Using pinch technology in operations?

Zoran Milosevic, Allan Rudman and Richard Brown KBC Process Technology, UK

inch Technology is a well established concept, and a tool used to optimise waste heat recovery and design efficient heat integration schemes in a wide range of applications, throughout the process industries. What is less obvious is that Pinch Technology can assist an operating engineer in his daily work. The paper discusses the basic pinch principles and how the knowledge of them helps in understanding the operation and behaviour of heat exchanger networks, finding the operational improvements, calculating the effects of exchanger fouling, benchmarking the energy performance of Figure 1 Projected energy versus plant cost trend Source: KBC Process Technology existing process units, and identifying their improvement potential. view feel that since any recently built petroIntroduction chemical plants have been designed close to Pinch Technology is arguably the most rigorous, optimum, while new ones are unlikely to be systematic and best documented methodology in constructed in the current global energy climate, all process design.1,2,3 Virtually, no design involv- practically all major pinch work had already ing the optimisation of process heat recovery is been done. While the underlying logic of such viewpoint carried out without applying some form of pinch analysis. Pinch Technology is particularly useful can be understood, it is nevertheless incorrect when designing very complex processes, such as for two main reasons, apart from the obvious refineries and petrochemical plants, aiming at statement that thermodynamic principles can and achieving high energy efficiency of the indi- hardly be described as outdated. Firstly, the optimum in design is a moving vidual processes, as well as of the whole site. It deserves its special place in the hierarchy of target. Process plants that have been optimised design methodologies because of the exactness today may not operate in an optimal fashion in of the fundamental principles that it uses, its the future. Many pinch revamps in existing simplicity, the magnitude of design improve- refineries and petrochemicals have been carried ments/benefits that it brings about, and its wide out not because the original design was suboptimal at the time, but because the optimum has applicability. However, the fact that Pinch Technology moved since the plant was commissioned. What provides a final methodology, in the point in was not economical to install 30 years ago may time when not many new processing facilities be economical now. Even the pinch and/or are being built, or are expected to be built in the energy projects that have been carried out only near future, led to occasional remark that pinch 10 years ago should be reviewed against the technology may be obsolete.4 Proponents of this changing economics, because the cost of energy

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

September 2013 1

Figure 2 Different Positioning of the Composite Curves

grows faster than the plant construction cost (Figure 1). This renders viable those projects that have previously been considered uneconomical. Pinch Technology is a design tool that guides optimum retrofits. In fact, its retrofit theory is more complex than the theory of designing new units and it is still developing. Secondly, Pinch Technology helps the operating engineer to understand and manage a range of process issues that are related to day-to-day operation of their process units. The present paper focuses on this last area of applicability of Pinch Technology, i.e. its use in the daily work of the operating engineer, but also aims to provide useful revamp guidelines.

Energy versus capital targeting and optimisation. Design of optimum heat exchange networks. Optimisation of the use of utilities. Revamping of existing networks. These functions are briefly described below.

Energy and capital targeting and optimisation

The energy targets for the optimum use of energy are determined ahead of designing a unit. The methodology is based on the use of heat availability curves (the Composite Curves Figure 2), and the optimisation of capital cost (exchanger area) versus energy cost (fuel), to calculate energy targets the optimum achievable heat recovery, and hence the optimum energy consumption of a process. Composite curves represent heat availability and heat demand profiles. When superimposed, they show the recoverable energy (where curves overlap), and the external heating and cooling requirements (the uncovered parts of the curves). Moving the curves apart illustrates the effect of increasing the temperature approach between the composites: this reduces the required exchanger area, but also reduces heat recovery between hot and cold composite, thus increasing the consumption of both heating and cooling energy (case B in Figure 2).

Pinch Technology A Brief Description

The Pinch principles have been described extensively in chemical engineering literature.1,2,3 Essentially, Pinch Technology is a technique that is used to analyse heat availability in process hot streams and to match it against the heat demand of suitable cold streams, in an optimum fashion. This optimises the preheating of the cold streams by using hot streams waste heat, and saves fuel in furnaces and other heaters. The technique owes its name to the discovery and the conceptual importance of the thermodynamic pinch point the point of the closest temperature approach between the combined hot and cold heat availability curves. This thermodynamic bottleneck limits the recoverability of the hot streams energy. Pinch Technology has four principal functions:

Heat Exchanger Network Design

Pinch Technology further provides the design methodology which ensures that the pinch targets are met in the actual design. An intro-

2 September 2013

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

duction and the explanation of the design methodology can be found in.2 Today, this is to a large extent a computer-led process.

