Sign In

Folder
Preferences
Languages
Help
Exit

New Search
Publications
Subject Terms
Cited References
More

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Library and Archives

Searching: Academic Search Complete Choose Databases

pinch Technology

Add Row Remove Row

Basic Search
Advanced Search
Search History

Result List
Refine Search
23 of 133

Title:
 Are you using pinch technology effectively in your daily operations? -- Part 1. By:
MILOSEVIC, Z., RUDMAN, A., BROWN, R., Hydrocarbon Processing, 00188190,
Jun2013, Vol. 92, Issue 6
Database:
Academic Search Complete

Are you using pinch technology effectively in your daily

operations? -- Part 1
Contents

1. PINCH TECHNOLOGY
2. USING PINCH TECHNOLOGY IN DAILY OPERATIONS
3. NOTES
4. LITERATURE CITED

HPI Focus

Energy Efficiency

Pinch technology is the most rigorous, systematic and best documented methodology for
process design.[ 1][3] Nearly all optimization projects for heat recovery are conducted with some
form of pinch analysis. Pinch technology is particularly useful when designing very complex
processes as used in the hydrocarbon processing industry (HPI). These projects are focused on
achieving high energy efficiency for individual processes, as well as of the whole complex.

Pinch technology provides a "final" methodology. At a time when fewer new processing
facilities are being built, some may consider "pinch technology to be obsolete."[4] Proponents
of this view hold that recently built petrochemical plants are designed close to optimum
operating conditions. While new HPI facilities are unlikely to be constructed due to the present
global energy climate, practically all major pinch work has already been "done."

Everyday improvement possibilities. While the underlying logic of such a viewpoint can be
understood, it is incorrect for two reasons. First, the optimum in design is a moving target. HPI
plants that have been optimized today may not operate in an optimal fashion in the future. Many
"pinch" revamps in existing refineries and petrochemical plants were not done because the
original design was suboptimal at the time; rather, the optimum operating conditions have
changed since the plant was originally commissioned. What was not economical to install 30
years ago may be economical now. Even the pinch and/or energy projects that were conducted
10 years ago, should be reviewed against the present changing economics. Energy costs increase
faster than construction costs, as shown in FIG. 1. Projects that were previously uneconomical
are now viable with changing energy pricing. As a design tool, pinch technology guides the
redesign/engineering process to optimum retrofits. Retrofit theory is more complex than
designing new units. Second, pinch technology helps the operating engineers to understand and
manage a range of issues that are related to the day-to-day operation of their process units.
PINCH TECHNOLOGY

Pinch principles have been described extensively in the literature.[ 1-3] Essentially, these
techniques are used to analyze heat availability in hot streams and to match it against the heat
demand of suitable cold streams, in an optimum fashion. The process optimizes the preheating of
the cold streams by using waste heat from hot streams to save 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 stream's energy. Pinch technology has four principal functions:

* Targeting and optimizing energy vs. capital

* Designing optimum heat-exchange networks (HENs)

* Optimizing use of utilities

* Revamping existing networks.

Energy, capital targets and optimization. The energy targets for optimum energy use are
determined early in the design of a process unit. The methodology is based on using heat
availability curves (the composite curves, as shown in FIG. 2), and optimizing capital costs
(exchanger area) vs. energy cost (fuel), to calculate energy "targets." It is a balance between the
optimum achievable heat recovery and the energy consumption of a process. Composite curves
represent heat availability and heat demand profiles. When superimposed, they show the
recoverable energy (area where the 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 it also reduces the heat recovery between hot and cold composite curves,
thus increasing the consumption of both heating and cooling energy (Case B in FIG. 2).

Optimizing HEN design. Pinch technology further provides the design methodology which
ensures that the "pinch" targets are met in the actual design. The process is largely a computer-
led exercise.

Optimizing use Of utilities. The utility-placement function is based on the use of grand
composite curves (GCCs), whereby the cost of the targeted energy is minimized by utilizing a
cheaper utility -- for example, by using low-pressure (LP) steam instead of high-pressure (HP)
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. The GCC is used to determine how much of the lower-temperature
utility can be optimally used. The GCC in FIG. 3 shows how the heating target can be met by
using HP steam (left), but it also illustrates the option of partly using LP steam and thus reducing
HP steam (right) needs.
Revamping existing exchanger networks. The network revamp algorithm is a complex and an
ever-developing feature of pinch technology. Its complexity is due to numerous constraints
found in the existing design. 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 DAILY OPERATIONS

The listed functions of pinch technology can be applied to many daily operational situations.
They include:

Understanding HENS. Operators do observe the peculiar behavior of HENs and 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. An improved
understanding of a system's "misbehavior" may lead to operational improvements.

