Back to Basics

Machine vs. system efficiency

Machine efficiency applies to a standalone turbine,
which can be misleading; the efficiency of the system as a
whole must be considered. The system efficiency, which
is optimized through effective thermal integration of the
turbine with the process, affects the overall energy efficiency
of the system.
The exhaust vapor of a simple CST is either condensed
against a cooling utility or vented to the atmosphere, so it
cannot be integrated with the process. It is simply a small
power-generation unit, with a typical maximum thermo­
dynamic efficiency of about 25%. To be fully integrated,
all the exhaust streams from the turbine must be used for
process heating (i.e., cogeneration), with none going to cool-
ing utilities. This requirement implies that all exhaust steam
pressures must be above atmospheric.
Manufacturers of steam turbines usually quote the
machine efficiency (ηST) of a steam turbine as:
where Q is the enthalpy of the inlet steam.
However, this definition of machine efficiency is not
really an efficiency, but rather the ratio of power extracted
to heat input. It should be more aptly named power-to-heat
ratio (PHR). To understand system efficiency, consider the
simple Rankine cycle cogeneration scheme in Figure 5. Sys-
tem efficiency is the sum of useful energy out (i.e., thermal
and electrical) divided by the thermal energy in. Some of the
steam is injected directly into the process with no condensate
recovery, while some is condensed and returned to the boiler.
System efficiency (η) can be calculated as:

where m is the mass flowrate of exhaust

High-Pressure steam that is injected directly into the
Steam Low-Pressure process and is not recoverable as conden-
Boiler Steam
sate (lb/hr), and λ2 is the latent heat of the
exhaust steam that is condensed in process
Steam kW heaters (Btu/lb).
Fuel
Turbine The system energy equation shows
Process
Generator exactly where the energy in the turbine
Condensate
exhaust is used. If, for example, m/M = 20%
Return and P2 = 75 psig, then 11% of the input
Deaerator Drum
steam energy goes into producing power,
Boiler Feedwater Condensate 53% is used for process heating in heat
Makeup Loss
exchangers, and 18% is directly injected
into and absorbed by the process. The total
p Figure 5. This simplified Rankine cycle co­generation process incorporates both direct and system efficiency would be 82%. The only
indirect use of steam.
energy actually lost is in the condensate
100% 25% from the process heat exchanger that is not
returned to the boiler.
80% 20% Figure 6 shows how system efficiency
System Efficiency varies with the ratio of exhaust to inlet
Power-to-Heat Ratio

pressure (P2/P1) at typical inlet steam

System Efficiency

60% 15%
conditions of P1 = 600 psig, T1 = 700°F,
M = 100,000 lb/hr. As P2 drops, PHR
40% 10%
increases. Condensation begins to form at a
Power-to-Heat Ratio PHR of about 13%. As P2 falls further, the
20% 5% quality of the exhaust steam gets worse. The
system efficiency tops out at 93% when P2
0% 0% reaches 0 psig, the moisture content is 6%,
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
and PHR is 19%. Even if the turbine could
P2/P1
tolerate 8–10% moisture, the PHR would
p Figure 6. System efficiency in cogeneration mode varies significantly with pressure ratio. The not exceed 24% — i.e., the maximum
data shown are for inlet steam at 600 psig and 700°F and a steam flowrate of 100,000 lb/hr. The machine efficiency for a pure CST can be
general shape of the curve is comparable for other conditions. no more than 24%.