Optimisation of the use of utilities (utility placement)

The utility-placement function is based on the use of Grand Composite Curves (GCC), whereby the cost of the targeted energy is minimised by utilising a cheaper utility for example by using low pressure steam instead of high pressure steam or fuel, where possible. While Composite Curves show the total demand of the heating and cooling utilities, the GCC shows the distribution of this demand in various temperature intervals of the heat transfer region, and are used to determine how much of the lower temperature utility can be optimally used. The Grand Composite curve in Figure 3 shows how the heating target can be met by using HP (high pressure) steam (left), but also illustrates the option of partly using LP (low pressure) steam and reduce the use of HP steam (right).

Figure 3 The Use of Grand Composite Curve

Its complexity is due to numerous constraints that the existing design poses. Today, the revamp algorithm is based on the Path Pinch concept.1,2 The methodology guides the process of adding new area strategically and economically, with minimum network modifications.

Using Pinch Technology in Operations

The above several functions of Pinch Technology can be applied to a number of situations that may be of interest to an operating engineer. These situations are briefly described below.

Heat Exchanger Network Revamp

The network revamp algorithm is a complex and an ever developing feature of Pinch Technology.

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

September 2013 3

Figure 5 A Stream Split

Understanding Heat Exchanger Networks

Operators do observe the peculiar behaviour of heat exchange networks, and they often understand them fully. In complex configurations however, such as preheat trains of refinery distillation units or catalytic crackers, not all eccentricities are readily explained, and improved understanding of the systems misbehaviour may lead to operational improvements. For example, operators observe that cleaning different exchangers produces different effects -

Figure 6 Effect of Stream Split Ratio

some seem to be more important than others. Similarly, adding surface area to one shell proves to be more cost effective than to another. However, neither of these two observations leads to a straightforward and intuitive conclusion that the improvement action should be centred on the exchangers at the hot end of the network. Consider the example preheat train shown in Figure 4. The effect of adding heat exchanger area on furnace coil inlet temperature (CIT) is examined. Adding area to exchanger E-7 is more cost effective than adding it to other exchangers. Especially ineffective is addition to E-10, although this exchanger is located at the hot end of the preheat train. A careful reader will observe that E-10 operates at a tight temperature approach already. Stream splits represent another example. The splits are incorporated in the network design with a purpose, which may not just be the pressure drop reduction. Consequently, it is important how the stream splits are balanced. Consider the vacuum distillation unit preheat train shown in Figure 5. The optimum stream split is not at 50/50. By reducing the flow through exchanger E-3 to 42% of the total flow, the preheat temperature increases by 1.3 C, saving $72,000/year in that

4 September 2013

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

particular case (at the fuel cost of 9.5 $/GJ) see Figure 6. Understanding the Pinch Technology topics of cross-pinch heat transfer and area utilisation enables the operator to gain command over the related operational issues: Cross Pinch Pinch design rules specify that heat transfer between hot and cold streams should be confined to one side of the pinch diagram. Hot stream above the pinch should preheat cold streams above the pinch, and a similar rule applies to those below the pinch. If by a design error, however, an above-pinch hot stream is used to preheat a below-pinch cold stream (e.g. a hot residue stream generating LP steam), the net energy consumption of the process will increase. Eliminating cross-pinch heat transfer is an essential part of any network improvement and revamp effort. Area utilisation Tmin at the pinch point is a key network design parameter, which, when chosen well, ensures that an optimum between capital and energy cost is struck. In a new design, there is no reason for any exchanger to have a lower T at either its hot or cold end, than the pinch Tmin. However, suboptimal designs show both high and low Ts, meaning that either the exchanger area, or the temperature driving force are not economically utilised. Adding area to a sub-optimally placed exchanger (or cleaning it) may not be cost effective. The optimum use of surface area is achieved in designs that approach vertical heat transfer between the appropriate parts of the cold and hot composites in the temperature intervals of the Composite Curves. Seven such intervals are shown in Figure 7. The suboptimal design, where this close-to-vertical match is not achieved, will feature Ts being too high or too low, is sometimes referred to as crisscrossing - illustrated for intervals 4 and 5 in the inset of Figure 7.