For example, operators observe that cleaning different exchangers produces different effects;
some exchangers are more important than others. Similarly, adding surface area to one shell can
be more cost-effective than adding surface area to another. However, neither of these two
observations leads to a straightforward and intuitive conclusion to improve HEN operation and
energy efficiency. Consider the preheat train, as shown in FIG. 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 the addition to E-10, although this exchanger is located at the hot end of
the preheat train. Note: E-10 operates at a tight temperature approach already.

Stream splits represent another example. The splits are incorporated in the HEN 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 preheat train for a vacuum-distillation unit, as shown
in FIG. 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 1.3C, saving $72,000/yr with a
fuel cost of $9.5/ GJ, as shown in FIG. 6.

Understanding the cross-pinch heat transfer and area utilization 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. A 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), then the net energy consumption of the process will
increase. Eliminating the cross-pinch heat transfer is an essential part of any network
improvement and revamp effort.
* Area utilization: Tmin at the pinch point is a key network design parameter. When chosen
well, it ensures that an optimum between capital and energy costs is found. 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, sub-optimal designs show both high and low Ts, meaning that either the
exchanger area or the temperature driving force is not economically utilized. Adding area to a
suboptimally 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 FIG. 7. The suboptimal design, where this close-to-vertical match is
not achieved, will feature Ts being too high or too low. It is sometimes referred to as
"crisscrossing," as illustrated for intervals 4 and 5 in the inset of FIG. 7.

Daily optimization. Other operational issues addressable by pinch analysis include distillation
units -- in particular, optimizing pumparound (PA) heat removal. Distillation columns are heat-
balanced by removing heat at the top by condensing the overheads against cooling water or air,
and sending cold reflux down the column, or by removing heat in the column's side coolers or
PAs. The lower the PA's position down the column, the higher is its temperature. The PAs high-
temperature heat can be used to preheat the feed to the furnace.

From the energy-efficiency viewpoint, it is desirable to maximize PA heat recovery into the feed.
This directly saves furnace fuel. Pinch technology stresses that the higher-temperature heat is
more useful in the preheat train, and more versatile than the low-temperature heat. Because of
this condition, recovery of the bottoms pumparound (BPA) heat is more effective in terms of
energy efficiency than the recovery of the top pumparound (TPA) heat. However, cooling the
column with side coolers reduces the column reflux and adversely affects fractionation, product
quality and yields.

This is an energy vs. yield optimization issue, and it is usually addressed by a combined energy
and yield optimization of the column. PA heat recovery improvements may include
noninvestment measurements such as increasing PA flowrate, or investment projects such as
adding more heat-exchanger area to the PA circuit, shifting heat removal from one PA to
another, or replacing the column trays with more efficient units to enable higher PA heat removal
rates without adversely affecting fractionation.

Fouling management-Cleaning cycle optimization. Exchanger fouling may cause large energy
losses in complex preheat trains. Much improvement and cost savings can be achieved by
understanding the fouling mechanism and how it affects heat transfer -- not only individual
exchangers, but also of the whole network. Just as adding area to one exchanger can be more
effective, so can be exchanger cleaning. Because the two processes are governed by the same
principles, a fouling monitoring program is important. Exchanger cleaning should be done before
embarking on a pinch analysis or a revamp study.

Energy benchmarking and gap analysis of existing units. Benchmarking the energy performance
of an existing unit is a typical "pinch" task. The exercise is largely based on pinch analysis and
the use of the composite curves, particularly when benchmarking crude-oil distillation units
(CDUs), hydrocrackers, hydrotreaters and fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units. Efficiency gaps
associated with suboptimal heat integration tend to be dominant when compared with other
energy gaps, such as furnace efficiency, process characteristics or power-generation efficiency.

FIG. 8 shows the composite curves for an existing process unit. The curves are drawn and
positioned relative to each other so that the actual (observed) feed preheat temperature is
matched. The resultingT at the pinch indicates theATmin with which a well-designed preheat
train would match the performance of the existing train. Now consider FIG. 2B; it shows a
distillation unit's composite curves. Assume that the actual preheat temperature is 265C. The
curves in FIG. 2 are positioned so that the diagram predicts this observed preheat temperature.
The resulting Tmin is 50C; the performance of the actual preheat train is equivalent to the
performance of a "pinch-designed" train with a Tmin of 50C at the pinch. Now assume that the
optimum design Tmin would, in this case, be 30C. If the train were designed with this Tmin' the
preheat temperature would be 280C, as shown in FIG. 2A. With this knowledge, the new,
reduced furnace duty -- and therefore, the energy consumption "gap" associated with the
suboptimal design of the preheat train -- can be calculated.

It is normally not feasible (technically or economically) to revamp an existing train to match the
performance of the optimum grassroots train. Nevertheless, a substantial part of the gap can be
closed by economically feasible projects.

