Pasi Handout 2011 El-Halwagi

Process Integration for Sustainable Design:
Systematic Tools and Industrial Applications
Mahmoud M. El-Halwagi
Professor and Holder of the McFerrin Professorship
The Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering
Texas A&M University
E-Mail: El-Halwagi@TAMU.edu
http://www.che.tamu.edu/el-halwagi/
July 19-29, 2011, Angra dos Reis, RJ, Brazil

1
WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE, SUSTAINABILITY,
AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN?
Sustainable:
Sustainability:
2
ELEMENTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Society
•  Environmental protection
•  Economic growth
•  Social progress
Sustainability
Environment Economy
Triple Bottom Line: People, Planet, Profit

^ Elkington, J. (1994) "Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development." California Management Review 36, no. 2: 90-100
3
^ Brown, D., J. Dillard and R.S. Marshall. (2006) "Triple Bottom Line: A business metaphor for a social construct." Portland State University, School of Business Administration.
PILLARS OF PROCESS DESIGN
Process Design
Process Process
Synthesis Analysis
?
?
4
WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE PROCESS DESIGN?
Society
Sustainable
Environ- Process Design Economy
ment
Process Process
Synthesis Analysis
SUSTAINABLE PROCESS DESIGN?
5
El-Halwagi, M. M., “Sustainable Design Through Process Integration: Fundamentals and Applications to Industrial Pollution Prevention,
Resource Conservation, and Profitability Enhancement”, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd./Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2011)
WHY ARE WE INTERESTED IN SUSTAINABILTY?
•  Increasing population, industrialization, and

standards of living
•  Dwindling natural resources (e.g., fossil fuels)
•  Global climatic changes
•  Risk to biodiversity and ecosystem
And it is good for the business!
6
KEY RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
TOWARDS SUSTAINABLITY
Specific Objectives
•  Profitability improvement
•  Yield enhancement
•  Resource (mass and energy) conservation
•  Pollution prevention/waste minimization
•  Safety improvement
•  Quality enhancement
•  Green Product design
How? 7
El-Halwagi, M. M., A. A. Hamad and G. W. Garrison, 1996, "Synthesis of Waste Interception and Allocation Networks", AIChE J. 42(11), 3087-3101
El-Halwagi, M. M., A. A. Hamad and G. W. Garrison, 1996, "Synthesis of Waste Interception and Allocation Networks", AIChE J. 42(11), 3087-3101
OBSERVATIONS
  Numerous alternatives
  Intuitively non-obvious solutions
  Focus on root causes not
symptoms, must go to heart of
process
 Need a systematic methodology to
extract optimum solution
 Process must be treated as an
integrated system
10
PROCESS INTEGRATION
El-Halwagi, M. M., "1997, Pollution Prevention through Process Integration: Systematic Design Tools", Academic Press, San Diego
Overall Philosophy
FIRST, understand
the global picture
of the process and
develop system insights
LATER, think equipment,
detailed simulation, and
process details.
TARGETING
Identification of performance benchmarks

for the whole process AHEAD of detailed design
Examples of Specific Performance Targets:
  Minimum heating and cooling utilities

  Process cogeneration/CHP
  Heat induced separation networks
  Maximum usage of process MSAs/minimum cost of MSAs for mass-
exchange networks
  Wastewater minimization
  Hydrogen management
  Maximum recycle of process resources
  Minimum usage of fresh resources/discharge of waste
  Reactors and reactive separators
  Maximum process yield
Categories of Process Integration
Property
Energy
Mass
Process
Energy Integration
Focus of +
Mass Integration Process Integration
this lecture
+
Property Integration
OUTLINE
o  Motivating Example and Observations
o  Overview of Sustainability and Process Integration
 Mass Integration
o  Overall Mass Targeting
o  Material Recycle Pinch Diagram
o  Samples of Common Pinch Diagrams
o  Algebraic Approach to Material Recycle

o  Introduction to Optimization and Modeling Using
LINGO
o  Sample Optimization Applications to Mass Integration
o  Industrial Applications and Concluding Thoughts
Mass Integration
A systematic methodology that provides
fundamental understanding of the global
flow of mass within a process and employs
this understanding in identifying
performance targets and optimizing
the generation and routing of species
throughout the process.
Process from a Species Perspective
Sources MSAs and ESAs Sinks/ Sources
(Process
Segregated Generators (Back to
Streams Sources (Units) Process)
With
Targeted
Species)
#1
#2
.
.
Species
. Interception .
Network .
.
sinks
N
MSAs and ESAs

