You are on page 1of 276

Fundamentals of Heat Integration

Dr. Daniel Declercq

Course EN

Daniel Declercq
1

The Author

MSc Electro-Mechanical engineering - KULeuven 1967 PhD Electrical Engineering - KULeuven 1972 1972 1980 : BASF Antwerp Head of Utilities 1980 1985 : BASF Ludwigshafen Energy controller & Project leader heat integration 1986 1998 : Air Products Europe Director Energy & Feedstock supply 1998 2004 : Electrabel Director European Development 2005 - ... : Pinchco Independent Energy Consultant Senior Technical Advisor at Laborelec Visiting Professor at the University of Antwerp Expert Evaluator Research Executive Agency EC
2

Heat Integration - Objectives


Heat integration, as a part of process integration aims at

Designing a process in such a way that it makes optimum use of energy that is available within the process itself Optimising the quality level of the utilities required Optimising energy exchange with neighbouring plants and energy recovery With the view to optimise energy and capital cost

Heat Integration energy & economics


It is essential to understand that It is about economics

Environmental costs are or can be included Less energy in automatically means


less energy out (water -, air cooling) less emissions

Less energy in does not automatically mean trade-off between energy and capital

Heat integration Implementation

Combine hot streams and cold streams in a Heat Exchanger Network (HEN)
Supply energy deficits from utilities to complete the energy balance Trade-off between energy and capital Study operational acceptability (stability , flexibility , start-up , shutdown) Feed-back into the process design

Heat integration The problem

Combining hot and cold streams in a HEN design is laborious and time consuming There is no measure nor any indication for the quality of the proposed design Even very simple problems do not get solved in a satisfactory way The conventional approach generates no feed-back

What is Pinch Analysis

A systematic method to analyse potential for heat integration in a process


With the view to reduce overall cost

Calculates achievable energy targets


Gives a good estimate for required heat exchanger surface area and HEN cost

Points towards the heat integration bottleneck of the process


And .... this whole analysis prior to design

What is Pinch Analysis


The technique can be extended

To optimise and/or integrate utility systems To total site studies To optimise use of process water To optimise site-wide hydrogen systems

To optimise manufacturing of goods against sales using storage ....

Pinch Analysis - History

1970s : Lumped curves : used in cryogenic air separation plant design 1971 : Ed Hohmann :

It is possible to predict minimum utility and to estimate surface area requirements without knowing the heat exchanger network to accomplish it
Problem Table algorithm

1981 : Bodo Linnhoff :

From analysis to optimised design

Part 1 : targeting:

To set targets for heating and cooling demand


To define optimum utility levels To set targets for heat exchanger surface areas and cost To provide hints for process changes that should lead to better targets To initiate trade-off between energy and capital

And, . . . all this . . . prior to design

10

From analysis to optimised design

Part 2 : trade-off between energy and capital


To get insight in driving parameters To search for the optimum TMin that leads to the economical optimum (conventional software) Or, to search for the integration that leads to the economical optimum (new software Heatit)

11

From analysis to optimised design

Part 3 : design and further optimisation

To design a heat exchanger network that achieves the energy targets on the basis of the rules developed To adjust the network in order to simplify the structure whilst minimising the energy penalties To analyse the networks dynamic behaviour To assess the operational acceptability

12

From analysis to optimised design

Part 4 : improved targeting procedures


The Integration algorithm The Criss-cross algorithm

13

Pinch Analysis Part 1 : Targeting

14

Pinch Analysis
Part 1 : targeting approach :

Define the scope of the problem


Extract energy data from the flow sheet Apply algorithm to calculate targets for energy and for heat exchanger surface area Analyse structure of Composite Curves Check Grand Composite and define optimum utility levels Look for potential process changes Initiate trade-off between energy and capital

15

Pinch Analysis

The subject ... an example


210C Reactor

Process flow sheet


40C Recycle Purge

210C St 200C 140C To distillation

45C 150C St 115C 20C Feed 165C 130C 115C CW 35C

Flash tank

16

Pinch Analysis
a soft start ... : a two-stream problem One hot stream with one cold stream

Stream N Tsupply Ttarget C C 1 2 180 80 70 140

Heat kW 220 240

DTMin K 5 5

mcp kW/K 2.0 4.0

Stream H1 C1

How much energy is needed to run the process ?

17

Pinch Analysis
The two-stream problem an answer
180C 90C

H1 mcp 2.0

C
40 kW

70C

140C

H 60 kW

125C

80C

C1 mcp 4.0

180 kW

*** Watch the presentation format ! ! ! ***


18

Pinch Analysis

a little bit more difficult but still easy (we think ...) :
Two hot streams

Two cold streams


...... how much energy is needed ?

19

Pinch Analysis
Two hot streams - Two cold streams

Heat exchanger minimum approach temperature = 10K


Stream N 1 2 3 4 Tsupply C 245 195 30 125 Ttarget C 30 95 180 200 Heat kW 86 100 90 120 Stream H1 H2 C1 C2

20

Pinch Analysis

The four-stream problem


Proposed solutions

............ ?

21

Pinch Analysis
The four-stream problem A possible solution
Cp 0.4 1 245 135 105 30

C1 2 C2
10 42

Cp 1.0

195

95

180

30

Cp 0.6

90
200

H
76

152.5

125

4
44

Cp 1.6

Energy needed :

QHot = 76 units

QCold = 52 units
22

Pinch Analysis
The four-stream problem A better solution
Cp 0.4 1 245 120 135 30

1
2

C 3
36

Cp 1.0

195

95

180 50 200

96.7

30

Cp 0.6

40
125 60 4 Cp 1.6

H
60

162.5

Energy needed :

QHot = 60 units

QCold = 36 units
23

Pinch Analysis
The four-stream problem the best solution ?

QHot first solution second solution best solution 76 60 49

QCold 52 36 25

24

Pinch Analysis
Solving the problem with the conventional approach

We make a design Energy requirements result from the design If we are happy with the result, then thats it

If we are not happy, then we try again

25

Pinch Analysis
Pinch Analysis offers a way to solve the problem :

With a systematic approach Through analysis prior to design And tells us how to design the heat exchanger network in order to achieve the promised targets

26

Pinch Analysis The principles


Temp 200 180 160 140 120 100

Lumped Curves

80
60 40 20 0

Hot Cold

Heat

100

200

300

400

500

27

Pinch Analysis
Temp 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Heat 350 Hot Cold

Lumped Curves

28

Pinch Analysis
Temp 200 180

Lumped Curves

Heating

160
140 120 100

Transfer
Hot Cold

80
60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Cooling
Heat 350

29

Pinch Analysis The concept of the solution :

For one hot stream and one cold stream : Push the cold stream under the hot stream in the T-H diagram until the minimum approach temperature Tmin is reached For more hot streams and more cold steams : Lump all the hot streams into one hot composite curve

Lump all the cold streams into one cold composite curve Push the cold composite curve under the hot composite curve until the Tmin is reached
30

Pinch Analysis Principle of composite curves


Temp 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Heat

Composite Curve (hot)

H2 H1
75 125 50

31

Pinch Analysis Principle of composite curves


Temp

Composite Curve (cold)

250 200 150 100


50

100
150

50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300Heat

32

Pinch Analysis Composite curves four-stream problem


Temp 300 250

Composite Curve

200 150

100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Heat 350

33

Pinch Analysis Composite curves four-stream problem


Temp 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Heat 350
34

Lumped Curves (unshifted)

Hot Cold

Pinch Analysis Composite curves four-stream problem


Temp 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 Heat

Lumped Curves (unshifted)

QH

Hot Cold

QC

50

100

150

200

250

300

350
35

Pinch Analysis Practical application :

Early 1980s, manipulating graphics was still complicated in computer applications The Problem Table algorithm (Bodo Linnhoff) provided a numerical method that was more amenable (Target, Hint, PinchLeni, Then, ...) Today, graphics and numerical calculations can be combined, which offers additional advantages

36

Pinch Analysis

Data extraction and preparation

37

Pinch Analysis Data extraction given process PFD


210C Reactor

Process flow sheet


40C Recycle Purge

210C St 200C 140C To distillation

45C 150C St 115C 20C Feed 165C 130C 115C CW 35C

Flash tank

38

Pinch Analysis Data extraction strip the plant ! ! !


210C Reactor

Process flow sheet


40C Recycle Purge

210C St 200C 140C To distillation

45C 150C St 20C Feed 165C 130C CW 35C

Flash tank

39

Pinch Analysis Data extraction strip the plant ! ! !


210C Reactor

Process flow sheet


40C Recycle Purge

210C St 200C To distillation

45C 150C St 20C Feed 165C CW 35C

Flash tank

40

Pinch Analysis Data extraction strip the plant ! ! !


Process flow sheet
Reactor 210C 40C Recycle Purge 210C St To distillation

45C 20C Feed CW 35C

Flash tank

41

Pinch Analysis Data extraction strip the plant ! ! !