Part 2. The authors continue to show how pinch technology provides many benefits in HPI
revamp projects.

FIG. 1. Trends in energy and project construction costs.

FIG. 2. Different positioning of the composite curves.

FIG. 3. Use of grand composite curve.

FIG. 4. Example of a preheat train.

FIG. 5. A stream split.

FIG. 6. Effect of a stream split ratio.

FIG. 7. Illustration of "vertical" heat transfer and "crisscrossing."

FIG. 8. Composites positioned to match the observed preheat T.

NOTES

1 KBC's SuperTarget was used to identify path-pinch projects.

LITERATURE CITED
1 Leimkhle, H-J., ed., Managing C02 Emissions in the Chemical Industry, Chapter 6: Milosevic
Z. and A. Eastwood, "Heat Integration and Pinch Analysis," Wiley-VCH, 2010.

2 Kemp, I.C., Pinch Analysis and Process Integration -- A User Guide on Process
Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.
3 Shennoy, U. V, Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis, Gulf Publishing Company, 1995.
4 The actual remark was made by a speaker at the 2010 ENI Energy Conference in
Rome.

~~~~~~~~

By Z. MILOSEVIC, KBC Process Technology, UK; A. RUDMAN, KBC Process Technology,

UK and R. BROWN, KBC Process Technology, UK

DR. ZORAN MILOSEVIC is a principal consultant with KBC Process Technology and an
internationally renewed authority on energy optimization and profit improvement of oil
refineries and petrochemical plants. He has published over 40 papers and articles on energy
efficiency, refinery/petrochemicals profitability improvement, and energy economics. He teaches
at various institutions and has given courses in energy economics, refinery energy optimization,
pinch technology and sustainability and efficient 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 refining and
petrochemical clients in a number of European, Russian, Asian, South American and North
American countries on improving energy efficiency. He has played a leading role in the
development of energy services technology, including training, development and methodology
guidelines. Mr. Rudman holds a first-class honors degree in chemical engineering from Bradford
University and is a fellow of the Institute of Chemical Engineers. RICHARD BROWN is a
consultant with KBC Process Technology Ltd., working in the energy optimization group. He
manages energy and heat-integration studies in refining and petrochemical industries. Mr. Brown
holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from the University of Bradford.

Copyright of Hydrocarbon Processing is the property of Gulf Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual
use.

Result List
Refine Search
23 of 133

Detailed Record
HTML Full Text

Find Similar Results using SmartText Searching.

Tools
Add to folder
Print
E-mail
Save
Cite
Export
Create Note
Permalink
Share

Top of Page

Mobile Site
iPhone and Android apps
EBSCO Support Site
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Copyright

2017 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.

Sign In
Folder
Preferences
Languages
Help
Exit

New Search
Publications
Subject Terms
Cited References
More

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Library and Archives

Searching: Academic Search Complete Choose Databases

 pinch Technology

Add Row Remove Row

Basic Search
Advanced Search
Search History

Result List
Refine Search
22 of 133

Title:
Are you using pinch technology effectively in your daily operations?-Part 2.
Authors:
MILOSEVIC, Z.1
RUDMAN, A.1
BROWN, R.1
Source:
Hydrocarbon Processing. Jul2013, Vol. 92 Issue 7, p77-81. 5p. 1 Chart.
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*Heat recovery
*Petroleum chemicals industry
*Petroleum chemicals
*Petroleum products
*Heat engineering
NAICS/Industry Codes:
324110 Petroleum Refineries
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
412110 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers
424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations
and Terminals)
486910 Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products
Abstract:
The article discusses the things to consider to use pinch technology effectively in the
daily operations of the petroleum chemical industry. The authors talk about the
 inefficiencies that are typically found in existing preheat trains, the three main categories
of retrofit projects. They also tackle the ways to identify effective improvement projects,
such as the cross-pinch elimination procedure and systematic revamp approach.
Author Affiliations:
1
KBC Process Technology, UK
Full Text Word Count:
3036
ISSN:
0018-8190
Accession Number:
89152673

Are you using pinch technology effectively in your daily

operations?-Part 2
Contents

1. IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

2. A CASE STUDY: INTUITIVE VS. 'PATH-PINCH' REVAMP
3. TABLE 1. Estimated energy savings, investment and payback through path-pinch
projects

HPI Focus

Energy Efficiency

In Part 1, the basic principle of pinch technology and applications were presented. Pinch
technology is a valuable tool in the design of greenfield HPI facilities. More importantly, such
tools provide great benefits in the revamp of existing energy networks. Such investigation tools
do have daily applications when applied. Are you using pinch technology to optimize your
facility on a daily basis?

Finding scope for improvement-Revamp targeting. The inefficiencies that are typically found in
existing preheat trains are:

* High design Tmin at the pinch -- insufficient exchanger area installed originally

* Cross-pinch heat transfer -- poor exchanger positioning

* Poor exchanger area utilization -- poor exchanger positioning, crisscrossing, and perhaps too
much area used in the wrong place.
The benchmarking procedure described earlier identifies the efficiency gap between the actual
and optimally designed preheat train. Applying revamp targeting methodology establishes how
much of this gap can be closed via economical projects, and it forms the basis for capital
expenditure of a cost-effective retrofit. Retrofit projects fall broadly into three main categories:

* Projects to increase heat recovery from hot streams by recovering heat wasted to air/water
coolers.

* Projects to maximize use of a low-cost utility. For example, replacing HP steam with LP
steam, or replacing part of the furnace duty with steam heating, where possible.

* Projects to address other energy-related process issues such as unit debottlenecking, capacity or
processing severity increase, pressure drop reduction, etc.

