Anda di halaman 1dari 12

ENERGY SYSTEMS

CHEN 64341

COURSEWORK

28 NOVEMBER 2017

ANDREW STEFANUS
10149409

School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science


Advanced Process Integration and Design
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

1. Introduction
Heat Exchanger Network (HEN) plays a primary role in chemical process in terms of
exchanging heat to other processes. There are two kinds of stream that applied in HEN, such
as hot and cold streams. Hot streams are required to be cooled (release heat) by the cold
utility or other cold streams. On the other hand, cold streams receive heat from the hot utility
or other hot streams to achieve its target temperature. There are several types of hot and
cold utilities, such as hot utility: hot oil, Very High Pressure (VHP) steam, High Pressure (HP)
steam, Medium Pressure (MP) steam, and Low Pressure (LP) steam; cold utility: cooling
water, refrigerant, and ambient air (Turton, et al, 2008). In recent years, there are several
energy issues such as increasing energy used, environmental concern, and decreasing of
fossil fuel resources (Sreepathi and Rangaiah, 2014). To tackle the problem, optimization of
HEN could be a promising solution due to resulting a minimum energy consumption and
Maximum Energy Recovery (MER).
MER design can be achieved by using manual (Hand Calculation) and automated (SPRINT
software) methods. Both of those methods consider several variables, such as total heat
capacity (CP), stream heat duty (∆H), minimum temperature approach (∆Tmin), number of hot
and cold streams, utility expense, and heat exchanger matches. The purpose of this study is
to obtain MER HEN design of given problem. There are several specific objectives of this
study, such as:
1) Set networks target to assess energy performances by utilizing composite curve and
problem table.
2) Produce a feasible and validated MER of HEN for given data by using pinch analysis
(CP technique).
3) Utilize automated design methods such as Superstructure and Simulated Annealing
(SA) approach that include the objective of fixed utility expense and total expense
design.
2. Methodology
Table 1 presents given stream data information of the problem, such as supply temperature
(TS), target temperature (TT), total heat capacity (CP), and heat transfer coefficient (HTC).
There are six hot streams and three cold streams that were included in this study. ∆Tmin of
this study was specified by 10oC. Table 2 exhibits given utility data information. Hot oil and
MP steam were used as hot utility whereas cooling water was chosen as cold utility.
Table 1 - Given Stream Data Information
Stream Name TS (oC) TT (oC) CP (kW/oC) HTC (kW/(m2.K))
Hot1 430 300 5.0 0.8
Hot2 285 40 1.4 0.8
Hot3 280 25 2.0 0.6
Hot4 230 70 11.0 0.6
Hot5 140 50 23 0.8
Hot6 120 35 30 0.8
Cold1 180 350 12 0.6
Cold2 110 210 12 0.8
Cold3 30 150 18 0.8

1 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Table 2 - Given Utility Data Information


Utility Ts (oC) TT (oC) Cost (£/kWh) HTC (kW / (m2 . K))
Hot Oil 350 300 0.25 2.0
MP Steam 231 230 0.1 3.0
Cooling Water 5 10 0.05 1.0

2.1. Heat Exchanger Network Targets: Composite Curve and Problem Table
Energy performance such as minimum heat requirement of hot (Q Hmin) & cold (QCmin) utility
and total heat recovery (QREC) can be quickly and conveniently obtain from composite curves
by combining hot stream and cold stream curve in the stated temperature range (Smith, 2016).
In this simulation, SPRINT was used to generate the composite curve. Although composite
curves can assess energy performance with graphical approach, it had a problem in terms of
determining pinch temperature location.
Problem table is commonly used to determine pinch temperature of HEN without constructing
composite curves. In this study, problem table was provided by SPRINT.
The following is problem table step:
1. Initiate shifted temperatures interval based on given data of TS and TT by decreasing hot
streams by a half of ∆Tmin whereas increasing cold streams by a half of ∆Tmin. This step is
conducted to render feasible heat transfer.
2. Calculate enthalpy differences for each interval (multiply the subtraction of hot CP
summation from cold CP summation by each temperature interval differences). The
enthalpy difference of each temperature interval is positive if the interval has heat deficit
(CP cold total is higher than CP hot total), and vice versa.
3. Cascade down any positive heat to the lower temperature interval. Negative values of
heat interval appear that cause the heat transfer infeasible.
4. Add additional heat as hot utility to cause the heat transfer feasible.
5. Shifted pinch temperature is located in temperature interval which has zero value of heat
balance.
The Grand Composite Curve (GCC) is directly constructed by putting obtained data from
problem table to the graph (T-H Diagram). Process and utility pinch, Excess hot and cold
streams, and pocket of additional heat recovery are denoted in GCC. This curve induces
several utilities option that can be considered. In order to determine the HEN area from
composite curve, utility streams have to be considered in the curve that contains into enthalpy
interval (Balanced Composite Curves) (Townsend and Linnhoff, 1984). Suitable utility can be
determined by examining each utility that makes extra region.