Process flow sheet
Reactor 210C 40C Recycle Purge 210C To distillation

45C

20C Feed

35C

Flash tank

42

Pinch Analysis Data extraction (1)


Guideline : ensure that all energy saving opportunities have a change. Therefore :

Free the system Do not copy the existing solution if any

Identify and set aside existing utilities supplies


Differentiate between hard and soft data Prefer optimisation of the process prior to solving actual concepts that might be second best

43

Pinch Analysis Data extraction (2)


Avoid mixing of streams of different temperatures Respect practical temperature levels which streams are available at (cfr. quenching) Take precautions for streams that might give rise to forbidden matches Accept intermediates if imposed by process constraints Partition streams with non-linear profiles and define extracted sections on the save side

44

Pinch Analysis Data extraction (example)


Temp 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Heat

Data extraction - approximation

45

The Problem Table algorithm Data preparation

Choose a value for Tmin


Lower the temperature level of all hot streams with 0.5* Tmin (shift)

Increase the temperature level of all cold streams with 0.5* Tmin (shift)
All supply- and target temperatures of the shifted streams define temperature levels The zones between two adjacent temperature levels define temperature intervals

46

The Problem Table algorithm Calculations

Calculate, for each temperature interval, the available heat of all hot streams in that interval and lump these values of available heat Calculate, for each temperature interval, the required heat of all cold streams in that interval and lump these values of required heat Calculate, for each temperature interval, the balance between available heat and required heat If the balance is zero, then no additional heating nor cooling is required for that interval

47

The Problem Table algorithm Calculations (2)

Start at the highest temperature interval and repeat the balance calculation for each interval below If the balance is positive, then this excess heat is cascaded down into the lower interval If the balance is negative, then there is a heat deficit; this value will also mathematically be cascaded down into the lower interval On the lower interval, the value cascaded down is added to the balance of the interval itself Any resulting balance is cascaded down as was done for the upper intervals
48

The Problem Table algorithm

Calculations (3)

At one (or more) temperature levels between intervals, a negative energy value (a deficit) might have been cascaded down Physically, heat can only be transferred from higher into lower temperature levels

Apparently, the upper interval concerned suffers from an energy deficit


To restore the balance, energy is put in on the top in an amount equal to the largest deficit

49

The Problem Table algorithm

Calculations (4)

The heat, added at the top, is cascaded down though the intervals and will compensate all deficits

The hot energy target equals the amount of heat, put in at the top
The cold energy target equals the amount of heat to be evacuated at the bottom The energy targets are the minimum amount of hot and cold utility, required to run the process

50

The Problem Table algorithm

Data preparation

Tsupply C 245 195 30 125

Ttarget C 30 95 180 200

Heat kW 86 100 90 120

DTmin K 5 5 5 5

mcp kW/K -0.4 -1.0 0.6 1.6

Ts-shifted Tt-shifted C C 240 190 35 130 25 90 185 205

51

The Problem Table algorithm Calculation


TLevel 240.0 205.0 190.0 185.0 130.0 90.0 35.0 25.0 DeltaH Hot DeltaH Cold Hot1 Hot2 SumH Cold1 Cold2 SumC Balance -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 14 14 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 6 24 24 -18 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 5 7 8 8 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 55 77 33 88 121 -44 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 40 56 24 24 32 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 22 33 33 -11 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 4 4 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------52

The Problem Table algorithm


TLevel 240.0 14 Balance Cascade Problem Table 49.0

205.0
-18 190.0 -1 185.0 -44 130.0 32 90.0 -11 35.0 4 25.0

14
-4.0 -5.0 -49.0 -17.0 -28.0 -24.0

63
45 44 0 32 21 25 25.0
53

The Problem Table algorithm


Result of the calculations

The energy targets emerge from the Problem Table

Target Hot = Energy input at the top

Target Cold = Energy output at the bottom


The Composite Curves (shifted) The Grand Composite (the data from the Problem Table in a T/H diagram)

All data are available to construct


54

The Problem Table algorithm


The enthalpy balance of the total system :

Total energy in (where the energy came from) =


Target Hot Total energy out (where the energy went to) = Target Cold QHot + Target Hot = QCold + Target Cold

QHot +
QCold +

QHot -

QCold = Target Cold - Target Hot

55

The Problem Table algorithm


The enthalpy balance of the total system :
QH = 49

245 195 180

DH = 86 DH = 100 DH = 90

30 95 30

200

DH = 120
QC = 25

125

56

The Problem Table algorithm


TLevel 240.0 14 205.0 -18 190.0 -1 185.0 -44 130.0 32 90.0 -11 35.0 4 25.0 -24.0 25 25.0 4 4.0
57

Balance

Cascade Problem Table 49.0

Problem Table 0.0

14 -4.0 -5.0 -49.0 -17.0 -28.0

63 45 44 0 32 21

14 49.0 45 44 0 21.0 11 0

The Problem Table algorithm


TLevel 240.0 14 205.0 -18 190.0 -1 185.0 -44 130.0 32 90.0 -11 35.0 4 25.0 -24.0 25 25.0 25 25.0
58

Balance

Cascade Problem Table 49.0

Cooling above Problem Table 69.0

14 -4.0 -5.0 -49.0 -17.0 -28.0

63 45 44 0 32 21

83 65 64 20.0 0 32 21

The Problem Table algorithm


TLevel 240.0 14 205.0 -18 190.0 -1 185.0 -44 130.0 32 90.0 -11 35.0 4 25.0 -24.0 25 25.0 45 45.0
59

Balance

Cascade Problem Table 49.0

Heating below Problem Table 49.0

14 -4.0 -5.0 -49.0 -17.0 -28.0

63 45 44 0 32 21

63 45 44 0 20.0 52 41

The Problem Table algorithm


TLevel 240.0 14 205.0 -18 190.0 -1 185.0 -44 130.0 32 90.0 -11 35.0 4 25.0 -24.0 25 25.0 35 35.0
60

Balance

Transfer across Cascade Problem Table Problem Table 49.0 59.0

14 -4.0 -5.0 -49.0 -17.0 -28.0

63 45 44 0 32 21

73 55 54 10 42 31

The Problem Table algorithm


Temp 300

Lumped Curves (shifted)

250

200

150

Hot Cold

100

50 Heat 0 50 100 150 200 250


61

The Problem Table algorithm


Temp 300

Grand Composite

250

200

150

100

50

0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Heat

62

The Problem Table algorithm

The number in the Problem Table at each temperature level = the horizontal distance between the hot and the cold composite curve

The Grand Composite shows


the hot and cold utility targets the temperature limits for these utilities The options for multiple utility levels

63

The Problem Table algorithm


Temp 300

Grand Composite

250

QH

200

150

100

50

0 0.0

QC
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Heat

64

Energy Targeting .... What if ...

What about Process constraints such as Forbidden matches between two critical streams

Heater imposed on a cold stream Cooler imposed on a hot stream ...

A constraint is not of any concern , unless there is an energy or a capital penalty


Therefore, the question is : What is the penalty caused by such constraint ?

65

Energy Targeting Forbidden matches


Procedure (1)

Calculate the energy targets without constraint


Calculate the interval enthalpies for the unconstraint part of the problem and for the constraint streams Keep sinks and sources within each interval separated Use the heat available from the constraint hot stream to satisfy the sinks in the unconstraint part If the heat cannot be used in the same interval, cascade down to the lower interval Heat that cannot be used in the last interval is removed
66

Energy Targeting Forbidden matches


Procedure (2)

In each interval, add the heat sink of the critical cold stream to the remaining sinks of the unconstraint part to form the sinks left In each interval, balance the sources of the unconstraint part with the sinks left to build a new set of interval balances Proceed with the Problem Table calculation by cascading down excess heat in each interval Complete the Problem Table calculation by adding heat on top to compensate for the largest negative cascade The heat added is the new hot utility target, any heat removed plus the heat removed before constitute the cold utility target
67

Energy Targeting Forbidden matches


Procedure (3)

The difference in the heat input required in comparison with the unconstraint process is the energy penalty to be allocated to the constraint

This value should also be equal to the amount of energy crossing the pinch Restrictions between one hot stream and several cold streams can be handled in a similar way, as well as restrictions between several hot streams and one cold stream Restrictions between several hot streams and several cold streams would require a more sophisticated approach
68

Energy Targeting Forbidden matches


Procedure (4)

Apart from the potential energy penalty, there might also be a capital penalty However, .... Do not worry too much If the penalty becomes too big, then an intermediate heat transfer medium might offer an alternative Such constraints will seldom kill a potential energy saving opportunity

69

Energy Targeting Forbidden matches


Example Data
Tsupply C 180 220 180 40 150 Ttarget C 140 170 80 120 220 Heat kW 40 40 40 56 84 DTMin K 10 10 10 10 10 Stream H1 H2 H3 C1 C2

Forbidden match between streams 3 and 4 (Unconstrained targets : QHot = 40 QCold = 20)

70

Energy Targeting Forbidden matches


Procedure

Unconstraint Part Stream 3 Stream 4 TLevel Source Sink Source Sink 230.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 210.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------32.0 48.0 0.0 0.0 170.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18.0 12.0 4.0 0.0 160.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 130.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.0 0.0 24.0 42.0 70.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 50.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71

Energy Targeting Forbidden matches


Procedure
3 TLevel 230.0 210.0 170.0 160.0 130.0 70.0 50 Unconstraint Part Source Remaining Sink Total New Total Source Sink Stream 3 Sink Stream 4 Sink Cascade Prob Tab ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------56.0 0.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 -24.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24.0 32.0 32.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 -16.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40.0 16.0 18.0 12.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.0 -30.0 26.0 30.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12.0 0.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 42.0 42.0 -42.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36.0 -42.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 14.0 -14.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36.0 -56.0 0.0 1 36.0 reject reject

72

Energy Targeting - Constraints


Mandatory start-up heater - Procedure (1)