(to Regeneration and Recycle)
MASS INTEGRATION STRATEGIES
ACCEPTABILITY
COST, IMPACT
Target
New Technology Changes

Technologies (New Chemistry, New Processing
Technology, etc.)
Moderate-Cost Equipment Addition/

Replacement
Material
Substitution
Modifications (Interception/Separation
(Solvent, Catalyst, etc.)
devices, etc.)
Minor Structural Modest Sink/Generator

No Cost/ Modifications Manipulation
Low Cost (Segregation, Mixing,
Recycle, etc.)
(e.g. Moderate Changes in
Operating Conditions)
Strategies
El-Halwagi, M. M., 1999, “Pollution Prevention through Mass Integration: Systematic design Tools”, proceedings of International Conference on Process Integration,
International Energy Agency/Nordic Pub., Copenhagen, Denmark, vol. I, pp. 95-112
OVERALL MASS TARGETING THROUGH MASS INTEGRATION
Fresh Raw
Materials Main Product
Fresh Material Processing
Utilities Facility Byproducts
Waste/Losses
How to benchmark performance for mass objectives of an existing process
or a process design with sufficient details (e.g., flowsheet, mass balance,
Process model), the whole process ahead of detailed design?
Mass integration is a systematic “big-picture” methodology that provides

a fundamental understanding of the global flow of mass within the process
and employs this understanding in identifying performance targets and optimizing
the generation and routing of species throughout the process
Applications:
•  Minimization of waste discharge/losses
•  Minimization of purchase of fresh resources (raw materials, material utilities)
19
•  Maximization of yield of desired products/byproducts
Example 1: Reduction of Terminal Losses or Discharge of Waste
•  Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Net Generation
Total WHOLE PLANT Total

Fresh Terminal
Load (In) Net Generation Load (Out)
FBMI Net_GBMI TBMI
Overall Mass Balance Before Mass Integration (BMI)

TBMI = FBMI + Net_GBMI
For fixed generation:
Minimum terminal (out) corresponds to minimum
fresh (in)
To minimize fresh:
1. Adjust design and operating variables
2. Maximize recycle to replace fresh usage 20
1. Adjust Design and Operating Variables to Reduce Fresh

•  What are the design and operating variables in the process that influence
fresh consumption?
•  Which ones are allowed to be changed (manipulated variables)?
•  How is fresh usage related to these design and operating variables?
Fresh Usage = f (manipulated design variables, manipulated operating
variables)
FAFR= minimize f (manipulated design variables, manipulated operating variables)

Fresh Terminal
FAFR Net_GBMI TAFR
Overall Mass Balance after Fresh Reduction
TAFR = FAFR + Net_GBMI 21

2. Maximize Recycle to Reduce Fresh Usage

Fresh Terminal
FAFR Net_GBMI TAFR
Overall Mass Balance after Fresh Reduction
TAFR = FAFR + Net_GBMI
Need to replace maximum load of fresh load with recycled

terminal load
What is maximum recyclable load?

22
Recycle Rules to Reduce Terminal Load (continued):
•  Recovery devices can recover (almost) all terminal load and render
acceptable quality to replace fresh feed. During
targeting, cost and details of recovery are not relevant (yet)
•  Maximize recycle from outlet path to fresh inlets (can recycle the
smaller of the two loads: total recovered terminal vs. total needed
fresh). Rmax = argmin {FAFR , TAFR}
FAMI = WHOLE PLANT

TAMI =
FAFR - RMAX Recovery TAFR- RMAX
Net Generation
Network
Net_GBMI
RMAX
Target After Mass Integration (AMI) 23

for Variable Generation
•  Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Net Generation