Figure 7 Illustration of Vertical Heat Transfer and Crisscrossing

Daily Optimisation
Some operational issues addressable by Pinch analysis have already been described above, for example the optimisation of stream splits. But there are others. Of particular interest in distillation units is the optimum use of pumparound heat removal. Distillation columns are heat-balanced by removing heat at the top (condensing the overheads against cooling water or air, and sending

cold reflux down the column), or by removing heat in the columns side coolers called pumparounds (P/A). The lower the pumparounds position down the column, the higher is its temperature. P/As high temperature heat can be used to preheat the feed to the furnace. From the energy efficiency point of view, it is desirable to maximise pumparound heat recovery into the feed, because this directly saves furnace fuel. The principles of Pinch Technology teach us that the higher temperature heat is more useful in the preheat train, and more versatile than the low temperature heat. Because of this the recovery of bottoms pumparound (BPA) heat is more effective in terms of energy efficiency than the recovery of top pumparounds (TPA) heat. However, cooling the column in the side coolers reduces column reflux and adversely affects fractionation, the product quality and the yields. Clearly, this is an energy-versus-yield optimisation issue, and is usually addressed by a combined energy and yield optimisation of the column. P/A heat recovery improvements may include non-investment measurements such as increasing pumparound flow rate, or investment projects for example adding heat exchange area to the pumparound circuit, shifting heat removal from one pumparound to another, or

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

September 2013 5

Figure 8 Composites Positioned to Match the Observed preheat T

replacing column trays with more efficient ones, enabling higher P/A heat removal rates without adversely affecting fractionation.

Fouling Management: Cleaning Cycle Optimisation

Exchanger fouling may cause large energy losses in complex preheat trains. Much improvement and cost saving can be achieved by understanding the fouling mechanism and how it affects heat transfer - not only in individual exchangers, but of the whole network. Just as adding area to one exchanger can be more effective than to another, so can be exchanger cleaning. Because the two processes are governed by the same principles, it is important to implement some kind of fouling monitoring and carry out exchanger cleaning before embarking on pinch analysis or a revamp study.

teristics, or power generation efficiency). Consider Figure 8. The composite curves for an existing process unit are drawn and positioned relative to each other so that the actual (observed) feed preheat temperature is matched. The resulting T at the pinch indicates the Tmin with which a well designed preheat train would match the performance of the existing train. Now consider again Figure 2 (b) showing a distillation unit Composite Curves. Suppose that the actual preheat temperature is 265 C. The curves in Fig. 2 are positioned so that the diagram predicts this observed preheat temperature. The resulting Tmin is 50 C, meaning that the performance of the actual preheat train is equivalent to the performance of a pinch-designed train with a Tmin of 50 C at the pinch. Let us now assume that we found that the optimum design Tmin would in this case be 30 C. If the train were designed with this Tmin in mind, the preheat temperature would be 280 C Figure 2 (a). With the help of this knowledge, the new, reduced, furnace duty, and therefore the energy consumption gap associated with the suboptimal design of the preheat train can then be calculated. It is normally not feasible (technically or economically) to revamp an existing train to match the performance of the optimum grassroots train, but nevertheless, a substantial part of the gap can normally be closed by economically feasible projects. The next section describes how to realistically estimate the potential gap closure.

Finding Scope for Improvement: Revamp Targeting

The inefficiencies that are typically found in existing preheat trains are: High design Tmin at the pinch mainly a result of insufficient exchanger area installed in the first place. Cross-pinch heat transfer resulting from poor exchanger positioning. Poor exchanger area utilisation resulting from poor exchanger positioning, criss-crossing, and perhaps too much area employed in a wrong place. The benchmarking procedure described above finds the efficiency gap between the actual and the optimally design preheat train. The use of revamp targeting methodology establishes how

Using Pinch Targeting for Energy Benchmarking and Gap Analysis of the Existing Units
Benchmarking the energy performance of an existing unit is a typical Pinch task for the site energy manager. The exercise is largely based on Pinch analysis and the use of Composite Curves, particularly when benchmarking crude oil distillation units, hydrocrackers, hydrotreaters, and FCC units, where the efficiency gaps associated with suboptimal heat integration tend to be dominant when compared with other energy gaps (such as furnace efficiency, process charac-