34  www.aiche.org/cep  August 2018  CEP Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 Interstage Heater
Generator
High Medium Low
Pressure Pressure Pressure
Very-High-Pressure
Steam from Boiler Three-Stage Turbine
It is possible to get more power out of a steam turbine by:
• increasing the amount of superheat of the inlet steam,
but it is not easy to get above 700–720°F
• increasing the inlet pressure, which increases boiler
capital cost
• reducing the discharge pressure, which increases the
cost of process heaters, assuming that the process heating can
be accomplished at a lower steam temperature; however, this
can create problems, such as condensation inside the turbine
• choosing a multistage turbine that reheats the exhaust
between stages (Figure 7); reheating effectively converts
100% of the supplied heat into power — a fantastic thermo­
dynamic deal, especially if it can be accomplished with
low-grade process heat that would otherwise be wasted.
For a BPST, the minimum degree of superheat required
to avoid condensation and the power output can be estimated
with reasonable accuracy (±10%) for inlet pressures of
600–900 psig using:
where SHmin,safe is the minimum superheat required for inlet
steam (°F) and Wmax,safe is the maximum power output that
can be safely extracted (kW).
These simplified approximations are convenient as
an alternative to detailed simulation modeling for initial
screening analysis. As the degree of superheating above the
minimum increases, power output increases approximately
according to a power law relationship.
Integrating turbines with the process
To maximize overall system efficiency and minimize
operating costs, we need to optimize the steam flowrate to
the turbine, inlet pressure, degree of superheat, and exhaust
pressure from the turbine. Pinch analysis guarantees a
near-optimal CHP cogeneration system configuration. The
methodology was originally developed in the late 1970s for
heat exchanger network design, but has since been extended
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
t Figure 7. Multistage steam turbines with
reheating between stages are typically used
when the ratio of the HP steam pressure to
kW the LP exhaust steam pressure is high and
“free” medium-grade excess heat from the
process is available for heating between stages
Low-Pressure to extract additional power without risking
Steam to Process
internal condensation.
q Figure 8. The hot and cold composite curves in pinch analysis represent
the available and required thermal energy profiles of a process and reveal
the opportunity for heat recovery, as well as the associated energy targets.
The process pinch (PP) is the point of closest temperature approach in the
heat exchanger network. (a) A process without heat recovery has higher
heating and cooling duties than (b) the same process with heat integration
to optimize heat recovery and minimize utilities.
(a)
Qhot
Temperature
Qcold
Heat Load
(b)
Qhot
Temperature
Process Pinch
Qcold
Heat Load
to the optimization of all energy systems across plant sites.
The basic concept of pinch analysis is that individual
process heating and cooling duties can each be combined
into a cold composite curve and a hot composite curve
drawn on a temperature-enthalpy (T-H) diagram. The cold
composite curve represents the total enthalpy demand of
the process and the hot composite curve represents the total
enthalpy availability from the process. A plot of both curves
on the same T-H diagram (Figure 8) can be used to help
identify the most cost-effective opportunities for heat recov-
ery, as well as the minimum net heating and cooling require-
ments. The point at which the driving force between the hot
and cold stream temperatures is at a minimum is called the
CEP  August 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  35
Back to Basics

process pinch (PP). Above the PP temperature, only hot util-
ity is required, and below the PP, only cooling is required.
The difference between the hot stream temperature and
the cold stream temperature at the process pinch is called
the minimum approach temperature (MAT). For each value
of MAT, there are corresponding values of minimum heat-
ing and cooling requirements, Qh,min and Qc,min. These are
the energy targets that can be established based on thermo-
dynamics alone, even before the heat exchanger network
has been designed. The PP divides the process into two
thermodynamic domains in heat balance. If an amount of
heat X is removed from the process above the PP tempera-
ture, an amount X hot utility must be added:
Similarly, if an amount of heat X is added to the process
below the PP, an amount X cooling utility must be supplied:
temperature will likely be low, and integration will most
likely be across the PP (Figure 9a). While a high W/Q
may appear attractive, the heat balance reveals that on
a system basis, this configuration has the same energy
efficiency as one with no integration at all. We would basi-
cally be spending capital for no financial gain — a poor
design choice.
If we integrate exclusively above the PP (Figure 9b),
the net steam demand of the process is reduced by (Q – W),
which is the usable heat from the turbine exhaust, and the
heat-to-work conversion efficiency approaches 100%. This
is definitely worth evaluating further, whether for on-site
power generation or large direct-drive applications.
Similarly, integrating exclusively below the PP
(Figure 9c) makes use of true waste heat that would other­
wise be dumped into cooling water. Only in such cases
does a CST make more sense than a BPST. The benefit is
A+Q
(a)

A Q

To achieve the targets, the heat exchanger network needs

Heat
to satisfy three conditions: Engine
W
• no hot utilities are used below the PP temperature
• no cold utilities are used above the PP temperature
Temperature

• no heat is transferred from hot process streams above Q–W

the PP to cold process streams below the PP.
These simple rules can be used to derive useful design
guidelines for thermal integration of heat engines. Like all
heat engines, a steam turbine converts high-grade thermal B + (Q – W)
energy into mechanical energy as shaftwork and rejects
lower-grade energy to a cooler heat sink. When operated as a A+W

BPST, low-grade exhaust energy from the turbine can either (b)
A – (Q – W) Q
be used for process heating above or below the PP, with
the HP steam being supplied from either above or below
the process pinch. When operated as a CST, it will have to Heat
Engine W
compete with the process for purchased power imported into Q–W
the site. The PHR in all of these cases is W/Q. Because high-
PHR turbines have a large temperature range, they will most
(c)
likely straddle the PP. Q
We have three options for integrating the steam turbine
Temperature

with the process heat recovery system: across the PP, above
Heat
the PP, or below the PP. Figure 9 is a conceptual depiction of Engine W
the three scenarios, where A is the thermal energy required
by the process above the PP, B is the thermal energy that
must be removed from the process below the PP, Q is the B–Q Q–W
thermal energy supplied to the steam turbine, and W is the
p Figure 9. This conceptual representation of options for thermal integra-
mechanical work output.
tion of steam turbines shows a steam turbine that operates (a) across the
For a BPST with a high power-to-heat ratio (i.e., high process pinch temperature, (b) above the process pinch temperature, and
W/Q), the temperature range will be large, so the exhaust (c) below the process pinch temperature.

