AN MILP Model for Heat Exchanger Networks Retrofit

Andres Barbaro.b, Miguel Bagajewicz.b, Narumon Vipanurata, Kitipat Siemanonda

a

The Petroleum and Petrochemical College, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. E-mail:kitipat.s@chula.ac.th b University of Oklahoma, 100 E. Boyd St., T-335, Norman, OK 73019, USA. E-mail:bagajewicz@ou.edu

This paper addresses the problem of automatically determining the optimal economic retrofit of heat exchanger networks. It is a rigorous MILP (Mixed Integer Linear Programming ) approach that considers rearrangement of the existing heat exchanger units, heat transfer area addition and new exchanger installation. We illustrate the method using a crude fractionation unit and we also compare this technique to one existing retrofit approach.

KEYWORDS
Retrofit, Heat Exchanger Networks, Mixed Integer Linear Programming

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper is based on a recently accepted paper for grassroots HEN design. The method consists of a rigorous MILP strategy that is based on a transportation/transshipment strategy. This strategy can handle stream splits and nonisothermal mixing rigorously, without any approximations. For the case of retrofit, we have added constraints that are able to handle the fact that there is an existing network. The proposed retrofit method as well as the previous HENS design procedure is able to solve complex systems. This is illustrated through 2 application examples.

2. OUTLINE APPROACH FOR RETROFIT

The MILP model is based on the transportation-transshipment paradigm which has the following features: Counts heat exchangers units and shells Determines the area required for each exchanger unit or shell Controls the total number of units Determines the flow rates in splits Handles non-isothermal mixing Identifies bypasses in split situations when convenient

 Controls the temperature approximation (Tmin) when desired Can address areas or temperature zones Allows multiple matches between two streams The model considers a consecutive series of heat exchangers. Heat transfer is accounted using the cumulative heat transferred from intervals up to a specific interval to other counterpart intervals. The key of the model and what differentiates it from other transport/transshipment models is the flow rate consistency equations that allow tracking flows in splits. For retrofit situations, the MILP model is extended by adding constraints as follows:
z z z z Aij Aij + Aij + Aij
0 0 N

(1) (2)

z z Aij Aij max

z U ij
N

z U ij max
N

z z z z Aij Aij max U ij U ij

)
z0 zN

(3) (4)

where Aij is the new area of an exchanger between streams i and j, Aij its orinignal area, Aij the additional area to the existing shell, Aij the new area in new shells, and U ij and U ij
0

z0

z0

the new and original number of shells, respectively. Maximum

z z values ( Aij max and U ij max ) are also used. When original values are zero, then a new

match is added. The objective function for the retrofit heat exchanger network structure is the total annualized cost which consisted of utility cost, additional area cost and fixed cost for new exchanger installation. All terms of the hot and cold utility cost are the same as in the grassroots design model, but the retrofit programming model has complicated functions for the area cost. In the following, the objective function for the proposed retrofit approach is expressed.
Min Cost =
H H ci Fi Ti + C C F z z c j F j T j + z z cij U ij U ij z iH jC ( i , j )P k max

z iHU z jC z ( i , j )P

z jCU z iH z ( i , j )P zN Aij

)
(5)

z iH z jC z ( i , j )P ( i , j )B

A0 z0 cij Aij

AN + cij

)+

z iH z jC z k =1 ( i , j )P ( i , j )B

A0 z ,k 0 cij Aij

AN + cij

z ,k N Aij

Especial constraints are added when more than one exchanger between two streams is allowed. We omit these and concentrate more in showing results.

3. EXAMPLES
In this section, two examples are solved to illustrate the rigorous MILP method. The optimization model was constructed in GAMS and run in a PC with a 2.4 GHz processor and 1 Gb of ram memory.

Example 1 Example 1 is the retrofit problem of crude distillation unit that composed of 18 streams and 18 existing exchangers. Streams properties are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 while the results of retrofit network are given in Table 3 and 4. Cost comparisons are given in Table 5. The retrofit solution achieves 24.06% annual cost savings with two new exchanger units and three shells addition. The original and retrofit networks are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. We report a solution that consumes 9577.781 sec. to reach 0.00% Gap. The original and retrofit networks are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. If solution time is an issue one can use several other solutions with smaller gap. One in particular has 20.8% annual cost savings with also two new exchanger units and three new shells that is obtained in 1001.062 seconds.