6 September 2013

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

much of this gap can be closed via economical projects, and forms the basis for capital expenditure plan for cost-effective retrofit. The retrofit projects fall broadly into three main categories: Projects aimed at increasing heat recovery from hot streams by recovering heat currently wasted to air/water coolers. Projects aimed at maximising the use of low cost utility for example replacing high pressure steam with low pressure steam, or replacing part of furnace duty with steam heating, where possible. Projects that address other energy-related process issues such as unit debottleneckng, capacity or processing severity increase, pressure drop reduction, etc. The development of the methodology for revamp targeting has a long history, and the research efforts continue. This is because finding the optimum solution, technically and economically, in a multiple-constraint problem such as the revamp of an existing preheat train is a very complex task. The main issues are: What is the correct Tmin for revamps? How to best use the existing exchanger area? How to minimise area addition? How to remove the constraints imposed by the existing heat exchanger network configuration? In a grassroots design the capital/energy trade-off is found by optimising the Tmin at the pinch. The grassroots curve (Figure 9) shows the area versus energy function, along which lies the grassroots optimum its position is determined by optimising Tmin in the area versus energy trade-off. An existing design, shown by the red dot in Figure 9, will lie above the grassroots curve, because it will not perform better than a grassroots pinch design. The grassroots optimum case would have lower surface area than the existing design. However, in a revamp situation, there is usually no benefit from not using the existing area, and the objective is therefore to make the best use of what is already installed. Ideally, the designer would want to proceed horizontally, maintaining the same area, but using it better, in order to reduce energy consumption. This would be possible if the existing network were elastic, i.e. if the network structure could be easily changed and the surface area could be easily re-distributed among exchangers. This is rarely

Figure 9 Grassroots Design Area Utilisation Curve

possible. A realistic revamp project will follow a curve that represents increased area requirements and reduced energy requirement, as shown in Figure 9. A curve with better economics is closer to the grassroots curve. The designers objective in setting a retrofit target is to develop a targeting curve that provides best economics after accounting for any practical issues and constraints. This can be accomplished by using the area efficiency concept.2, 3 Area efficiency measures the effectiveness of the surface area employed in a network, taking the grassroots case as the basis. Area efficiency is defined as the ratio of the grassroots area target (at the existing energy consumption) and the existing network area. To develop a retrofit targeting curve, an assumption is made that a good retrofit will at least maintain the existing surface area efficiency, i.e. = constant. Based on the =constant assumption, a retrofit targeting curve is developed, which maintains the same area efficiency as the existing design. Today, this is largely a software-led process.

Identifying Effective Improvement Projects

In simple heat exchanger systems, involving one or two exchangers, the improvement options are intuitive, and may be found by inspection. They may involve adding area to a single exchanger, using some form of heat transfer enhancements (e.g. twisted tubes), or moving exchanger shells around and re-piping. However, in complex networks a systematic approach is needed to maximise the improve-

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

September 2013 7

Figure 10 Exchanger showing Cross-Pinch Heat Transfer

the hot end approach temperature is significantly greater than the cold end T. Depending on the location of the exchanger in the system, this can result in a large proportion of the exchanger duty being cross-pinch. The way to correct the cross-pinch transfer is shown in Figure 11. The original exchanger now only carries out the duty from E to B on the hot side, and C to J on the cold side (exchanger 1). The remaining cold side duty (J to D) is now carried out by a new, lower temperature hot stream (H to I) in exchanger 3, while the remaining hot side duty (A to E) is used to heat a higher temperature cold stream (F to G) in exchanger 2. The new stream F to G could be steam generation or stream H to I could be steam use. Clearly, correcting exchangers which show this kind of cross-pinch involves investment.

