Master Thesis Ben Maes

Exploring Aspen Energy Analyser to improve Processes
Global Energy Efficiency
Ben Maes
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Chemical Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Henrique Anibal Santos de Matos
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Sebastião Alves
Supervisor: Prof. Henrique Aníbal Santos de Matos
Members of Committee: Prof. Maria Cristina Carvalho Fernandes
June 2018
ii
Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.
Acknowledgements
I would like, first of all, to thank my family for giving me the opportunity to go to Lisbon and supporting
me. Secondly, I would like to thank my promotor, for giving me this very interesting subject and helping
me out whenever I needed it. Thirdly I would love to thank my amazing colleagues at LabSOP who
where a delight to work with and gave me advice along the way.
iii
iv
Abstract
Abstract
Heat exchange is an important topic now a days in the industry. Almost all processes have at least
some kind of heat exchange present in their processes but this is often not the best possible and a
more energy efficient type of process can be created. This thesis tries to use Aspen Energy Analyzer
to improve an existing design. Aspen Energy Analyzer is a program that can work along with, the very
commonly used, Aspen Plus by using the processes designed there. The improvements of the
processes will be done by applying pinch analysis. This is a very popular method that allows the user to
gain a design that uses the least amount of utility possible. Aspen Energy Analyzer isn’t the only program
that focusses on heat integration of a process. The university Instituto Superior Técnico has made it’s
own program named FI2EPI. This program is not as in depth as Aspen Energy Analyzer but provides
the perfect platform to start learning about heat integration and applying pinch analysis and will therefore
be discussed as well in this thesis. In the end a biomass process, converting brewer’s spent grain to
xylitol and polylactic acid, will be improved in terms of external usage with Aspen Energy Analyzer to
see the actual benefit of the program.
Abstrato
A permuta de calor é um tópico importante hoje em dia na indústria. Quase todos os processos têm
pelo menos algum tipo de permutador de calor presente em seus processos, mas isso muitas vezes a
rede instalada não é a melhor possível para obter o processo mais eficiente em termos de consumo de
energia. Neste trabalho usa-se o Aspen Energy Analyzer para melhorar um projeto existente. O Aspen
Energy Analyzer é um programa que pode trabalhar em ligação com o Aspen Plus usado como
simulador de processos. As melhorias dos processos serão feitas aplicando a análise de Ponto de
Estrangulamento. Esse é um método que permite ao utilizador obter um design do Processo recorrendo
à menor quantidade de utilidade possível. O Aspen Energy Analyzer não é o único programa que se
concentra na integração de calor de um processo. O Instituto Superior Técnico criou o seu próprio
programa denominado FI2EPI. Este programa fornece a plataforma perfeita para começar a aprender
sobre integração de calor e aplicar análise de Ponto Estrangulamento e, portanto, será utilizado e
discutido também nesta dissertação . No final, um processo de biomassa, convertendo o grão gasto da
cervejaria em xilitol e ácido polilático, será melhorado em termos de uso externo com o Aspen Energy
Analyzer para ver o observar o beneficio efetivo da aplicação da metodologia através do programa.
v
Keywords
Aspen Energy Analyzer, Heat Exchange, pinch analysis, FI2EPI, Xylitol Proces
vi
vii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... xii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ xv
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. xvi
List of Symbols ................................................................................................................................... xvii
List of Software .................................................................................................................................. xviii
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Heat integration ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 What is heat integration ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Why heat integration is important [1] ................................................................................... 1
1.2 Pinch analysis [2] ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Pinch point ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Pinch principles.................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Design above the pinch ....................................................................................................... 4
1.2.4 Design below the pinch ....................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Design for multiple pinches [4] ................................................................................................ 6
1.4 How to find utility pinches ........................................................................................................ 6
1.4.1 Global composite curve [5] .................................................................................................. 6
2. FI2EPI [3] .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 The input data .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Features ................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Constructing the MER Network ............................................................................................. 10
3. Energy analysis in Aspen Plus [6] .................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Activated Energy Analyzer .................................................................................................... 12
viii
3.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.2 Making a process............................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Starting the Activated Energy Analyzer ............................................................................. 13
3.1.4 Using the Activated Energy Analyzer ................................................................................ 13
3.2 The energy analysis environment ......................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.2.2 Adding data to the design .................................................................................................. 14
3.2.3 Adding design changes ..................................................................................................... 15
4. Aspen Energy Analysis [7] ............................................................................................................. 17
4.1 Starting .................................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 The grid diagram ................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Adding utilities.................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Splitting the streams .......................................................................................................... 19
4.2.3 Loops and paths ................................................................................................................ 20
4.3 Curves ................................................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Optimal minimum temperature difference ............................................................................. 21
4.5 How to improve a design ....................................................................................................... 21
4.5.1 Recommended designs ..................................................................................................... 22
4.5.2 Optimizing .......................................................................................................................... 22
4.5.3 Retrofit ............................................................................................................................... 25
4.5.4 When to use what .............................................................................................................. 26
5. example Pereira et al. [3] ............................................................................................................... 27
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 27
5.2 Settings to change ................................................................................................................. 27
5.2.1 LMTD correction factor ...................................................................................................... 27
5.2.2 Capital Cost Index ............................................................................................................. 27
5.3 Optimizing the design in FI2EPI [3] ........................................................................................ 27
5.3.1 MER Network 1.................................................................................................................. 27
5.3.2 MER Network 2.................................................................................................................. 29
5.4 Optimizing the design in AEA ................................................................................................ 30
5.4.1 Going from the design created by pinch analysis to a design without loops ..................... 30
ix
5.4.2 Optimizing the design further ............................................................................................. 32
5.4.3 Calculating payback time in AEA ....................................................................................... 34
5.4.4 Steps to take when improving an existing design ............................................................. 36
5.4.5 MER Network 2 in AEA ..................................................................................................... 36
5.4.6 Design plot force [5] ........................................................................................................... 37
6. improving a biomass process ......................................................................................................... 39
6.1 The process ........................................................................................................................... 39
6.1.1 Xylitol [9, 10] ...................................................................................................................... 39
6.1.2 Polylactic acid [12] ............................................................................................................. 40
6.1.3 Explanation of the process [14] ......................................................................................... 40
6.2 Creating the process [15] ...................................................................................................... 40
6.3 Explanation of the Aspen Plus process ................................................................................. 43
6.3.1 Component assumptions ................................................................................................... 43
6.3.2 The acid hydrolysis ............................................................................................................ 44
6.3.3 the xylitol fermentation ....................................................................................................... 44
6.3.4 The saccharification ........................................................................................................... 45
6.3.5 The lactic acid polymerization ........................................................................................... 45
6.4 The extracted data ................................................................................................................. 46
6.5 FI2EPI .................................................................................................................................... 46
6.5.1 Segmented streams .......................................................................................................... 46
6.5.2 Too much information ........................................................................................................ 48
6.6 Using AEA to integrate the xylitol process ............................................................................ 49
6.6.1 AEA vs FI2EPI .................................................................................................................... 49
6.6.2 Applying pinch analysis to the process ............................................................................. 49
6.6.3 Altering the existing design ................................................................................................ 64
7. Conclussions .................................................................................................................................. 69
x
xi
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1: Example of a process using only utilities UT2 and UT3 (left) and the same process with heat
integration (right). .................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Composite curves of Pereira et al. [3]. ..................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Shifting of the cold composite curve to allow for a minimum temperature difference of 12°C.
................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 4: Breaking of the pinch rules and how extra energy is needed because of it. ........................... 4
Figure 5: Splitting a cold stream to solve the problem of having more hot than cold streams. .............. 5
Figure 6: Heat cascade (left) and global composite curve (right). .......................................................... 7
Figure 7: Example of a process with multiple utility pinches [4]. ............................................................. 8
Figure 8: input data of a proces stream (left) and diagram comparing different scenarios (right). ....... 10
Figure 9: MER Network. ........................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 10: MER Network Evolution with temperature violation(left) and loop (right-down). ................. 11
Figure 11: Example of the table of scenarios where all the different scenarios can be compared. ...... 11
Figure 12: How to get the process converted........................................................................................ 12
Figure 13: The pre-existing utilities. ...................................................................................................... 13
Figure 14: Activated Energy Analysis tab turned off (left) and turned on with information (right). ........ 13
Figure 15: The Activated Energy Analyzer window. .............................................................................. 14
Figure 16: possible information that can be added or changed in setup. ............................................. 15
Figure 17: The last table showing the multiple changes. Retrofit options are shown in the circle. ....... 16
Figure 18: Data tab of AEA.................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 19: Grid diagram with pinch lines. .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 20: Unfilled heat exchanger window (left) and its completed form (right). ................................. 19
Figure 21: Window to show loops and paths......................................................................................... 20
Figure 22: Example of a loop being show by marking it in yellow. ........................................................ 20
Figure 23: Graph with visible symbols on important points in the curve. .............................................. 21
Figure 24: Curve showing the total cost in function of the minimum temperature difference. .............. 21
Figure 25: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with no loops before optimization of cost. ................................. 22
Figure 26: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with no loops after optimization of cost. .................................... 23
Figure 27: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchangers before optimization of cost. ......... 23
Figure 28: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchangers after optimization of cost. ............ 23
Figure 29: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchangers that provide a temperature change
before optimization of cost..................................................................................................................... 24
xii
Figure 30: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchanger that provide a temperature change
after optimization of cost........................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 31: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with too many heat exchangers added after optimization of cost.
............................................................................................................................................................... 24
............................................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 33: MER Network 1 .................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 34: The optimum network. .......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 35: MER network 2 .................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 36: Deleting the first loop. .......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 37: Shifting the temperatures after removing the first loop. ....................................................... 31
Figure 38: Deleting the second loop. ..................................................................................................... 31
Figure 39: Shifting temperatures after removing the second loop. ...................................................... 31
Figure 40: Solving the temperature difference problem. ....................................................................... 31
Figure 41:The non-optimum network. ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 42: Max new area specs of the retrofit. ...................................................................................... 33
Figure 43: New optimum network (left) and heat exchanger view of the green circled heat exchanger
(right). .................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 44: MER network 2 ..................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 45: driving force plot with the minimum area (left) and with the design with no heat exchange
(right) ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 46: driving plot force of the existing network (left) and of the MER network (right) ................... 37
Figure 47: driving plot force of FI2EPI’s optimized scenario (left) and of AEA’s optimized scenario (right)
............................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 48: Xylitol is an often found ingredient in chewing gum.[11] ...................................................... 39
Figure 49: PLA being used for 3D-printing [13] ..................................................................................... 40
Figure 50: Process in Aspen Plus. ........................................................................................................ 42
Figure 51: Example of streams needed to be segmented. One value would be too little. Three segments
would deliver an even more accurate description of the heat capacity but will make the design more
complex. ................................................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 52: Graph of stream S1 to stout showing temperature change in function of the enthalpy. ...... 47
Figure 53: Graph of stream S6 to S22 showing temperature change in function of the enthalpy. ....... 47
Figure 54: composite curves shown with all the segments included (left) and the same composite curves
but with the segments removed (right). ................................................................................................. 48
Figure 55: FI2EPI having problems showing that much info. ................................................................ 49
Figure 56: Empty design of process with multiple pinch points (left) and composite curve when having
no segments (right). ............................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 57: Pinch analysis performed at the ends. ................................................................................. 51
Figure 58: Pinch analysis from 288/278°C to 175/165°C. ..................................................................... 53
Figure 59: Pinch analysis from 175/165°C to 150/140°C. ..................................................................... 55
xiii
Figure 60: Pinch analysis from 150/140°C to 40,3/30,3°C. ................................................................... 58
Figure 61: Last pinch analyis step giving the MER Network. ................................................................ 61
Figure 62: The performance and cost indexes the MER Network. ....................................................... 62
Figure 63: Existing network ................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 64: Performance and cost indexes of the existing network (right). ............................................ 64
Figure 65: Existing network with only streams. ..................................................................................... 65
Figure 66: Improved network with only streams. ................................................................................... 66
Figure 67: The improved design in Aspen Plus (thick streams show alterations, colors are just to
differentiate them).................................................................................................................................. 68
xiv
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 1: Values for streams of Pereira et al. [3]. ..................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Values of composite curves of Pereira et al. [3]. ....................................................................... 2
Table 3: Shifted temperatures. ................................................................................................................ 7
Table 4: Temperatures of the available utilities. ...................................................................................... 7
Table 5: Table showing the potential changes. ..................................................................................... 15
Table 6: Table showing the necessary changes to be made. ............................................................... 16
Table 7: The letters that are added to the design name when applying a retrofit option. ..................... 25
Table 8: Determination of the heat exchangers that need to be bought when changing the existing
network to MER Network 1. ................................................................................................................... 28
Table 9: The possible re-use of heat exchangers for the non-optimum network. ................................. 33
Table 10: the possible re-use of the heat exchanger for the optimum network .................................... 33
Table 11: area and operating cost of optimum network of AEA. ........................................................... 35
Table 12: Components table Aspen Plus. ............................................................................................. 43
Table 13: Streams located between 288/278°C and 175/165°C. ......................................................... 52
Table 14: Streams located between 175/165°C and 150/140°C .......................................................... 54
Table 15: Streams located between 150/140°C and 40,3/30,3°C. ....................................................... 56
Table 16: Streams located between 40,3/30,3°C and 27,5/17,5°C. ..................................................... 59
Table 17: table showing which heat exchangers can be re-used ......................................................... 67
xv
List of Acronyms
List of Acronyms
AEA Aspen Energy Analyzer
FI2EPI Ferramenta Informática para Integração Energética de Processos
. Industriais
UT Utility
HU Hot Utility
CU Cold Utility
HE Heat Exchanger
HEN Heat Exchanger Network
MER Minimum Energy Requirements
LMTD Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference
EMAT Exchanger Minimum Temperature
BSG Brewer’s Spent Grain
PLA Polylactic Acid
xvi
List of Symbols
List of Symbols
MCp Heat capacity flowrate
Q Heat
T Temperature
W Watt
°C Degrees in Celsius
∆ Difference
U Global heat transfer coefficient
xvii
List of Software
List of Software
Aspen Plus Process Simulation for Chemicals
Aspen Energy Energy Management Software .
Analyzer Energy Management Software
FI2EPI
xviii
xix
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Heat integration
1.1.1 What is heat integration