Fresh Terminal
FBMI Net_GBMI TBMI

TBMI = FBMI + Net_GBMI
Minimize generation of waste
(or targeted species)
Minimize fresh:
1. Adjust design and operating variables
2. Maximize recycle to replace fresh usage
24
When generation and fresh cannot be decoupled, see: Noureldin, M. B. and M. M. El-Halwagi, 1999, “Interval-Based Targeting for
Pollution Prevention via Mass Integration”, Comp. Chem. Eng., 23, 1527-1543
with Variable Generation
Minimizing Generation of Waste
Minimize generation (or maximize depletion) of targeted species

(e.g., Describe generation quantitatively then identify values of
design and operating conditions of reactors to minimize generation)
Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Generation (- Depletion)

Fresh Terminal
FBMI Net_GMIN TAGMIN
Overall Mass Balance after Minimization of Generation

TAGMIN = FBMI + Net_GMIN
25
Adjust Design and Operating Variables to Reduce Fresh
Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Generation (- Depletion)

Fresh Terminal
FAFR Net_GMIN TAGMIN, AFR
Overall Mass Balance after Fresh Reduction and

Minimization of Generation
TAGMIN, AFR = FAFR + Net_GMIN
26
Recycle Rules to Reduce Terminal Load (continued):
fresh). Rmax = argmin {FAFR , TAGMIN, AFR}
FAMI = WHOLE PLANT

TAMI =
FAFR - RMAX Recovery TAGMIN, AFR- RMAX
Net Generation
Network
Net_GMIN
RMAX

TARGETING PROCEDURE TO MINIMIZE TERMINAL LOSS OR WASTE DISCHARGE
Generation/Depletion Model/Data
(e.g., chemical reaction, fugitive emissions, etc.)
Stream Data
(fresh and terminal
Minimize generation
loads of
of targeted species
targeted species)
Minimum generation
Adjust design and operating variables to minimize fresh load,

then carry out overall material balance on targeted species
Revised data for fresh and terminal
loads of targeted species
Maximize recycle (to minimize fresh load)
Maximum recycle = argmin {fresh load, recoverable terminal load}
Maximum total recycle
Revise overall material balance on targeted species

28
El-Halwagi, M. M., “Process Integration”, Elsevier , Amsterdam (2006)

Target of minimum terminal load
Example 3: Targeting for Minimum Usage of Fresh Resource
•  Fresh Load (in) = Terminal Load (out) - Net Generation

Fresh Terminal
FBMI Net_GBMI TBMI

FBMI = TBMI - Net_GBMI
Maximize generation of fresh
resource
Minimize terminal load

Adjust design by maximizing recycle
& operating to replace fresh usage
variables to
reduce fresh
usage 29
When generation and fresh cannot be decoupled, see: Noureldin, M. B. and M. M. El-Halwagi, 1999, “Interval-Based Targeting for
Pollution Prevention via Mass Integration”, Comp. Chem. Eng., 23, 1527-1543
Example 3: Targeting for Minimum Usage of Fresh Resource
fresh). Rmax = argmin {FAFR , TAGMIN, AFR}
FAMI = WHOLE PLANT

TAMI =
FAFR - RMAX Recovery TAGMIN, AFR- RMAX
Net Generation
Network
Net_GMAX
RMAX

CASE STUDY I: MINIMIZING FRESH WATER USAGE IN A PULPING MILL
Washing Water S2: W2 = 13,995 Screening Water S6: W6 = 1,450
S4
W4= 10995 S7
Brown-Stock Screening W7 = 10,995 Wet Pulp to
Washers Paper Machines
6,000 tpd Screening Wastewater
Wood chips S8
(50% moisture) W8 = 1,450 ESP Offgas
S1 Condenser S15
Condenser
W1 = 3,000 W15 = 1,202
Digester Evaporator Concentrator
Condensate Condensate
S10 S16
S5 S12
S3 W5 = 11,126
W10 = 8,901 W12 = 1,024
W16 = 0
ESP S14
W14 = 0
W3 = 5,127
S9 S13
MEE S11
W9 = 2,225 Concentrator W11 = 1,202
W13 = 1,202
White
Liquor Kiln Offgas S18 Recovery
Clarifier S31 S26 W18 = 0
W31 = 1,016
W26 = 423 Na2SO4 Furnace
smelt
Lime
S30 S17
W31 = 6,143 Kiln W17 = 0
S27
W27 =0
S25 Dissolution
W25 = 423
Causticizer S19
W19 = 6402 Tank
Washers/
Slaker Offgas Filter Reject S20
S28 S29 Filters S23
W20 = 6,402
W29 = 6,143 Filter Water
W28 = S24 W23 = 4
Green
40 W24 = 5,762 Liquor
S21
W21= 6,351
Slaker Clarifier
S22 31
W22 = 51
Lovelady, E. M., M. M. El-Halwagi, and G. Krishnagopalan, “An Integrated Approach to the Optimization of Water Usage and Discharge in Pulp and Paper Plants”,
Int. J. of Environ. and Pollution (IJEP) 29(1-3), 274-307 (2007)
Overall (Big-Picture) Water Balance
Water with Wet Pulp