If the mandatory heater appears in the pinch design, then the condition is satisfied If the mandatory heater does not appear in the pinch design, then try an alternative pinch design If the mandatory heater appears in the alternative pinch design, then refined trade-off is required Between the number of heaters The load on the heaters The quality of the required utility If the mandatory heater does not appear in any alternative pinch design , then accept the heater
73

Energy Targeting - Constraints


Mandatory start-up heater - Procedure (2)

Remove the heater heat exchanger with corresponding parts of the utility and cold stream and run the analysis on the modified problem for a new target The penalty for the mandatory start-up heater equals the difference in heat demand between the new target plus the load on the start up heater and the original target If there is no penalty, then a satisfying pinch design exists that has not been discovered so far The corresponding pinch design can be developed from the modified problem
74

Statements from the analysis

Summary of statements related to the energy targeting procedure

75

Statements from the analysis (1)

The process shows a heat recovery bottleneck at a temperature level that will be called the pinch
The process can be separated in two sections : one above the pinch and one below the pinch There should be no cooling with utilities above the pinch There should be no heating with utilities below the pinch

Heat exchangers should not transfer heat across the pinch


There should be no mixing of streams across the pinch Process modifications should concentrate on the pinch area in order to be effective
76

Statements from the analysis (2)

Hot streams should be kept hot as long as possible

Cold streams should be kept cold as long as possible


Any CHP should supply heat into the system above the pinch Any heat pump should be located across the pinch Use of multiple utilities will create utility pinches A system can have more than one pinched areas The pinch can jump from one stream to another stream in particular cases, e.g. if both composite curves are convex or concave (see slide example)
77

Statements from the analysis (3)


The pinch can jump from one stream to another
Temp
250

Lumped Curves

200

150 Hot 100 Cold

50

0 0 50 100 150 200

Heat
250
78

Statements from the analysis (4)

however .... for normal problems, The pinch will always be caused by the beginning of a stream

79

Conclusions Energy targeting

Energy targeting :

Very straightforward One clear answer Thermodynamically 100% achievable Energy cost depends further on : Actual energy unit cost Energy price scenarios Company internal procedures (allocation)

Bottom line : . . . pretty well under control


80

Analysis Area and Area cost targeting


Objectives : Set targets for the required heat exchanger surface area Set targets for the number of units If objectives are not compatible, then find ways to minimise the cost of the HEN

81

Area Cost target


The cost of the heat exchanger network depends on

The number of units (heat exchangers) required The size of these units (area required) The specific cost parameters of these units The cost for installation, connection and annualised cost for maintenance

82

Area Cost target


The minimum number of units Eulers theorem : Nc = Ne + NL Ns With : Nc = number of connections between elements Ne = number of elements NL = number of loops Ns = number of independent systems

83

Area Cost target


Eulers theorem applied :

For one system and with no loops Min#Units = #Streams + #Utilities 1 However, with two independent areas Above the pinch: Min#Units = #Streams above the pinch + #Hot Utilities 1 Below the pinch: Min#Units = #Streams below the pinch + #Cold Utilities 1

84

Area Cost target


Unit cost structure

Unit cost = A + B*(Area)c


A and B = specific coefficients exponent c = 0.6 to 0.8 Unit Area = Q/(U*f* TLnMean) Total investment cost = 2 to 4 x unit cost (Lang factor)

Annual maintenance cost = 1 to 5% of investment cost


(NPV 10 to 50%)

85

Area Cost target


Cost structure Comments

Coefficients A , B and c depend on


The business activity (refinery, pulp and paper ... ) The size of the process (kWs or MWs) the construction of the heat exchanger (multi-pass, ...) the fouling that might require a correction factor is a rough approximation (concept dates from 1947 !) For differentiation : Guthrie-factors (1970), Marshall & Swift Index, ...
86

Correction factor f depends on


Lang factor

Area Cost target


Cost structure Comments : Less units generate lower cost, therefore :

Try to minimise the # of units, and : Assume a minimum # of units above and below the pinch, maintaining the pinch design principle

Equal sizes generate maximum cost, therefore : One would try to maximise the inequality of the units However, there is no guidance regarding the distribution of the inequality, therefore : Assume all units equal sized This will generate a conservative realistic target
87

Area Cost target


Cost structure Comments :

The size of a single unit is techno-economically limited ( a practical limit can vary from 300 m to 2000 m). The average unit size should not exceed the practical limit U and f values have a direct impact on the size; in view of the above, they can also have a direct impact on the N# of units Experience indicates that economics become questionable if the multi-pass f correction factor drops below 0.8; in this case, more single-pass must be foreseen (more units) All aspects that have a potential impact on the technical and economical feasibility should be anticipated when choosing the N# of units in the targeting phase
88

Area Cost target


Cost structure formula : With : AreaA = the total area required above the pinch

Na = a practical minimum N# of units above the pinch AreaB = the total area required below the pinch Nb = a practical minimum N# of units below the pinch

The cost target = Cost = Na*[A + B*(AreaA/Na)c]+ Nb*[A + B*(AreaB/Nb)c]

89

Area Cost target


Cost structure formula : The cost target = Cost = Na*[A + B*(AreaA/Na)c]+ Nb*[A + B*(AreaB/Nb)c] Final check : There should be a reasonable ratio between fix cost and variable cost

If not, the validity of parameters A and B should be verified

90

Area Cost target


Area required : concept of the calculation :

Construct the composite curves (without shift) Include assumed utilities

Put heat exchangers on all streams in each vertical section of the composite curves assuming a spaghetti network Calculate the area in each section, taking into account the specific heat transfer coefficients and correction factors of each stream (U*f)

91

Area Cost target


Mcp-weighted distribution of heat loads in a Spaghetti Network:
H1

H2

C1 C2 C3

92

Area Cost target


Area required : the Area formula

Area =

i{

1/ TLnMean(i) x

j[

Q(j)/U*f(j)] }

The formula shows a remarkable feature : The contribution of each stream depends only on its own contribution to the overall heat transfer coefficient and is invariant with regard to the contribution of the stream on the other side of the heat exchanger This is a direct consequence of the way the overall heat transfer coefficient is calculated :

1/U*f = 1/U*f(hot stream) + 1/U*f(cold stream)

93

Area Cost target


Calculating missing T-values After construction of the Composite Curves (without shift), all Q and T-values are known in all horizontal bands

However, Q and T-values are now required for all vertical bands Q Consequently, missing T-values have to be calculated for corresponding values of Q ; this can be done by interpolation
Such calculation, however, should be applied with care and should be verified on simple examples

94

Area Cost target


Calculating missing T-values
Temp 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Hot Cold

Lumped Curves

Missing temperature
Heat 600

95

Area Cost target


Area required - calculation comments (1)

In case of a uniform TMin, the shapes of shifted and nonshifted curves are identical In case of a non-uniform TMin (see later), the shapes of shifted and non-shifted curves are no longer identical In most cases, the area target calculated with the spaghetti network is close to what can be achieved in practice.

So far, however, the effects of criss-cross heat exchange have been disregarded

96

Area Cost target


Area required - calculation comments (2)

Although, with disregarded criss-cross , the area target will be approximate, we still do not know how approximate With large differences in U*f values , leading to significant criss-cross in real networks, the area target is not reliable In case of an energy optimum design, heat exchange will not necessarily be vertical , but , at the pinch, there will be no criss-cross exchange crossing the pinch

(*) with non-uniform TMin in the pinch-area, pinch temperatures are not identical !

97

Conclusions Area cost targeting

Number of units targeting

Global minimum # of units is not compatible with rules for energy optimum (two separate systems , one above and one below the Pinch) Minimum # of units is not always compatible with vertical heat exchange Area targeting : Straightforward procedure for vertical heat exchange The limitation , however , to networks without crisscross heat exchange is a serious weakness and makes the area target unreliable

98

Conclusions Area cost targeting

Area Cost targeting :


A straightforward procedure but, More uncertainty Several factors beyond direct control An approximation, but ...... - provided that criss-cross heat exchange can be disregarded hopefully still good enough

Bottom line : . . . Dont get lost ! ! !


99

Pinch Analysis Part 2 : Trade-off between energy and capital Energy consumption and Area and

Energy cost and Area cost


as a function of TMin and Integration

100

Trade-off between energy and capital

Energy and energy cost targeting reminder :

Straightforward, targets fully achievable a straightforward procedure but, more uncertainty several factors beyond direct control

Area and area cost targeting reminder :


However, it is the total cost that counts and trade-off between energy and capital is mandatory

101

Trade-off between energy and capital


Two levels : Targeting level and Design level

Potential drivers : TMin or Integration (or a Target)


With driver TMin : uniform TMin required With driver Integration : stream dependent TMin possible Objective of trade-off on the targeting level is to find a good estimate for the TMin or degree of integration that will generate the lowest total cost

102

Trade-off between energy and capital

Objective of trade-off on the design level is to find a good compromise between what is technically feasible and what is economically and operationally desirable A first design will be based on a pinch design

That design may be simplified and/or its total cost reduced by using loops and paths

For simplification of the network by evolution

For intensifying criss-cross heat exchange

Obviously, simulation programs can also be used for further optimisation


103

Trade-off : Calculations

Simplified financial assumptions (example):

Unit cost = 4000 + 800*(Area)0.75


Lang factor : small plant = 4 / large plant = 3 Energy cost escalation 2%/year Maintenance cost 1.5%, escalation 1%/year Operating hours = 7500 h/year

Lifetime = 10 years
Discount rate = 7 %

104

Trade-off : Calculations

Example 1 : small plant (200 kW range)