2.2. The Pinch Design Method


The following is the step of pinch design method:
1. Generate the grid diagram that provides heat transfer illustration of the given problem
2. Divide the grid diagram into three different pinch zones, such as above utility pinch, above
the pinch, and below the pinch.
3. Begin the calculation at the pinch, then moving away to another point. The calculation
was conducted independently in each zone due to energy transfer across the pinch is
prohibited. There are several inequalities constraints that have to be followed depends on
above and below the process pinch (Smith, 2016). Table 3 exhibits the constrains that
involved heat capacity of hot stream (CPH) and cold stream (CPC) and number of hot
stream (NH) and cold stream (NC).
2 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Table 3 - Heat Capacity and Number of Stream Constraints


Parameter Above Pinch Bellow Pinch
Heat Capacity CPH ≤ CPC CPH ≥ CPC
Number of Stream NH ≤ NC NH ≥ NC
4. Identify the essential matches by following inequalities constraints.

2.3. Automated Methods – Optimization of a Superstructure


Based on deterministic optimization, a superstructure is built that included redundant
attributes. The redundant attributes are eliminated by the optimization. The benefit of this
optimization technique is suitable for designing large and complex network. This method was
conducted utilizing Automated Design Initialization in SPRINT. There were two objectives
which applied to conduct the optimization, such as fixed utility cost and total cost. To decrease
the computing time due to the complexity of the network, simplified design superstructure
was selected.

2.4. Automated Methods – Optimization of Simulated Annealing


This optimization is carried out based on stochastic search optimization. SA commonly used
to solve MINLP problem. In this technique, an initial network design is required. There are
several common initializations, such as simple network, complex network, and spaghetti
network initialization. In this study, complex network initialization was selected due to provide
a better optimum value than simple network initialization. Spaghetti network initialization was
not selected because its requires a huge number of exchangers and significant flow splitting.
After initialization was selected, two network design objectives were selected (minimum utility
and minimum total cost).

3. Result and Discussion


3.1. Network Targets

Figure 1 depicts a composite curve and balance composite curve at ∆Tmin = 10oC. Process
heat recovery (QREC), minimum of hot utility heat (QHmin), and minimum of cold utility heat
(QCmin) can be extracted from the graph with the values of 4163 kW, 1237 kW, and 3720 kW,
respectively. Although it can be approximate the pinch temperature such as 140 oC for hot
streams and 130 oC for cold streams, there is no accurate and precision value of pinch
temperature in the composite curve. BCC shows the process line (red) and utility line (blue).
Utility pinch can be easily observed in BCC

3 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Figure 1 – Composite Curve (left) and Balance Composite Curve (right) of the Process at
∆Tmin = 10oC
Figure 2 illustrates problem table cascade of this study that was obtained by utilizing IChemE
Pinch Spreadsheet. In the infeasible cascade, the interval shifted temperature that contains
the most negative heat value was determined as a pinch point (in this case 135 oC). However,
this temperature value requires to be converted to actual temperature because its still in the
shifted temperature condition. Therefore, the pinch temperature of hot stream is 140 oC
whereas the pinch temperature of cold stream is 130 oC. In the feasible cascade, it can be
concluded that the entering heat to cascade problem table is QHmin (1237 kW) while the
existing heat from cascade is QCmin (3720 kW). Both of composite curve and problem table
cascade elucidate similar value of pinch temperature, QHmin and QCmin that provide a validation
of this result.
Shift
Interval T(i+1)-Ti mCpnet dH
Temperature Infeasible Cascade Feasible Cascade
°C °C kW/K kW
425 ▼ 0 ▼ 1237
1 70 5.0 350.0 surplus 350 350
355 ▼ 350 ▼ 1587
2 60 -7.0 -420.0 demand -420 -420
295 ▼ -70 ▼ 1167
3 15 -12.0 -180.0 demand -180 -180
280 ▼ -250 ▼ 987
4 5 -10.6 -53.0 demand -53 -53
275 ▼ -303 ▼ 934
5 50 -8.6 -430.0 demand -430 -430
225 ▼ -733 ▼ 504
6 10 2.4 24.0 surplus 24 24
215 ▼ -709 ▼ 528
7 30 -9.6 -288.0 demand -288 -288
185 ▼ -997 ▼ 240
8 30 2.4 72.0 surplus 72 72
155 ▼ -925 ▼ 312
9 20 -15.6 -312.0 demand -312 -312
135 PINCH ▼ -1237 ▼ 0
10 20 7.4 148.0 surplus 148 148
115 ▼ -1089 ▼ 148
11 50 49.4 2470.0 surplus 2470 2470
65 ▼ 1381 ▼ 2618
12 20 38.4 768.0 surplus 768 768
45 ▼ 2149 ▼ 3386
13 10 15.4 154.0 surplus 154 154
35 ▼ 2303 ▼ 3540
14 5 32.0 160.0 surplus 160 160
30 ▼ 2463 ▼ 3700
15 10 2.0 20.0 surplus 20 20
20 ▼ 2483 ▼ 3720