W7 = 10,995
Screening Wastewater
W8 = 1,450
Moisture in Wood Chips
W1 = 3,000 Evaporator Condensate
W10 = 8,901
Washers Water
W2 = 13,995 Concentrator Condensate
Kraft Pulping Process W12 = 1,024
Screening Water
W6 = 1,450 EPS Offgas
W15 = 1,202
Filter Water Water depletion = 168
W24 = 5,762 Filter Reject
W23 = 4
Kiln Offgas
W26 = 423
Slaker Offgas
W28 = 40
32
Overall Water Targeting
Water with Wet Pulp

W7 = 10,995
Moisture in Wood Chips
Fresh W1 = 3,000 Screening Wastewater
W8 = 1,450
Water Washers Water
Evaporator
Target W2 = 13,995
Condensate Recovery
= 9,832 Screening Water W10 = 8,901 Network
W6 = 1,450 Concentrator
Kraft Pulping Process Condensate
Filter Water W12 = 1,024
W24 = 5,762 EPS Offgas
W15 = 1,202
Water depletion = 168
Filter Reject
W23 = 4
Kiln Offgas
Recycled W26 = 423
Water Slaker Offgas

W28 = 40
= 11,375
33
CASE STUDY II: MINIMIZE WATER DISCHARGE
IN TIRE-TO-FUEL PROCESS
Gaseous Fuel To Atmosphere
Condenser
Flare
Wastewater
Decanter W1 = 0.27 kg/s
Reactor
Off-Gases Fresh Seal Wastewater
Light Water Pot W2 = G2
Tires Oil G2 = 0.15 kg/s
Pyrolysis Flare Gas
Shredded Reactor
Tires Trxn = 690 K
Water-Jet (0.15 kg/s (Water
Shredding Separation Finishing Liquid
water) Generated Fuels
= 0.12 kg/s)
Wet Cake
Filtration to Waste Handling
(W3 = 0.10 kg/s Wastewater) G1 + G2 + Wrxn = W1 + W2 + W3
Water-jet
Makeup Wrxn = 0.152 + (5.37 – 7.84x10-3 Trxn) e (27.4 –
Compression 0.04Trxn)
G1 = 0.25 kg/s
Pcomp = 70 atm
G1 = 0.47 e-0.009 Pcomp

34
El-Halwagi, M. M., "1997, Pollution Prevention through Process Integration:
Systematic Design Tools", Academic Press, San Diego G2 = 0.15 W2 = G2 W3 = 0.4 G1
OVERALL WATER BALANCE
BEFORE MASS INTEGRATION
Decanter Wastewater
W 1 = 0.27 kg/s
Water-jet Makeup
G1 = 0.25 kg/s
Tire-to-Fuel Plant Seal Pot Wastewater
W 2 = 0.15 kg/s
Seal-Pot Feed Water
G2 = 0.15 kg/s = 0.12 kg/s Water with the Wet Cake
Net_processwater
W 3 = 0.10 kg/s
35
Minimize generation
of targeted species
Wrxn = 0.152 + (5.37 – 7.84x10-3 Trxn) e (27.4 –
0.04Trxn)
Wrxn, kg/s 0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
690 700 710 720 730 740
Trxn, K 36
El-Halwagi, M. M., “Process Integration”, Elsevier (2006)