There are often many streams in a process that either need to be heated up or cooled down. It used to
be so that this was all done by using utilities such as refrigerated water or heated up steam. Utilities are
streams that only exist in the process to heat up or cool down a process and serve no other purpose.
Now almost in any industrial plant the processes there will have been designed with heat integration in
mind. Heat integration is the usage of the hot streams, that need to be cooled down, to heat up the cold
streams and vice versa. By doing this the process needs to use less of the utilities and so, can save up
on a lot of operational cost. While almost all processes now have heat integration it is still often not
designed in the most efficient way possible allowing for the processes to be improved. To this end
programs such as FI2EPI and Aspen Energy Analyzer are used. These programs allow the user to make
changes to the designs to create the best possible network.
Figure 1: Example of a process using only utilities UT2 and UT3 (left) and the same process with heat integration
(right).
1.1.2 Why heat integration is important [1]

One of the big reasons why heat integration is important is due to the economic costs associated with
heating up and cooling down streams. These costs are only getting higher nowadays. Which makes
people go look for possible solutions. A well-done Heat integrated network can save the company a lot
of money. Therefore, even though heat integration started in the 1970’s, almost all processes nowadays
use heat integration.
Another reason why heat integration is important is due to environmental reasons caused by using
utilities. Why the more obvious culprit might be something like the use of a furnace to heat up streams
it doesn’t mean it’s the only one. Another quite overlooked activity that damages the environment is the
use of heated up or cooled down water. When this water gets returned to the natural environment it’s
often at a different temperature. This temperature change can have negative effect on the organisms
living in the water.
1
1.2 Pinch analysis [2]
1.2.1 Pinch point

Pinch analysis is the most famous and widely used technique to optimize the heat integration of a
process. In pinch analysis there is a pinch point. This pinch point is the point where the temperature
difference between the hot composite curve and cold composite curve is the lowest.
Composite curves are curves that set out the temperature against the enthalpy for the set of streams
existing in one process. Two composite curves are made: the hot composite curve, which sets out the
heat that needs to be removed of the streams that need to be cooled down and the cold composite
curve, which sets out the required heat necessary for the streams that need to be heated up. The
composite curves are made by using the begin and end temperature of the stream along with the heat
capacity flowrate (=MCp value). With this it’s possible to calculate the heat (=Q).
𝑄 = ∆𝑇 ∗ 𝑀𝐶𝑝
For example:
Table 1: Values for streams of Pereira et al. [3].
Ti (°C) Tf (°C) MCp (kW/°C) Q (kW)

cold stream 1 30 165 30 4050
hot stream 1 200 90 40 4400
hot stream 2 180 60 20 2400
cold stream 2 110 170 50 3000
Some of the temperatures of the streams overlap. When this overlap happens it’s possible to calculate
the heat in that temperature interval by adding the MCp values of the overlapping streams.
Table 2: Values of composite curves of Pereira et al. [3].
COLD 30-110 110-165 165-170 HOT 60-90 90-180 180-200

°C °C °C °C °C °C
MCp 30 80 50 MCp 20 60 40
(kW/°C) (kW/°C)
Q (kW) 2400 4400 250 Q (kW) 600 5400 800
The composite curve is created by starting with the lowest temperature at 0 kW and going to the higher
temperatures while adding the Q values that are in Table 2.
2
Pinch point composite curves
250 (120;110 °C) 800 Minimum
5400 energy
200
requirement
= 250 kW
150
600
T (°C)
250 hot composite curve

4400
100 cold composite curve
pinch
50
2400
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Q (kW)
Figure 2: Composite curves of Pereira et al. [3].
As it’s possible to see, the required heat for the cold streams is higher than the heat that needs to be
removed from the hot streams. The difference is the minimum amount of heat that a hot utility needs to
provide. The pinch point is 120/110°C so the minimum temperature difference between the hot and cold
streams has to be 10°C.
When making a process there will be a minimum temperature difference that is necessary for, as
example, safety reasons. When for instance stating that the minimum temperature difference should not
be 10°C but 12°C this will shift the composite curves.
composite curves
Minimum
250
energy
requirement
200
for hot utility
150 = 370 kW
T (°C)
Pinch point hot composite curve

100 (122;110 °C) cold composite curve
Minimum
pinch
energy
50
requirement
0 for cold utility

0 2000 = 120 kW
4000 6000 8000 10000
Q (kW)
Figure 3: Shifting of the cold composite curve to allow for a minimum temperature difference of 12°C.
3
The cold composite curve has been shifted to the right so that the minimum temperature difference
becomes 12°C. Because of this there is also a change in Q values and now there isn’t only a hot utility
but also a cold utility necessary. The higher the temperature difference is the bigger the minimum
amount of utility becomes, but the smaller the temperature difference is the bigger the necessary area
for the heat exchanger becomes. By looking at the price of the heat exchanger, the price of the utilities
and the necessary minimum temperature difference, for safety reasons, one can find the optimal
minimum temperature difference to use in the process.
With pinch points the minimum energy requirements, for a given minimum temperature difference, can
be found. The pinch point is also important for the pinch analysis itself.
1.2.2 Pinch principles

The pinch point divides the composite curve in the part that is below the pinch point and the part that is
above the pinch point. Pinch analysis says that there can’t be heat transfer across the pinch and that a
hot utility can’t be used under the pinch or a cold utility above the pinch. Doing any of these things will
result in a higher hot and/or cold utility requirement. So, the design gets divided in two parts. Each with
their own set of rules.
Figure 4: Breaking of the pinch rules and how extra energy is needed because of it.
1.2.3 Design above the pinch

The design is started from the pinch point. If the MCp of the cold stream is lower than that of the hot
stream problems will occur. Let’s say for instance there is heat exchange between cold stream 1 (MCp
= 30 kW/°C) and hot stream 1 (MCp = 40 kW/°C) and the exchanged heat between the two streams is
240 kW. In this case this will heat up cold stream 1 from 110°C to 118°C (temperature rise = 240kW/30
kW/°C). In order to do this the inlet temperature of hot stream 1 will have to be 128°C (122°C + 240kW/40
kW/°C). this makes the temperature difference at one side be 10°C which is lower than the minimum
temperature difference. Cold stream 2 (MCp = 50 kW/°C) and hot stream 2 (MCp = 20 kW/°C) will not
have this problem. Let’s say the exchanged heat is 200 kW. In this case this will heat up cold stream 2
from 110°C to 114°C (temperature rise = 200kW/50 kW/°C). In order to do this the inlet temperature of
hot stream 1 will have to be 132°C (122°C + 200kW/20 kW/°C). The temperature difference has now
increased when going further from the pinch so this is allowed. After the heat exchangers that abide by
this rule are all done it’s possible to have heat exchange between streams that don’t abide by this rule.
4
This is because the temperature difference has increased, by having heat exchange with streams where
the MCp of the cold stream is bigger. So even though the temperature difference will decrease, when
having heat exchange with a cold stream which has a lower MCp, it’s not that bad because a decreasing
temperature difference is not a problem as long as it doesn’t go lower than the minimum temperature
difference. It’s also allowed for the MCp of the two streams to be equal when starting from the pinch
because in that case the temperature difference will remain the same.
The number of hot streams also can’t be bigger than the amount of cold streams above the pinch. This
is because all the hot streams must be cooled down till the pinch point without the use of a cold utility
because this can only be used under the pinch or otherwise the energy requirements will go up. This
cannot happen when there are more hot streams than there are cold streams. If for instance a process
has two hot streams and only one cold stream available the one cold stream will be used to cool down
one of the hot streams to the pinch point while the cold stream gets heated up from the pinch point to a
higher temperature. The cold stream can now not be used anymore to cool down the second hot stream
to the pinch point because the inlet temperature of the cold stream will now be too high to either cool it
fully down to the pinch point or in the very least cool it down till the pinch point while respecting the
minimum temperature difference.
When there is a violation of either one of the rules it’s possible to solve this by splitting the streams. If
there are more hot streams than cold streams it’s possible to “add streams” by splitting a cold stream
(see Figure 5). If for instance a hot stream has a higher MCp than any of the cold streams splitting, that
stream will create two streams which will have a combined MCp equal to that of the stream before
splitting but will have a MCp one their own that will be lower than that of the stream before splitting.
Figure 5: Splitting a cold stream to solve the problem of having more hot than cold streams.
1.2.4 Design below the pinch

The same can be said for the design below the pinch but then with everything reversed. The MCp of the
hot stream needs to be bigger this time than that of the cold stream and there can’t be more cold streams
than there are hot streams.
5
1.3 Design for multiple pinches [4]
When there is more than one hot and/or cold utility there will be more than one pinch present. These
extra pinches are called utility pinches. Just as with the main/process pinch there should be no heat
integration across the utility pinch, but whereas the process pinch divides the use of the cold and hot
utility the utility pinch divides the use of the multiple utilities. If there are two hot utilities for instance,
than the one with the higher temperature can only be used above the utility pinch while the one with the
lower temperature can only be used below the utility pinch and vice versa for cold utility pinches.
Just as with the process pinch the same rules apply concerning MCp values and the number of streams.
The design becomes a lot more complicated because now it’s necessary to start working from the
neighboring pinches towards the middle of the stream instead of just working from the pinch to the end
of the streams when only having one pinch.
1.4 How to find utility pinches
1.4.1 Global composite curve [5]

The global composite curve is made by using a heat cascade (see Figure 6 left). To make a heat
cascade one must first shift the temperatures of the streams. The temperatures of the hot streams get
shifted by subtracting half of the minimum temperature difference from them. The cold streams get
shifted by adding half of the minimum temperature difference to them. The minimum temperature
difference in this example is 12°C.
The heat cascade is used to find the hot utility and cold utility load for the given minimum temperature
difference. This is done by counting the MCp value of the hot streams as negative (heat that needs to
be removed) and counting the MCp values of cold streams as positive (heat that needs to be added).
For instance, to find the hot utility load the heat load must start at 0 kW and then the utility loads must
be added starting from the load at the hottest temperature interval and ending at the coldest temperature
interval. In this case the hottest temperature interval is from 194°C till 176°C. There is only hot stream
1 in this interval which has an MCp value of -40 kW/°C and thus the resulting heat is -720 kW (=(194-
176) °C*-40 kW/°C). For 176 till 174°C there is an overlap of hot stream 1 and cold stream 2 and so the
total MCp value is 10 kW/°C (=(- 40 kW/°C) + 50 kW/°C) and the heat for that interval is 20 kW. This
gets added to the -720 kW to become 700 kW. This is done further till the end. The hot utility heat load
is 370 kW. This is because this was the total heat starting from the hottest temperature till the shifted
pinch point of 116°C (= 122°C – 6°C or 110°C + 6°C). So this shows the total heat above the pinch
which equals that of the hot utility because this is the only type of utility that can be used above the
pinch. The same is now done again to find the cold utility but here the starting value is that of the hot
utility instead of 0 kW. The reason why this is done is so that the resulting load at the pinch point is zero
and thus the end value (= 120 kW) is the heat load starting from below the pinch point till the lowest
temperature. Again, this value is the cold utility pinch because this is the only type of utility used below
the pinch point in the MER Network.
6
Table 3: Shifted temperatures.
Ti (°C) Tf (°C) MCp (kW/°C) Ti shifted (°C) Tf shifted (°C)

cold stream 1 = nr 1 30 165 30 36 171
hot stream 1 = nr 2 200 90 40 194 84
hot stream 2 = nr 3 180 60 20 174 54
cold stream 2 = nr 4 110 170 50 116 176
Figure 6: Heat cascade (left) and global composite curve (right).
The global composite curve gets made by using the blue circled heat load values from Figure 6 and
setting them out against the shifted temperatures. This is done by starting above at 194°C with Q = 370
kW and then going to 1090 kW at a temperature of 176°C and so on. The grey colored areas show the
parts where heat integration can be done.
The green and purple lines on Figure 6 on the right are the utilities and are made by using the inlet and
outlet temperatures of the utilities.
The green line starts at 46°C at 0 kW and ends at total cold utility load of 120 kW at 31°C. There are
two hot utilities so this is handled differently. The purple line is made by starting with a horizontal line at
124°C because this is the lowest temperature of the two. This line runs till it hits the global composite
curve at 160 kW. This is the maximum amount of the total hot utility load that can be allocated to this
utility. There is then a horizontal line that goes to the shifted temperature of the second hot utility, which
is at 184°C. From this temperature the horizontal line begins again and ends at the total hot utility load.
Table 4: Temperatures of the available utilities.
Ti (°C) Tf (°C) Ti shifted(°C) Tf shifted(°C)

cold utility 25 40 31 46
hot utility 1 130 130 124 124
Hot utility 2 190 190 184 184
7
The global composite curve is handy to find the maximum amount of heat that can be allocated to
cheaper hot utilities. It also shows the utility pinches. The utility pinches are the points where utility
curves touch the global composite curve. In this case there is one utility pinch at 130/118°C because
the hot utility curve touched the global composite curve at 124°C. Another more complex example can
be seen in Figure 7. Where from the process pinch till the first utility pinch LP steam will be used. From
the first to the second pinch no hot utility is necessary and from the second pinch till the end HP will be
used.
Figure 7: Example of a process with multiple utility pinches [4].
8
2. FI2EPI [3]
FI2EPI is a program thoroughly described in Pereira et al. [3], so for this thesis only the surface matter
will be described just to show the difference with another program called AEA (=Aspen Energy
Analyzer).
2.1 The input data