Case 1 : U*f = 2.0 Case 2 : U*f = 0.2 Utility cost : PHot = 25 /MWh; PCold = 3 /MWh Case 1 : U*f = 2.0 Case 2 : U*f = 0.2

Example 2 : large plant (4 MW range)


Utility cost : PHot = 20 /MWh; PCold = 2 /MWh

Pinch design anticipated


105

Trade-off : calculation examples

Data : process streams example 1 : Small plant


Utility prices : PHot = 25 /MWh; PCold = 3 /MWh U*f value (1) : 2.0 kW/m,K U*f value (2) : 0.2 kW/m,K
Tsupply C 245 195 30 125 Ttarget C 30 95 180 200 Heat kW 86 100 90 120 DTmin K 5 5 5 5 U*f kW/m,K

Stream N 1 2 3 4

106

Conventional design versus Targeting


Case : Example 1 , small plant (200 kW range) U*f = 2 Conventional design as below TMin(total) = 10K
1 245

Cp 0.4

120 135

30

Cp 1.0

195

36

95

180 50

96.7 40 125 60 4 Cp 1.6

30

Cp 0.6

200

H
60

107

Trade-off : calculations
Targeting and conventional design - basis TMin
Area(m)

Trade-off Energy versus Area

QHot(kW) 80 70 60 50 40 30
Area AConv QConv Qtarget

14 12 10 8 6 4 0 5 10 15 20 25

DTMin

108

Trade-off : calculations
Targeting and conventional design - basis QHot
Area (m)
14 12 10 8 6 4 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Trade-off Energy versus Area

QHot (kW)
80 70 60 AConv 50 40 30

AreaTarget QHot

QHot

109

Trade-off : first conclusions

Presentation :

TMin is not an objective and has no value in its own right QHot (which is a direct function of Integration) is much more representative parameter than TMin The pinch design requires less surface area for the same energy consumption Since the area depends directly from the U*f value, this conclusion will hold for all U*f values

Results :

The first conclusion is in favour of pinch Analysis; however, will the same conclusion remain valid for the cost ?
110

Trade-off : example small plant


Anticipated : Pinch design Example 1 ( TMin = 10 K)
Units : kW
217.5
Cp 0.4 Cp 1.0 1 2 245 195

2 1

135 135

5 4

92.5

C
25

30 90

180 33 200

125 40 125 60 4

58.3

30 17

Cp 0.6

H
49

169.4 11

162.5

Cp 1.6

111

Trade-off : example small plant


Targeting & Pinch design versus Conventional
Cost '000 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 35 45 55 65 75 QHot(kW)
Target2 Design2 Conv2 Target1 Design1 Conv1

Trade-off Energy versus Capital

U*f =0.2

U*f =2

112

Trade-off : Conclusions small plant (1)


(The graph anticipates results for the pinch design case)

General comment

Targeted cost is close to cost of pinch design QHot minimum achievable with TMin of 5 K

With pinch design : 42 kW


With conventional design : 55 kW

Minimum cost for U*f = 2 / U*f = 0.2


For Pinch design at QHot = 42 kW / 63 kW


For Conventional design at QHot = 55 kW / 65 kW

However, ... The Pinch design costs up to 12% more than the conventional design
113

Trade-off : Conclusions small plant (2)

The HEX cost structure is killing the Pinch design


Maximum potential energy saving is lower than the penalty for the higher N# of units Be cautious when energy cost is low compared with area fix cost

Conclusion :

Check whether cost formula and Lang-factor are suited for the particular process and size
Refine investment cost projection with detailed engineering

114

Trade-off : Conclusions small plant (3)


Was it a waste of time to apply Pinch Analysis and to develop the Pinch design ? Not necessarily :

Now there is a better understanding of the heat integration options

The Pinch design can be developed by relaxation into alternatives that might cost less
If the higher cost is due to the cost structure as above, then reducing the number of units by relaxation will automatically reduce the cost and, Any conventional design can be derived from the Pinch design
115

Trade-off : Conclusions small plant (4)


Design small plant - relaxation (U*f = 0.2)
217.5 Cp 0.4 Cp 1.0 1 2 245 195

2 1

135 135

5
4
6

92.5 11

C
25

30 90

180
11 33 162.5

125

58.33

30
17

Cp 0.6

40 125
60 4 Cp 1.6

200

H
49

169.4

11

116

Trade-off : Conclusions small plant (5)


Design small plant after relaxation (U*f = 0.2)
Cp 0.4 Cp 1.0 1 2 245 195 120 135 30 90

2 1

36

180 50 200

96.7 40 159.4 60 125 4 Cp 1.6

30

Cp 0.6

H
60

117

Trade-off : Conclusions small plant (6)


Design small plant after relaxation (U*f = 0.2)

The structure of the developed design is identical with the original conventional design Obviously, going through the pinch exercise makes also any conventional solutions emerge The pinch method offers a systematic and structured approach with the certainty that the optimum will not be overlooked

118

Trade-off : calculation Example 2

Data : process structure Example 2 : Large plant


Utility prices : PHot = 20 /MWh; PCold = 2 /MWh U*f value (1) : 2.0 kW/m,K U*f value (2) : 0.2 kW/m,K
Tsupply C 245 195 30 125 Ttarget C 30 95 180 200 Heat kW 1720 2000 1800 2400 DTMin K 5 5 5 5 U*f kW/m,K

Stream N 1 2 3 4

119

Trade-off : example large plant


Anticipated : Pinch design Example 2 ( TMin = 10 K)

Units : kW
217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195

2 1

135 135

5 4

92.5

C
500

30 90

180 660 200

125 800 125 1200 4

58.3

30 340

Cp 12

H
980

169.4 220

162.5

Cp 32

120

Trade-off : example large plant


Targeting - Pinch design versus Conventional
Cost '000 2800

Trade-off Energy versus Capital

2400

U*f =0.2

2000

Target2 Design2 Conv2 Target1 Design1 Conv1

U*f =2
1600

1200 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

QHot(MW)

121

Trade-off : example large plant


Targeting - Pinch design versus Conventional Energy cost +20% - lifetime 15 years Lang factor 2
Cost '000 3200 2800 2400 2000 1600 1200 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Trade-off Energy versus Capital


U*f =0.2
Target2 Design2 Conv2 Target1 Design1 Conv1

U*f =2

QHot(MW)

122

Trade-off : Comments (1)

General comment

Economics suggest to increase energy efficiency


Targeted cost is close to cost pinch design Minimum cost achieved with pinch design QHot can be reduced by 24% compared with the Conventional design With high U value : cost reduction 15 to 19% but, With low U value : cost reduction 1 to 5%
123

In this example

Trade-off Comments (2)

The cost curve shape is very sensitive to the cost structure (fix part versus variable part) of the investment Fix part might be fix, but is not necessarily the same for all plant sizes or for all business areas The cost curve shape is sensitive to applicable U*f values (since these are the determining factors for the area size) If multiple shells are required due to size limits, either the fix part or the Lang factor might need adjustment Small changes in integration might cause a step change in the area cost due to a change in the # of units if size limits are reached
124

Trade-off : General conclusions

Trade-off between energy and capital leads to development of feasible optimum design structures The optimum design structure, apart from few exceptions, is the Pinch design structure Usually,

The Pinch design generates networks that enable lower energy consumption The optimum Pinch design has lower total cost and lower energy consumption at the same time

Even at equal total cost, lower energy consumption offers a strategic advantage on long term
125

Pinch Analysis
Break

126

Pinch Analysis Part 3 :

Heat Exchanger Network (HEN) design

127

HEN Design
Observations :

In the T/H diagram, the driving force is minimum at the pinch If the design is possible at the pinch - and we know it is then it should also be possible away from the pinch, since the driving force diagram is opening up on both sides

128

HEN Design
Driving force diagram
DT
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
129

DeltaT/TCold

TCold

HEN Design Network presentation

Design on the flow-sheet is inappropriate


130

HEN Design - Network presentation


Design on the flow-sheet is inappropriate Data needed from the flow-sheet are :

Temperatures Ts and Tt Temperature profile, if any

Heat load

90% of the flow-sheet information is irrelevant for this purpose

131

HEN Design - Network presentation


PinchTemp Hot streams
135 135

Hot streams
1 Cp 8 2 Cp 20 180 195 245

30 95

PinchTemp Cold streams


125
125 xx yy

Cold streams
30
3 Cp 12

200

Cp 32

Remark : in the T/H diagram, hot streams go from right to left and cold streams from left to right !
132

HEN Design - approach

Segregate the process in a section above the pinch and a section below the pinch
Keep the two sections apart in order to avoid heat exchange across the pinch For the hot section :

Start the design at the pinch and move upwards Do not use cold utility Start the design at the pinch and move downwards Do not use hot utility

For the cold section :


133

Design above the pinch


Both are feasible : not conclusive
Pinch
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195 T Cp 8

135

Cp 12

TMin
H

feasible
T 3 Cp 12

180

Cp 8

200

4 xx
125

Cp 32

Cp 32

TMin H

feasible

134

Design above the pinch


Only one match feasible
Pinch
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195 T Cp 20

135

Cp 12

TMin
H

not feasible
T 3 Cp 12

180

Cp 20

200

4 xx
125

Cp 32

Cp 32

TMin H

feasible

135

Design above the pinch

Since no cold utility is allowed above the pinch, all hot streams must be cooled down to pinch temperature by heating up cold streams above the pinch If the number of hot streams exceeds the number of cold streams, cold streams have to be split A match between a hot stream and a cold stream is possible if mcp(cold) >= mcp(hot) or : mcp(out) >= mcp(in) If insufficient cold streams can satisfy the above requirement, hot streams have to be split
136

Design below the pinch


T Cp 8

Pinch
135 60 30 H 1 2 Cp 8 Cp 20

TMin
Cp 12

Not feasible
T
Cp 20

125

20

Cp 12

TMin Cp 12

Feasible

137

Design below the pinch

Since no hot utility is allowed below the pinch, all cold streams must be heated up to pinch temperature by cooling down hot streams below the pinch If the number of cold streams exceeds the number of hot streams, hot streams have to be split A match between a hot stream and a cold stream is possible if mcp(hot)>=mcp(cold) or mcp(out) >= mcp(in) If insufficient hot streams can satisfy the above requirement, cold streams have to be split
138

Design Start with this ?


Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2

245
195

135

? ?
135

30
95

180

125

30

Cp 12

200

125

Cp 32

139

Design Or with this ?


Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2

245
195

135

? ?
135

30
95

180

125

30

Cp 12

200

125

Cp 32

140

Design
Start with this ?
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2

Or with this ?
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2

245
195

a? b?

135
135

245
195

a? b?

135
135

A
180

125 3 125 4 Cp 32 Cp 12

B
180

125 3 125 4 Cp 32 Cp 12

200

200

Cp 8 Cp 20

1 2

245 195

135 135

Cp 8 Cp 20

1 2

245 195

135 135

C
180 200

125

D
3 Cp 12 180

b?
a?
125

b? a?

125 3 125 Cp12

Cp 32

200

Cp 32
141

Design

Checks A and B reveal possibilities and restrictions, but they do not point towards the main task e.g. cooling down the hot streams through heat exchange Therefore, we should start with C and D

In C, both matches are possible and C does not produce


an exclusive answer, so, finally, it is check D that answers the question Reason: stream 2 is the hardest to get cooled down (highest Cp, lowest slope)
142

Design

Design rule above the pinch:

Start with the hot stream with the highest Cp (= the biggest stream into the pinch) Place pinch matches first

Similarly, design rule below the pinch :

Start with the cold stream with the highest Cp


(= the biggest stream into the pinch) Place pinch matches first

In any case, if the stream is too big, split the stream


143

Design rules - overview

Yes

Nout>=Nin

No

Yes

For all matches: Cpout>=Cpin No

Split stream out

Place matches

Split stream in

Tick-off streams

144

Design
217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195

135 135

30 95

180

660 169.4 162.5 1200

125

30

Cp 12

200

125

Cp 32

145

Design
217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2

245 195

2 1

135 135

30 95

180 660

125

30

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5 1200

125

Cp 32

146

Design
217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195

2 1

135 135

? ?

30 95

180 660

125

30

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5 1200

125

Cp 32

147

Design
217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195

2 1

135 135

30

58.3 30 3

95

180 660

125 800 125 1200 4

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5

Cp 32

148

Design
217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195

2 1

135 135

5 4

92.5

C
500

30
95

180 660

125 800 125 1200 4

58.3

30
340

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5

Cp 32

149

Design
217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195

2 1

135 135

5 4

92.5

C
500

30 95

180 660

125 800 125 1200 4

58.3

30 340

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5

Cp 32

150

Design comments
# of units = 5HEX+1H +1C = 7 Min# of units = 6 - 1 = 5

# of units = Nelements + NL - Nsyst ? YES ! ! = 6 + 2 - 1 =7


217.5
Cp 8 Cp 20 1 2 245 195 135 135 92.5 30 95

2 1

5 4

C
500

180 660

125 800 125 1200 4

58.3

30 340

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5

Cp 32

151

Design Loops and paths Loops in the HEN


217.5 Cp 8 Cp 20 1 245 195

2 1

135 135

92.5

C
500

30 95

180 660

125 800 125 1200 4

58.3

30 340

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5

Cp 32

152

Design Loops and Paths Paths between Hot and Cold utilities
217.5 Cp 8 Cp 20 1 245 195 135 92.5 30 95

2 1

C
500

135

180 660

125 800 125 1200 4

58.3

30 340

Cp 12

200

H
980

169.4 220

162.5

Cp 32

153

Design versus Targets


Surface area and HEN cost
Assumptions : Steam @ 220; Cooling water @ 10

Target Area (m) HEN Cost (kE) N of Units


Design1 1644 1130 7

Design2 1597 1121 7

Design3 1591 1157 8

1589 1074 7

U*f : 0.2 kW/m,K Design(1) : as previous Design(2) : stream 3 split below pinch (more vertical) Design(3) : Design(2) + 2 heaters (still more vertical)

154

Design versus Targets


More vertical heat exchange
196.3

Cp 8

245 195

92.5

2 1

135 135

5 4

C
500

30

Cp 20

95

180

H2
170 490

125 800 125 162.5 390 4 Cp 32

30

Cp 12

200

H1
810

1200

340

155

Design rules comments (1)

The most crucial point for the design is at the pinch with the minimum driving force TMin
Since the driving force diagram is widening up away from the pinch, design is always possible The cp-rules (feasibility) are strict at the pinch Away from the pinch, these rules are less rigid to the extent that more driving force is available Matches at the pinch should be placed first

156

Design rules comments (2)

In order to minimise the # of units, a feasible match should preferably be maximised However, not too much driving force should be given away in order not to jeopardise the feasibility of the remaining network If a match is feasible, but there is doubt about the size of the load, then the analysis can be repeated for the remaining task If the new targets are higher, then this would indicate that too much driving force was given away and the load of the heat exchanger should be limited
157

Design rules comments (3)

Processes can, apart from a real pinch, also have other pinched areas Design rules at the pinch are also very useful for successful design in pinched areas If stream splitting is required, then, preferably, the split ratio of the branches should be adapted to the mcp ratio of the streams to match Target temperatures of the branches should not differ too much in order not to give away driving force And, so far, all heat exchange was assumed to be in counter-current
158

Design rules comments (4)

The analysis generates energy targets in terms of required quantity, and also in terms of quality, i.e. temperature level Design for targeted quantities generates the process pinch
Simultaneous design for minimum quality generates an additional pinch, a utility pinch Use of multiple utilities will lead to additional pinched areas, creating utility pinches if pushed too far

159

Pinch Analysis
Part 4 :
Improved targeting procedures

The Integration algorithm The Criss-cross algorithm

160

Pinch Analysis
Major remaining issues :

The heat transfer coefficient U and the heat exchanger correction factor f are not the same for all streams Consequently, the economic minimum approach temperatures in the heat exchangers are not the same for all units This will require criss-cross heat exchange in order to minimise the surface area The Problem Table algorithm stops at the Threshold

161

Pinch Analysis
Categories threshold problems (1-4)
Temp
150 125 100 75 50 25 0 -50 0 50 100 150

Lumped Curves

Temp
175 150 125 100
Hot Cold

Lumped Curves

Hot 75 50 25 Cold

Heat
200

0 0 50 100 150 200

Heat
250

Temp
175 150 125 100

Lumped Curves

Temp
200 175 150 125
Hot

Lumped Curves

100 75 50 25

Hot Cold

75 50 25 0 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Cold

Heat
100

0 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Heat
100

162

Pinch Analysis
Categories threshold problems (5-8)
Temp
200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Hot Cold

Lumped Curves

Temp
200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25

Lumped Curves

Hot Cold

Heat
250

0 0 20 40 60 80

Heat
100

Temp
200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 -50 0 50

Lumped Curves

Temp
200 175 150 125 Hot Cold 100 75 50 25

Lumped Curves

Hot Cold

Heat
100 150 200 250 -50

0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Heat
300

163

Pinch Analysis
Categories threshold problems (9-10)
Temp
200 175 100 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 0 20 40 60 80 Hot Cold 50 75 Hot Cold

Lumped Curves

Temp
125

Lumped Curves

25

Heat
100 -20

0 0 20 40 60 80

Heat
100

Normally, the pinch is at the beginning of a stream With a threshold problem, and still exceptionally, the pinch can be at the end of a stream In such case, the pinch is at the end of one of the composite curves

164

Pinch Analysis Tools

165

Pinch Analysis Tools (1)


Basis : the Problem Table algorithm Driver : TMin, the minimum approach temperature in the heat exchanger network

UMIST (Sprint)
KBC Linnhoff March (Supertarget, PinchExpress) AspenTech (APinch, ASplit, AWater) Hyprotech (HYSYS, HX-Net, DISTIL) SimSci (Hextran) ChemEng Software and Services (HENSYN)

166

Pinch Analysis Tools (2)


Basis : the Problem Table algorithm Driver : TMin, the minimum approach temperature in the heat exchanger network

dk-TEKNIK (dk-PINCH) Ecole Polytechnique Lausanne (PinchLENI) Univ. of Valladolid (A. Martin - Hint) National Engineering Lab Scottish Enterprise Technology (Heatnet) THEN (Univ. of Austin, Texas)

167

Existing tools swot analysis

Strengths The problem Table algorithm is easy to use The energy targets can also be calculated with stream dependent TMin Weaknesses If U*f values are different, then stream dependent TMin are mandatory Area target and energy versus capital trade-off are not reliable since disregarding criss-cross heat exchange Developed Heat Exchanger Networks (HEN) can not always be turned into optimum HEN by evolution

168

Existing tools swot analysis

Opportunities

Notwithstanding the weaknesses, application leads to significantly better insight in heat integration options In most cases, experienced users are capable of realising significant savings The impact of the simplifications (no criss-cross) on the validity of the results is unknown The limitations of the targeting concept and lack of insight in the effect of criss-cross heat exchange threaten the credibility and acceptability of the tool
169

Threats

Weaknesses existing tools - analysis

Weaknesses, yes, but ... How bad is it ?