Adjust design and operating variables to minimize fresh load,
then carry out overall material balance on targeted species
G1 = 0.47 e-0.009Pcomp
 Set Pcomp = 90 atm G1 = 0.47 e

-0.009*90= 0.2
 Minimum water for shredding G1 = 0.2 kg/s

Tires
Shredded
W3 = 0.4 G1 = 0.08 kg/s Tires
Water-Jet (0.15 kg/s
Shredding water)
Wet Cake
(W3 = 0.08 kg/s Wastewater)
Water-jet
Makeup
Compression 37
G1 = 0.20 kg/s
Pcomp = 70 atm
OVERALL WATER BALANCE
AFTER MASS INTEGRATION
Decanter Wastewater
W 1 = 0.20 kg/s
Water-jet Makeup
G1 = 0.20 kg/s
Tire-to-Fuel Plant Seal Pot Wastewater
W 2 = 0.15 kg/s
Seal-Pot Feed Water
G2 = 0.15 kg/s = 0.08 kg/s Water with the Wet Cake
Net_ process water
W 3 = 0.08 kg/s
WATER TARGETING
Decanter Terminal Wastewater
W1T = 0.00 kg/s
Water-Jet Tire-to-Fuel Plant
Makeup
No Seal Pot Terminal Wastewater
Fresh 0.00 kg/s
Water Seal Pot
Feed Water = 0.08 kg/s
Net_processwater
Water with the Wet Cake

38
W3T= 0.08 kg/s
Example 4. Maximizing the Yield of the Process
(without adding new equipment)
Theoretical Yield of Reactor: maximum amount of a desired
product (b) that is produced in the reactor from a
specified amount of the limiting reactant (a) i.e.
Reactor Yield = b / a
A B To sales
a b
Reactor
Target Yield of Process: maximum amount of a desired product in

the sales outlet (B) that is produced in the process from a specified
amount of fresh feed of a raw material (A) i.e. Process Yield= B / A
39
KEY CAUSES OF LOSS IN THE OVERALL YIELD OF THE PROCESS
•  Loss in the allocation of raw materials to the reaction system
•  Reaction yield not reaching its maximum
•  Loss of product leaving the process in terminal streams other than the
desired outlet stream to sales
•  Insufficient recovery and recycle of unreacted raw materials
40
Solution Steps
Step i: Maximize routing of targeted raw material to the reaction
system
41
Al-Otaibi, M. and M. El-Halwagi, “Targeting Techniques for Enhancing Process Yield”, Trans. IChemE, Part A: Chemical Engineering
Research and Design, 84(A10), 943-951 (2006)
Step ii: Maximizing reactor yield: In this step, the design and operating variables of the
reactor and the feed conditions are adjusted so as to maximize the yield of the desired
product in the reactor
Step iii: Rerouting the product from undesirable outlets to desirable

outlets
42
Step iv: Minimizing fresh feed Usage through Recycle
•  Recovery devices can recover (almost) all terminal load and render acceptable quality to replace
fresh feed. During targeting, cost and details of recovery are not relevant (yet)
•  Maximize recycle from outlet path to fresh inlets (can recycle the smaller of the two loads: total
recovered terminal vs. total needed fresh). Rmax = argmin {FBMI , TBMI}
FAMI = WHOLE PLANT

TAMI =
FBMI - Rmax Recovery TBMI - Rmax
Net Generation
Network
Rmax
Target After Mass Integration (AMI)
43
DECOMPOSITION APPROACH FOR YIELD TARGETING
Generation/Depletion Stream and unit Data
Model/Data
(e.g., reaction yield)
Maximize routing of raw material to reactor
Maximum reactor feed
Maximize reaction yield of targeted species

Maximum generation of desired product
Maximize rerouting of product from

undesirable outlet to desirable outlets
Maximum product in desired outlet
Minimize fresh feed usage by recovery and recycle