Process streams are filled in by filling in their begin and end temperature plus MCp value along with
their heat transfer coefficient. It’s also possible to fill in the mass flowrate and specific heat in instead of
the MCp value.
For utilities it’s important to first specify what kind of utility it is. temperature or pressure is filled in along
with the heat transfer coefficient and price. If it’s a limited resource it’s also possible to define the mass
flowrate or thermal power of the utility. Because hot utilities have a constant temperature the specific
heat value isn’t necessary. This is the case for cold utilities because they do change temperature.
If there is an existing network this can also be filled in so it’s possible to compare this with the newly
designed network. The existing network is designed by typing in the temperature intervals of both
streams of each heat exchanger.
The economic data must also be filled in. This includes the constants necessary to calculate the cost of
a heat exchanger, which can be done separately for the process streams and the hot and cold utilities.
FI2EPI assumes here that counter current heat exchangers are used. These constants are also used to
calculate the heat exchangers network cost law
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 ∗ 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑐
The other data is given to calculate the annual cost of the heat exchanger and heat exchanger network.
2.2 Features
FI2EPI can, after filling all the data in, show a lot of information such as the composite curve, the heat
cascade along with the global composite curve and the costs for the existing HEN and the HEN without
integration. In diagrams it’s possible also to make up some different scenario’s when there are multiple
hot or cold utilities present. These scenarios can be compared and, with the information given about
them, help the user decide how to construct the MER Network. It’s also possible to find the optimal
minimum temperature difference for the process in terms of cost.
9
Figure 8: input data of a proces stream (left) and diagram comparing different scenarios (right).
2.3 Constructing the MER Network

The MER Network can be easily constructed by the use of a design matrix where by checking boxes a
heat exchanger is created for the stream that lies in the same row and the one that lies in the same
column of that box. There are two MER Networks, each divided in a part under the pinch and a part
above the pinch. Both will also notify the user if the pinch rules are satisfied and won’t allow the user to
start working on it till all the problems are fixed. The first MER Network is a more automatic design that
recommends which streams to connect by marking the box in yellow and will automatically fill in the
value by itself when checking that box. It’s also quite restrictive. It won’t allow the user to break any of
the pinch rules and the only heat loads that can be decided are that of the non-recommended boxes.
Also, it’s not possible to use multiple utilities here. The second MER Network does not have these
restrictions and is useful for people who already have a bit more knowledge on heat integration.
Figure 9: MER Network.
Further changes to the MER Network can be made in the MER Evolution Network. Here the loops of
the heat exchanger network can be removed. Loops are circuits that can be formed in a heat exchanger
network. Figure 10 (right-down corner) shows an example of a loop in the MER Network. A loop exists
if it possible to start from one heat exchanger and follow a closed path through other heat exchangers
to then end at the same heat exchanger. The existence of a loop means that there are more heat
exchangers present than there technically need to be.
10
FI2EPI allows the user to remove the loop by automatically deleting the heat exchanger with the lowest
heat load and dividing that load over the other heat exchangers. This can cause (minimum) temperature
difference problems which FI2EPI will notify the user off and solve on its own. There are a lot of options
and it’s possible to go through each possible scenario, so that all these possible scenarios can then be
compared along with the MER, existing and network without integration in the table of scenarios (see
Figure 11), where it can be determined then which scenario is the best.
Figure 10: MER Network Evolution with temperature violation(left) and loop (right-down).
Figure 11: Example of the table of scenarios where all the different scenarios can be compared.
11
3. ENERGY ANALYSIS IN ASPEN PLUS [6]
3.1 Activated Energy Analyzer
3.1.1 Introduction
AEA (= Aspen Energy analyzer) is a program that has a similar goal as FI2EPI. AEA allows the user to
transfer a process over from Aspen Plus to itself in order to obtain all the necessary data to make and
improve a HEN (= Heat Exchanger Network), that otherwise would need to be inputted manually as
with FI2EPI. This chapter will talk about how to use the Activated Energy Analyzer in Aspen Plus. The
energy analyzer is a more simplistic version of AEA, allowing the user to improve the process while
remaining in Aspen Plus. If the goal is to do all the work in AEA only 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 need to be followed
from this chapter. The steps explained there are necessary to be able to then go to the Energy analyzer
environment, which can be done by clicking on it in the window below on the left, and then clicking on
details, which is located on the right in the home ribbon. Aspen Plus will then convert the process to
AEA
Figure 12: How to get the process converted.
3.1.2 Making a process

In order to go from the process in Aspen to a HEN design in AEA one needs to start with the Activated
Energy Analysis. This is can be found in Aspen plus itself when working in the simulation environment.
To use the energy analyzer it’s first necessary to make the existing process in the flowsheet. After the
process is designed the utilities can be assigned to the heat exchangers of the process. This is done by
first going to utilities in the simulation environment where the utilities can be added. It’s possible to
choose from pre-existing utilities, to modify the pre-existing utilities to the utilities that are there in the
actual process or to make new utilities from the ground up. After all the utilities are added the utilities
can be assigned to the heat exchangers in the process by going to the input of each heat exchangers
and there to the utility tab. This must also be done for towers that have a reboiler or condenser.
12
Figure 13: The pre-existing utilities.
3.1.3 Starting the Activated Energy Analyzer
When all the utilities have been defined and assigned to the processes the next step is to turn on the
activated energy analyzer. This is done by clicking on the off button in the blue box (see figure 14).
When certain heat exchangers haven’t had a utility assigned to them the activated energy analyzer will
assign one of the standard utilities it has to it, that it thinks would be the best. When the activated energy
analysis is done the top right corner will indicate if everything went all right with a green check mark. If
something went wrong a yellow warning sign will appear. It can be checked what exactly went wrong by
clicking on the warning sign. The blue box will also show how much energy could potentially be saved
and how big those savings are relative to the total amount of energy that is being used.
Figure 14: Activated Energy Analysis tab turned off (left) and turned on with information (right).
3.1.4 Using the Activated Energy Analyzer
Clicking on the blue box will give bring up the energy analysis tab. Aspen automatically assumes certain
things when it does its energy analysis like the pinch temperature. The assumptions can be changed to
get a more exact energy analysis by going to the configuration tab. In the configuration tab it’s possible
to define the process type, the pinch temperature, the carbon fee and to choose which utilities should
be left out of the energy analysis by clicking on “define scope”. To energy analysis can be started with
the updated form settings by clicking on “analyze energy savings” down below.
13
Figure 15: The Activated Energy Analyzer window.
The saving summary tab will show the different type of savings that can be made based on either the
flowrate or the cost of the utilities. The information in this tab can be transferred to excel by clicking on
“see report”. The utilities tab shows how much each utility contributes to the amount of energy is being
used and how much energy could be saved for each one. The carbon emissions tab is similar to the
utilities tab but will show the carbon emissions savings instead. The heat exchangers tab will show
information about the amount of heat that is being transferred in the exchanger and the streams that
pass through it.
The design changes tab allows Aspen to change the design to improve the efficiency. It can do this by
modifying the existing exchangers, adding exchangers and by moving the exchangers to a more optimal
place. The optimization is started by clicking on “find design changes”. The program will look for
possibilities and when this is done will show the possibilities along with the savings that will be made
when those changes would be applied. More information can be gained about these changes by either
clicking on the blue name in each of the tables, which change the simulation environment to the energy
analysis environment, or by going directly to the energy analysis environment by clicking on it in the left
below.
3.2 The energy analysis environment
3.2.1 Introduction
When the goal is to work in dept on the improvement of the process in terms of heat integration it’s
recommended to go to Aspen Energy Analyzer. This is done by clicking on “details” on the right of the
home ribbon (see Figure 12). The next paragraphs will talk about the optimization of the process in the
energy analysis environment itself.
3.2.2 Adding data to the design

By going to the project in the energy analysis environment it’s possible to go to setup, saving potentials
or scenario’s. These are located in the box on the left. With setup It’s possible to add more information
about the process like economic data or constraints for the heat exchangers.
14
Figure 16: possible information that can be added or changed in setup.
3.2.3 Adding design changes

If the “find design changes” button has been clicked in the energy analysis tab from 3.1.4 it will be
possible to see a few scenario’s in the project on the left of the window. These scenario’s will show the
design changes that Aspen suggests. Scenario 1 will show the possible modifications that can be made
to the existing heat exchangers, scenario 2 will show the possible heat exchangers that can be added
and scenario 3 will show the possible ways in which a heat exchanger can be relocated to optimize the
process. Let’s say that out of all the possible scenarios, the scenario where a heat exchanger gets added
seems the most promising design change. By opening up scenario 2, by clicking on the arrow in front
of it in the left box, and from there to “Add E-100”, by clicking on it, the possible changes that Aspen
suggested can be seen in the second table of Add E-100. (see Table 5). The table provides information
about each change. From this information it can be decided which change might be the best to
implement in the design. The desired change is chosen by clicking on the radio button in the last column.
Table 5: Table showing the potential changes.
After the change has been chosen the last table can be checked (see Table 6). This table tells which
exchangers need to be added ( see the red colored new in Table 6) and which existing heat exchangers
need to be modified. The flowsheet can afterwards be changed manually with the information provided
in the second and third table. After this change the energy analyzer can be rerun to see what the energy
use is with the improvement. It’s recommended to only do this after all the necessary changes in the
energy analysis environment have been made to save time.
15
Table 6: Table showing the necessary changes to be made.
It’s possible to make multiple changes to a design. This is done by going to the scenario that contains
the first change that needs to be implemented. In the home ribbon, above retrofit, there are the three
possible changes that can be made. By clicking on one Aspen will start looking for new possible design
changes to add on the first one. The energy saving that is displayed in the new possible changes is the
cumulative amount of what has been saved with this change and all the changes that came before it.
The last table will also show all the changes that need to be made instead of just the changes that need
to be made for the second change only.
Figure 17: The last table showing the multiple changes. Retrofit options are shown in the circle.
16
4. ASPEN ENERGY ANALYSIS [7]
4.1 Starting
This step is only necessary when not starting out from a process In Aspen Plus. A design can be created
here, just as in FI2EPI, by filling in the streams, utilities, economic data and the existing HEN if there is
one.
Aspen Energy Analyzer allows the user to choose between a case and a project. A case is a fast and
easy way to design a HEN design but only allows for the user to make one design, so this is not
recommended for when modifications to an existing process are to be made because it will then be
impossible to compare the improved design to the original. A project allows the user to make multiple
HEN designs, change them, clone them, compare them, etc., so this is the one best used for the
optimization of a process. A case file can always be converted to a project but not the other way around.
It’s best to first copy the case file under another name before converting it so that the case file doesn’t
get removed.
A new file can be made by going to managers, then heat integration manager and choosing between a
case or project file. This thesis will be focus on projects. When the project is added a box called data
can be seen on the left containing process streams, utility stream and economics. This is where all the
data gets filled in just as in FI2EPI. The minimum temperature difference can be changed by going down
below on the left in the process streams tab and typing in the value in the box next to “DTmin”(see Figure
18). After all data has been filled in scenario 1 can be unfolded in the left box in order to go to design 1
where the design can be made in the grid diagram.
Unlike FI2EPI, AEA demands both an inlet and an outlet temperature for a hot utility and it’s impossible
to type the same value for both temperatures. It’s possible to either type for the outlet temperature the
same value as the inlet temperature minus 1 degree or type the same value minus 0,01 degrees in order
to have the exact same results as in FI2EPI. By doing it this way AEA will round the outlet temperature
off to exactly the same value as the inlet temperature while still accepting it.
Figure 18: Data tab of AEA.
17
When using a converted file of a process from Aspen Plus the data box will already be filled in and
scenario 1 will not only contain an unfilled grid diagram but also the existing HEN-network from the
process.
4.2 The grid diagram

