Energy

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

Energy

© All Rights Reserved

- Pandu Hydro Pneumatics
- Teacher Guide 2
- The Construction of an Inexpensive Rotary Evaporator
- Prakash Industries Ltd
- Revised SOP Index for Change Control
- US 5464459x 1995 VANBUSKIRK - Chevron Type Mist Eliminator and System
- InsideTrack106-wsd
- Steel Production
- Steel Glossary SBB
- 2M110986
- Presentation on Tata Steel
- cp95
- N593 jd
- Continus Melting Reserch
- Weekly Safety Highlights
- Meter Turbine 4 Inch Sentry Series
- Nema
- 8910
- A5236-G15-01-A2 MTR_P7
- 3-s2.0-B9780080969848099900-main

You are on page 1of 8

Applied Energy

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

and steel plant

Haining Kong *, Ershi Qi, Hui Li, Gang Li, Xing Zhang

School of Industrial Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In iron and steel industry, byproduct gases are important energy. Therefore it is signicant to optimize

Received 21 July 2009 byproduct gas distribution to achieve total cost reduction. In this paper, a dynamic mixed integer linear

Received in revised form 25 November 2009 programming (MILP) model for multi-period optimization of byproduct gases is used to optimize byprod-

Accepted 25 November 2009

uct gas distribution. Compared with the previous optimization model, the proposed model simulta-

neously optimizes the distribution of byproduct gases in byproduct gas system, cogeneration system

and iron- and steel-making system. Case study shows that the proposed model nds the optimal solution

Keywords:

in terms of total cost reduction.

Iron and steel industry

MILP

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Byproduct gas distribution

Scheduling

1. Introduction optimally allocate the resource and achieved a good result. A math-

ematical model was formulated by Kim et al. [1], in which the

As one of the fundamental pillar industries in China, the iron objective is to minimize total cost over multi-period. Kim et al.

and steel industry has developed rapidly in recent years. Mean- [11] suggested an optimization model for byproduct gases and pre-

while, it is an energy-intensive industry, whose energy cost ac- sented an optimal energy supply to meet the carrying demands

counts for 20% of the iron- and steel-making processs total and unit price changes. They [12] further considered the penalty

operation cost [1]. Therefore, efcient use of energy is crucial for cost for on/off status of burners in boilers, which were proved to

reducing total operation cost. Byproduct gases, which are produced result in a lower cost in their research. All the previous researches

during the production of iron and steel without additional cost, are hypothesized that the amount of byproduct gases consumed in the

important energy sources to meet energy needs of the process of iron- and steel-making process are all decided beforehand, i.e. they

making iron and steel. Furthermore, these byproduct gases can ignored the optimization of byproduct gases in the iron- and steel-

be converted into other forms of energy, such as electricity and making process. They only optimized the residuals of byproduct

steam. Thus, optimization of byproduct gases has drawn more gases (total amount of byproduct gases produced minus the

and more attention by the iron and steel industry in recent years. amount of byproduct gases consumed in the iron- and steel-mak-

In some iron and steel plants, there are often imbalances be- ing process) in the gasholders and boilers. Thus the previous re-

tween the amount of byproduct gases produced and consumed. searches may have obtained imprecise results.

When the amount of gases produced is greater than that is con- In this paper, an improved MILP model of byproduct gases in

sumed, it will cause an excess, and when the opposite occurs, it the iron and steel industry is established. The focus is on reducing

will cause a shortage. Such imbalance will result in increase in total operation cost in the entire energy system for multi-period

operation cost, pollution to the environment, and even a threat operation through optimizing byproduct gas distribution in an

to production safety [2]. Therefore, it is a critical issue to optimize integrated iron and steel plant. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis

the operation process to prevent the loss of byproduct gases. is presented. In the case study, given six time periods with varying

Much research efforts on production planning in the iron and demands of the system, the model would in turn offer the optimal

steel industry have been done [38]. However, little is focused operation conditions to meet demands at the lowest cost.

on the optimization of byproduct gases. Akimoto et al. [9] brought

MILP to optimize byproduct gases in the iron and steel industry for 2. Problem statement

the rst time. Sinha et al. [10] applied MILP model in Tata Steel to

Fig. 1 shows the schematic view of the iron- and steel-making

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 22 2740 5100. process. During this process, three kinds of byproduct gases are

E-mail address: konghaining@hotmail.com (H. Kong). produced. They are blast furnace gas (BFG) produced from a blast

0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.11.031

H. Kong et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 21562163 2157

Nomenclature

B set of boilers switching in the same boiler (yuan/switching)

T set of turbines W Dem

BFG heat demand of BFG in production system (kJ/h)

G set of byproduct gases (BFG, COG, DLG) W Dem heat demand of COG in production system (kJ/h)