36  www.aiche.org/cep  August 2018  CEP Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
not only the value of the power produced but also a reduc-
tion in the total site cooling duty.
Unfortunately, very few processes have a PP tempera-
ture high enough to produce enough HP superheated steam
to generate significant quantities of power. The problem
usually is not that available heat below the PP is insufficient
to generate LP steam, but that the CST needs the inlet steam
to be significantly superheated to minimize condensation
inside the turbine, which may not be possible.
Integrating exclusively above or below the PP are both
attractive options for further analysis, but it is clear that
integration across the PP is always a bad idea. The next step
is to incorporate the turbine into a CHP system model to
evaluate operating costs (6, 7).
Closing thoughts
The appropriate placement principle for steam turbines is
to never integrate across the process pinch. This is funda-
mental to energy-efficient design and operation. Other keys
to energy efficiency are estimating the isentropic efficiency
of turbines, avoiding condensation inside the turbine casing,
and accounting for part-load efficiencies when doing an
economic feasibility analysis.
BPSTs run in cogeneration mode are typically the best
option for most process applications. CSTs should only be
considered when:
• the fuel has a negative cost because it requires disposal
for environmental or other reasons (e.g., black liquor at a
kraft paper mill), or is free
• the process is highly exothermic and has the potential
to generate excess steam at high pressures and temperatures
Literature Cited
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Technology
Characterization — Steam Turbines,” EPA, Washington, DC
(Dec. 2008).
2. Smith, R., “Steam Systems and Cogeneration,” Ch. 23 in
“Chemical Process: Design and Integration,” John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ (2005).
3. Hyungsul, M., and S. J. Zarrouk, “Efficiency of Geothermal
Power Plants: A Worldwide Review,” in the Proceedings of
the New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Auckland, New
Zealand (2012).
4. ChemicaLogic Corp.,“SteamTab 4.0,” ChemicaLogic Corp.,
Carlisle, MA (2016).
5. Kelhofer, R., “Combined Cycle Gas and Steam Turbine Power
Plants,” PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1997).
6. Kumana, J. D., et al., “CHP Modeling as a Tool for Electric
Power Utilities to Understand Major Industrial Customers,”
from the proceedings of the 19th Industrial Energy Technology
Conference, Houston, TX (Apr. 1997).
7. Office of Industrial Technologies, “How to Calculate the
True Cost of Steam,” U.S. Dept. of Energy, Technical Brief
#DOE/GO-102003-1736 (Sept. 2003).
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
• the electric grid supply is unreliable, and needs to be
bolstered against excursions such as voltage sags, which
could disrupt the manufacturing operation (e.g., in remote
areas with underdeveloped infrastructure)
• emergency backup power is needed for critical duties
for safe shutdown during unexpected power outages. CEP
Nomenclature
A = thermal energy required by the process above the
process pinch
a = parameter calculated using Table 1 relationships
B = thermal energy to be removed from the process
below the procss pinch
b = parameter calculated using Table 1 relationships
H 1 = enthalpy of high-pressure inlet stream
H2 = enthalpy of low-pressure exhaust steam
H2* = enthalpy of low-pressure exhaust steam,
assuming isentropic expansion
M = mass flowrate of inlet steam
m = mass flowrate of exhaust steam
P1 = inlet pressure
P2 = exhaust pressure
Q = enthalpy of the inlet stream
Qc,actual = actual cooling requirement
Qc,min = minimum cooling requirement
Qh,actual = actual heating requirement
Qh,min = minimum heating requirement
SHmin,safe = minimum superheat required for inlet steam
T 1 = inlet temperature
Tsat,i = saturation temperature at the inlet
Tsat,o = saturation temperature at the outlet
W = work output
Wmax,safe = maximum power output safely extracted
x = relative power index
y = relative efficiency index
Greek Letters
α = correlation constant for Eq. 4
ΔT = difference between inlet and outlet temperature
η = system efficiency
ηST = machine efficiency/power-to-heat ratio
ηT = isentropic efficiency
λ2 = latent heat of exhaust steam condensed
JIMMY D. KUMANA (Houston, TX; Email: jkumana@aol.com) has more
than 35 years of experience working for both manufacturing and
engineering-­construction companies. He is the founder of Kumana &
Associates, a consulting firm specializing in process integration (pinch
analysis) techniques for energy/water optimization, as well as general
process performance troubleshooting/improvement in the full range
of chemical industries. He and his company have been consultants to
major corporations worldwide, as well as to the U.S. Dept. of Energy,
Natural Resources Canada, the World Bank, and the United Nations.
He has authored or co-authored over 70 technical papers and book
chapters, and regularly teaches courses on pinch analysis, energy
efficiency in the process industries, and related subjects. He holds an
MS in chemical engineering from the Univ. of Cincinnati.
CEP  August 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  37