Minimum fresh feed
Revise overall material balance on targeted species

and calculate overall yield
Target of maximum process yield
44
EXAMPLE: YIELD TARGETING IN ACETALDEHYDE PRODUCTION THROUGH ETHANOL OXIDATION
β = 0.14*QR + 0.89
Yreactor = 0.33 – 4.2*10-6*(Trxn - 580)2
A14= β *A9 0.55 ≤ QR (MW) ≤ 0.76
300 ≤ Trxn (K) ≤ 860
2.5 ≤ RR ≤ 5.0
CH3CH2OH + ½ O2  CH3CHO + H2O
380.0 ≤ Tflash (K) ≤ 383.5
45
Solution to Yield Targeting in Acetaldehyde Production through Ethanol Oxidation
46
Resource Conservation, and Profitability Enhancement”, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd/Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2011)
IN-CLASS EXERCISE I
47
EXERCISE Ia: MINIMIZE AA FRESH PURCHASE IN VAM PROCESS
Gas CO2
Ethylene Purification
Oxygen
H2O
Absorber II
5,100 AA
200
1,200 AA
+ Ethylene,
O2 and CO2
Absorber I
Ethylene
Oxygen
Reactor
(7,000 kg/hr
10,000 AA Acetic Acid
200 H2O Reacted)
Acid Tower 10,000 VAM Primary 10,000 VAM

(Evaporator) 6,900 AA 100 AA
2,300 H2O
Tower 200 H2O
10,000 AA 1,200 AA
200 H2O 6,800 AA 200 H2O
2,300 H2O (86% AA)
(75% AA)
To Neutralization 48
and Biotreatment
EXERCISE Ib
Consider the VAM process described in Exercise Ia. A new

reaction pathway has been developed and will to be used for the
production of VAM. This new reaction does not involve acetic acid.
The rest of the process remains virtually unchanged and the AA
losses with the product are 100 kh/hr. What are the targets for
minimum fresh usage and discharge/losses of AA?
49
MASS INTEGRATION STRATEGIES
ACCEPTABILITY
COST, IMPACT
Target
New Technology Changes

Technologies (New Chemistry, New Processing
Technology, etc.)
Moderate-Cost Equipment Addition/

Replacement
Material
Substitution
Modifications (Interception/Separation
(Solvent, Catalyst, etc.)
devices, etc.)
Minor Structural Modest Sink/Generator

No Cost/ Modifications Manipulation
Low Cost (Segregation, Mixing,
Recycle, etc.)
(e.g. Moderate Changes in
Operating Conditions)
Strategies
El-Halwagi, M. M., 1999, “Pollution Prevention through Mass Integration: Systematic design Tools”, proceedings of International Conference on Process Integration,
International Energy Agency/Nordic Pub., Copenhagen, Denmark, vol. I, pp. 95-112
OUTLINE

LINGO
DIRECT RECYCLE STRATEGIES
Objective: to develop a graphical procedure that determines

the target and implementation for minimum usage of the fresh
resource, maximum material reuse, and minimum discharge to
waste as a result of direct recycle.
Direct Recycle: rerouting of streams without the addition

of new units. It involves segregation, mixing, and allocation.
52
DIRECT RECYCLE REPRESENTATION
Sources Segregated Sinks
Sources Constraints on feed flowrate
and composition
?
Source: A stream which contains the targeted species
Sink: An existing process unit/equipment that can accept a source 53
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Consider a process with a number of process sources (e.g., process

streams, wastes) that can be considered for possible recycle and
replacement of the fresh material and/or reduction of waste discharge.
Each source, i, has a given flow rate, Wi, and a given composition of a
targeted species, yi. Available for service is a fresh (external) resource
that can be purchased to supplement the use of process sources in sinks.
The sinks are process units such as reactors, separators, etc. Each sink, j,
requires a feed whose flow rate, Gj , and an inlet composition of a targeted
species, zj, must satisfy certain bounds on their values.
54
DESIGN CHALLENGES
•  Should a stream (source) be segregated and split? To how many fractions?