COG

i boiler (i = 1, 2, . . . ,B)

W Dem

LDG heat demand of LDG in production system (kJ/h)

j turbine (j = 1, 2, . . . ,T)

l compressor (l = 1, 2, . . . ,C)

gbi efciency of boiler i

t period (t = 1, 2, . . . ,P) gtb

j efciency of turbine j

Parameters Variables

Celec unit cost of electricity (yuan/kW h) Et electricity generation at time t (kW)

COil unit cost of fuel oil (yuan/t) F PSD

i;t ow rate of process steam demand of boiler i at time t

EDem electricity demand (kW h) (nm3/h)

Min;BFG

F i;t minimum ow rate of BFG into single-consuming users FG,gen,t amount of byproduct gas G generated at time t (nm3/h)

at time t (nm3/h) FG,con,t amount of byproduct gas G consumed at time t (nm3/h)

F Max;BFG maximum ow rate of BFG into single-consuming users

b

fi;t amount of byproduct gases into boiler b at time t (nm3/h)

i;t

at time t (nm3/h) fBFG,t ow rate of BFG in single-consuming users at time t

Min;COG

F i;t minimum ow rate of COG into single-consuming users (nm3/h)

at time t (nm3/h) fCOG,t ow rate of COG in single-consuming users at time t

F Max;COG maximum ow rate of COG into single-consuming users (nm3/h)

i;t

at time t (nm3/h) fLDG,t ow rate of LDG in single-consuming users at time t

Min;LDG

F i;t minimum ow rate of LDG into single-consuming users (nm3/h)

BFG

at time t (nm3/h) fq;t ow rate of BFG in mixed-consuming users at time t

F Max;LDG maximum ow rate of LDG into single-consuming users (nm3/h)

i;t COG

at time t (nm3/h) fq;t ow rate of COG in mixed-consuming users at time t

Min;b

F i;t minimum ow rate of byproduct gas G into boiler i at (nm3/h)

LDG

time t (nm3/h) fq;t ow rate of LDG in mixed-consuming users at time t

F Max;b maximum ow rate of byproduct gas G into boiler i at (nm3/h)

i;t

time t (nm3/h) fi;tOil ow rate of oil used in boiler i at time t (nm3/h)

Min;stm

F i;t minimum ow rate of steam produced by boiler i at

wat

fi;t ow rate of water used in boiler i at time t (nm3/h)

time t (nm3/h) stm

fi;t ow rate of steam produced from boiler i at time t (nm3/h)

F Max;stm

i;t

maximum ow rate of steam produced by boiler i at fi;tps ow rate of process steam produced from boiler i at

time t (nm3/h) time t (nm3/h)

Min;tb

F i;t minimum ow rate of steam into turbine produced by fi;ttb ow rate of steam into turbine from boiler i at time t

boiler i at time t (nm3/h) (nm3/h)

F Max;tb

i;t

maximum ow rate of steam into turbine produced by nGi;t number of operation burners at boiler i at time t

boiler i at time t (nm3/h)

Min;com DnGi;t change of number of operating burners at boiler i from

F l;t minimum ow rate of steam into compressor l at time t

time t to t + 1

(nm3/h)

pwgen,j,t power generation at turbine j at time t (kJ/h)

F Max;com

l;t

maximum ow rate of steam into compressor l at time t

F Min

q;t minimum ow rate of steam into mixed-consuming swGi;t number of G gas burner turn off at boiler i at time t

users at time t (nm3/h) sGHH;t amount of gas G emission at gasholder at time t (nm3/h)

F Max

q;t maximum ow rate of steam into mixed-consuming sGd ;t deviation above normal amount of gas G at time t (nm3/h)

users at time t (nm3/h)

sGd ;t deviation below normal amount of gas G at time t (nm3/h)

GHGHH upper bound of byproduct gas G (nm3)

GHGLL lower bound of byproduct gas G (nm3) Binary integer variables

GHGN normal amount of byproduct gas G (nm3)

HBFG heat value of BFG (kJ/nm3) G

ibn1;i;t

1 if one G gas burner turn on at boiler i at time t

HCOG heat value of COG (kJ/nm3) 0 else

HLDG heat value of LDG (kJ/nm3) G 1 if two G gas burners turn on at boiler i at time t

ibn2;i;t

HGP heat value of byproduct gas G (kJ/nm3) 0 else

HOil

P heat value of fuel oil (kJ/nm3) G 1 if three G gas burners turn on at boiler i at time t

ibn3;i;t

Hstm enthalpy of steam produced at boiler i at time t (kJ/nm3) 0 else

i;t

Hwat

i;t enthalpy of water used at boiler i at time t (kJ/nm3) ibn1;i;t

G 1 if one G gas burner turn off at boiler i at time t

MGi load change unit amount of byproduct gas G burner in 0 else

boiler i (nm3/h) ibn2;i;t

G 1 if two G gas burners turn off at boiler i at time t

Dt time period (min) 0 else

WG penalty weight for deviation of gasholders (yuan/nm3) G 1

if three G gas burners turn off at boiler i at time t

ibn3;i;t

W GSW penalty weight for burners switching (yuan/switching) 0

else

W FO

i;t penalty weight for changing fuel oil (yuan/nm3) yOil

1 if fuel oil change at boiler i at time t

i;t 0 else

2s

W penalty weight for two burners simultaneously switch-

ing in the same boiler (yuan/switching)