Unlike FI2EPI everything is done by the grid diagram. This makes it an important tool to understand.
The explanation will be given by using the data from Pereira et al. [3] to construct the MER Network.
4.2.1 Adding heat exchangers
To add a heat exchanger click on , in the ribbon above the grid diagram, with the right mouse button
and then hold and release above one of the two streams that are to be connected. To connect the
stream to the other stream left click on the node, then hold and release on the other stream. Let’s start
the design by first working above the pinch and connecting stream 2 to stream 4. First the pinch point
needs to be known. This can be shown by clicking on . Aspen Energy Analyzer can show more than
one pinch line. To see if the pinch is a process or utility pinch it’s advised to look at the global curve.
Figure 19: Grid diagram with pinch lines.
To add the data to the heat exchanger double click on one of the two nodes. This will bring up a window
(see Figure 20 left). The boxes in the middle of the window are to define the inlet and outlet temperatures
of the streams. Only three of the four temperatures need to be filled in. Two of the temperatures are
known because these are the one of the pinch line. The third temperature is the outlet temperature of
the cold stream and is the highest temperature possible. This makes the inlet temperature of the hot
stream 197 °C. It’s always possible to check if the third temperature that needs to be defined is the end
temperature of the cold or the hot stream. This is done by typing the highest temperature of either one
of the streams and checking whether it is possible or not. If for instance the 200°C of the hot stream is
taken as the third temperature the outlet temperature of the cold stream will be 172,4 °C which is higher
than the maximum temperature and is thus impossible.
18
Figure 20: Unfilled heat exchanger window (left) and its completed form (right).
In the heat exchanger window (see Figure 20) there are two temperature boxes for each side of a
stream. The ones that lie more inward show the inlet and outlet temperatures of this heat exchanger
while the ones that lie more outward show the temperatures of the stream right next to the heat
exchanger. This can be either the inlet or outlet temperature of the already defined heat exchanger that
lies next to it or the begin or end temperature of the stream when there is no heat exchanger next to it.
these boxes can also be empty when there is a heat exchanger next to it but it hasn’t yet been defined.
Each inlet and outlet temperature has a box with the word tied right next to it. These boxes can be used
when either one of the temperature boxes of that side is empty. Clicking on it will give the value of the
temperature box that wasn’t empty. It ties the temperature with the outlet temperature of the heat
exchanger that came before it, in case of the inlet temperature and the reverse for the outlet temperature.
The benefit of this is that when the temperature of one of the heat exchangers gets changed the heat
exchangers that are tied with it will automatically change along. When there are no heat exchangers
next to the heat exchangers it will instead tie the temperature with the begin or end temperature of the
stream. A lot of functions in Aspen energy analyzer require the user to tie everything so it’s always best
to see what still needs to be tied after making the design. This can easily be seen by going to the
worksheet tab down below. When still changing a lot of stuff in the design it’s best to not tie the streams
yet but to just give in the same values. This is because when for instance heat exchanger must be
deleted it will cause a shift sometimes in the temperatures of the heat exchangers that were tied with it.
To change the heat exchanger to a different stream just left click on the node that needs to be changed,
hold and release on the right stream. To delete a heat exchanger right click on a node and select delete.
4.2.2 Splitting the streams

To simulate the existing design of Pereira et al. [3] the streams will need to be split. This is done by
clicking with the right mouse button on and holding the button till the mouse is above the right
stream. This will cause a node to appear onto the stream. By double clicking on the node the split is
formed. If there are already multiple heat exchangers on the streams it’s possible to just get the part of
the heat exchangers that need to be split on it. This can be done by clicking with the left mouse button
on the node, holding it, dragging it across the part that needs to be split and then releasing it. The split
editor is opened by double clicking on either the place where the streams are split or converge back.
19
Here the flow ratios of the streams and temperatures of the split can be filled in. The temperatures are
only able to be defined when there are also heat exchangers present outside of the split. Extra branches
for the split can also be added in the split editor. It’s also possible to split onto an already split stream
by using again. to delete a branch right click on it and select delete branch. To delete the entire split
right click either the place where the streams where split or where they converge back and select “delete
split”.
4.2.3 Loops and paths

The loops and paths that exist in the design can be shown by right clicking on the design and selecting
which loop or path needs to be shown. Unlike FI2EPI the loops have to be manually removed. This is
done by removing the heat exchanger with the smallest load and transferring the load of that heat
exchanger onto the other heat exchanger in the loop. In case of a breach of the minimum temperature
use the paths to see onto which heat exchanger, that is connected to a utility, duty can be transferred
to.
Figure 21: Window to show loops and paths.
Figure 22: Example of a loop being show by marking it in yellow.
20
4.3 Curves
All the curves that are in FI2EPI can be found by going to target tab when working on the design. In
order to find the coordinates of the important points right click on the graph, go to graph control and
check the box that says symbol also, right click on the graph and look if the values box is checked. It’s
also possible to look at the coordinated by right clicking on the graph and selecting the cross hair but
this is a less precise method.
Figure 23: Graph with visible symbols on important points in the curve.
4.4 Optimal minimum temperature difference

By going to the case file on the left and then going to range targets an empty graph can be seen. Clicking
on “DT min range”, situated on the right below, will give the option to set the temperature range. When
the range has been set click on the calculate range button next to DT min range. The data shown in the
graph can be changed by using the balks on the left. Click on table in the left box to see the values.
The curves can provide information about the cost, number of heat exchangers, heating and cooling
cost, etc. of the MER Network for that minimum temperature difference. This information can help in
choosing an optimal minimum temperature difference.
Figure 24: Curve showing the total cost in function of the minimum temperature difference.
4.5 How to improve a design

It’s possible in Aspen to change the design both manually and automatically. There are several options
for improving the design which will be discussed below. The performance tab shows how well the design
holds up against the target values. The target values are theoretical values that represent the ideal
situation. The target values give an idea on how close the design is to the MER (= minimum energy
requirement) design and what needs to be changed about it.
21
4.5.1 Recommended designs
Aspen Energy Analyzer can recommend designs. To do this go to a case, then right mouse click on it
and choose recommended designs. This will open a window where all the data (streams, utilities,
economic data) can be overlooked in and can be chosen if there are any streams that can’t be matched
together, what the maximum amount of branches each stream can be and how many different designs
can be made. It’s also possible to go to recommended designs by clicking on the case, from there to
process streams in the data box on the left and then clicking on recommended designs down below.
The recommended designs often don’t have much, if any benefit over a design made by pinch analysis
but it can provide ideas on how to improve the existing design by implementing parts of it.
4.5.2 Optimizing
AEA also offers the ability to optimize a design by clicking on . It can either optimize a design to get
the lowest possible total cost or to get the lowest possible area. This is achieved by changing the heat
duty and inlet and outlet temperatures of the heat exchangers and also by changing the flow rate of
branches when a stream is split. One can choose to only optimize the design by changing either one of
those options rather than both. It’s possible to only optimize a design by changing a select amount of
heat exchangers. This can be done by specifying the temperatures of the heat exchangers that should
be left unchanged. This is done by typing in the temperatures of the heat exchangers in the heat
exchanger window. A temperature is specified when it’s colored blue. The optimization doesn’t add new
heat exchangers but can indirectly remove them. It does this by setting the heat duty of the exchanger
to zero.
Figure 25: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with no loops before optimization of cost.
22
Figure 26: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with no loops after optimization of cost.
It’s possible to find out if an extra heat exchanger would benefit the design by adding the heat exchanger
to the design manually, then using the optimizer and comparing the optimized design with the design
without the added heat exchanger.
The optimize program doesn’t appear to be flawless though. When a design is added that uses an extra
heat exchanger with a relatively high duty AEA will keep the heat exchanger in the optimized design
even though it would be better off without it ( see values of Figure 26 and Figure 28).
Figure 27: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchangers before optimization of cost.
Figure 28: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchangers after optimization of cost.
It’s best to add the extra heat exchanger to the design by giving it a very low heat duty. The duty should
be just high enough to show a visible change in the temperature. By doing this it’s still possible for the
program to remove the added heat exchangers if they don’t benefit the design. By looking at the values
of Figure 30 it can be seen that the new design is actually better than the one Figure 26.
23
Figure 29: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchangers that provide a temperature change before
optimization of cost.
Figure 30: Design of Pereira et al. [3] with added heat exchanger that provide a temperature change after
optimization of cost.
The optimization is a very handy feature but it can only get one so far. It’s best to first think about where
a heat exchanger might be beneficial instead of just randomly adding multiple heat exchangers to the
design because this can often lead to a worse design. This can be seen by the values of Figure 32.
While it’s very close to the values of paper Figure 30 the values are still a bit higher.
24
When starting the optimization there will often be given a warning that certain temperatures are specified
even though this may not be wanted. To solve this go to the worksheet tab of the design and look at
which temperatures are colored blue. To make the temperatures unspecified go to that heat exchanger,
look at what the heat duty is and then write it down. The temperatures can be unspecified if instead the
heat duty is specified, so untie and remove the specified temperature from the sheet and write the value
of the heat duty in the worksheet tab. The program will now give the temperature that was previously
specified. The temperatures can now be tied back again. A specified heat duty can, unlike a specified
temperature, still be changed by the optimization.
4.5.3 Retrofit
Another way to optimize the design is by using retrofit. Retrofit mode can easily be activated by clicking
on “enter retrofit mode” down below. AEA will clone the selected design and give the option to choose
between five different ways in which the design can be changed. Every option will make a new design
with the applied type of improvement so that the previous step is never lost. By looking at the letters of
the name it can be seen what steps have been taken with the design. The network also shows this by
coloring the nodes green of the heat exchangers that were added or changed to another place.
Table 7: The letters that are added to the design name when applying a retrofit option.
Step Name
Modify utility heat -#U
Move one end of a heat exchanger -#S
Move both ends of a heat exchanger -#P
Add a heat exchanger -#N
Move area -#A
25
It’s possible in retrofit to make several specifications and limitations about the heat exchangers that AEA
can’t cross when making a change to the design. These options can be found by clicking on the design
and clicking on heat exchangers down below. In area the max amount of spare area that there can be
and how much area the retrofit can maximally add is decided, in EMAT the minimum temperature
difference for each heat exchanger can be specified and in Overall U the global heat transfer coefficient
is specified. Only the last option is also available outside of retrofit mode.
The retrofit designs can easily compared to the base case and target in the performance tab. Sometimes
AEA won’t be able to add the desired change because it’s either impossible or because AEA can’t find
a possible network with that change that would be an improvement over the existing one. In other cases
AEA will sometimes give multiple new designs. By comparing them in the performance tab it can be
decided which one would be the best to work further with. This is mostly done by looking at the new
area cost, operating savings and payback time. It can also be that a change provides to little advantage
to worth implementing.
4.5.4 When to use what

A recommended design is advised in cases where the user has no idea on pinch analysis to construct
a design on its own or just to look if there are any possible ideas that the recommended design provides
that can be implemented in an existing design. An optimized design on the other hand is best suited in
cases where the user already has a design, that for instance is made with instance pinch analysis, and
wants to see if it could be improved. The change provided by optimization is in itself not so substantial,
so it’s more of a final addition on an already improved design rather than being the sole improvement
of the design. Retrofit mode is more suited to improve processes that already exist in real life.
This thesis looks at ways to optimize an already existing design, so retrofit will be mostly used. A
retrofitted design can’t be optimized so it’s recommended that when the retrofitting of a design is done
to copy the scenario and to then bring it out of retrofit mode by right clicking on the scenario and clicking
on “unlock retrofit mode”.
26
5. EXAMPLE PEREIRA ET AL. [3]
5.1 Introduction
The process from Pereira et al. is used here as a simple example to compare Aspen Energy Analyzer
and FI2EPI. This part will look at the similarities of the two, how to change the options in Aspen to get
the same results, what the differences are, and which program can provide a better design.
5.2 Settings to change

Aspen automatically uses a few different settings than FI2EPI, these need to be changed in order to be
able to compare their designs with each other.
5.2.1 LMTD correction factor

Aspen uses a LMTD correction factor in its equation to calculate the area. This factor can be seen in the
heat exchanger tab by the FFactor. FI2EPI doesn’t use this factor. To remove this factor first go to the
case where the design is in and from there go to options where the min LMTD correction factor is
situated. Type a number larger than 1 to make sure there will be no correction.
5.2.2 Capital Cost Index

The Capital Cost Index in Aspen uses the following formula:
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑐
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 ∗ ( ) ∗ #𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠
#𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠
With a,b and c the constants that can inputted in the economic data.
This formula is slightly different than the one in FI2EPI because this one holds the number of shells into
account if a shell and tube design is used. To get the same results as in FI2EPI choose the counter
current exchanger each time when adding a heat exchanger. This can simply be done by clicking on the
right radio in the heat exchanger view of each heat exchanger (see Figure 20). When a new heat
exchanger is added AEA will automatically make it a shell and tube heat exchanger, so this has to be
changed every time a new heat exchanger is added.
5.3 Optimizing the design in FI2EPI [3]
5.3.1 MER Network 1

All possible scenario’s where created after creating the MER network in the MER Network Evolution
(see Figure 33) to see which one is the best in terms of payback time. This is decided by calculating the
payback time of each scenario:
𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 [𝜖]

𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 [𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟] =
𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 [𝜖⁄𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 ]
27
The capital cost is the cost of the new heat exchangers that need to be bought. One has to look at the
area of the heat exchangers in order to know which heat exchangers need to be bought and which don’t.
A heat exchanger can still be used if it has a bigger area than the heat exchanger it needs to replace.
In order to be able to re-use as many of the old heat exchangers as possible it’s best to start with the
biggest heat exchanger that there is and use it for the biggest possible heat exchanger of the new design
and continue doing this by working your way down from the biggest to the smallest heat exchanger. See
Table 8 for an example. The colors in the table are to show which heat exchanger for the old design is
being re-used for which heat exchanger from the new design. The ones that are left uncolored, from the
new design, are the ones that need to be bought (= capital cost).
The savings are determined by the decrease in hourly cost with the new design.
𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠[𝜖⁄𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 ] = (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 − ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛) [𝜖⁄ℎ] ∗ 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 [ℎ⁄𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 ]
Figure 33: MER Network 1
Table 8: Determination of the heat exchangers that need to be bought when changing the existing network to MER
Network 1.
Description Calculated Area (m²) Calculated Cost (EUR)