Developing a process for revamp targets has a long history, and the research efforts still
continue. 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 minimize area addition?

* How to remove the constraints imposed by the existing HEN configuration?

In a grassroots design, the capital/energy trade-off is found by optimizing the Tmin at the pinch.
The "grassroots curve" (FIG. 9) shows the area vs. energy function; it is the grassroots optimum -
- its position is determined by optimizing Tmin in the "area vs. energy" trade-off.

The existing design, shown by the red dot in FIG. 9, is 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. Therefore, the objective is 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, 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 possible. A realistic
revamp project will follow a curve that represents increased area requirements and reduced
energy requirements, as shown in FIG. 9. A curve with better economics is closer to the
grassroots curve.

The designer's objective in setting a retrofit target is to develop a targeting curve that provides
the best economics after accounting for all 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 used in a network, based on the grassroots case. 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, assume that a good retrofit will at
least maintain the existing surface area efficiency, i.e., a = constant. Based on the a = constant, a
retrofit targeting curve is developed; it maintains the same area efficiency as the existing design.
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 heat-transfer enhancements (e.g., twisted tubes), or moving exchanger
shells around and repiping. However, in complex networks, a systematic approach is needed to
maximize the improvement potential. This implies applying computer-based revamp techniques
that involve the path pinch concept, utilizing the network's loops and paths and introducing
"enabling" projects when the network is constrained. Very often, the design inefficiencies result
from cross-pinch heat exchange. There is a simplified procedure that a plant engineer may use to
find potential improvements in simpler networks.

Cross-pinch elimination procedure. Many cross-pinch inefficiencies arise from exchanger

matches, as shown in FIG. 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, the hot-end approach temperature is significantly greater than the cold
end AT. Depending on the location of the exchanger within 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 FIG. 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
done 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 for steam generation or stream H to I could be for steam use.
Clearly, correcting exchangers with some 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 to minimize installing 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. All efforts try to 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 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 address the additional constraints imposed by a specific configuration within the
existing facility. The methodology is aimed at finding the best energy savings for the least
investment.
Existing networks can usually be improved by using paths to shift the loads between exchangers.
However, 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 higher heat recovery,
and it provides a systematic approach to remove it. It is a step-by-step method for implementing
energy savings by a series of consecutive projects. Once the offending exchanger is identified,
then five options can be considered to remove the constraint:

* Resequencing -- Reversing the order of exchangers to improve heat recovery

* Repiping -- Changing the matched streams to improve heat recovery

* Adding a new shell to an exchanger -- Changing the load on the offending exchanger

* Increasing the performance of an exchanger. It includes installing a twisted-tube bundle, tube

inserts and/or helical baffles.

* Adding a new exchanger -- Changing the load on the offending exchanger.

* Stream splitting -- Reducing the load on a stream in the offending exchanger.

This is a software-led process, so that all possible paths within the network are explored and new
ones are identified. Each path is tested to identify how much energy can be economically
squeezed from that path, and then the various paths are ranked in terms of total potential energy
savings. The path-pinch revamp method is sequential, but it examines various configurations in
a systematic way, while allowing the designer to interact with the software-led design procedure.

A CASE STUDY: INTUITIVE VS. 'PATH-PINCH' REVAMP

A skilled process engineer can identify certain network improvement projects by inspection,
intuition, experience, simulation, perhaps starting with the DIY approach. By referring to the
calculated pinch target, the engineer can estimate the performance gap closure. The case study
uses an actual industrial example, and it addresses how much energy savings can be identified by
intuitive projects, and how much would be missed in terms of potential energy savings by relying
solely on inspection and intuition methods that do not apply a systematic revamp approach.

Consider the preheat train of an atmospheric CDU, as shown in FIG. 12. A pinch-targeting
exercise reveals 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 by pinch principles. The efficiency gap between the actual
and the "pinch designed" cases is 22.7 MW or $7.9 million/yr at the assumed fuel cost of
$40/MWh. Can this gap be closed, and if so, how tight? Some of the built-in inefficiencies for
this exchanger network are obvious:
* The residue stream is sent hot to water cooler C1. This stream could be used to preheat feed.

* The overhead heat is lost to the air-cooled condenser C3. This may be recoverable.

* There is a suspect cross-pinch exchanger E2, where a hot, heavy gasoil stream is used against
very cold feed.

Intuitive projects. It seems logical to add area to exchanger E6 and recover more residue heat.
Aiming for Tmin of 35C in this enlarged exchanger, 1,967 m2 of new area can be installed,
saving 7.5 MW of furnace fuel valued at $2.6 million/yr. The investment cost is estimated at $3.9
million, offering a simple payback of 1.5 years. This is undoubtedly a good project. However, a
skilled engineer will immediately notice that, if area is added to E6, exchanger E7 will lose
temperature driving force, and it will have to be enlarged to maintain constant BPA duty. 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. The area of E6 is increased