2158 H. Kong et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 21562163

Ore fines In a byproduct gas system, byproduct gases are stored in gashold-

Coal Fuel ers. In a cogeneration system, byproduct gases are transported to

Coke Plant Sintering boilers in the power plant to produce steam, which is then con-

Limestone

verted into electricity in turbines. In an iron- and steel-making sys-

tem, byproduct gases are produced and consumed. The

distribution of byproduct gases in an iron- and steel-making sys-

Coke Sinter tem is shown in Fig. 3. The gure shows that some byproduct gases

Blast users are single-consuming users, who consume one xed kind of

Furnace Limestone, Pellets

gas. The other kind is mixed-consuming users. They consume

mixed byproduct gases at one time, as long as mixed byproduct

Slag gases satisfy the requirements for heat values.

Hot Iron

The amount of byproduct gases generated and consumed

should be equal in order to guarantee the safety of the plant and

Ore, Scrap

Basic Oxygen stability of production. Nevertheless, some byproduct gases are

Steel Furnace Electricity

generated irregularly; some uncertain factors, e.g., equipment

Molten Steel

maintenance, also affect gas consumption. Therefore there is a

temporary imbalance between the amount of gas generated and

consumed. The byproduct gasholders are built to alleviate this

Casting

problem, adjusting the gas supply of users by storing excessive

gases into gasholders. The excessive gases stored will be used in

the future when shortage of byproduct gases occurs. However, be-

Rolling and cause of the limited capacity of gasholders, temporary excess or

Finishing shortage of byproduct gases still can not be completely resolved.

Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the process to prevent the

loss of byproduct gases by establishing a suitable model.

Ingots / Semi finished shapes / Plate and Strip

3. Method

Fig. 1. Schematic view of a simple iron and steel process.

The method is based on MILP. The MILP model has been devel-

oped from Method for analysis of INDustrial energy systems

furnace when producing hot metal; coke oven gas (COG) from a (MIND) that has been developed to solve the optimization problem

coke oven when producing coke; and LinzeDonawitz gas (LDG) for the iron and steel industry [1316]. The model is implemented

from the process of producing steel at a LinzeDonawitz (LD) con- in LINGO software. LINGO is a software for solving optimization

verter. The simplied byproduct gases ow in an iron and steel problems developed by Lindo System, Inc., USA. It is a comprehen-

plant is shown in Fig. 2. In this paper, the energy system of an iron sive tool designed to make building and solving linear, nonlinear

and steel plant is mainly composed of three parts: byproduct gas and integer optimization models faster, easier and more efcient.

system, cogeneration system and iron- and steel-making system. LINGO provides a completely integrated package that includes a

Byproduct gases

demand

Byproduct

gas system

Coke oven Electricity

COG Boiler 1 TB1

demand

COG

Holder

Boiler 2 TB2

Basic oxygen Iron and steel

LDG

steel furnace making system

Cogeneration

system

LDG

Boiler N

BFG

Holder

H. Kong et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 21562163 2159

Rotating Kiln

Sintering Furnace

users of COG

1 , 2ndcoke oven

st

Others

users of LDG

Byproduct gas

consumption in Hot stoves

making of iron and

steel process Single-consuming 3rd, 4th coke oven

users of BFG

Lime furnace

Mixed-consuming

users Seamless tube

Others

powerful language for expressing optimization models, a full fea- The rst term in the function represents purchased oil consumption

tured environment for building and editing problems, and a set cost for all the boilers. The second term is penalty cost for byproduct

of fast built-in solvers. gas shortage (when the gas amount is lower than the lower bound),

To be brief, the optimization scheduling of byproduct gases in emission (when gas amount is higher than the upper bound) and

this paper mainly includes four steps: deviation from normal holder level. The third term is the penalty

when burners are starting up or shutting down. The forth term is also

First, the real system is delimited; important processes are iden- penalty imposed when more than one burner in one boiler are start-

tied; reasonable simplications are introduced, in order to ing up or shutting down simultaneously. The fth term represents

describe the system mathematically. the penalty for changing oil source between two periods. The sixth

Second, the optimization model is created, the objective func- term is the benet from surplus electricity produced in power plant.

tion and constraints are both presented.