Systematic Revamp Approach

A full study of a network revamp involves software application. Modern approaches to network improvement seek to squeeze the best possible performance out of the existing units and minimise the need for new exchangers. Typical retrofits may involve surface area enhancing equipment, such as tube inserts and twisted tube exchangers, and often one new exchanger or exchanger shell, but will avoid extensive changes to the network. These techniques include the use of loops and paths within a network. Paths are the heat flow trails within the network that connect the cold and the hot utilities. Because of this any improvement in the heat recovery along a path can reduce the consumption of both utilities. A loop is a closed energy path within the network. In a retrofit design, paths form the basis of Path Pinch, which addresses the additional constraints imposed by a specific configuration of the existing facility. The methodology is aimed specifically at finding the best energy savings for the least investment cost. Existing networks can usually be improved by

Figure 11 Correction of Cross Pinch Heat Transfer

ment potential. This implies application of computer based revamp techniques involving the concepts of Path Pinch, utilising the networks loops and paths and introducing enabling projects when the network is found constrained. Very often, the design inefficiencies result from cross-pinch heat exchange. There is a simplified procedure that a plant engineer may employ to find potential improvements in simpler networks.

DIY Cross-Pinch Elimination Procedure

Many cross-pinch inefficiencies arise from exchanger matches such as that shown in Figure 10. This exchanger recovers heat from the hot stream (being cooled from A to B) into the cold stream (being heated from C to D). While the exchanger has a tight temperature approach at its cold end, the driving forces increase as the stream temperatures increase. Because of this

8 September 2013

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

Figure 12 Example CDU preheat train

using paths to shift the loads between exchangers, but eventually a design will be reached from which no further improvement is possible, although it is still far from the Pinch target. The initial network configuration imposes a constraint that hinders further improvement. Path Pinch analysis identifies the heat exchanger forming the bottleneck to increasing heat recovery and provides a systematic approach for removing this bottleneck. It is a step-by-step method for implementing energy savings in a series of consecutive projects. Once the offending exchanger is identified, the following five options can be considered for removing the constraint: Re-sequencing reversing the order of exchangers to improve heat recovery. Re-piping changing the matched streams to improve heat recovery. Adding a new shell to an exchanger to change the load on the offending exchanger Increasing the performance of an exchanger could include installing a twisted tube bundle, tube inserts and/or helical baffles. Adding a new exchanger to change the load on the offending exchanger. Stream splitting to reduce the load on a stream in the offending exchanger. This is a software-led process, so that all possible paths in the network are explored and new

ones identified by, for example, placing one new exchanger. Each path is then tested to see how much energy can be economically squeezed from that path, and the various paths are ranked in terms of their potential energy saving. The Path Pinch revamp method is sequential, but it examines various configurations in a systematic way, at the same time allowing the designer to interact with the software-led design procedure.

Intuitive Versus Path Pinch Revamp: A Case Study

There is no doubt that a skilled process engineer can identify certain network improvement projects by inspection, using intuition, experience, simulation, perhaps starting with the DIY approach presented above. By referring to the calculated Pinch target, the engineer can estimate the performance gap closure, resulting from those projects. The Case Study presented here takes a real industrial example and addresses how much energy saving can be identified by intuitive projects, and how much would be missed out in terms of potential energy savings by relying solely on inspection/intuition, and not applying a systematic revamp approach. Consider the preheat train of an atmospheric crude oil distillation unit (CDU) shown in Figure 12.

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

September 2013 9

Figure 13 Intuitive Revamp

A Pinch targeting exercise would reveal that the actual preheat train performs as if designed for Tmin of 85C, while the economic optimum would be 37C. The actual feed preheat temperature is 255C, while it could be 290C in a preheat train designed in accordance with pinch principles. The efficiency gap between the actual and the pinch designed cases is 22.7 MW, worth $7.9 million/year at the assumed fuel cost of $40/MWh. Can this gap be closed, and if so, how tight? Some of the built-in inefficiencies of the example exchanger network are obvious: The residue stream is sent hot to water cooler C1. This stream could be used to preheat feed The overheads heat is lost to air-cooled condenser C3. This may be recoverable. There is a suspect cross-pinch exchange E2, where hot heavy gasoil stream is used against very cold feed.

undoubtedly a good project. A skilled engineer will however immediately notice that if area is added to E6, exchanger E7 will lose temperature driving force, and will have to be enlarged too, in order to maintain constant bottom pumparound duty (BPA). After some consideration, and area balancing between E6 and E7, the engineer will find that the size of E6 needs to be increased by 1,700 m2, and that of E7 by 930 m2 (area of E6 is increased until E7 becomes pinched). The two intuitive projects, combined, would increase feed preheat to 272C, and save 11.6 MW of furnace fuel. The investment cost is estimated at $5.1 million, offering a simple payback of 1.3 years. The resulting preheat train is shown in Figure 13. This is about how far intuition can take us. One may observe that as E6 becomes pinched, it seems logical to add area to E8 as well. This may de-pinch E6, and allow adding more area economically to E6 (shifting area between E6 and E8). This optimisation however is not entirely intuitive. Using the column overheads heat may be considered another obvious opportunity, but this is a low-grade, below-pinch heat, which in theory does not improve heat recovery. There is no obvious place for it. The 11.6 MW of improvement is pretty good, but it will be shown that in this particular case 17.3 MW savings are possible. So, there are, obviously, some non-obvious projects, and this is a typical situation in which Path Pinch proves powerful.