until E7 becomes "pinched."

The two intuitive projects, combined, would increase the 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. FIG. 13 illustrates the resulting preheat train. This is the limit for the intuition
approach. 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). However, this optimization is not entirely intuitive. Using the column
overhead heat may be considered another "obvious" opportunity but this is a low-grade, below-
pinch heat. In theory it does not improve heat recovery. There is no obvious place for it.

The 11.6 MW of improvement is good. However, in this particular case, a 17.3-MW energy
savings is possible. So, there are some nonobvious projects, and this is a typical situation in
which the "path pinch" proves powerful.

Path-pinch projects. Path pinch achieves energy savings by adding area strategically and making
limited structural changes to the network.[a] The 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. New software aids in
finding and analyzing all paths to identify the most economical routes to exploit, and to
maximize heat recovery with minimum investment.[a] One such path is shown in a grid diagram
(FIG. 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
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 the path, as shown in FIG. 14. The project is
similar to the intuitive project illustrated in FIG. 13. It consists of adding area to E6 (+1,862 m2),
E7 (+785 m2) and E8 (+195 m2), until E7 becomes pinched. The fuel savings reach 12.4 MW.
The required investment is $5.5 million, offering a simple payback of 1.3 years -- slightly higher
energy savings (by 0.8 MW), with a return on investment similar to the intuitive project.
After the project is considered for technical viability, available space, pressure drop, safety, etc.,
and is accepted by the engineer, then the methodology can be reapplied to identify the next best
project. In the example case, however, the algorithm finds that after the Path-pinch 1 project is
implemented, a limit is reached and no further improvement can be made by simply adding area
to existing exchangers. The inefficiencies remain, such as cross-pinching and wasting of
overhead heat and part of the residue heat.

Enabling project. The bottleneck can be removed by installing a heat exchanger below the pinch
to recover the overhead heat upstream of exchanger E3. It will need an area of 200 m2 and a duty
of 4.3 MW, but, on its own, it only saves 1 MW in furnace duty. It is a so-called "enabling"
project. The engineer will notice that, to maintain a constant TPA duty in E3, this exchanger will
require additional area. Therefore, some projects will have to immediately follow the enabling
project, but the path pinch will attempt to extract the maximum benefit from the enabling
project. In this particular case, the optimization will include adding area to E3, and slightly
increasing the areas of E6, E7 and E8 relative to the Path-pinch 1 project. Compared to Path-
pinch 1, the optimized version of the enabling project will save additional 2.7 MW of furnace
fuel, reaching total savings of 15.1 MW, with 1,100 m2 of new area.

Path-pinch 2. The optimized enabling project allows a new iteration that finds it is economical to
add more area to debottleneck the downstream exchangers, particularly E3, E5 and E7. With the
total new area of 1,522 m2 over Path-pinch 1, the savings increase to 16.1 MW.

Path-pinch 3. Finally, in another iteration, the path-pinch algorithm finds its last economically
viable project, which is the addition of a new residue exchanger (430 m2) downstream of E6.
With this, the cumulative savings reach 17.3 MW.

Of the total identified efficiency gap of 22.7 MW, the combined path-pinch projects close the
gap about 80%. Although there seems to be some remaining improvements, the remaining
projects after Path-pinch 3 are small and uneconomical. Remember: The performance gap is
almost never completely closed. The constraints imposed by the existing configuration normally
make it impossible to reach pinch targets in revamp situations. This is the usual price to be paid
for a suboptimal initial design.

FIG. 15 is a schematic of the final revamp. TABLE 1 summarizes all of the possible projects
investigated. In summary, the actual savings potential of the example network is 17.3 MW. The
savings projects identifiable by intuition can reach 11.6 MW, and further savings are only
enabled by a systematic approach and the path-pinch process. They total about 5.7 MW.

When applied to existing HENs, the knowledge of pinch technology can assist 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 procedures. They close 65% of the efficiency gap, as demonstrated in the
presented example case. The remaining 35% of the gap can only be identified by using the
systematic path-pinch method. The final 35% of gap closure that results from the systematic
approach may not look overwhelmingly important, but it may be indispensable when the last
35% of efficiency improvement can be the differentiator within the present day competitive
world of refining. Refineries and petrochemical facilities try to squeeze out every percentage of
their resource efficiency, be it energy, environmental or other.

End of series. Hydrocarbon Processing, June 2013.

Pinch technology is a well-established concept. It is used to optimize waste-heat recovery and

design efficient heat integration schemes in a wide range of applications. What is less obvious is
that pinch technology can assist operations engineers in their daily work.

By understanding the basic pinch principles, engineers can apply these methods to improve the
operation and behavior of heat-exchanger networks, identify the operational improvements,
calculate the effects of exchanger fouling and benchmark energy performance of existing process
units.

TABLE 1. Estimated energy savings, investment and payback through path-pinch projects
Legend for Chart:

A - Project
B - Savings, MW
C - Investment, million $
D - Payback, years
A B C
D

1 Intuitive 2 11.6 5.13

1.3

2 Path-pinch 1 (alternative to Intuitive 2) 12.4 5.5

1.3

3 Enabling and Path-pinch 2 (Incremental) 3.7 3.51

2.7

4 Path-pinch 3 1.2 1.17

2.8

-- Total (items 2, 3 and 4) 17.3 10.2

1.7

FIG. 9. Grassroots design area utilization curve.

FIG. 10. Potential cross-pinch heat transfer.

FIG. 11. Correction of cross-pinch heat transfer.

FIG. 12. Example CDU preheat train.

FIG. 13. An intuitive revamp.

FIG. 14. Illustration of a path pinch.

FIG. 15. Final revamp.