Third, the appropriate optimization routine is applied. In this 4.2. Constraints

study, a software LINGO is used to solve the MILP problem.

Forth, the model is validated through case study and the results 4.2.1. Material balances for byproduct gases

are analyzed.

X

B

V G;t V G;t1 F G;gen;t F G;con;t Dt Dfi;tG 2

i

4. Modelled system X

kx X

ky X

kz m

X

BFG COG LDG

F G;con;t fCOG;t fLDG;t fBFG;t fq;t fq;t fq;t 3

4.1. Objective function i1

i1

i1 q1

The objective function is to minimize total operation cost dur-

ing the planning horizon P, including minimizing penalty cost, oil fi;tstm fi;tps fi;ttb 5

purchasing cost, and maximizing the electricity benet. Penalty

VG,t is the amount of byproduct gases in gasholders at time t, which

cost is consisted of penalty for emission or shortage of byproduct

is equal to the sum of the amount of byproduct gases at time t 1,

gases, and deviation from normal gasholder levels. Besides, the

VG,t1, and the difference between generation and consumption of

penalty costs for burners switching and fuel load changing in the

byproduct gases in the iron- and steel-making system during time

boilers are imposed to ensure a stable production process.

Dt, minus the amount of byproduct gas load change at boilers dur-

ing time Dt. FG,con,t, decided beforehand in the previous researches,

n P X

X B P X

X 2

Y Min C Oil fi;tOil W G V G;t GHGN is regarded as a variable in this paper. It equals to the sum of the

t1 i1 t1 G amount of byproduct gases consumed in single-consuming users

X

P X

B X X

P X

B and mixed-consuming users in iron- and steel-making system.

W GSW DnGi;t Dfi;tG represents gas load change of byproduct gas G in boiler i from

t1 i1 G t1 i1 time t 1 to t. The produced steam from boilers is equal to the

Xh

G G

G G

i

W 2s ibn2;i;t ibn2;i;t W 3s ibn3;i;t ibn3;i;t sum of process steam and inlet to turbines, as shown in Eq. (5).

G

" !#

P X

X B

elec

X

P

4.2.2. Energy balance for utilities

W Oil Oil

i;t yi;t C Et EDem 1 It is assumed that each boiler and turbine has different ef-

t1 i1 t1

ciency and is constant during time P. thus, the energy balance

2160 H. Kong et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 21562163

can be described as follows; where the total amount of energy to 4.2.7. Material and energy constraints for mixed-consuming users

each boiler multiplied its efciency is equal to the total enthalpy For any mixed-consuming user q, material constraint (23) and

change from water to steam. To turbines, the electricity generation energy constraint (24) should be satised.

is equal to the enthalpy multiplied by turbine efciencies. X

X Hstm stm wat wat F Min

q;t 6

G

fq;t 6 F Max 23

i;t fi;t H i;t fi;t

q;t

fi;tG HGP fi;tOil HOil 6 X G Dem

P G

g b

i

fq;t H P W q;t 24

G

pwgen;j;t fi;ttb Hstm

i;t g tb

j 7

4.2.8. Other equations

4.2.3. Operation constraints of equipments

Boilers, turbines and compressors have their own operation DnGi;t nGi;t nGi;t1 swGi;t swGi;t 25

ranges, which should be conformed during the process, as shown G G G

swGi;t ibn1;i;t ibn2;i;t ibn3;i;t 26

in Eqs. (8)(10), respectively. Besides, each boiler has its upper G G G

and lower limits for byproduct gases inlet to keep working, as de- swGi;t ibn1;i;t ibn2;i;t ibn3;i;t 27

scribed in Eq. (11). swGi;t ; swGi;t P0 28

F Min;stm

i;t 6 fi;tstm 6 F Max;stm

i;t 8

Eqs. (25)(28) represent the relationship of burners switching in the

F Min;tb

i;t 6 fi;ttb 6 F Max;tb

i;t 9 boilers. Change of the number of operating burner at boiler i, DnGi;t ,

F Min;t;com

l;t 6 fl;tcom 6 F Max;com

l;t 10 equals to the sum of swGi;t and swGi;t . swGi;t represents the number

of turn on at time t, which equals to the sum of the number of

F Min;b

i;t 6 fi;tb 6 F Max;b

i;t 11

one burner, two and three burners turn-on status during the same

G G G

period, which are expressed as ibn1;i;t ; ibn2;i;t and ibn3;i;t , respectively.

G G G

4.2.4. Operation constraint of gasholders ibn1;i;t ; ibn2;i;t and ibn3;i;t are binary variables. When the variables

have values of 1, this means burners switching happen.