Existing Network
HE1 324.04 223520.92
HE2 181.46 141114.99
UT2 Saturated steam @ 190°C HE3 208.76 157560.47
UT3 Refrigeration water HE4 22.64 31485.83
MER Network 1
UT2 Saturated steam @ 190°C HE1 48.12 52093.16
HE2 10.04 19848.00
HE3 648.74 391624.82
HE4 230.35 170305.42
HE5 305.27 213101.56
HE6 100.26 89266.57
28
The best possible network, in terms of payback time, can be seen in Figure 34. It has a payback time of
1.38 years and can be recreated in FI2EPI by: removing the loop at the second stream, then the loop at
the third stream and lastly performing heat shifting to solve the possible minimum temperature difference
violation for HE4. While it has a lower payback time than the MER Network, which has a payback time
of 1,56, it saves just 249281.86 euro per year. This is a lot lower than the MER Network which saves
with its design 360437.07 euro per year. Lets say for this example that the decrease in payback time is
more important than the decrease in savings and call this the optimum design.
Figure 34: The optimum network.
5.3.2 MER Network 2

The MER Network 2 is mostly the same as first one except in this one the hot utility at 130°C is also
used (160kW for the utility at 130°C and 210kW for the one at 210°C). This decision was based on the
results of the global composite curve. This design didn’t work due to problems because Fi2EPI couldn’t
calculate the cost of the hot utility at 130°C (=HU1). On top of that it can be seen in Figure 35 that the
addition of the stream also causes some graphical problems with the overlap op the two hot utilities. It
also doesn’t seem to make any changes in the design while this should happen. It’s impossible that
stream 1 stays at the same temperatures for the heat exchangers. This is because the outlet
temperature of HE5 is still 148,7°C so it’s impossible for HU1 to come after it but it can’t also come
before it because then it would be located at the pinch and so if it would be put there it would become
impossible to heat stream 3 up without either going below the minimum temperature difference or using
a cold utility which would both break a pinch analysis rule.
Figure 35: MER network 2
29
5.4 Optimizing the design in AEA
5.4.1 Going from the design created by pinch analysis to a design without loops
FI2EPI gives an easy way to optimize the design with pinch analysis by showing which heat exchangers
it recommends and filling the temperatures in by itself. In AEA everything is done manually. This makes
it so that more work is necessary along with a good understanding of pinch analysis to get the same
design but it also allows more controllability to optimize the design.
When deleting loops it’s always best to first go to the heat exchangers of the hot and cold utility and
making sure that the temperatures are specified and untied. If this isn’t done then the heat exchangers
of the utilities, that are on the path, will automatically add load to themselves to try to compensate for
the lost load of the deleted heat exchanger. It’s also best to make sure that there aren’t any specified
heat duties there. If there are it’s best to change them to specified temperatures.
Figure 36 shows one of the two loops getting removed. The same first loop that was removed in FI2EPI
gets removed here in order to obtain the same scenario. The removal of the loop is done by removing
the heat exchanger of the loop with the lowest heat duty. The striped line shows where there still needs
to be heat exchange.
Figure 37 shows that the temperature of the heat exchangers next to the striped lines where changed.
The other heat exchanger of the first loop gets changed automatically because it is tied with the heat
exchangers whose temperatures where changed. There is a temperature difference problem for two
heat exchangers. This can be seen by the yellow colored nodes. The temperature difference problem
could be immediately solved before trying to remove the second loop but in this case this wasn’t done
because this was only done afterwards in the scenario from FI2EPI.
The second loop is also removed by deleting the heat exchanger with the lowest heat duty as can be
seen in Figure 38. There is now just one heat exchanger over that has a temperature difference problem.
By opening the heat exchanger view the problem can be seen. In this case the problem is that the inlet
temperature of the cold stream is hotter than the outlet of the hot stream which is impossible. The
problem can be solved by using the paths. There is only one path and the heat exchanger with the
problem lies on it. By looking at the path it can be seen that the outlet temperature of the hot stream and
inlet temperature of the cold stream can be changed. Any change on those two temperatures can easily
be made up by the utilities. The outlet temperature of the hot stream is first changed to 88,67°C. This
the inlet temperature of the cold stream plus the minimal temperature difference. Because of this
temperature change the outlet temperature of the cold stream now also changes. By tying the two
temperatures the utilities next to the heat exchanger make up for the decrease in heat duty. The design
is now the same as the one made in FI2EPI.
30
Figure 36: Deleting the first loop.
Figure 37: Shifting the temperatures after removing the first loop.
Figure 38: Deleting the second loop.
Figure 39: Shifting temperatures after removing the second loop.
Figure 40: Solving the temperature difference problem.
31
5.4.2 Optimizing the design further
The problem with using any of the optimization features that AEA offers is that there is no option to re-
use the existing heat exchangers in the new design. AEA always calculates the cost under the
assumption that all the heat exchangers of the new design will need to be bought. An example of this
is the design of Pereira et al. [3]. The design after pinch analysis is shown to have a lower total cost
than the design where the loops are removed even though this design is actually better than the other
one. This is not a big problem when working manually because the data can be calculated quite easily
to see if the change has had a positive or negative effect. The problem becomes clear when using
optimization. If there is an improved design that is better when re-using the heat exchanger but not
better when all the heat exchangers have been bought AEA won’t see it as an improvement.
These designs can’t be found with optimization or retrofit even though these are the type of designs that
are sought after. Even if there is an improved design that is still an improvement when all the heat
exchangers need to be bought there may still be a problem. The optimization feature for instance will
look at what design is the best when buying all of the new heat exchangers, which more often than not
won’t be the type of design that is sought after even if it’s also an improvement then and even if it gives
that type of design it will often not be the best possible design when re-using heat exchangers. A way
to still get the most out of the optimization is by not optimizing based on cost but by area. The design
may still not be the best but the program has a higher chance of giving a design where more of the old
heat exchangers can be re-used.
There is a bit more leeway when using retrofit. Retrofit allows the user to define how much extra area a
heat exchanger maximally can get extra when using a retrofit option. The different possible scenarios of
the MER Network provide an excellent example how this feature can be really handy.
The following network below (see Figure 41) has a total annual cost of 312699,21 euro per year while
the optimum network in FI2EPI had a total annual cost of 370814,09 euro per year. The reason for why
this design still had the lowest payback time was mainly because many of the other networks just came
short of being able to re-use the biggest heat exchanger for the second biggest heat exchanger of the
new design. This can be seen in Table 9. The optimum network however was one of the few possible
scenarios that could do this.
Figure 41:The non-optimum network.
32
Table 9: The possible re-use of heat exchangers for the non-optimum network.
Heat exchangers of new design (m2) Area of existing heat exchangers (m2)
554,52 Has to be bought
208,57 324,04
87,14 208,76
59,36 181,46
27,69 89,85
22,64
Table 10: the possible re-use of the heat exchanger for the optimum network
303,19 324,04
103,79 208,76
88,91 181,46
55,32 89,85
22,64
Because Aspen doesn’t take the re-use of heat exchangers into account it might change the optimum
design of FI2EPI to a design similar to the non-optimum network described above. This can be prevented
with the new area feature in retrofit.
AEA also has some room to change the network The areas are restricted in such a way that the three
biggest heat exchangers will definitely be able to be re-used since these are far more expensive than
the other ones. The second biggest heat exchanger gets just enough room to be as big as the biggest
heat exchanger that there is, the third and fourth biggest heat exchanger are very close to each other in
terms of value, so they both get enough room to be as big as the second biggest heat exchanger that
there is and the least biggest heat exchanger gets enough room to be as big as the third biggest heat
exchanger that there is (see Figure 42).
Figure 42: Max new area specs of the retrofit.
The optimization is done by trying the different retrofit options and looking which one would be good by
looking at the designs which have big operating savings and a small payback rate. This time it’s possible
to rely on these values because the area of the heat exchangers can’t go beyond the value of that of
the existing heat exchangers. After trying all the retrofit options the first optimal change is found to be
adding a heat exchanger. The second optimal change is as well adding a heat exchanger.
33
The possible changes after this are all too small, with a payback rate that is too high to be beneficial to
the design, so the optimization stops there.
The new optimal design looks very similar to the MER network before the loops were removed (see
Figure 43 left and Figure 36 left). This is logical. The MER network had the lowest total annual cost of
all the possible scenarios in FI2EPI so it’s only natural for AEA to want to go in that direction. The
difference between this new network and the MER network lies again in how the existing heat
exchangers are re-used. The MER network had a heat exchanger of 230,35 m 2 that had to be bought
because it was just a bit too big to be able to use the second biggest existing heat exchanger (see Table
8).
The added heat exchangers of the new design are next to the heat exchangers of the utilities and can
take part of the load over but the more load they take over, the more area gets added to the red circled
heat exchanger (see Figure 43 left). This is because of the green circled heat exchanger that has the
minimum temperature difference on the cold end (see Figure 43 right). The temperature difference on
the cold end will grow smaller when load of the utilities is shifted to one the new heat exchangers. Area
has to be added to the red circled heat exchanger so that this minimum temperature difference violation
gets solved. The new design had a bottleneck because it was specified that the red circled heat
exchanger couldn’t have an area more than 209 m2 and has thus the advantage of the optimum network
of FI2EPI while having the least amount of utility load possible for that requirement.
Figure 43: New optimum network (left) and heat exchanger view of the green circled heat exchanger (right).
5.4.3 Calculating payback time in AEA

Designs in retrofit automatically get their payback rate calculated but this isn’t as useful because of the
way the capital cost is calculated.
• New heat exchanger: AEA calculates the capital cost of the heat exchanger based on the given
economic data
• Unused area in an existing heat exchanger: isn’t counted as either a loss or profit
• Added area on an existing heat exchanger: The capital cost is the difference between the capital
cost of the existing exchanger and the new exchanger based on the given economic data.
34
This causes several problems:
• The heat exchangers aren’t automatically switched. Let’s say there is for instance a heat
exchanger that goes from 100 m2 to 40 m2 and another one that goes from 50 m2 to 90 m2. In real
life those two heat exchangers would just get switched with each other, resulting in having no extra
capital cost for this change but AEA won’t automatically switch them but will say that the first heat
exchanger has an unused area of 60 m2 and the second heat exchanger has an extra capital cost
based on the extra 40 m2 area. A way to avert this is to look at what the area used to be from the
heat exchangers and what it is now, look for cases like the one described above and manually
switch the places of the heat exchangers. This however requires a lot of work and leaves the
possibility of making mistakes in the design while changing it. It’s much easier and quicker to
manually calculate the payback rate.
• The way AEA calculates the capital cost for a heat exchanger when area is added is different from
the reality. AEA calculates the capital cost thinking it’s possible to sell the already used heat
exchanger for the same price as that it would have cost to buy a new one.
So it’s best to calculate the payback rate the same way as it was calculated for the network of FI 2EPI.
The retrofit mode however doesn’t give enough information to do this. The capital cost of each heat
exchanger is necessary but the only thing that is provided in retrofit is the cost for the “area that is added”
to the heat exchanger to get it from the base case to the new design. Because AEA calculates these
costs in a wrong way this information is useless. To get the necessary information it is necessary to
change back to the design mode. This is done by right clicking on the scenario in the left block and
clicking on “unlock retrofit mode”.
The capital cost is found by going to heat exchangers in the performance tab. The operating cost is
found by going to summary in the performance tab.
Table 11: area and operating cost of optimum network of AEA.
647,8 Has to be bought (= 3,912*105 euro)
249,4 324,0
208,8 208,8
76,18 181,5
56,01 89,85
24,25 Has to be bought (= 3,287*104 euro)
9,452 22,64
Operating cost of new design (€/s) Operating cost of existing design (€/s)
3,229*10-3 1,417*10-2
35
3,912 ∗ 105 € + 3,287 ∗ 104 €
𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = = 1,05 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
(1,417 ∗ 10−2 − 3,229 ∗ 10−3 ) €⁄𝑠 ∗ 3600 𝑠⁄ℎ ∗ 8500 ℎ⁄𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
This is quite an improvement over the 1,38 years of the optimum network of FI 2EPI. The savings are
also a lot bigger than the design of FI2EPI with 334794.60 euro per year instead of the 249281.86 euro
per year of the design of FI2EPI.
5.4.4 Steps to take when improving an existing design

How to use AEA to improve an existing design:
1) Create a new design by pinch analysis

2) Remove the existing loops and solve any possible minimum temperature difference violations
3) Add extra heat exchangers with retrofit while limiting the areas of heat exchangers that are too
big.
4) Get the design out of retrofit.
5) Try to see if AEA can still optimize the design further and look if the proposed optimization is
actually better than the design before optimization.
5.4.5 MER Network 2 in AEA