Path Pinch Projects

KBCs SuperTargetTM was used to identify Path Pinch projects. Path Pinch achieves energy savings by adding area strategically and making limited structural changes to the network. Path Pinch algorithm assesses the network to find heat-recovery paths. These connect hot and cold utilities via exchangers, so that any additional heat recovery along a path reduces the use of both utilities. SuperTarget finds and analyses all paths in turn, to identify the most economical ones to exploit, and to maximise heat recovery with minimum investment. One such path is shown in a grid diagram1 in Figure 14. Increasing heat recovery along a path can be continued until the path becomes pinched, and no further improvement can be made. This is when enabling changes are

Intuitive Projects
It seems logical to add area to exchanger E6 and recover more of the reside heat. Aiming for Tmin of 35C in this enlarged exchanger, 1967 m2 of new area can be installed, saving 7.5 MW of furnace fuel, worth $2.6 million/year. The investment cost is estimated at $3.9 million, offering a simple payback of 1.5 years. This is

10 September 2013

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

proposed to remove bottlenecks and allow the algorithm to exploit new paths to achieve further energy reductions.

Path Pinch 1

The first Path Pinch project identified exploits the path shown in Figure 14. The project is similar to the intuitive project shown in Figure 13 above, and consists of adding area to E6 (+1,862 m2), E7 (+785 m2) and E8 (+195 m2), until E7 becomes pinched. The fuel savings Figure 14 Illustration of a Path amount to 12.4 MW. The required investment is $5.5 million, offering a of the enabling project will save additional 2.7 simple payback of 1.3 years slightly higher MW of furnace fuel, reaching total savings of energy savings (by 0.8 MW), with a similar 15.1 MW, with 1,100 m2 of new area. return on investment as the intuitive project. After the project is considered for technical Path Pinch 2 viability, available space, pressure drop, safety The optimised enabling project allows a new etc., and accepted by the engineer, the method- iteration, which now finds it economical to add ology can be re-applied to identify the next best more area to debottleneck the downstream project. In the example case, however, the algo- exchangers, particularly E3, E5 and E7. With the rithm finds that after Path Pinch 1 project is total new area of 1,522 m2 over Path Pinch 1, the implemented, a limit is reached, and no further savings increase to 16.1 MW. improvement can be made by simply adding area to existing exchangers, although the ineffi- Path Pinch 3 ciencies remain, such as cross-pinching, and Finally, in another iteration, the Path Pinch wasting of the Overheads heat and a part of the algorithm finds its last economically viable project, which is the addition of a new residue Residue heat. exchanger (430 m2) downstream of E6. With this, the cumulative savings reach 17.3 MW. Enabling Project Of the total identified efficiency gap of 22.7 The bottleneck can be removed by installing a heat exchanger below the pinch, to recover the MW, the combined Path Pinch projects therefore Overheads heat upstream of exchanger E3. It close about 80%. Although there seems to be will need to have an area of 200 m2 and a duty still room for improvement left, further improveof 4.3 MW, but on its own it only saves 1 MW in ments beyond Path Pinch 3 are small and furnace duty. It is a so-called enabling project. uneconomical. It is appropriate to comment here that the The engineer will notice that in order to maintain a constant top pumparound (TPA) duty in performance gap can almost never be completely E3, this exchanger will require additional area closed - the constraints imposed by the existing too. Therefore, some projects will have to imme- configuration normally make it impossible to diate follow the enabling project, but Path Pinch reach Pinch targets in revamp situation. This is will attempt to extract the maximum benefit the usual price to be paid for a suboptimal initial from the enabling project. In our particular case design. The final revamp is shown in Figure 15. The this optimisation will include adding area to E3, and slightly increasing the areas of E6, E7 and summary of all projects is presented in table E8 relative to the above Path Pinch 1 project. overleaf. In summary, the actual saving potential of the Compared to Path Pinch 1, the optimised version