GHGLL 6 SGt 6 GHGHH sGHH;t 12

SGT GHGN sGd ;t sGd ;t 13 5. Case study presentation

sGHH;t ; sGd ;t ; sGd ;t P 0 14

A case study was performed to illustrate the proposed MILP

The gasholders also have desired operating range. From the model in a small-sized iron and steel plant in China. The annual

above equations, it is obvious that holder booster trip is forbidden turnover at the plant is approximately 34.2 billion yuan. The plant

as a constraint because of a huge economic loss. currently produces about 4 million tons of steel annually. The plant

consists of eight blast furnaces when producing hot metal; four

4.2.5. Energy demand satisfaction constraints coke ovens, ve basic oxygen furnaces, a BLG gasholder, a COG gas-

The generated steam from boilers, electricity from turbines at holder, and a LDG gasholder respectively. There are three boilers

each period has to meet the energy demands, which are shown and three turbines in the cogeneration system.

in Eqs. (15) and (16). The planning period consists six time periods; each is 15 min in

fi;tps P F PSD

i;t 15 length. The number of time steps is chosen randomly to explain to

X

T X the readers how to apply the proposed model to optimize a real

pwgen;j;t P EDem 16 plant. The time step length of 15 min corresponds to the steel plant

j1 G actual measuring period. Table 1 shows the capacity of gasholders.

The efciency of each piece of equipment is shown in Table 2.

Table 3 represents the consumption ranges of boilers for different

4.2.6. Material and energy constraints for single-consuming users

gases. Heating values of byproduct gases, penalty values for objec-

Assuming that in iron- and steel-making system, COG is con-

tive function and unit cost of utilities are shown in Table 46

sumed in kx users; LDG is consumed in ky users and BFG is con-

respectively. The penalty value data are determined through con-

sumed in kz users. Therefore, the ow rate of each kind of gas

tinuous discussion with representatives from the plant to ensure

should satisfy the following constraints (17)(19).

the validity of the model. The unit costs are based on current en-

X

kx X

kx

ergy prices in China. Fig. 4 shows process steam and electricity de-

F Min;COG

i 6 fCOG 6 F Max;COG

i 17

i1 i1

mand during all the periods. Table 7 shows the total amount of

X

ky X

ky byproduct gases produced in the planning period.

F Min;LDG

i 6 fLDG 6 F Max;LDG

i 18

i1 i1

Table 1

X

kz X

kz

F Min;BFG

i 6 fBFG 6 F Max;BFG

i 19 Capacity bound of byproduct gasholders.

i1 i1 COG BFG LDG

Besides, as shown in Eqs. (20)(22), the heat value should sat- Lower bound (nm3) 60,000 50,000 40,000

isfy the users demand in iron- and steel-making system. Normal (nm3) 90,000 100,000 70,000

Upper bound (nm3) 120,000 150,000 100,000

X

kx

fCOG HCOG P W Dem

COG 20

i1

Table 2

X

ky

fLDG HLDG P W Dem

LDG 21 Efciencies of each piece of equipment.

i1 1 2 3

X

kz

fBFG HBFG P W Dem

BFG 22 Boilers 0.8 0.85 0.83

Turbines 0.82 0.8 0.83

i1

H. Kong et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 21562163 2161

Table 3 The case study was modeled with Lingo, and was implemented

Consumption ranges for byproduct gases of boilers. on a Pentium IV 2.6 GHz with 512 MB RAM. The MILP problem

Boiler 1 Boiler 2 Boiler 3 contains 316 continuous variables, 76 binary variables and 392

Maximization for COG (nm /h) 3

9000 9000 9000 constraints. The results were obtained within 2s.

Minimization for COG (nm3/h) 0 0 0

Maximization for BFG (nm3/h) 90,000 90,000 90,000

Minimization for BFG (nm3/h) 0 0 0 6. Results

Maximization for LDG (nm3/h) 4800 4800 4800

Minimization for LDG (nm3/h) 0 0 0

The optimization results during the six periods are obtained. Ta-

ble 810 present the distributions of COG, BFG and LDG in the iron-

and steel-making system, respectively. The amounts of byproduct

Table 4 gases in boilers are shown in Table 11. Fig. 5 represents the number

Heating values of byproduct gases (MJ/m3).

of burners turned on/off. As it can be seen in the gure, the pro-

Byproduct gases Heating values posed method only performs four switching. In the rst period,

COG 18 the COG burner of boiler 2 is turned on and in the second period,

LDG 8 the BFG burner of boiler 2 is turned on. In the third period, LDG

BFG 3 burner of boiler 1 is turned off and in the forth period; LDG burner

of boiler 4 is turned off. Fig. 6 shows the optimized gas amount in

the gasholders. It indicates the amounts of three kinds of byprod-

Table 5 uct gases uctuate slightly during the planning period.