Table 1 Stream properties for Example1

Stream I1 I2 I4 I7 I3 I5 I6 I8 I9 I10 F Ton/hr 155.1 5.695 151.2 91.81 251.2 26.03 86.14 63.99 239.1 133.8 Cp KJ/kg-C 3.161 4.325 2.93 2.262 3.111 2.573 3.041 2.689 2.831 2.442 2.854 2.606 2.595 2.372 6.074 4.745 9.464 2.314 2.645 3.34 3.54 13.076 15.808 Tin C 319.4 73.24 263.5 73.24 347.3 202.7 45 203.2 110 147.3 50 176 167.1 116.1 146.7 126.7 99.94 30 108.1 211.3 232.2 226.2 228.7 250 1000 20 124 174 Tout C 244.1 30 180.2 40 202.7 45 203.2 110 147.3 50 176 120 116.1 69.55 126.7 99.94 73.24 108.1 211.3 232.2 343.3 228.7 231.8 249 500 25 125 175 h MJ/h-m2-C 4.653 18.211 4.894 4.605 3.21 2.278 4.674 3.952 4.835 3.8 5.023 4.846 4.995 4.88 1.807 3.373 6.878 1.858 2.356 2.212 2.835 11.971 11.075 21.6 0.4 13.5 21.6 21.6

Table 2 Cost data for Example1

Utilities I11 I12 J4 J5 J6 Heat Exchanger Cost Cost $/(MJ/hr-yr) 19.75 37.222 1.861 -6.494 -12.747 5291.9+77.788A $/yr

Table 3 Model statistics for Example1

Model Statistics Single Variables Discrete Variables Single Equations Non Zero Elements Time to reach a feasible solution Optimality Gap 3024 459 5930 29046 9577.781 sec 0.00%

J1

519

J2 J3 I11 I12 J4 J5 J6

496.4 96.87

J6 175C J5 J4 I3 347.3C I1 319.4C I5 297.4C I4 I6 263.5C 248C 38981.575 20 8 9902.575 6042.968 6 125C 25C

174C 124C 20C 45C 15 0.02 3373.446 5 12 0 4 6560.99 14 36903.233 50C 3 9628.069 120C 69.55C 73.24C 7 30C 2 6903.091 40C 232.2C 180.2C 110C 244.10C

59060.593 11 36917.414 19 4045.644 10

155868.897 1

I8 231.8C I9 I10 I2 I7 73.24C J2 343.3C 167.1C 146.7C 73.24C 16 67053.083 13 58042.284

1065.039

J1 J3 I12 I11

232.2C 231.8C 18 1000C 250 95207.491 9 63561.248 17 7913.771

30C 226.2C 500C 249

Figure 1 Original HEN for Example 1

Figure 2 Retrofit HEN for Example 1

Table 4 Resulting of retrofit heat exchanger for Example 1

HE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Original Load MJ/hr 160,311.20 6,903.09 17,118.40 658.00 2,554.70 2,410.70 1,065.04 45,024.40 100,642.70 4,473.60 54,618.70 6,293.80 58,044.30 36,903.20 36,917.40 67,053.08 7,913.77 136,138.80 Retrofit Load MJ/hr 155,868.90 6,903.09 9,628.07 6,560.99 0.02 9,902.58 1,065.04 6,042.97 63,561.25 4,045.64 59,060.59 3,373.45 58,042.28 36,903.23 0 67,053.08 7,913.77 95,207.49 36,917.41 38,981.58 8,318.60 Original Area m2 4,303.20 59.40 33.40 2.30 26.30 24.60 5.50 145.00 1,212.70 93.70 685.70 40.00 183.30 101.60 93.90 278.10 53.50 976.40 Retrofit Area m2 3,926.25 63.80 21.53 16.63 28.93 398.53 5.87 41.66 962.01 93.70 1,239.90 44.00 182.39 101.47 0 288.97 52.24 709.00 727.96 651.93 9,556.76 14.88% 3 61,918.53 56,004.54 208,842.80 10.87 845.32 554.20 4.00 YES 48,402.09 311.15 14.33 2.63 373.93 0.37 YES YES 6,406.84 204.58 34,379.01 28.70 4.40 342.03 Area Addition m2 Shell Addition Cost $

Table 5 Annual cost comparison between original and retrofit network

Cost $/yr Total utility cost Total fixed and area cost Totat cost Cost saving 6,865,616.51 6,865,616.51 5,004,800.230 208,842.80 5,213,643.031 24.06% Existing Retrofit