~~~~~~~~

By Z. MILOSEVIC, KBC Process Technology, UK; A. RUDMAN, KBC Process Technology,

UK and R. BROWN, KBC Process Technology, UK

Copyright of Hydrocarbon Processing is the property of Gulf Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual
use.

Result List
Refine Search
22 of 133

Detailed Record
HTML Full Text

Find Similar Results using SmartText Searching.

Tools
Add to folder
Print
E-mail
Save
Cite
Export
Create Note
Permalink
Share
Listen
Translate

Top of Page

Mobile Site
 iPhone and Android apps
EBSCO Support Site
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Copyright

2017 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Library and Archives

Title:

Are you using pinch technology effectively in your daily operations? -- Part 1. By: MILOSEVIC, Z.,
RUDMAN, A., BROWN, R., Hydrocarbon Processing, 00188190, Jun2013, Vol. 92, Issue 6

Database:

Academic Search Complete

Are you using pinch technology effectively in your daily

operations? -- Part 1
Contents

1. PINCH TECHNOLOGY
2. USING PINCH TECHNOLOGY IN DAILY OPERATIONS
3. NOTES
4. LITERATURE CITED

HPI Focus

Energy Efficiency

Pinch technology is the most rigorous, systematic and best documented methodology for process
design.[ 1][3] Nearly all optimization projects for heat recovery are conducted with some form of
pinch analysis. Pinch technology is particularly useful when designing very complex processes
as used in the hydrocarbon processing industry (HPI). These projects are focused on achieving
high energy efficiency for individual processes, as well as of the whole complex.

Pinch technology provides a "final" methodology. At a time when fewer new processing
facilities are being built, some may consider "pinch technology to be obsolete."[4] Proponents of
this view hold that recently built petrochemical plants are designed close to optimum operating
conditions. While new HPI facilities are unlikely to be constructed due to the present global
energy climate, practically all major pinch work has already been "done."

Everyday improvement possibilities. While the underlying logic of such a viewpoint can be
understood, it is incorrect for two reasons. First, the optimum in design is a moving target. HPI
plants that have been optimized today may not operate in an optimal fashion in the future. Many
"pinch" revamps in existing refineries and petrochemical plants were not done because the
original design was suboptimal at the time; rather, the optimum operating conditions have
changed since the plant was originally commissioned. What was not economical to install 30
years ago may be economical now. Even the pinch and/or energy projects that were conducted
10 years ago, should be reviewed against the present changing economics. Energy costs increase
faster than construction costs, as shown in FIG. 1. Projects that were previously uneconomical
are now viable with changing energy pricing. As a design tool, pinch technology guides the
redesign/engineering process to optimum retrofits. Retrofit theory is more complex than
designing new units. Second, pinch technology helps the operating engineers to understand and
manage a range of issues that are related to the day-to-day operation of their process units.