We dont know, until we compare with a real optimised design Yes there is : the Integration and the Criss-cross algorithms (software package Heatit) The difference between the targeting results and the real design

Is there a better procedure for targeting ?

What is the criterion for judgement ?

170

Improving the Targeting Procedure

Targeting with variable T-shift


for dealing with stream dependent U*f

by means of
criss-cross heat exchange

171

Targeting with variable T-shift


Some typical heat transfer values
shell & tube U Gas low pressure 1bar Gas high pressure 20 bar Process water Treated cooling water Organic liquid low visc Organic liquid high visc Boiling water Condensing steam Condensing hydrocarbon HP Condensing hydrocarbon LP Cond. Hydrocarb. with inerts kW/m,K 0.110 0.600 1.500 2.500 1.000 0.180 2.100 4.500 1.100 0.400 0.400
172

Targeting with variable T-shift

There is evidence that uniform DTMin values do not guarantee the right energy targets The pinch-stream is not necessarily the stream with the biggest effect

There is evidence that targeting whilst disregarding the effect of criss-cross heat exchange does not guarantee reliable area targets There is need for a better targeting procedure

173

Targeting with variable T-shift


Analysis with variable T-shift and U*f should enable

To anticipate on the effect of unequal U*f values by preparing criss-cross heat exchange

To study the effect of criss-cross heat exchange on the economic integration potential prior to design
To estimate appropriate criss-cross heat exchange as a function of the U*f value To identify the most critical streams that finally determine the economic integration potential

174

New Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

A new approach

Based on the Integration Potential, a new algorithm for calculating appropriate energy targets

Based on the Criss-cross, a new algorithm for calculating area targets

Calculates energy and area targets with stream-dependent T-shift driven criss-cross Predicts optimum temperatures at the pinch and at all relevant integration sections Positions each stream in the Heat Exchanger Network grid
175

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

Strengths with regards to the energy target :

Calculates energy targets with stream-dependent T-shift, anticipating criss-cross heat exchange Energy targets more reliable than with a uniform TMin Driver is not the TMin but the Integration Capable of dealing with Threshold Problems in a flexible way Provides more reliable temperature data for developing HEN suitable for evolution,
176

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

Strengths with regards to the area target :

Calculates area targets with stream-dependent U*f values and criss-cross heat exchange driven by the stream-dependent T-shift Straightforward calculation on a mathematical basis The basic structure of the HEN obtained is closer to the final optimum than the structure developed without criss-cross Enables targeting including reliable energy versus capital trade-off prior to design

177

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


the Integration algorithm

Concept of the basic principle developed by Ed Hohmann in 1971


Available energy = lumped hot curve Required energy = lumped cold curve The maximum potential of integration is determined by the shape of the lumped curves However, whilst constructing the (shifted) lumped curves, introduction of stream-dependent T-shift will enable to calculate more reliable energy targets
178

Adjusted concept :

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


the Integration algorithm

Procedure :

Starting point : zero integration


Check : how much energy can be integrated at each temperature level (e.g. what is the distance between the hot curve and the cold curve) Target : the maximum integration potential equals the minimum distance Action : integrate as you whish, but no more than the limit set by a cross-over in the derived HEN Calculate hot and cold utility targets from the energy balance
179

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


the Integration algorithm

Particularities regarding the Tmin :

With the uniform TMin approach, such value is the minimum temperature difference to be preserved in any heat exchanger With the stream specific T-shift, such value is the contribution of the stream concerned to the minimum temperature difference to be preserved in any heat exchanger
The procedure can accept a cross-over of the shifted curves, provided there is no cross-over in the derived HEN
180

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


the Integration algorithm

Translating T-shift values into pinch temperatures :

Number of streams at the pinch = N


Number of variables (pinch temperatures) = N Number of T-shift values = N

Number of independent Ts between streams at the pinch = N 1 [ T(i,j) = TMin(i) + TMin(j) ]


Number of known temperatures = 1 (pinch stream)

Number of equations = N

With given T-shift values, pinch temperatures can be calculated for each individual stream
181

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


the Integration algorithm
Practical application :

T-shift can either be uniform or stream-dependant

T-shift values can be chosen in view of applicable U*f values but shall be optimised during the targeting
The integration procedure that can be set on automatic

Then maximum integration will apply, only limited by the pinch stream with its particular T-shift Then, T-shift only drives the criss-cross heat exchange and can be overruled at the pinch
182

or on manual

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Integration algorithm versus Problem Table

The Problem Table algorithm is a special case of the Integration algorithm The starting point of the Problem Table is an integration that equals the total heat requirement of the cold lumped curve. The cross-over at pinch level defines the hot energy target, and, consequently, the cold curve is shifted back to the right over this amount The Integration potential curve has the same shape as the Grand Composite, but not the same position on the T/H diagram
183

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

the Criss-cross procedure

184

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Example

Tsupply C 230 220 20 100 250 10

Ttarget C 30 219.9 100 200 250 10

Heat kW 400 100 50 400 60 110

DTShift K 5 5 ... 100 5 5 2.5 2.5

U*F kW/m,K 2 0.1 2 2 2 2

Comment H1 H2 C1 C2 Heating Cooling

185

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Example
Tem p 300

Lum ped Curves

250

200
T Hot

150

T Cold

100 conventional 50 Hea t 0 10 0 200 3 00 40 0 500 600 criss-cross

186

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Example

DT-shift (K) 5
Heating

Area (m) as a function of Heating and DT-shift on stream 2 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 31.5 27.5 25.1 30.4 26.6 24.3 29.6 25.8 23.6 29.1 25.3 23.1 29.1 25.1 22.9 29.7 25.3 22.8 32.8 26.1 23.1

60 80 100

33.8 29.4 26.8

29.3 24.0

27.3

187

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Example
m 35.0 32.5 30.0 27.5 25.0 22.5 20.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 DT-shift stream 2 (K)
188

Surface Area at constant Heating QH


Design with DT = 55 K

Design QH 60 QH 80 QH 100

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Example
Design for DT-shift on stream 2 of 55K
92.5

230

170

1
220

110

C
110

30

220

2
155

100

20 50

200

H1
60

185

130

100
4

120

100

120

189

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

Comparison between Design with sophisticated programming techniques and Design supported by criss-cross optimisation prior to design

190

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

Example from Gundersen and Grossmann Treated by E. Rev and Z. Fonyo in Diverse Pinch Concept for Heat Exchange Network Synthesis : the Case of Different Heat Transfer Conditions Chemical Engineering Science 1991

191

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Example from Gundersen and Grossmann (1988) Minimum approach temperature = 20 K
Data example Gundersen and Grossmann Classic pinch analysis Heat DTmin U*f kW K kW/K,m 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0 0 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 Optimum shift for Minimum Minimum Area Cost K K 0 0 0 30 0 7 0 0 0 30 0 20

Tsupply C 300 200 190 160 180 190 Targets 350 30

Ttarget C 200 190 170 180 190 230 350 50

Descript. H1 H2 H3 C1 C2 C3 Heating Cooling

192

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Classic pinch design DTMin = 20 K
300 Hot1 200

Classic Pinch Analysis


200 190

1
Hot2

Area = 674 m
190 170

2
Hot3

C
1000

180

160 Cold1

190

180 Cold2

1000

230

190

1000 Cold3 PINCH

H
1000

193

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Network optimized with heat exchange across the pinch on the basis of common sense there are no simple algorithms available
300 Hot1 200

Optimum Network
200 190

1
Hot2

Area = 494 m
190 170

2
Hot3

C
1000

180

160 Cold1

190

180 Cold2

1000

230

190

1000 Cold3 PINCH

H
1000

194

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Initial structure proposed by E. Rev & Z. Fonio (1990)
Diverse pinch (Rev & Fonyo)
300 Hot1 200 Hot2

Area = 647.2 m
200

1 3 4 2

5
190 190 Hot3

C1
176.4 170

C2
823.6

180

160

H1
87.0 706.5 206.5

Cold1 190 180 Cold2 230 190 Cold3 87.0 706.5 117.1 176.4

H2
913.0

Using MINOS 5.1 (professional software for solving simultaneous systems of nonlinear equations) and PROCESS (flowsheet simulator of SimSci)

195

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Criss-cross analysis : criss-crossing stream Cold1 : minimum area generated with a DT-shift of 30K
m 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Shift 50.0
196

Area Current Shift

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Criss-cross analysis : criss-crossing stream Cold3 : minimum area generated with a DT-shift of 7K
m 515 510 505 500 495 490 485 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Shift 30.0
197

Area Current Shift

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Network with DT-shift for minimum area (Cold1 : 30K - Cold3 : 7K)
Design with minimum area
300 Hot1

Area = 490.7 m

1a 1b 3

200

200 Hot2

190

2
190 Hot3 170

C
1000

180

160

H1
216.67 433.33 350

Cold1 190 180 Cold2

230

H2
783.33 216.67

190 Cold3

1000

198

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Network with DT-shift for simplified network (Cold1 : 30K - Cold3 : 20 K)
300 Hot1 200