Example 2 We now compare our method with Hypertargets (Briones and Kokossis, 1999). Table 6 shows the stream and cost data for crude distillation unit which consisted of 12 streams and 11 existing units. Figure 3 shows the original network and Figure 4 shows the retrofit structure generated by our MILP strategy. Hypertargets established two retrofit designs (B1 and B2) with the same utility cost and one new unit in each case. They are shown in Figure 5 and 6. Our MILP approach suggests using two new smaller exchangers and more utility. The results are shown in Tables 7 and 8 and the total annual cost in Table 9. The retrofit has a 4.17% saving over the original structure. Table 6 Stream and cost data for Example 2
Stream I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 J1 J2 J3 I8 J4 cooling water cost=5$/kW yr FCp kW/C 470.00 825.00 42.42 100.00 357.14 50.00 136.36 826.09 500.00 363.64 Tin C 140.00 160.00 210.00 260.00 280.00 350.00 380.00 270.00 130.00 20.00 500.00 20.00 Tout C 40.00 120.00 45.00 60.00 210.00 170.00 160.00 385.00 270.00 130.00 499.00 40.00 h kW/m2-C 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Table 7 Model statistics for Example 2

Model Statistics Single Variables Discrete Variables Single Equations Non Zero Elements Time to reach a feasible solution Optimality Gap 3120 382 6347 23949 411.41 sec 0.00%

Note: Exchanger cost=300xArea; stream cost=60$/kW yr;

Figure 3 Original HEN for Example 2

47000 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 6120 8 88880 260C 280C 350C 23880 9 160C 25000 6 9000 7 170C 140C 33000 160C 210C 12120 4 2 7000 3 7880 5

Figure 4 Retrofit HEN for Example 2

47000 I1
40C

140C 33000 160C 210C 260C 280C 350C 6120 8 88880 23500 9 25000 6 9000 7 380 10 12500 4 2 7000 3 7500 5

40C 120C 45C 60C 210C 170C 160C

I2
120C

I3
45C

I4
60C

I5
210C

I6 I7

380C

380C

I8 500C J3

I8
499C 130C 20C

10

500C J3

11

499C 130C 20C

J2 270C J1 130C

J2 270C J1
385C 270C 20C

130C

385C

270C 20C

J4

40C

J4

40C

Figure 5 Hypertarget retrofit designs B1

Figure 6 Hypertarget retrofit designs B2

Table 8 Resulting of retrofit heat exchanger network for Example2

HE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Original Load MJ/hr 47,000.00 33,000.00 7,000.00 10,200.00 9,800.00 25,000.00 9,000.00 20,800.00 9,200.00 95,000.00 5,000.00 Retrofit Load MJ/hr 47,000.00 33,000.00 7,000.00 8,711.41 11,287.49 25,000.00 9,000.00 20,813.59 1,127.37 86,942.11 6,475.20 1.10 8,058.24 9,528.54 Original Area m2 2,363.86 1,609.62 230.69 692.14 339.80 1,226.76 224.92 1,211.00 141.47 1,434.98 53.31 Retrofit Area m2 2,402.06 1,613.93 242.32 692.14 366.26 1,286.34 396.58 1,211.00 20.48 1,344.35 66.93 0.05 298.33 9,940.77 13.617 NEW NEW 4.33% 4 15.300 89,499.000 163,670.763 26.457 59.581 171.669 YES YES 17,874.203 51,500.690 Area addition m2 38.198 4.310 11.628 YES YES 1,293.106 3,488.465 Shell Addition Cost $

Table 9 Annual cost comparison between Hypertargets and MILP algorithm

Cost Total utility cost Total fixed and area cost Totat cost MILP more saving ($/yr) 6,330,000 264,216 4.17% Existing $/yr 6,330,000 Hypertarget B1 $/yr 5,607,200 531,900 6,139,100 73,316 1.19% Hypertarget B2 $/yr 5,607,200 576,720 6,183,920 118,136 1.91% MILP $/yr 5,902,113 163,671 6,065,784

4. CONCLUSION
A new MILP formulation for the retrofit of heat exchanger networks, which takes into account the retrofit options involving modification of the existing structure and new exchanger placement, was presented. The model is very robust and capable of handling rigorously large networks such as those of crude distillation units.

5. REFERENCES
Barbaro A. and M. Bagajewicz, New Rigorous One-step MILP Formulation for Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis. Computers and Chemical Engineering. Submitted. (available at http://www.ou.edu/class/che-design/unpubpapers/HEN-MILP.pdf ) Jan 2004 V. Briones and A.C. Kokossis, 1999, Hypertargets: a Conceptual Programming Approach for the Optimisation of Industrial Heat Exchanger Networks-II. Retrofit Design. Chem.Eng.Sci, 54, 541-561.