Figure 2 – Problem Table (left) and Cascade (right)


Figure 3 (left) presents GCC of this study. In this figure, three pockets of heat recovery were
obtained with the total value of approximately 500 kW (100 kW, 50 kW, and 350 kW). Pockets
illustrate areas of extra heat transfer between hot and cold streams. On the other hand, pinch
temperature was determined when the enthalpy was zero (135 oC as shifted pinch
temperature).
Figure 3 (right) presents BGCC of the process. In this figure, three kinds of utilities such as
hot oil, MP steam, and cooling water were used at different temperature. MP steam can only
be utilized to heat up cold stream up to 225 oC (shifted temperature). Above this temperature,
hot oil can be used to heat up cold stream to 345 oC (shifted temperature). It was also
noticeable that the utility pinch was located in 221 oC for cold stream and 231 oC for hot
stream.

4 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Figure 3 – Grand Composite Curve (left) and Balanced Grand Composite Curve (right) of
the Process at ∆Tmin = 10oC
3.2. Pinch Design Method
Figure 4 presents grid diagram of the process. There are three regions of grid diagram based
on temperature, such as:
1. Region 1: Above process and utility pinch (>231 oC for hot stream; >221 oC for cold
stream)
2. Region 2: Above process pinch and below utility pinch (140 oC – 231 oC for hot stream;
130 oC – 221 oC for cold stream)
3. Region 3: Below process pinch and utility pinch (<140 oC for hot stream; <130 oC for cold
stream)

Figure 4 – Grid Diagram of the Process


Table 4 shows CP table that used in this simulation. Above the pinch, number of hot streams
should be less than or equal to cold stream. Therefore, stream of cold1 (in region 1) was split
to three streams with the CP value of 1.4, 2., and 8.6. The CP fraction of the split must
consider CPH ≤ CPC. In region 2, stream of cold3 was split to satisfy ∆Tmin due to there were
only 2 cold streams which can be utilized to cooling three hot streams to process pinch
temperature. In region 3, stream splitting occurred at cold2 because there were only two cold
streams available to cooling 5 hot streams. If the heat exchange occurs without splitting, the
∆Tmin rule will not be satisfied.

5 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Table 4 – CP Table
CP Table without Stream Splitting
Zone Region 1 Region 2 Region 3
Constraint CPH ≤ CPC CPH ≤ CPC CPH ≥ CPC
Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold
Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP
Stream Hot1 5 Cold1 12 Hot2 1.4 Cold1 12 Hot5 23 Cold2 12
Hot2 1.4 Hot3 2 Cold2 12 Hot6 30 Cold3 18
Hot3 2 Hot4 11 Cold3 18
CP Table with Stream Splitting
Constraint CPH ≤ CPC CPH ≤ CPC CPH ≥ CPC
Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold
Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP Stream CP
Hot1 5 Cold1a 8.6 Hot2 11 Cold1 12 Hot5 23 Cold2a 10
Stream
Hot2 1.4 Cold1b 1.4 Hot3 2 Cold2 12 Hot6 30 Cold2b 2
Hot3 2 Cold1c 2 Hot4 1.4 Cold3a 8.9 Cold3 18
Cold3b 9.1

Figure 5 shows heat exchanger network of CP method and Figure 6 exhibits overall network
report for pinch design method. It is can be concluded that this method provides a feasible
HEN. The duty of utility (QH and QC) of this result elucidate a similar value to network targets
(composite curve and problem table). Furthermore, all of temperature approach of this HEN
satisfy ∆Tmin (should be higher than or equal to 10).