A relatively simple design was able to be made in AEA following the rules set by pinch analysis where
both hot utilities are used. This design however wasn’t economically better than when using only the
utility with the higher temperature so this one wasn’t used further. It can also be seen that the network
indeed needed to be redesigned, which FI2EPI didn’t do.
Figure 44: MER network 2
36
5.4.6 Design plot force [5]
Another way to see if the design is efficient is by looking at the driving force plot. The driving force plot
can be accessed by going to the ribbon above the grid diagram and clicking on and provides a way
to tell if the heat exchangers of the design are close to the minimum possible area. The driving force
plot is made by using the hot and cold composite curve. The hot temperatures are set out against the
cold temperatures for the same heat duty. The green colored area shown in Figure 45 (left) is the area
between the curve and the 45° line (T hot = Tcold). The area created by a heat exchanger is formed by
using the inlet and outlet temperatures of the streams to create a line. The area between the line of the
heat exchanger and the 45°C line is then compared with the area of the driving force to see how efficient
it is. The closer the area caused by the heat exchangers is to that of the driving force the closer the
design is to the minimum area. Having no heat exchange between the streams makes for a very
inefficient design as can be seen by the beige colored area in Figure 45 (right).
Figure 45: driving force plot with the minimum area (left) and with the design with no heat exchange (right)
It’s easy to see with the design force plot (see Figure 46) why the MER network is better than the existing
network. The black lines with dots are the various heat exchangers while the red line is that of the driving
force.
Figure 46: driving plot force of the existing network (left) and of the MER network (right)
The driving force is a handy tool but doesn’t provide any quantitative data. This is because it only uses
temperatures whereas the actual area of a heat exchanger is also depended on the duty [8]. It’s also
depended on the overall heat transfer coefficient, but this is the same for all the heat exchangers in this
example. This is important to remember when looking at the driving force plot. Just because one design
has a total area closer to the driving force area than another design doesn’t mean that that design also
has the smaller total area.
37
The other design can still be better if the area of the heat exchangers with a small heat load (=large
area) are closer to that of the driving force plot than the other design even if this only shows as a small
percentage of the total area on the driving force plot. A design can also still be better with a larger total
area when it has a smaller area on the heat exchangers of the utilities.
𝑄
𝐴=
𝑈 ∗ ∆𝑇𝑚
(𝑇ℎ𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 − 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) − (𝑇ℎ𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 )

∆𝑇𝑚 =
(𝑇 − 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡 )
log ℎ𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 ⁄(𝑇
ℎ𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 )
The design plot force is handy to see where something could be changed in order to improve the design,
but isn’t the best tool to compare designs or to see if an optimized design is better. By comparing for
instance the MER network with the optimized scenarios of both FI2EPI and AEA (see Figure 47) it can
be seen that for the most part the MER network seems to be the best, but this doesn’t take, as previously
mentioned, the heat load of the heat exchangers into account, the added cost of the extra heat
exchangers used in the MER network or the possibility to re-use heat exchangers. It’s also not always
necessary to have the minimum area for a heat exchanger when optimizing an already existing network
. It’s for instance possible maybe to achieve a smaller total area by adding an extra heat exchanger but
if an already existing heat exchanger is used it will only make it so that the existing heat exchanger has
more unused area which doesn’t give any benefit and ads the cost of the new heat exchanger.
The design plot force is best used for creating an entirely new process. It can also be used for cases
where, for instance there is an already existing heat exchanger that can’t be used because the area of
the heat exchanger of the new design is just a bit too big. By looking at the driving force plot a design
change may be found that allows for the re-use of the existing heat exchanger.
Figure 47: driving plot force of FI2EPI’s optimized scenario (left) and of AEA’s optimized scenario (right)
38
6. IMPROVING A BIOMASS PROCESS
6.1 The process
6.1.1 Xylitol [9, 10]

Xylitol is a sugar alcohol with the chemical formula: CH2OH(CHOH)3CH2OH. Xylitol has recently become
a very popular sugar substitute. This is because the bacteria in the mouth can’t break it down and thus
can’t reproduce making it less unhealthy for your teeth. It’s most industrial use is in healthy chewing
gum. Almost all chewing gum in made in Europe contains this sugar alcohol. Another reason for its
popularity is that while it’s as sweet as sucrose it contains 40 percent less calories.
Xylitol used to be extracted from the bark of birch trees or corn knobs. These contain xylan hemicellulose
which gets hydrolyzed to xylose which in turn gets hydrogenated to xylitol. The problem with extracting
it from bark trees is that it’s not environmentally friendly because trees have to be cut down and trees
themselves are not a good renewable energy source, taking a long time to grow back. Corn knobs are
better in that respect but still form an issue because they use land that could be used for food. Also both
processes cost a lot of money making xylitol an expensive product. This is why biomass processes, that
use waste material from already existing processes, are starting to gain popularity.
One of them is using brewer’s spent grain which makes up 85 percent of a brewing’s process and is
mostly made up out of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Not only is this an environmentally friendly
process it also saves a lot of money because the brewer’s spent grain is often given by brewers either
for free or for a very low price.
Figure 48: Xylitol is an often found ingredient in chewing gum.[11]
39
6.1.2 Polylactic acid [12]
Polylactic acid is a biodegradable plastic that is very popular because it’s derived from renewable
resources instead of from the non-renewable petroleum reserves. It’s made by polymerization of lactic
acid. The molecular formula of lactic acid is C3H6O3. As a thermoplastic polymer it’s used as, for
instance, plastic films, bottles, and biodegradable medical devices. A recent use of polylactic acid is in
3D-printing. This is because it has a relatively low melting temperature.
Figure 49: PLA being used for 3D-printing [13]
6.1.3 Explanation of the process [14]

The first step of the process is getting the BSG (=brewer’s spent grain) pretreated. This is done by
hydrolyzing the hemicellulose in a reactor. This results in xylose and arabinose, both sugars, that will
be in solution while the cellulose and lignin won’t, allowing for separation via filtration.
The sugars will then get to a fermenter where the xylose will be converted to xylitol. After this the stream
gets purified, removing the toxic yeast that was used. A part of the stream gets filtered and recycled
back to the fermenter to gain a higher yield of xylitol.
The stream that contains the cellulose and lignin is brought to a fermenter where L-lactic acid is formed.
After filtration the L-lactic acid gets turned to PLA (= polylactic acid). This is done via direct condensation
polymerization. This is done in turn by using a reactor, evaporator, crystallizer and flash vessel. Multiple
solvents also have to be used like diphenyl ether, dichloromethane and methanol. The two last ones are
quite expensive and are therefore recovered at the end with the use of a distillation column.
6.2 Creating the process [15]

The following process was created in Aspen Plus and uses information provided by the work of George
et al. proposing a design that may be used in real life [15]. Some slight changes were made to this
design, due to problems with Aspen Energy Analysis, such as for instance how recycled streams are
handled. The process describes a way to turn the brewer’s spent grain into both xylitol and polylactic
acid (Figure 50). This is a very complex process but also one that matches the complexity of a lot of
industrially applied processes and thus provides the opportunity to see which program is the best to use
in the industry and if any limitations or new found possibilities pop up in the programs due to its greater
complexity.
40
41
Figure 50: Process in Aspen Plus.
42
6.3 Explanation of the Aspen Plus process
6.3.1 Component assumptions

1) Cellulose solids were modelled as fructose
2) Non cellulose solids were grouped together as other solids and were modelled as hydrogen
peroxide
3) Non fermentable solutes were grouped together as other liquids and were modelled as deuterium
oxide
4) All fermentable sugars were grouped together and modelled as xylose for the acid hydrolysis in
SA-HYDRO and as glucose for the saccharification in SACCH
5) Cellulose and hemicellulose were grouped together as cellulose. The cellulose from the feed gets
used both as hemicellulose and cellulose but this has been taken into account with the
stoichiometry of the reactions.
6) Xylose and celullase enzymes were grouped together and modelled as xylose
7) The boiling point, critical temperature, critical pressure and acentric factor were entered manually
for ammonium hydroxide and calcium sulfate
8) PLA was modelled as n-dodecane and the boiling point, critical temperature and critical pressure
were manually set to high values so that it remained a liquid in the flash calculations
Table 12: Components table Aspen Plus.
Component ID Type Component name Alias

CELLULOS Conventional D-FRUCTOSE C6H12O6-N1
OTHLIQUI Conventional DEUTERIUM-OXIDE D2O
CAOH2 Conventional CALCIUM-HYDROXIDE CA(OH)2
CASO4 Conventional CALCIUM-SULFATE CASO4
CH2CL2 Conventional DICHLOROMETHANE CH2CL2
METHANOL Conventional METHANOL CH4O
N2 Conventional NITROGEN N2
H2SO4 Conventional SULFURIC-ACID H2SO4
WATER Conventional WATER H2O
ENZ/XYL Conventional XYLITOL C5H12O5
XYLOSE Conventional XYLOSE C5H10O5-D2
GLUCOSE Conventional DEXTROSE C6H12O6
AMMONIA Conventional AMMONIUM-HYDROXIDE NH4OH
OTHSOLID Conventional HYDROGEN-PEROXIDE H2O2
NACIT Conventional SODIUM-CHLORIDE NACL
LACTICAC Conventional L-LACTIC-ACID C3H6O3-N1
DIETHER Conventional DIPHENYL-ETHER C12H10O
ETHYL-01 Conventional ETHYL-ACETATE C4H8O2-3
PLA Conventional N-DODECANE C12H26
43
6.3.2 The acid hydrolysis
The first thing that happens in the process is the washing of the BSG (=brewer’s spent grain) stream.
This stream contains just cellulose and water. After the washing the stream get’s heated up to 150°C.
The acid hydrolysis happens in SA-HYRO. Here the BSG gets hydrolyzed by heated up diluted sulfuric
acid (=SA-IN). The result is that the hemicellulose gets broken down in sugar monomers such as xylose.
In Aspen Plus this is shown by converting a part of the cellulose to xylose, other solids and other liquids.
After the product gets used to heat up the incoming BSG stream it will go trough a filter. This filter will
separate the solid particles from the dissolved sugars.
Stream S5 contains mostly water, cellulose and other solids while XYSUGARS contains mostly water,
xylose and other liquids.
6.3.3 the xylitol fermentation

XYSUGARS also contains the remaining sulfuric acid and so diluted calcium hydroxide is used to slightly
neutralize the pH by reacting with the sulfuric acid to form calcium sulfate. The amount of calcium
hydroxide used is quite low because the pH can remain at 2,5 because the strain Candida tropicalis that
will be used in the fermentation prefers an acidic environment.
The acid, base and calcium sulfate are subsequently removed in FUGEXYL. This seems to done
specifically for the flowsheet rather than the real life process.
The stream gets then slightly heated up to 32°C to create a perfect condition for the strain.
The fermentation takes place in XLAFERM. In the actual process this would be the part where the strain
gets added. This is where the xylitol is formed.
The impurities (=other solids) get afterwards removed in SEP3.
For the aqueous purification (= removal of other liquids in chroma) chromatography with two Ion-
exchange resins is used. This is modelled as just another separator in Aspen Plus. The resulting stream
(=S20) now only contains water, xylitol and some unconverted xylose.
The sugars then get concentrated by vaporizing some of the water (=steam4) in EVAP. This water will
eventually be used to wash the BSG in the first step.
The dissolved sugars then get cooled down to 5°C and xylitol crystalizes is filtered from the majority of
water and the remaining xylose (=8). Stream 8 will then be used to partially cool down the incoming
dissolved sugars stream and be recycled to the fermenter.
The xylitol stream will then be washed and crystalized in order to obtain the xylitol product.
44
6.3.4 The saccharification
Some of the water from Stream S5 first gets vaporized. This water is eventually used to wash BSG in
the first step.
Diluted ammonia is added to help break down the cellulose solids later in the process. This is modelled
in AAS by converting cellulose to other liquids. The stream is then washed with water (=AASWAT) to
neutralize the mixture.
The cellulose gets broken to glucose by using cellulase enzymes and sodium citrate in the SUGARSP.
In Aspen Plus instead of using sodium citrate, sodium chloride was used. This is modelled in Aspen
Plus by converting other liquids to glucose.
The stream gets then purified so that it only contains dissolved glucose in water (=PLASUGAR). This
stream then gets heated up to 37°C for the bacteria (= Lactobacillus delbrueckii) that will be used.
The Lactic acid fermentation takes place in PLA-FERM. Here glucose gets converted to L-lactic acid.
The stream then gets purified by removing the other solids.
Liquid extraction with diphenyl ether (=ETHIN) is used to remove the water from the stream. This stream
is then heated up to 170°C.
6.3.5 The lactic acid polymerization

The diphenyl ether is used along with dichloromethane and methanol as solvents in a direct
condensation process in order to polymerize the lactic acid to PLA. The diphenyl ether is already added
because it serves a double purpose, having to also be used for the liquid extraction.
The polymerization happens in POLYREAC. After the polymerization the stream gets cooled down to
110°C and split in two streams.
Stream S9 gets dried in a flash column before getting recycled to the reactor in order to have a higher
yield of PLA.
Stream S12 gets heated and send to a separator where the diphenyl ether gets removes. This diphenyl
ether gets further purified in flash column. The steam resulting from this flash column and from the drying
of stream S9 get purified from the diphenyl ether that still is in the water with the use of a decanter
(=WATPUR). The water will eventually be used to wash the BSG in the first step.
The product of the reactor with the diphenyl ether removed (=PLA) is dissolved in dichloromethane and
is mixed with methanol in a crystallizer so that PLA crystalizes and can be removed (=PLAOUT). The
crystallizer is in Aspen Plus modelled as a separator.
A distillation column is used to separate the methanol from the dichloromethane so they can be re-used.
In Aspen Plus the diphenyl ether, dichloromethane and methanol streams are not recycled back into the
reactor even though this would have been done in real life.
45
6.4 The extracted data
The data that AEA extracts from the flowsheet is the same data that needs to be filled in manually in
FI2EPI. This means the data necessary for heat integration such as the begin and end temperature,
enthalpy , heat transfer coefficient, MCp value(s), etc. of the stream and the existing network. Only the
streams and devices, such as a reactor, that need to be heated up or cooled down get extracted. Data
such as the components that are in the streams or the reactions that happen in the reactor are left
behind. Only the data that matters to the heat integration is extracted.
6.5 FI2EPI
6.5.1 Segmented streams