Penalty value for objective function (yuan). The scheduling model by previous researchers used in the plant

Penalty value only considered byproduct gas trade-off between boilers and

gasholders. It did not consider byproduct gas distribution in the

Change of fuel oil 500

Deviation of byproduct gas in holders 5 Table 8

Penalty for burners on/off 400 The distribution of COG in the iron- and steel-making system (km3).

Penalty for two burners on/off simultaneously 100

Penalty for three burners on/off simultaneously 200 Period Rotating Sintering Ladle 1st, 2nd Others Mixed

kiln furnace heater coke oven gas

1 2.0 1.5 1.3 3.6 0.8 1.5

2 2.0 1.5 1.5 3.5 1.1 1.4

Table 6

3 2.0 1.5 1.5 3.6 0.5 1.5

Unit cost of utilities.

4 2.0 1.5 1.3 3.6 0.6 1.6

Fuel oil Electricity Standard coal 5 2.0 1.5 1.4 3.6 0.8 1.5

(yuan/t) (yuan/kW h) (yuan/t) 6 2.0 1.5 1.4 3.6 0.8 1.3

Table 9

90 220 The distribution of BFG in the iron- and steel-making system (km3).

Period Hot stoves 3rd, 4th coke oven Lime furnace Mixed gas

80 210 1 53.2 17.4 3.0 7.0

Electricity demand (MW)

Steam demand (t/h)

4 53.0 17.4 3.2 7.0

5 53.2 17.4 3.2 7.2

60 190 6 53.0 17.4 3.0 6.6

50 180

Table 10

40 170 The distribution of LDG in the iron- and steel-making system (km3).

30 160 1 2.0 6.7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 2.0 7.3

Time (period) 3 2.0 5.5

Steam demand

4 2.0 5.8

Electricity demand 5 2.0 5.1

6 2.0 7.5

Fig. 4. Process steam and electricity demand.

Table 7 Table 11

The total amount of byproduct gases produced in the planning period (km3). The amount of byproduct gases in the boilers (km3).

1 16.1 133 11.4 1 5.3 52.5 2.6

2 15.3 140 13.2 2 5.0 60 2.6

3 16.0 139 9.7 3 5.0 59 2.2

4 15.6 139 7.5 4 5.2 58 1.8

5 15.9 140 10.8 5 5.3 59 1.8

6 15.5 136 9.3 6 5.3 57 1.9

2162 H. Kong et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 21562163

Table 12

The total cost comparison of two models (yuan).

Boiler 2 COG burner

Previous Proposed

Boiler 2 BFG burner

Byproduct gases emission 0 0

Holder booster trip penalty 0 0

Penalty for gas deviation 7065 6795

By product gas burner switching

Penalty for switching burners 3600 3200

Penalty for change of fuel oil 0 0

Electricity benet 1250 1290

Total cost 9415 8705

Turn on

same. However, the optimization result is not highly dependent

on the fuel oil price. If fuel oil price is higher than 1500 yuan/t,

Turn off the optimal solution remains the same in the model.

7. Conclusions

Boiler 1 LDG burner

Boiler 4 LDG burner The system of byproduct gases in the iron and steel industry is

complex. To achieve a lower operation cost, it is important to take

the entire system into account in order to avoid sub-optimal oper-

ations. In this paper, an MILP model for multi-period optimization

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 of byproduct gases in the iron and steel industry is proposed. Com-

Time (period) pared with the previous model, the proposed model optimized the

distribution of byproduct gases in byproduct gas system, cogenera-

Fig. 5. Number of burners turned on/off.

tion system and iron- and steel-making system. As a result, the

model was found to optimize the byproduct gases distribution in

the integrated iron and steel plant. The case study shows the pro-

posed method performs well to minimize total cost. Compared

110 with the previous model, 7.5% of the total cost is reduced. The sen-

sitivity analyses of the prices of electricity and fuel oil are also

conducted.

Gas amount in gasholders (km3)

with important information for byproduct gas scheduling. The re-

COG sult is reliable and practical in the plant. However, it was per-

90

formed successfully in only one actual plant. As a result, further

researches are needed to apply this model into other plants in Chi-

80 na to verify its validity and to nd its limitations.

LDG References

70

[1] Kim JH, Yi HS, Han C. Optimal byproduct gas distribution in the iron and steel

60 making process using mixed integer linear programming. Int Symp Adv

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Control Ind Process 2002:5816.

[2] Zhang JD, Rong G. An MILP model for multi-period optimization of fuel gas

Time (period) system scheduling in renery and its marginal value analysis. Chem Eng Res

Des 2008;86(2):14151.