PINCH TECHNOLOGY

Pinch principles have been described extensively in the literature.[ 1-3] Essentially, these
techniques are used to analyze heat availability in hot streams and to match it against the heat
demand of suitable cold streams, in an optimum fashion. The process optimizes the preheating of
the cold streams by using waste heat from hot streams to save 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 stream's energy. Pinch technology has four principal functions:

* Targeting and optimizing energy vs. capital

* Designing optimum heat-exchange networks (HENs)

* Optimizing use of utilities

* Revamping existing networks.

Energy, capital targets and optimization. The energy targets for optimum energy use are
determined early in the design of a process unit. The methodology is based on using heat
availability curves (the composite curves, as shown in FIG. 2), and optimizing capital costs
(exchanger area) vs. energy cost (fuel), to calculate energy "targets." It is a balance between the
optimum achievable heat recovery and the energy consumption of a process. Composite curves
represent heat availability and heat demand profiles. When superimposed, they show the
recoverable energy (area where the 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 it also reduces the heat recovery between hot and cold composite curves,
thus increasing the consumption of both heating and cooling energy (Case B in FIG. 2).

Optimizing HEN design. Pinch technology further provides the design methodology which
ensures that the "pinch" targets are met in the actual design. The process is largely a computer-
led exercise.

Optimizing use Of utilities. The utility-placement function is based on the use of grand
composite curves (GCCs), whereby the cost of the targeted energy is minimized by utilizing a
cheaper utility -- for example, by using low-pressure (LP) steam instead of high-pressure (HP)
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. The GCC is used to determine how much of the lower-temperature
utility can be optimally used. The GCC in FIG. 3 shows how the heating target can be met by
using HP steam (left), but it also illustrates the option of partly using LP steam and thus reducing
HP steam (right) needs.

Revamping existing exchanger networks. The network revamp algorithm is a complex and an
ever-developing feature of pinch technology. Its complexity is due to numerous constraints
found in the existing design. 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 DAILY OPERATIONS

The listed functions of pinch technology can be applied to many daily operational situations.
They include:

Understanding HENS. Operators do observe the peculiar behavior of HENs and 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. An improved
understanding of a system's "misbehavior" may lead to operational improvements.

For example, operators observe that cleaning different exchangers produces different effects;
some exchangers are more important than others. Similarly, adding surface area to one shell can
be more cost-effective than adding surface area to another. However, neither of these two
observations leads to a straightforward and intuitive conclusion to improve HEN operation and
energy efficiency. Consider the preheat train, as shown in FIG. 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 the addition to E-10, although this exchanger is located at the hot end of
the preheat train. Note: E-10 operates at a tight temperature approach already.

Stream splits represent another example. The splits are incorporated in the HEN 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 preheat train for a vacuum-distillation unit, as shown
in FIG. 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 1.3C, saving $72,000/yr with a
fuel cost of $9.5/ GJ, as shown in FIG. 6.

Understanding the cross-pinch heat transfer and area utilization 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. A 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), then the net energy consumption of the process will
increase. Eliminating the cross-pinch heat transfer is an essential part of any network
improvement and revamp effort.

* Area utilization: Tmin at the pinch point is a key network design parameter. When chosen well,
it ensures that an optimum between capital and energy costs is found. 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, sub-optimal designs show both high and low Ts, meaning that either the exchanger
area or the temperature driving force is not economically utilized. Adding area to a suboptimally
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 FIG. 7. The suboptimal design, where this close-to-vertical match is not
achieved, will feature Ts being too high or too low. It is sometimes referred to as
"crisscrossing," as illustrated for intervals 4 and 5 in the inset of FIG. 7.

Daily optimization. Other operational issues addressable by pinch analysis include distillation
units -- in particular, optimizing pumparound (PA) heat removal. Distillation columns are heat-
balanced by removing heat at the top by condensing the overheads against cooling water or air,
and sending cold reflux down the column, or by removing heat in the column's side coolers or
PAs. The lower the PA's position down the column, the higher is its temperature. The PAs high-
temperature heat can be used to preheat the feed to the furnace.

From the energy-efficiency viewpoint, it is desirable to maximize PA heat recovery into the feed.
This directly saves furnace fuel. Pinch technology stresses that the higher-temperature heat is
more useful in the preheat train, and more versatile than the low-temperature heat. Because of
this condition, recovery of the bottoms pumparound (BPA) heat is more effective in terms of
energy efficiency than the recovery of the top pumparound (TPA) heat. However, cooling the
column with side coolers reduces the column reflux and adversely affects fractionation, product
quality and yields.