A problem with FI2EPI is that often there will be an existing heat exchanger network that has stream that
are segmented. It’s impossible to fill in these segmented streams in FI2EPI. It’s possible to use constant
MCp values when the heat capacity barely changes over the temperature interval. In cases where the
heat capacity changes significantly multiple constant MCp values are used in segments to simulate this.
The more segments the more accurate the heat capacity is described but also the more difficult it is to
model the stream.
Figure 51: Example of streams needed to be segmented. One value would be too little. Three segments would
deliver an even more accurate description of the heat capacity but will make the design more complex.
Normally a straight line, so a constant MCp value, is used because the change of MCp value throughout
out the process isn’t known. The only thing that’s known is the begin and end temperature of the stream
and the heat load. The MCp value will not change that much with a temperature in a lot of circumstances
so this isn’t that bad.
A large variation of the MCp value can happen though when components in the stream changes phase
during the heat exchange. An example is vaporization where three MCp constants, and as such three
segments are created: the MCp value of the liquid, the MCp value of vaporization where heat transfer
takes place at a constant temperature and the MCp value of the gas. An example of this is stream S1
to stout. The stream contains water and diphenyl ether along with trace amounts of PLA and glucose.
The stream gets cooled off from 140°C to 90°C. Diphenyl ether and PLA remain liquids during this
temperature change while glucose remains a solid. Water on the other hand will condensate to its liquid
phase.
46
The result here is four segments as can be seen in Figure 52. the two segments at around 96°C might
have been done because AEA found that the transition in MCp because of the cooling down of the just
condensed water might have been too high to consider one constant MCp value. Since the two other
liquids stay in the same phase it can’t be because of this. Dissolved substances like glucose can have
an influence on the boiling point by raising it but that’s not what happens here plus the glucose is only
there in trace amounts so it’s probably because of the transition.
Figure 52: Graph of stream S1 to stout showing temperature change in function of the enthalpy.
Another reason a stream can have segments is because multiple heat exchangers where used. Each
heat exchanger has a transferred heat load and in and outlet temperature for the stream causing multiple
lines on the composite curve for that stream. An example is stream s6 to s22. The stream goes through
three heat exchangers (see Figure 50) and as such has three segments. This can be seen in Figure 53.
The graph is a little offset because the stream starts as a vapor in the first heat exchanger, a mixture in
the second and in the third heat exchanger where the stream gets cooled down just enough to be in the
liquid phase.
Figure 53: Graph of stream S6 to S22 showing temperature change in function of the enthalpy.
47
It’s possible to recreate the design in FI2EPI by filling in each segment as a separate stream. This gives
an accurate composite curve but becomes problematic to use because whereas in reality it’s always
possible to use one heat exchanger for a stream this can’t be done here when the temperature change
goes beyond that of a segment. Also, when creating a new network from the ground up the streams
shouldn’t have any segments. This is because the segments in the streams are caused by the use of
multiple heat exchangers or an already happened phase change in a heat exchanger of the existing
network. In a new design there are no heat exchangers yet, so the MER Network has to be made in a
different FI2EPI file where the streams are filled in without their segments.
AEA has a simple option where it will delete the segments automatically but this isn’t accurate. This is
because to make the unsegmented stream the begin and end temperature and the total heat Q of the
stream are needed. AEA however uses the MCp values of the segments of the stream to get the total
heat.
It’s possible to get the total heat by using the MCp of the stream but it would be wrong to use the MCp
value of the segments. This is because the segments approximate the reality. It uses multiple constant
MCp value to replicate a constantly changing MCp value, so when calculating the heat load from these
MCp values there will be a difference between the calculated and actual heat. This will cause a large
difference for the streams as can be seen in Figure 54 where the cold composite curve consists of just
on straight line and the hot composite curve consists of just two lines.
Figure 54: composite curves shown with all the segments included (left) and the same composite curves but with
the segments removed (right).
6.5.2 Too much information

All this put aside it’s clear that FI2EPI wasn’t made with these large processes in mind. The program
offers no possibility to make the different types of images and text smaller so the more complex the
process is the more images and text are added and the larger the screen has to be to fit everything on
it. The MER Network for instance can, when put in the largest possible screen, only give a max of five
rows and twelve columns which is too little too show everything. Because the titles of the different bars
are shown in the middle of the window and the window is so large. It can get to a point where the titles
aren’t visible anymore on the screen.
48
This gets even worse when the screen is divided to show both the configuration for the network and the
network itself (see Figure 55). Other stuff such as export becomes almost impossible to use because
the image becomes too big for the screen which makes it difficult and in some cases impossible to get
to the export image button located down below. Another problem is that FI2EPI simply can’t handle that
much information. The program slows down considerably due to the large amount of information.
Figure 55: FI2EPI having problems showing that much info.
6.6 Using AEA to integrate the xylitol process
6.6.1 AEA vs FI2EPI

AEA is a much better program for large processes overall. Aspen allows the user to transfer the
information from Aspen Plus to AEA which saves a lot of time compared to FI 2EPI where everything
must be put in manually. The program also can handle all the information a lot better than FI 2EPI and
has the option to zoom in and out allowing for a better control of the design and a clearer overview of
all the information. The problem however is that when a new design is made from the ground up, such
as when performing pinch analysis, this must be done in a separate scenario where the streams are
given in without the segments. As mentioned before AEA offers the ability to delete the segments
automatically but this option should never be used and instead should be done manually.
6.6.2 Applying pinch analysis to the process

Just as with the example of Pereira et al. [3] everything is done manually following the rules of pinch
analysis. The process pinch point is 150/140°C. there are multiple utility pinch points (see Figure 56
left). The process will be divided in multiple areas to accommodate these multiple pinch points. As said
before this design has no segments anymore. The composite curve can be seen down below (see Figure
56 right). The curves have changed quite a lot due to large number of segments that where deleted but
are still a huge difference from the composite curves when using AEA to delete the segments.
49
Figure 56: Empty design of process with multiple pinch points (left) and composite curve when having no segments
(right).
Streams higher than 288/278°C:
Description Ti (°C) Tf (°C) h (kW/m²*°C) MCp (kW/°C) Q (kW) Stream type

s12_to_s24 110 288 0.2 1.77 314.72 Cold
Streams lower than 27.5/17.5°C:

caoh-neu_heat 102.8 25 0.2 9.59 745.56 Hot
5_to_7 103.3 5 0.2 0.92 9.03 Hot
8_to_s36 5 95 0.2 0.59 53.06 Cold
It’s easier to start from the end because there are no neighbouring pinches to take into account. Both
ends are very easy to solve. The hot end is solved by using the hot utility that lies there because there
is only one cold stream present and no hot stream. The other end has one cold stream and two possible
hot streams it could have heat exchange with.
50
Figure 57: Pinch analysis performed at the ends.
51
From here on the pinch analysis is going to be done from left to right because there are more problems
present on the cold end.
The green colored values in the table are to show streams which have a temperature interval that
crosses or starts at the pinch on the right while the red colored values are for the pinch on the left.
From 288/278°C to 175/165°C:
Table 13: Streams located between 288/278°C and 175/165°C.

polyreac_heat 170 170.5 0.2 1633.61 816.67 Cold
ethpla_to_s14 288 180 0.2 2.17 233.89 Hot
s12_to_s24 110 288 0.2 1.77 314.72 Cold
ethflash_heat 180 157.5 0.2 1.23 27.71 Hot
pure_to_s3 22 170 0.2 1.16 171.50 Cold
Under 288/278°C:
There is one cold and hot one stream right under the pinch with the hot stream having a higher MCp
than the cold stream, so these streams can be connected without a problem.
Above 175/165°C:
There are two cold streams and one hot stream above the pinch but just one cold stream with a MCp
that is higher than that of the hot stream so these two have to be connected. This cold stream is also
the cold stream that crosses the 288/278°C pinch so this is a bit more difficult. ethflash_heat gets done
first because this one has a much smaller total heat load than that of the other hot stream and the cold
stream. This heat exchanger is more than enough to fully heat up the hot stream between the pinches.
The other hot stream is then connected with the cold stream but this is not enough so it’s connected to
polyreac_heat which is more than enough for the hot stream. The remaining heat of the cold streams
are solved with the hot utility.
52
Figure 58: Pinch analysis from 288/278°C to 175/165°C.
53
From 175/165°C to 150/140°C:
Table 14: Streams located between 175/165°C and 150/140°C
Description Ti (°C) Tf (°C) h MCp Q (kW) Stream type

(kW/m²*°C) (kW/°C)
wetbsgc_to_wetbsgh 75.9 150 0.2 184.44 13666.67 Cold
steam4_to_steam5 103.3 155.2 0.2 2.64 136.89 Cold
pla1_to_s4 170 110 0.2 2.28 136.89 Hot
s12_to_s24 110 288 0.2 1.77 314.72 Cold
ethflash_heat 180 157.5 0.2 1.23 27.71 Hot
pure_to_s3 22 170 0.2 1.16 171.50 Cold
Under 175/165°C:
There are two cold streams and one hot stream present at the pinch but just one cold stream with a
lower MCp value than the hot stream so these two are connected.
Above 150/140°C:
There are four cold streams and one hot stream present at the pinch and two of the four cold streams
have a higher MCp value than the hot stream. Neither of these cold streams are the same as the one
at 175/165°C so this is fairly easy to solve.
54
Figure 59: Pinch analysis from 175/165°C to 150/140°C.
55
From 150/140°C to 40.3/30.3°C
Table 15: Streams located between 150/140°C and 40.3/30.3°C.
Description Ti (°C) Tf (°C) h MCp Q (kW) Stream type

(kW/m²*°C) (kW/°C)
aas_heat 70 69.5 0.2 3977.78 1988.89 Hot
sa-hydro 150 149.5 0.2 3438.89 1719.72 Hot
prodh_to_prodc 150 102.8 0.2 286.67 13538.89 Hot
evap2_heat 102.8 110 0.2 187.92 1357.50 Cold
wetbsgc_to_wetbsgh 75.9 150 0.2 184.44 13666.67 Cold
to 51.32 55.14 0.2 155.97 596.94 Cold
reboiler@B18_to_x1
s6_to_s22 145.1 102.2 0.2 101.44 4350.00 Hot
evap_heat 32 103.3 0.2 53.28 3800.00 Cold
plasugar_to_s21 25 37 0.2 20.24 242.83 Cold
s29_to_s2 58.74 95 0.2 19.89 721.39 Cold
xlaferm_heat 32 32.5 0.2 12.16 6.08 Cold
caoh-neu_heat 102.8 25 0.2 9.59 745.56 Hot
s25_to_s23 27.22 32 0.2 9.11 43.58 Cold
steam4_to_steam5 103.3 155.2 0.2 2.64 136.89 Cold
pla1_to_s4 170 110 0.2 2.28 136.89 Hot
s12_to_s24 110 288 0.2 1.77 314.72 Cold
s1_to_stout 140.8 90 0.2 1.52 77.06 Hot
drypla_heat 110 99.86 0.2 1.33 13.50 Hot
pure_to_s3 22 170 0.2 1.16 171.50 Cold
5_to_7 103.3 5 0.2 0.92 9.03 Hot
8_to_s36 5 95 0.2 0.59 53.06 Cold
sa-in_to_s11 25 92 0.2 0.09 5.98 Cold
Now the rest of the work is under the process pinch, so the attention shifts from the hot streams to the
cold streams.
Under 150/140°C:
There are three hot streams and four cold streams. For three of the cold streams there is a hot stream
with a higher MCp and the MCp of one of the two hot stream with the higher MCp can be split to
accommodate the fourth cold stream.
56
Above 40.3/30.3°C:
There are two hot streams and five cold streams. Two of the cold streams have an MCp value that is
lower than the hot stream with the lowest MCp value. This hot stream has to be split in at least three
parts to accommodate the two cold streams. The third part can be used for a third cold stream Between
the two hot streams there are two cold streams in terms of MCp value and one above the hot stream
with the highest MCp value. The hot stream with the highest MCp value will also be split in two parts to
accommodate the two cold streams that closest to it in terms of MCp value.
All the other streams are connected based on their temperature intervals and their MCp values. There
is a small cross pinch with the cold utility because it has an outlet temperature of 30°C.
57
Figure 60: Pinch analysis from 150/140°C to 40.3/30.3°C.
58
From 40.3/30.3°C to 27.5/17.5°C
Table 16: Streams located between 40.3/30.3°C and 27.5/17.5°C.
Description Ti (°C) Tf (°C) h MCp Q (kW) Stream