Optimum Network
200 190

1
Hot2

Area = 494 m
190 170

2
Hot3

C
1000

180

160 Cold1 1000 190 180 Cold2 1000

230

190

H
1000

Cold3 PINCH

199

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Results Method Classic Area m 674.07 Cost KEUR 113.5 N of HE N of steps to optimum 4 Measure

impossible to get to optimum reason : topology trap

Optimum design

494.36

97.7

Diverse pinch (E. Rev and Z. Fonio) first candidate design 647.19 181.5 Criss-cross analysis (minimum area) one unique design 490.70 132.8

10

shifting loads through loops and paths eliminate HEX N3 (H1 disappears) None

Criss-cross analysis continued (shift C3 from 7K to 20K) one unique design 494.36 97.7 4 0

200

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Example from: Developments in the Sequential Framework for Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis of Industrial size problems Dept. of Energy and Process Engineering Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology Trondheim (NTNU) Presented by Ananthamaran & Gundersen, at ESCAPE-16 & PSE 2006

201 201

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

NTNU example 1 - DTMin global 20 K - Shift optimised


Tsupply C 353 347 255 224 116 53 40 377 20 Ttarget C 313 246 80 340 303 113 293 377 35 Heat kW 392.08 296.03 1078.18 832.76 119.87 457.62 427.57 244.13 172.60 Shift K 0.0 36.0 0.0 4.0 11.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U*f kW/K,m 1.25 0.05 3.20 0.65 0.25 0.33 3.20 3.50 3.50 Description H1 H2 H3 C1 C2 C3 C4 Heating Cooling

202

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

203

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

204

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

205

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit

Example textile Coating - Washing Drying Pinch analysis criss-cross versus classic

206 206

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Example textile


Classic
Temp 140 120 100 80
Hot

Lumped Curves (unshifted)

60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Cold

Heat 2500
207 207

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Example textile


Temp 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 500.0 1000.0

Classic : pinch at 25C

Lumped Curves (shifted)

Hot Cold

Heat 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0


208 208

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Example textile


Classic : Pinch at 25C
Temp 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 Heat

Grand Composite

209 209

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Example textile


Criss-crossing ingoing air streams
m 720.0 710.0 700.0 690.0 680.0 670.0 660.0 650.0 640.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 Shift 30.0
210 210

Area Current Shift

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Example textile


Criss-cross : Pinch at 105C
Temp 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 Heat

Grand Composite

211 211

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Fitted Surface; Variable: Oppervlak 4 factors, 1 Blocks, 26 Runs; MS Residual=.0104947 DV: Oppervlak

189 188 187 186

212

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Example textile


Grid (classic) pinch caused by 3 ingoing air streams with interaction [hot water streams/air] and [air/air]
Trommel lucht uit VD totaal afgas HO totaal afgas waterafvoer voorwas Waterafvoer bad2
50 115 105 84.69 105 84.69 84 84 84 69.31 69.31 69.31 60 60 60 45 45 34.95 34.95 30 30 26.2 26.2 20 20 50

Lucht in suppletie voorwas van vacuumpomp suppletie was2 van vacuumpomp

130

86.3

78.65

50 50 50

49.64 49.64 49.64

40 40 40 40 40

36.22 36.22 36.22 36.22 36.22

34.71 34.71 34.71 34.71 34.71

32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81

24.6 24.6

20 20 15

24.6 24.6

20

15

213 213

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit Example textile


Grid (criss-cross) pinch caused by 1 outgoing air stream, ingoing air streams interacting with air streams only
Trommel lucht uit VD totaal afgas HO totaal afgas waterafvoer voorwas Waterafvoer bad2
50 115 105 105 84 84 84 73.63 73.6 73.6 60 60 60 45 45 40.3 40.3 33.5 33.5 26.2 26.2 20 20 55.65 50

Lucht in suppletie voorwas van vacuumpomp suppletie was2 van vacuumpomp

130

111

86.3

78.6

49.0

31 50 50

22.1 41.1 41.1

21.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0

20.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 24.6 24.6 15 24.6 15

214 214

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Conclusion (1)

The new targeting procedure is capable of calculating the surface area required, including effects of unequal U-values and with criss-cross heat exchange Consequently, by steering the criss-cross heat exchange, it is possible to find the minimum surface area required The algorithm generates temperatures required to guide design for achieving energy targets and approaching area targets Heat transfer across the pinch is avoided by correct positioning of the streams in the HEN grid
215

Pinch Analysis Tool Heatit


Conclusion (2)

The algorithm generates targets that are much closer to feasible design than those obtained with classic targeting algorithms For assessment of existing designs, calculation of pinch violations by transfer of heat across the pinch is significantly more accurate than with uniform DTmins The procedure improves the quality of, and adds value to, the Analysis prior to design approach by offering a more qualified reference point from which to start the design phase

216

Heat Integration

Break

217

Heat Integration

Heat Exchanger Network (HEN) Design

218

Heat Integration HEN Design The problem as seen by


Dept. of Energy and Process Engineering Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology Trondheim (NTNU) Presented by Ananthamaran & Gundersen, at ESCAPE-16 & PSE 2006

219 219

Heat Integration HEN Design

Pinch Methods for Network Design Improper trade-off handling Time consuming Several topological traps MINLP Methods for Network Design Severe numerical problems Difficult user interaction Fail to solve large scale problems Stochastic Optimization Methods for Network Design Non-rigorous algorithms Quality of solution depends on time spent on search

Source : NTNU
220 220

Heat Integration HEN Design


The approach at NTNU : the Sequential Framework Engine
Adjust EMAT
2
1

New HLD
Preoptim.
HRAT

LP

QH QC

MILP
(EMAT=0)

U
EMAT

Vertical MILP

HLD

NLP
3 4

Final

Network

Adjust Units Adjust HRAT

Compromise between Pinch Design and MINLP Methods Source : NTNU


221 221

Heat Integration HEN Design The alternative

222 222

Heat Integration HEN Design The alternative (platform: Excel/Visual Basic)


Design

Pinch Analysis
Inspection & Simplification

Transform GD into Superstructures Design Engine

Analysis with crisscross optimisation Generation of grid diagram GD

Assessment and merging of Superstructures

Transfer to final simulation PFD

223 223

Heat Integration HEN Design


Design Engine
Spaghetti Network Generator

Area Sensitivity Analyser


Loop Detector Surface Area Reducer # HEX Reducer (down to N-1) HEN Cost Calculator

224 224

Heat Integration HEN Design

Example Problem 9SP

225 225

Heat Integration HEN Design


Example Problem 9SP Data Set
Tsupply C 327 220 220 160 100 35 85 60 140 330 15 Ttarget C 40 160 60 45 300 164 138 170 300 250 30 Heat MW 28700 9600 9600 46000 20000 9030 18550 6600 32000 24000 31720 U*f Descript. kW/K,m 0.500 0.400 0.140 0.300 0.350 0.700 0.500 0.140 0.600 0.500 0.500 H1 H2 H3 H4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Heating Cooling

Heating: 60/kW,year Cooling: 6/kW,year HEX : (2000 + 70 x Area)/year


226 226

Heat Integration HEN Design


9SP Trade- Off
Cost(NPV)
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 15000

Trade Off (NPV)

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Invest

Util

Total

Heating

227 227

Heat Integration HEN Design


9SP Trade- Off - Detail
Cost(NPV)
2940 2930 2920 2910 2900 2890 23000 23500 24000
Crisscross

Trade Off (NPV)

24500
Classic

25000

25500

Heating

228 228

Heat Integration HEN Design


Published optimum Heat Exchanger Networks Example 9SP Linnhoff and Ahmad (1990) (1) Zhu and O'Neill (1995) (1) Lewin (1998) Liporace et al. (2001) Fieg et al. (2009) (1) Avila-Diaz (2008) This research
(1) (2) (2) (1) (1)

Cost/year '000 2992 2969 2945 2940 2922 2904 2894

Best of ... more than 5 alternatives below 2900

Remark : Trade-Off Cost minimum is 2893 at 24 MW Heating


229 229

Heat Integration - The developers objective ?


To close in much faster towards an optimum design

Complex design tools on sophisticated platforms

Simple tools inspired by insight on basic platforms

Conventional targeting procedures

Improved targeting procedures

Optimum design

230

Attachments

231

Heat Integration

Attachment 1
Example drying tunnel Pinch analysis also appropriate for simple problems

232

Heat Integration

Drying tunnel
Drying process
Off-gas from gas motor 525C 445 kW 224C 193 kW Off-gas Air leaks Drying tunnel 34C Ambiant air 122C 137C 118C Stack 90C Hot water from gas motor 84 kW 70C

270C

123C

59C

Gas burners 250 kW

233

Heat integration
The drying tunnel Working session
Drying process as found
Flue gas from gas motor 525C 445 kW 224C 193 kW 122C 137C 118C Stack 90C Hot water from gas motor 84 kW 70C

Air leaks

Offgas

Drying tunnel Gas burners 250 kW

270C

123C

59C

34C Ambiant air

Working session : Stream data ?


234

Heat integration
Drying tunnel stream dataset 1
Drying tunnel Data set 1 Tsupply Ttarget Heat DTMin U*f Description C C kW K kW/K,m 33.9 58.8 122.8 270.2 525.0 223.7 122.0 135.9 90.0 58.8 122.8 270.2 353.0 223.7 135.9 135.9 118.0 70.0 83.8 193.3 445.2 250.1 444.7 129.6 129.6 193.3 83.7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 7 7 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.00 fresh air air in air in air in CHP flue gas CHP flue gas off gas off gas Cooling water mcp kW/K 3.366 3.020 3.020 3.020 1.476 1.476 9.322 10.798 4.187

235

Heat integration
Drying tunnel stream dataset 1
Temp 600

Saving potential ?