Fig. 6. Optimized gas amount in the gasholders. [3] Thollander P, Mardan N, Karlsson M. Optimization as investment decision

support in a Swedish medium-sized iron foundry a move beyond traditional

energy auditing. Appl Energy 2009;86(4):43340.

[4] Larsson M, Wang C, Dahl J. Development of a method for analysing energy,

environmental and economic efciency for an integrated steel plant. Appl

iron- and steel-making system. Therefore, the previous Therm Eng 2006;26(13):135361.

model would cause a higher operation cost from a systemic view. [5] Larsson M, Sandberg P, Dahl J, Sderstrm M, Vourinen H. System gains from

widening the system boundaries: analysis of the material and energy balance

Table 12 shows the total cost comparison of the proposed model during renovation of a coke oven battery. Int J Energy Res 2004;28(12):

and the previous model. According to the optimization result of 105164.

byproduct gases, both models have no penalty costs for byproduct [6] Yokoyama R, Ito K, Matsumoto Y. Optimal sizing of a gas turbine cogeneration

plant in consideration of its operational strategy. J Eng Gas Turb Power

gases emission, holder booster trip or purchasing fuel oil. However,

1994;116:328.

the proposed model considers byproduct gas distribution in the [7] Nath R, Kumaua D, Holiday F. Optimum dispatching of plant utility systems: to

entire system, thus it shows a smaller penalty cost for gas devia- minimize cost and local NOx emissions. In: Proceedings of the industrial power

conference. New Orleans, Louisiana; March 2931, 1992.

tion, switching burners and a larger benet of producing electric-

[8] Takeshita T, Fujita K, Natori Y. Steam balance optimization in chemical plant.

ity. Therefore, the total cost of proposed model was decreased by In: IFAC symposium ADCHEM. Kyoto, Japan, May 2527, 1994.

7.5% as compared with the previous model. [9] Akimoto K, Sannomiya N, Nishikawa Y, Tsuda T. An optimal gas supply for a

The sensitivity analyses of the electricity price and fuel oil price power plant using a mixed integer programming model. Automatica 1991;27:

5138.

are also conducted. The optimization result is sensitive to electric- [10] Sinha GP, Chandrasekaran BS, Mitter N. Strategic and operational management

ity price. If the electricity price only changes in a small range from with optimization at Tata steel. Interfaces 1995;25(1):619.

H. Kong et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 21562163 2163

[11] Kim JH, Yi HS, Han C. Plant-wide multiperiod optimal energy resource [14] Cai YP, Huang GH, Yang ZF, Tan Q. Identication of optimal strategies for

distribution and byproduct gas holder level control in the iron and steel energy management systems planning under multiple uncertainties. Appl

making process under varying energy demands. Process Syst Eng 2003;15(2): Energy 2009;86(4):48095.

8827. [15] Ashok S. Peak-load management in steel plants. Appl Energy

[12] Kim JH, Yi HS, Han C. A novel MILP model for plantwide multiperiod 2006;83(5):41324.

optimization of byproduct gas supply system in the iron- and steel-making [16] Georgopoulou CA, Giannakoglou KC. Two-level, two-objective evolutionary

process. Chem Eng Res Des 2003;81(8):101525. algorithms for solving unit commitment problems. Appl Energy 2009;86(7

[13] Delarue E, Dhaeseleer W. Adaptive mixed-integer programming unit 8):122939.

commitment strategy for determining the value of forecasting. Appl Energy

2008;85(4):17181.

- Pandu Hydro PneumaticsUploaded byRahmat Kurniadi
- Teacher Guide 2Uploaded byAhmed Hamed
- The Construction of an Inexpensive Rotary EvaporatorUploaded byKybernetikum
- Prakash Industries LtdUploaded byrahuljain.srspl
- Revised SOP Index for Change ControlUploaded byswanandkul
- US 5464459x 1995 VANBUSKIRK - Chevron Type Mist Eliminator and SystemUploaded bydavid0775
- InsideTrack106-wsdUploaded byaloke_s
- Steel ProductionUploaded byashly_099
- Steel Glossary SBBUploaded byshraktu
- 2M110986Uploaded byGonzalo Tellería
- Presentation on Tata SteelUploaded byNitu Harit
- cp95Uploaded bySofia Grave
- Continus Melting ReserchUploaded byKamal Thummar
- N593 jdUploaded byScientificBoysClub
- Weekly Safety HighlightsUploaded byMarcus Corvinus Cañeba
- Meter Turbine 4 Inch Sentry SeriesUploaded byMuhammad Ibad Alam
- NemaUploaded byFernando Yano
- 8910Uploaded byPermeshwara Nand Bhatt
- A5236-G15-01-A2 MTR_P7Uploaded byCarole Pinho
- 3-s2.0-B9780080969848099900-mainUploaded byJhon Barzola Palomino
- inox 316Uploaded byJonathan Cruz
- Steel Making Experience in the Use of NigerianUploaded byIkponmwonsa Olotu
- PPBB01-Kelompok 7-Rotary Hearth FurnaceUploaded byFikri
- ERW Hook CrackUploaded byElias Kapa
- PLQ45014Uploaded bygst ajah
- 020 Metals Magazine 1 2015 Primetals Technologies and METECUploaded byElafan
- Electric Furnace SteelUploaded byJhone Tesla
- Management PresentationUploaded byfawad
- T0NUMTQxMDM=Uploaded byRamya Deepthi
- 302. Energy saving effect of slag foaming by carbonate additions in EAF process.pdfUploaded byajay kumar