(kW/m²*°C) (kW/°C) type
to condensor@B18_ 40.3 40.2 0.2 12830.56 1239.45 Hot
to_x2
sacch_heat 25 25.5 0.2 1017.50 508.89 Cold
pla-ferm_heat 37 36.5 0.2 81.11 40.56 Hot
plasugar_to_s21 25 37 0.2 20.24 242.83 Cold
caoh-neu_heat 102.8 25 0.2 9.59 745.56 Hot
s25_to_s23 27.22 32 0.2 9.11 43.58 Cold
pure_to_s3 22 170 0.2 1.16 171.50 Cold
5_to_7 103.3 5 0.2 0.92 9.03 Hot
8_to_s36 5 95 0.2 0.59 53.06 Cold
sa-in_to_s11 25 92 0.2 0.09 5.98 Cold
Under 40.3/30.3°C:
There are three hot streams and five cold streams at the pinch. condensor@B18_to_x2 will be split in
three to accommodate the three cold streams with the highest MCp values. The two other hot streams
are used for the two cold streams with the lowest MCp values.
Above 27.5/17.5°C:
There is one cold stream and two hot streams but both hot streams have a higher MCp value than the
cold stream. One of the hot streams can be split to get a lower MCp value or instead the stream to which
it’s already connected at the pinch at 40.3/30.3°C can be used to get it down to the other pinch. The
problem lies more with the two hot streams. These will need to be cooled but the utilities that lie between
the pinches don’t go below 20°C while 17.5°C is needed and it’s impossible to cool down the two hot
streams from 30°C to 27.5°C with just process streams. The only stream that can go so low while not
going below the minimum temperature difference is the cold stream but this one has a lower MCp value
than both of them. For this reason the refrigerated water is used for that temperature interval.
Lastly normally the streams of the utilities get split as well for each heat exchanger for practical reasons.
In a real life process the utility stream doesn’t go from one heat exchanger to the next but just has one
for each stream it heats up or cools down [4]. This could be done for the hot utilities in the design but
couldn’t be done for the cold utilities due to some problems in AEA where the temperature of the streams
would go out of the actual temperature range of the utilities.
59
This design is a true MER Network which can be seen in the performance (see figure 62 right). Both the
heating and cooling of the heat integrated network have reached the target. The heating cost has also
reached the target because everything was done there with the utility pinches in mind. The cooling cost
on the other end hasn’t reached the target cost. This is because of the cross pinches that were
necessary. The operating costs lies just above the target. This is because of the pinch crossing with the
cold utilities. This did however have a positive effect on the capital costs which lies below the target.
60
Figure 61: Last pinch analyis step giving the MER Network.
61
Figure 62: The performance and cost indexes the MER Network.
However, this design is incredibly different from the existing network (see figure 63). This is because
the people who made the network didn’t take any possible minimum temperature difference into account
which is also why the heating and cooling are below that of the target. They also didn’t take the process
pinch, let alone the utility pinches, into account which saves up on a lot of possible heat exchangers.
The design with pinch analysis also has some faults on its own. While it’s in theory a good design in
practice it will never be implemented in the same way. This is because, in order to adhere to the pinch
rules, it was often necessary to use heat exchangers for small parts causing some heat exchangers to
have an area around 1m2 which won’t be used in reality. This is also sometimes the case in the existing
design. This is probably because the people designing the process didn’t pay much attention to this.
This al makes it very difficult to go from the real design to a design that comes close to the design formed
by pinch analysis.
62
Figure 63: Existing network
63
Figure 64: Performance and cost indexes of the existing network (right).
It’s better to start from the existing network and retrofit the design. However, this wasn’t possible with
the existing design. None of the retrofit options could find an improvement. This could be because of
the complexity of the design. AEA has an option in the lower right corner. By clicking on it’s
possible to choose if AEA calculates it’s responses on for instance retrofit by prioritizing either getting a
result or the accurateness of the calculation. This is very handy when there are no possible options
given, unfortunately this did not make AEA give a possible improvement. Even after removing the
segments to make the design less complicated it was impossible for AEA to find an improvement.
Whether or not this is because of the complex nature of the process is hard to tell without implementing
a second process that is similar in its complexity to this one. This however could not be done for this
thesis due to time constraints.
6.6.3 Altering the existing design

It’s best to use retrofit to alter the existing design along with restrictions set for the areas and maybe
some manual changes. Retrofit isn’t an option here so everything is done manually. The only things that
get heat integration here are the streams themselves and not, for instance, the reactors. This is done
so that this design can be easily implemented in Aspen Plus to see the changes there. Because this
design improves the already existing design the segments are kept. The result of the improvement can
be seen in Figure 66. The heat exchangers that can be re-used can be seen in Table 17. The existing
ones can be re-used for the new heat exchanger with the same color. The ones that are marked in a
color show that this heat exchanger hasn’t changed.
The capital cost for the new heat exchangers is 19.155*104 €
The hours of operation is 8765.76 hours/year
The savings are 1.692*10-3 €/s or 5.3394*104 €/year
The payback time is 3.5875 years
64
Figure 65: Existing network with only streams.
65
Figure 66: Improved network with only streams.
66
Table 17: table showing which heat exchangers can be re-used
5518 5518
2155 2155
400.4 400.4
304.2 293.3
83.76 283
50.38 125.4
13.56 114.8
4.286 83.41
3.477 50.38
2.068 9.547
2.016 8.904
1.211 2.068
0.921 2.016
0.8676 1.868
0.2211 1.137
0.921
0.7309
0.446
0.2082
The changes where adapted in Aspen Plus but caused errors due to temperatures not syncing up. This
is probably because the design was made with the segments. This is good for all the heat exchangers
that remained but causes problems for the new heat exchangers that are now using segmented MCp
values caused by heat exchangers and phase shifts that aren’t there anymore. In certain cases this
could be resolved by deleting the segments that aren’t in the temperature range of the existing heat
exchangers that remain unchanged but these often overlap and when that happens the segment will not
perfectly align with the heat exchanger and go out of boundary. Also when there are for instance three
heat exchangers and the one in the middle remains it’s difficult to then start deleting segments.
When starting with heat exchange all that is known is the begin and end point because the heat load of
the stream is known along with the begin and end temperature. So, the coordinates are begin
temperature stream; enthalpy = 0 and end temperature stream; enthalpy = total value of the stream.
When the remaining heat exchanger is at the beginning it has its two points for the segment, namely
the begin temperature stream; enthalpy = 0 and outlet temperature HE; heat load HE. If it’s at the end it
also has the two points for the segments, namely end temperature stream; total heat load and inlet
temperature HE; total heat load minus the heat load of the HE. If the remaining heat exchanger is in not
connected to either the inlet or outlet temperature in some way it’s impossible to find coordinates for it
on its own which would make it difficult to remove all other segments except that one.
67
Figure 67: The improved design in Aspen Plus (thick streams show alterations, colors are just to differentiate them).
68
7. CONCLUSIONS
AEA is definitely a better program, for optimizing a process, than FI2EPI. FI2EPI is a good starting point
for someone who knows nothing about heat integration with it’s simple design, intuitive controls and
helpful hints. FI2EPI is also a good program to use for simple small processes. It starts to lose it’s
usefulness quickly however when the number of streams increases or when there are multiple utilities.
AEA requires more knowledge on heat integration but delivers also more information allowing for a
better control of the results of the design changes. AEA is also handy because it allows the user to apply
constraints, such as for instance which streams can’t have heat exchange. In a large process this is
definitely handy because often it would be impossible to have certain streams perform heat integration
if they are located far away from each other. This is also very useful for safety, because the process that
was utilised for this thesis wasn’t one that was used in practice it wasn’t possible to make certain
practical constraints like that in the design. In real life this would however be the case.
From the optimization features retrofit is definitely the handiest, allowing to make several constraints
and specifications and giving the option to choose the type of optimization that will be used. This feature
is recommended to use when improving a complex design. Unfortunately, this feature seems to have its
own problems. It’s not entirely sure if this is due to the complexity of the design but if this is the case it
would significantly decrease the practical use of this feature since most processes are this complex.
Having said this AEA is still a very handy program allowing the user to easily implement a process from
Aspen Plus.
The MER Network created for the biomass process was an improvement over the existing process but
is not the best design to replace the existing design with because it’s so different and would cause a lot
of capital cost. This can be seen with the improved network as well. While a lot of heat exchangers
remained it still had a high capital cost causing a relatively high payback rate. Here retrofit would really
shine because it often gives very minor changes that don’t cost that much. The improvement isn’t that
high but the low payback rate would make these changes very attractive for the industry.
The implementation of an existing network back in Aspen Plus is problematic because of the problems
with the segments. Even when starting from scratch like with the pinch analysis there may be some
problems because of phase shifts causing changes in the MCp value.
69
References
1. Morar, M. and P.S. Agachi, Review: Important contributions in development and improvement
of the heat integration techniques. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2010. 34(8): p. 1171-
1179.
2. March, L., Introduction to Pinch Technology. 1998.
3. Pereira, P.M., et al., FI2EPI: A heat management tool for process integration. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 2017. 114: p. 523-536.
4. Smith, R., Chemical Process Design and Integration. second edition ed. 2016, School of
Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, UK: Wiley. 923.
5. Mohanty, D.B., Grand Composite Curve. Targeting, 2017. module 4 lecture 12.
6. Aspen Plus. 2017, Aspentech.
7. Aspen Energy Analysis. 2017, Aspentech.
8. Primo, J., Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers. PDH Course, 2010. M371.
9. xylitol.org. Corn Cob Xylitol versus Birch Wood Xylitol. 2016 [cited 2018 13/05/2018]; Available
from: https://xylitol.org/about-xylitol/corn-xylitol-vs-birch-xylitol/.
10. Compound-interest. How Can Xylitol Gum Help Prevent Tooth Decay? 2014 [cited 2018
14/05/2018]; Available from: http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/09/04/xylitol/.
11. Spolsky, D.V.W., Xylitol In Chewing Gum. 2010.
12. Creighton, M., Everything You Need To Know About Polylactic Acid (PLA). 2015.
13. Koslow, T., PLA Filament Guide 2018 – Explained & Compared. 2018.
14. Alexander George, K.S., Anthony Carradorini, Nabila Faour, Brewer's Spent Grain to Xylitol &
Polylactic Acid. 2017: p. 37-42.
15. Alexander George, K.S., Anthony Carradorini, Nabila Faour, Brewer's Spent Grain to Xylitol &
Polylactic Acid. 2017.
70

Master Thesis Ben Maes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Ben Maes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Aspen Energy Analyser to improve Processes

Global Energy Efficiency

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Supervisor: Prof. Henrique Anibal Santos de Matos

Supervisor: Prof. Henrique Aníbal Santos de Matos

Members of Committee: Prof. Maria Cristina Carvalho Fernandes

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ viii

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... xii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ xv

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. xvi

List of Symbols ................................................................................................................................... xvii

List of Software .................................................................................................................................. xviii

1.1 Heat integration ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 What is heat integration ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Why heat integration is important [1] ................................................................................... 1

1.2 Pinch analysis [2] ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Pinch point ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Pinch principles.................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.3 Design above the pinch ....................................................................................................... 4

1.2.4 Design below the pinch ....................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Design for multiple pinches [4] ................................................................................................ 6

1.4 How to find utility pinches ........................................................................................................ 6

1.4.1 Global composite curve [5] .................................................................................................. 6

2. FI2EPI [3] .......................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 The input data .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Features ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Constructing the MER Network ............................................................................................. 10

3. Energy analysis in Aspen Plus [6] .................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Activated Energy Analyzer .................................................................................................... 12

3.1.2 Making a process............................................................................................................... 12

3.1.3 Starting the Activated Energy Analyzer ............................................................................. 13

3.1.4 Using the Activated Energy Analyzer ................................................................................ 13

3.2 The energy analysis environment ......................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.2.2 Adding data to the design .................................................................................................. 14

3.2.3 Adding design changes ..................................................................................................... 15

4. Aspen Energy Analysis [7] ............................................................................................................. 17

4.1 Starting .................................................................................................................................. 17

4.2 The grid diagram ................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Adding utilities.................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.2 Splitting the streams .......................................................................................................... 19

4.2.3 Loops and paths ................................................................................................................ 20

4.3 Curves ................................................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Optimal minimum temperature difference ............................................................................. 21

4.5 How to improve a design ....................................................................................................... 21

4.5.1 Recommended designs ..................................................................................................... 22

4.5.2 Optimizing .......................................................................................................................... 22

4.5.3 Retrofit ............................................................................................................................... 25

4.5.4 When to use what .............................................................................................................. 26

5. example Pereira et al. [3] ............................................................................................................... 27

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 27

5.2 Settings to change ................................................................................................................. 27

5.2.1 LMTD correction factor ...................................................................................................... 27

5.2.2 Capital Cost Index ............................................................................................................. 27

5.3 Optimizing the design in FI2EPI [3] ........................................................................................ 27

5.3.1 MER Network 1.................................................................................................................. 27

5.3.2 MER Network 2.................................................................................................................. 29

5.4 Optimizing the design in AEA ................................................................................................ 30

5.4.3 Calculating payback time in AEA ....................................................................................... 34

5.4.4 Steps to take when improving an existing design ............................................................. 36

5.4.5 MER Network 2 in AEA ..................................................................................................... 36

5.4.6 Design plot force [5] ........................................................................................................... 37

6. improving a biomass process ......................................................................................................... 39

6.1 The process ........................................................................................................................... 39