Grand Composite

500

400

300

200

100

0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 Heat

236

Heat integration
Drying tunnel stream dataset 2

Drying tunnel Data set 2 Tsupply Ttarget Heat DTMin U*f Description C C kW K kW/K,m 33.9 122.0 525.0 90.0 353.0 90.0 90.0 70.0 963.7 298.3 642.1 83.7 7 7 7 7 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.00 air in off gas CHP flue gas Cooling water

mcp kW/K 3.020 9.322 1.476 4.187

237

Heat integration
Drying tunnel stream dataset 2
Temp 600

Lumped Curves

500

400
THot TCold

300

200

100 Heat 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

238

Heat integration
Drying tunnel stream dataset 2
Temp 600

Saving potential ?

Grand Composite

500

400

300

200

100

0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 Heat

239

Heat integration
Drying tunnel pinch violations
PINCH 137C B1a 45 kW 132C B1b 103 kW 122C B1c 46 kW 118C

123C B1a 45 kW

108C B1b 103 kW

74C B1c 46 kW

59C

Remark : the Heat Exchanger has a minimum DeltaT ! ! !


240

Heat integration
Drying tunnel optimised
Flue gas from gas motor 525C

Drying process optimised


595 kW 122C 217 kW 122C 122C 100C Stack

Air leaks

Offgas

Drying tunnel Gas burners 151 kW

303C

106C

34C Ambiant air

Remark : we do not need the CHP cooling water !!! The rotating heat exchanger is the same as before
241

Heat integration Attachment 2

Examples Chemicals - Distillation

242

Example 1 - Technology trap


Chemicals Distillation As found
x
CW 120C CW 110C

y Steam Total 21 t/h

NX(x,y,z) 50C CW 150C 130C 30C

H
11 t/h 10 t/h

243

Example 1 - Technology trap


Chemicals - Distillation Steam consumption Given situation Four solutions : 1. Install CHP 2. Vapour recompression : 21 t/h

: 21 t/h : 10 t/h + 350 kW 3. Adjust operating parameters p/T + heat integration : 10 t/h 4. Innovative sequencing : 7 t/h

244

Example 1 - Technology trap


Chemicals Distillation Vapour recompression

Temp 160 140 120 100

Lumped Curves

Temp 180 160 140 120


THot

Grand Composite

100 80 60 40 20

80 60 40 20 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

TCold

Heat 30000

0 0.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 8000.0 10000.0 12000.0 14000.0 Heat

245

Example 1 - Technology trap


Chemicals Distillation Vapour recompression
y
CW 120C NX(x,y,z) 50C 120C 140C 150C 130C 30C

x
350 kW

Steam Total 10 t/h


110C

H
10 t/h

246

Example 1 - Technology trap


Chemicals Distillation Adjusted parameters p/T for heat integration
Temp 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5000 10000 15000 Heat 20000
THot TCold

Lumped Curves

Temp 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 1000.0

Grand Composite

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

6000.0 7000.0 Heat

247

Example 1 - Technology trap


Chemicals Distillation Heat integration
x
CW 130C 100C

y Steam Total 10 t/h

NX(x,y,z)

P
50C 120C

160C

120C

30C

H
10 t/h

248

Example 1 - Technology trap


Chemicals Distillation Innovative sequencing
CW

Steam Total 7 t/h

x+ y

NX(x,y,z) 50C 120C

y +z H z

30C

249

Example 2 - Distillation
First modification
v C
165C 94C

v
2760 kW 96C

x C
773 kW 124C

y C
128 kW

.067 bar

0.4 bar

210C

(v,x,y,z)

178C 650 kW

148C 1593 kW

165C

.03 bar
181C 513 kW

5 bar
H

99 kW

z
Courtesy of BASF
250

Example 2 - Distillation
Second modification
v v C
161C 113C 55C

v y C
124C

.067 bar

1.0 bar

5 bar

197C 123C 163C

.03 bar
181C

H 99 kW
210C

H 308 kW z
Courtesy of BASF
251

(v,x,y,z)

Example 2 Distillation
Results Without integration : 2855 kW = 100%

With integration Improved sequencing

: 1262 kW = 44% : 407 kW = 14%

252

Example 3 - Distillation
First modification

253

Example 3 - Distillation
Second modification

254

Example 3 - Distillation
Results W/O integration With integration Modification 1 Modification 2 : 27.47 MW = 100.% : 21.50 MW = 78.3% : 13.16 MW = 47.9% : 9.19 MW = 33.5%

Improved sequencing

255

Heat Integration

Attachment 3 Application issues


Process constraints Utilities Furnaces Combined Heat and Power Heat pumps

256

Application issues - Process constraints

Accept reasonable process constraints However, Identify soft temperatures, if any Differentiate between process driven and design driven constraints Consider intermediate heat transfer medium if appropriate Trace the origin of the constraint After no because, try yes if Avoid elaborating the right solution for the wrong question
257

Application issues - Utilities


Evaluate appropriate use of multiple utilities, but Dont push too far, since

At the limit, a utility pinch will emerge The design will become more complex and expensive Infrastructure cost will increase

Include the use of the utilities in the global optimisation (use of condensate, maximum heat recovery from flue gas, ...)

258

Application issues - Furnaces

Maximise the use of the flue gas Include optimisation of the furnace design (air preheat, fuel preheat, ...) Evaluate flue gas generated in CHP

259

Application issues - CHP

Heat from CHP should be used there where heat is really needed, e.g. above the pinch ! Evaluate total site requirements first Optimise individual plant operations before investing in site infrastructure Invest in utilities only for the remaining mandatory requirements Invest in CHP if there is sufficient mandatory baseload on long term

260

Application issues Heat pumps

A heat pump should be across the pinch


It should pick-up heat where there is excess, i.e. below the pinch

It should deliver heat to where heat is needed, i.e. above the pinch
A heat pump entirely above the pinch is equivalent with electric heating A heat pump entirely below the pinch will dump the power used into the cooling water

261

Heat Integration Attachment 4


Other rules

for optimising energy consumption


for assessing energy efficiency

262

Full chain analysis required


Choices that have impact on energy use :

Feedstock Process route ; reactor technology (catalyst)

Separation techniques and sequencing


Operating parameters of Unit operations Heat integration Utility supply infrastructure Be aware of the technology trap ! ! !

263

Comparing Energy Friendliness

Top down : Benchmark

Is standard procedure within large corporations to compare productivity at different sites

Is a management tool to set objectives


Corporation knows the specificities of each process and can differentiate between justified and not justified differences Energy (and feedstock) efficiency is a competitive edge (in terms of cost)

Particularities :

264

Comparing Energy Friendliness

Top down - Benchmark weakness :


All processes can be equally good But also equally bad Reason : p.ex. : particular company strategy regarding utilities principle and infrastructure Criterion based on physics and thermodynamics Exergy analysis (theoretical) Heat integration analysis (practical tools available) Check state-of-the-art of process unit operations
265

Answer : the bottom-up approach


Top down or Bottom up ?

Top down approach :


Tells us where we stand compared with the others However, ... its all relative ... being the best does not mean yet that we are good enough Tells us where we stand compared with where we could stand Confirms whether we are good enough And tells us where to cure if we are not

Bottom up approach :

266

Conclusion

Right choice of priorities in utilities strategy is essential


Minimise consumption first Then optimise utility system for supplying the unavoidable (mandatory) remaining demand

Heat integration has become an essential part of modern process design Pinch Analysis has proven to be a practical tool for determining reasonable minimum energy and capital requirements

267

Heat Integration
Attachment 5 Overview Potential Savings Areas Example : Chemicals and Petrochemicals

268

Potential savings areas (1)


Petrochemical facility Utilities area

Process flows

Boiler efficiency (air preheat, excess oxygen, ) Steam traps Insulation Condensate return Cogeneration

Process unit operations


269

Potential savings areas (2)


Petrochemical facility

Process heat recovery

Process flows

Given: process hot streams & cold streams Principle: maximum heat recovery through optimised heat exchanger networks How : heat exchangers, heat pumps,

Process unit operations

270

Potential savings areas (3)


Process flows Process parameter optimisation
Adjustment of operating parameters of Reactors (T) Distillation columns (P, T, feed conditions, reflux) With a view to increased heat integration

Process unit operations

Process concepts

271

Potential savings areas (4)


Process unit operations

Process flow sheet optimisation


Alternative distillation sequencing (increased thermodynamic efficiency) Integration of reactors with heat duties (reducing or eliminating driving forces)

Process concepts

Alternative processes

272

Potential savings areas (5)


Process unit operations

Process concepts Process fundamentals

Alternative processes

Alternative feedstock Alternative catalysts Alternative product mix

273

Potential savings areas (summary)

Saving Capital potential required


Utility area efficiency

5% 10 - 20% 15 - 30% 20 - 50+%

0 to ++++ ++ to +++ 0 to ++ - - - to +

Process heat recovery : Parameter optimisation : Flow sheet optimisation : Alternative processes :

still a lot to get for less

274

Mission statement

Meeting the challenge

for sustainable production


and manufacturing

275

Contact

Daniel Declercq Pinchco bvba Tel. +32 3 666 52 54 Fax +32 3 666 11 38 E-mail daniel.declercq@pinchco.com Website www.energyconsultants.biz

276