- Anaerobic Aerobic Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste LeachateUploaded bygeo
- Cost Effective CO2 Emission Reduction Through Heat Power and Biofuel Production From Woody Biomass a Spatially Explicit Comparison of Conversion TechnUploaded bygeo
- Coalbed Methane Liquefaction Adopting a Nitrogen Expansion Process With Propane Pre Cooling 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- An Improved Thermal and Electrical Model for a Solar Photovoltaic Thermal PV T Air Collector 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- Daily Energy Planning of a Household Photovoltaic Panel 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- Comparative Study of Bio Ethanol Production From Mahula Madhuca Latifolia L Flowers by Saccharomyces Cerevisiae and Zymomonas Mobilis 2010 Applied EneUploaded bygeo
- Analytic Method for Thermal Performance and Optimization of an Absorber Plate Fin Having Variable Thermal Conductivity and Overall Loss Coefficient 20Uploaded bygeo
- A Review of Daylight Illuminance Determinations and Energy Implications 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- Are Fluctuations in Coal Consumption Transitory or Permanent Evidence From a Panel of US States 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- Analysis of the Furling Behavior of Small Wind Turbines 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- Anaerobic Digestion of Maize Focusing on Variety Harvest Time and Pretreatment 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- A Honey Bee Foraging Approach for Optimal Location of a Biomass Power Plant 2010 Applied EnergyUploaded bygeo
- Mapping of Biomass Fluxes a Method for Optimizing Biogas-Refinery of Livestock EffluentsUploaded bygeo
- TB JMC 320 C25-engl.Uploaded bygeo
- Microbiological_handbook_for_biogas_plants.pdfUploaded bylucastlp
- Treatment of Leachate From Municipal Solid Waste LandfillUploaded bygeo
- Dust Collection Technical HandbookUploaded bymianfabi5406

- IIPironsteel_data11(1)Uploaded byIvan Ca
- KSLpresn_2015.pdfUploaded bySateesh Prem Gupta
- Steel.docxUploaded byjulia26071995
- me215ch11310Uploaded byYusuf Sahin
- PyrometallurgyUploaded byIvan Broggi
- Blast Furnace Ironmaking Volume OneUploaded byNoah Ryder
- Article CIS 09 Pp.11-15Uploaded byMaheswar Sethi
- Working Points in the EAFUploaded byElafan
- 03_Iron and Steel MakingUploaded byrocktallica
- Materials Processes Ch5Uploaded byRony Prayitno Simeon
- Slag, Steel, Ladle and Non-metallic Inclusions Equilibria in an ASEA-SKF Ladle FurnaceUploaded byakshuk
- R & D Contribution at PerwajaUploaded byAmirudin Safie
- Danieli Corus SublanceUploaded byBinay Kumar Choudhary
- BOS UserGuide 2Uploaded byvudinhhuy
- Degas SingUploaded byDebasish Chatterjee Chatterjee
- DaNews145Uploaded bysaibal_sil
- MollickUploaded bySanjib Bera
- rhUploaded byBárbara de Oliveira
- tata tiscoUploaded byMilind Singh
- Power Quality Issues of Electric Arc Furnace and their Mitigations -A ReviewUploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- 220801BNEJS3963_CDFEX0_33Uploaded bytskmech
- Steel Mils in PakistanUploaded bybestniaz
- Inhibition of reoxidation of direct reduced iron ( DRI)Uploaded byAnonymous hpBCHMQm
- itmk3Uploaded bybalaasenthil
- Mill ScaleUploaded byJhovanny Rendón
- 0972_hydrogen_972Uploaded byBrigida Pagani
- VALE International -- Oman Sohar project ppt MckinseyUploaded byAmit Ghosh
- AME Research Steel Feature Article May 2018Uploaded byBisto Masilo
- Srmb SteelUploaded byAmol Ujawane
- Bessemer FurnaceUploaded byHariman El Emir