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

September 2013 11

Figure 15 Final Revamp Summary of all projects

1 2 3 4 Project Intuitive 2 Path Pinch 1 (Alternative to Intuitive 2) Enabling and Path Pinch 2 (Incremental) Path Pinch 3 Total (items 2,3, and 4) Savings, MW 11.6 12.4 3.7 1.2 17.3 Investment, million $ 5.13 5.50 3.51 1.17 10.2 Payback, years 1.3 1.3 2.7 2.8 1.7

example network is 17.3 MW. The saving projects identifiable by intuition can reach 11.6 MW, and further savings are only enabled by systematic approach and Path Pinch. They amount to 5.7 MW.

Conclusion
The authors ambition was to provide evidence that Pinch Technology should continue to be regarded as indispensible tool in optimising process units with respect to energy efficiency, at both engineers and operators levels. It is useful that the operators understand the Pinch principles and how they can be used to improve the performance of existing process units, and not just pertain to new designs and large revamp work. When applied to existing heat exchanger networks, the knowledge of Pinch Technology can assist an operator in finding operational improvements, understanding and calculating the effects of exchanger fouling, benchmarking the energy performance of their processes, and perhaps identifying improvements from simple modifications.

An experienced engineer can venture into designing preheat train revamps, by inspection, using intuition and simulation. There is no doubt that some, effective energy improvement projects can be identified by such procedure. They close 65% of the efficiency gap in the presented example case, but the remaining 35% of the gap can only be identified by using the systematic Path Pinch method. A definite advantage of a systematic approach is that it leaves no doubt, and no room for speculation if the selected projects are the best available. The uncertainty and non-systematicity of the intuitive approach is often quoted as one of the reasons for projects not finding their way into corporate financial plans. The final 35% of gap closure that results from the systematic approach may not look overwhelmingly important, but it may be indispensible when the last 35% of efficiency improvement can be the differentiator in todays world of competitive refining, where refineries and petrochemicals try to squeeze out every

12 September 2013

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

percentage of their resource efficiency, be it energy, environmental or other.

References 1 For a brief description of Pinch Technology see: Managing CO2 Emissions in the Chemical Industry (edited by y Hans-Joachim Leimkhler) - Chapter 6: Milosevic Z, Eastwood A, Heat Integration and Pinch Analysis, Wiley-VCH, 2010. 2 For a comprehensive description of Pinch Technology see: I C Kemp, Pinch Analysis and Process Integration A User Guide on Process Integration for the Efcient Use of Energy, ButterworthHeinemann, 2007. 3 For an all-encompassing account of Pinch Technology for expert users see: U V Shennoy, Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis, Gulf Publishing Co., 1995. 4 The actual remark was made by a speaker at the 2010 ENI Energy Conference in Rome. The authors witnessed similar statements having been made on several other occasions.

energy optimisation, Pinch Technology, and sustainability and efcient use of resources. Allan Rudman is Vice President of Energy Services with KBC the integrated business resulting from the acquisition of Linnhoff March in 2002. During his 20-year career with KBC, he has advised rening and petrochemical clients in a number of European, Russian, Asian, South American and US countries on improving energy efciency. Utilising his engineering background, Allan has played a leading role in the development of energy services technology, including training, development and methodology guidelines. Allan holds a First Class Honours degree in Chemical Engineering from Bradford University in the UK & is a Fellow of the Institute of Chemical Engineers. Richard Brown Richard Brown is a consultant with KBC Process Technology Ltd, working in the Energy Optimisation group. He is managing energy and heat integration studies in rening and petrochemical industries. Brown holds BS degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Bradford.

LINKS
Dr Zoran Milosevic is a principal consultant with KBC Process Technology and an internationally renewed authority on energy optimization and prot improvement of oil reneries and petrochemical plants. He has over 40 published papers and articles on energy efciency, renery/petrochemicals protability improvement, and energy economics. He teaches at various institutions and has given courses in energy economics, renery

More articles from: KBC Advanced Technologies More articles from the following categories: Energy Efciency/Energy Management Process Modelling & Simulation Revamps, Shutdowns and Turnarounds

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

September 2013 13