This is an energy vs. yield optimization issue, and it is usually addressed by a combined energy
and yield optimization of the column. PA heat recovery improvements may include
noninvestment measurements such as increasing PA flowrate, or investment projects such as
adding more heat-exchanger area to the PA circuit, shifting heat removal from one PA to
another, or replacing the column trays with more efficient units to enable higher PA heat removal
rates without adversely affecting fractionation.

Fouling management-Cleaning cycle optimization. Exchanger fouling may cause large energy
losses in complex preheat trains. Much improvement and cost savings can be achieved by
understanding the fouling mechanism and how it affects heat transfer -- not only individual
exchangers, but also of the whole network. Just as adding area to one exchanger can be more
effective, so can be exchanger cleaning. Because the two processes are governed by the same
principles, a fouling monitoring program is important. Exchanger cleaning should be done before
embarking on a pinch analysis or a revamp study.

Energy benchmarking and gap analysis of existing units. Benchmarking the energy performance
of an existing unit is a typical "pinch" task. The exercise is largely based on pinch analysis and
the use of the composite curves, particularly when benchmarking crude-oil distillation units
(CDUs), hydrocrackers, hydrotreaters and fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units. Efficiency gaps
associated with suboptimal heat integration tend to be dominant when compared with other
energy gaps, such as furnace efficiency, process characteristics or power-generation efficiency.

FIG. 8 shows the composite curves for an existing process unit. The curves are drawn and
positioned relative to each other so that the actual (observed) feed preheat temperature is
matched. The resultingT at the pinch indicates theATmin with which a well-designed preheat
train would match the performance of the existing train. Now consider FIG. 2B; it shows a
distillation unit's composite curves. Assume that the actual preheat temperature is 265C. The
curves in FIG. 2 are positioned so that the diagram predicts this observed preheat temperature.
The resulting Tmin is 50C; the performance of the actual preheat train is equivalent to the
performance of a "pinch-designed" train with a Tmin of 50C at the pinch. Now assume that the
optimum design Tmin would, in this case, be 30C. If the train were designed with this Tmin' the
preheat temperature would be 280C, as shown in FIG. 2A. With this knowledge, the new,
reduced furnace duty -- and therefore, the energy consumption "gap" associated with the
suboptimal design of the preheat train -- can be calculated.

It is normally not feasible (technically or economically) to revamp an existing train to match the
performance of the optimum grassroots train. Nevertheless, a substantial part of the gap can be
closed by economically feasible projects.

Part 2. The authors continue to show how pinch technology provides many benefits in HPI
revamp projects.

FIG. 1. Trends in energy and project construction costs.

FIG. 2. Different positioning of the composite curves.

FIG. 3. Use of grand composite curve.

FIG. 4. Example of a preheat train.

FIG. 5. A stream split.

FIG. 6. Effect of a stream split ratio.

FIG. 7. Illustration of "vertical" heat transfer and "crisscrossing."

FIG. 8. Composites positioned to match the observed preheat T.

NOTES

1 KBC's SuperTarget was used to identify path-pinch projects.

LITERATURE CITED

1 Leimkhle, H-J., ed., Managing C02 Emissions in the Chemical Industry, Chapter 6: Milosevic
Z. and A. Eastwood, "Heat Integration and Pinch Analysis," Wiley-VCH, 2010.

2 Kemp, I.C., Pinch Analysis and Process Integration -- A User Guide on Process Integration for
the Efficient Use of Energy, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.
3 Shennoy, U. V, Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis, Gulf Publishing Company, 1995.
4 The actual remark was made by a speaker at the 2010 ENI Energy Conference in Rome.

~~~~~~~~

By Z. MILOSEVIC, KBC Process Technology, UK; A. RUDMAN, KBC Process Technology,

UK and R. BROWN, KBC Process Technology, UK

DR. ZORAN MILOSEVIC is a principal consultant with KBC Process Technology and an
internationally renewed authority on energy optimization and profit improvement of oil
refineries and petrochemical plants. He has published over 40 papers and articles on energy
efficiency, refinery/petrochemicals profitability improvement, and energy economics. He teaches
at various institutions and has given courses in energy economics, refinery energy optimization,
pinch technology and sustainability and efficient 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 refining and
petrochemical clients in a number of European, Russian, Asian, South American and North
American countries on improving energy efficiency. He has played a leading role in the
development of energy services technology, including training, development and methodology
guidelines. Mr. Rudman holds a first-class honors degree in chemical engineering from Bradford
University and is a fellow of the Institute of Chemical Engineers. RICHARD BROWN is a
consultant with KBC Process Technology Ltd., working in the energy optimization group. He
manages energy and heat-integration studies in refining and petrochemical industries. Mr. Brown
holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from the University of Bradford.
Copyright of Hydrocarbon Processing is the property of Gulf Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual
use.

Detailed Record
HTML Full Text

Tools
Print
E-mail
Save
Cite
Export
Permalink
Share