Figure 5 MER HEN of CP Method

Table 5Table 5 exhibits overall network report for pinch design method. It is can be concluded
that this method provides a feasible HEN. The duty of utility (Q H and QC) of this result
elucidate a similar value to network targets (composite curve and problem table).
Furthermore, all of temperature approach of this HEN satisfy ∆Tmin (should be higher than or
equal to 10).

6 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Table 5 Overall Network Report for manual method


HEN SPRINT Result
Parameter

Duty
(kW)
&
Area of Heat
Transfer
(m2)

Minimum
Temperature
Approach
for Each
Match
(oC)

Log-mean
Temperature
Difference
(oC)

7 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Balance of
Stream

3.3. Automated Design Methods and Comparison


Figure 6 exhibits MER HEN superstructure with fixed utility cost and total cost as the objective
whilst Figure 7 presents MER HEN of Simulated Annealing (SA) with minimum utility cost
and total cost as the objective.

Figure 6 MER HEN of Superstructure (Left: fixed utility cost; Right: total cost objective)

Figure 7 MER HEN of Simulated Annealing (Left: minimum utility cost; Right: minimum total
cost)
SA needs to be repeated simulate to gain the robust solution. To point an example, Table 6
shows set run of optimization of SA with minimum total cost as the objective. After 4 times
run (approximately 2 hours simulation), robust result was obtained with the only 2% deviation.
Table 6 SA Optimization (minimum total cost) Run
Simulation Number of Initial Best Deviation
Run
Time Step Value ($) Result ($) (%)
1 42' 24" 2328 4,933,990 4,524,964 8.29
2 38' 11" 1665 4,524,964 4,245,813 6.17
3 24' 48" 1255 4,245,813 4,065,941 4.24
4 16' 02" 1069 4,065,941 3,965,280 2.48

8 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

SA required more simulation time (usually more expensive) compared than superstructure
optimization. Hence, it is necessary to evaluate and analyze the tradeoff between the result
and simulation cost.

Table 7 Network Cost Comparison of Four Methods


Technique Network Cost Summary

Pinch Design
(CP Method)

Automated
Design:
Superstructure
(Fixed Utility
Cost)

Automated
Design:
Superstructure
(Total Cost)

Automated
Design:
Simulated
Annealing
(Minimum Utility
Cost)

9 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Automated
Design:
Simulated
Annealing
(Minimum Total
Cost)

Simulated annealing with minimum total cost as the objective yield the most optimum total
network cost compared than other methods with the annual cost of $3,965,528. This happen
because there were only 17 exchangers used in this method (relatively less than other
methods, 20 for CP method and 30 for superstructure). In addition, a number of exchangers
give a significant impact for network cost due to the equation that inputted to SPRINT in terms
of estimating exchanger capital cost (Exchanger capital cost equal to 7000 times area to the
power of 0,68). For instance, if there are 1000 m2 of heat transfer area required in chemical
process, one big heat exchanger is cheaper ($767,534) compared to 5 small heat exchangers
that have each area in 200 m2 ($1,284,601).
It was also noticeable that automated design of superstructure (both of design objectives)
and SA (minimum utility cost) can gain an optimum in energy recovery and minimum utility
cost. However, the networks become more complicated because there are a lot of additional
splitting and mixing in modification that leads to another problem in operation.

4. Conclusion
There are several points which obtained from this study:
1) Network targeting in the initial evaluation of HEN evaluation is important due to its
directly provide minimum required utility heat and pinch temperature
2) CP method produces a MER HEN with a $4,016,840 network cost for a year
3) Superstructure optimization (fixed utility and total cost) obtain a slightly similar in
network cost per year of approximately $4,033,000
4) SA (minimum total cost) yield the most optimum network cost with $3,965,528 annually
in this study case
5) A large heat exchanger is cheaper in capital cost than using several exchangers in the
same total heat transfer area
6) Pinch design (manual) method is suitable to be used in a small HEN problem whereas
automated technique is appropriate to solve a large HEN problem

5. References
Smith, R., 2016. Chemical Process Design and Integration. John Wiley & Sons.
Sreepathi, B.K. and Rangaiah, G.P., 2014. Improved heat exchanger network retrofitting
using exchanger reassignment strategies and multi-objective optimization. Energy, 67,
pp.584-594.
Turton, R., Bailie, R. C., Whiting, W. B., and Shaiwitz, J. A., 2008. Analysis, Synthesis, and
Design of Chemical Processes 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall, Section 8.3.2.
10 of 10
CHEN64341 – Energy Systems

Towsend, D. W. and Limhoff, B. 1984. Surface Area Targets for Heat Exchanger Networks,
IChemE Annual Research Meeting, Bath, UK.

11 of 10