What should be the flowrate of each split?
•  Should streams or splits of streams be mixed? To what extent?
•  What should be the optimum feed entering each sink? What should be its
composition?
•  What is the minimum amount of fresh resource to be used?
•  What is the minimum discharge of unused process sources?
55
How to Identify Bounds on Sinks?
1. From physical limitations (e.g., flooding flowrate,
weeping flowrate, channeling flowrate, saturation
composition)
2. From manufacturer's design data
3. From technical constraints (e.g., to avoid scaling,
corrosion, explosion, buildup, etc.)
4. From historical data
Flowrate Upper bound

Entering
the Sink Lower bound
Composition Upper bound

Entering
the Sink Lower bound
56
Time
How to identify bounds on sinks? (continued)
5. By constraint propagation
Unknown Constraints Known Constraints
Unit j Unit j+1
From process model:
6. Tolerate a certain deviation from nominal case (e.g., allow +/- certain %ages from
nominal flowrate and compositions)
57
Targeting Rules
Recycle Strategies
Fresh_Loadk,1
1 4 Terminal_Loadk,1
Fresh_Loadk,2
2
Terminal_Loadk,2
Fresh_Loadk,3 3 5 Terminal_Loadk,3
Terminal_Loadk,4
Process Before Recycle

Recycle Alternatives to Reduce Terminal Load
Fresh_Loadk,1
1 4 Terminal_Loadk,1 – Rk,1+ Rk,2
Fresh_Loadk,2 Rk,2
2
Terminal_Loadk,2 – Rk,2
Rk,1
Fresh_Loadk,3 3 Terminal_Loadk,3
Terminal_Loadk,4+ Rk,1
5
Poor Recycle Net terminal load unchanged

58
Noureldin, M. B. and M. M. El-Halwagi, 1999, “Interval-Based Targeting for Pollution Prevention via Mass Integration”, Comp. Chem.
Eng., 23, 1527-1543
Fresh_Loadk,1 – Rk,2
1 4 Terminal_Loadk,1 – Rk,1
R k ,2
Fresh_Loadk,2 – Rk,1 R k ,1
2
Terminal_Loadk,4
Effective Recycle From Terminal
Fresh_Loadk,1 – Rk,2
1 4 Terminal_Loadk,1 – Rk,1
R k ,2
Fresh_Loadk,2 – Rk,1 R k ,1
2
Terminal_Loadk,4
Effective Recycle From Terminal and Intermediate
59
MATERIAL RECYCLE PINCH DIAGRAM
60
SINK COMPOSITE DIAGRAM
Load Rank in ascending

order of composition
Sink
Composite
Curve
Flowrate
G1 G2 G3 61
SOURCE COMPOSITE DIAGRAM
Load
Source
Composite
Curve
Rank in ascending
order of composition
W1 W2 W3 62
Flowrate
Sink Composite Must Lie Above Source Composite
Load
Sink
Composite
Curve
Source
Composite
Curve
63
Flowrate
INTEGRATING SOURCE AND SINK COMPOSITES
Load
Sink
Composite
Curve
Material
Recycle
Pinch
Point
Source
Composite
Curve
64
Flowrate
MATERIAL RECYCLE PINCH DIAGRAM
Load Rigorous targets ahead
of detailed design Sink
Composite
Curve
Material
Recycle
Pinch
Point
Source
Composite
Curve
Minimum Maximum Minimum

Fresh Recycle Waste
(pure fresh) Flowrate 65
El-Halwagi, M. M., F. Gabriel, and D. Harell, “Rigorous Graphical Targeting for Resource Conservation via Material Recycle/Reuse
Networks”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 42, 4319-4328 (2003)
Passing Flow through the Pinch
Load (not enough integration)
Sink
Composite
Curve
Source
Composite
Curve
Fresh Recycle Waste
Minimum Minimum Flowrate

66
Fresh Waste
Infeasible Recycle
(too much integration)
Load
Sink Source
Composite Composite
Curve Curve
Infeasible
Region
67
Flowrate
MATERIAL RECYCLE PINCH DIAGRAM FOR IMPURE FRESH
Load
Sink
Composite
Curve Source
Composite
Material
Curve
Recycle
Pinch
Point
Fresh
Locus
Minimum Maximum Minimum Flowrate

Fresh Recycle Waste
Networks Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 42, 4319-4328 (2003)
Sink
Composite
MaterialCurve
Recycle
USEFUL DESIGN RULES Pinch
FOR MATERIAL RECYCLE Point
PINCH DIAGRAM
Source
Composite
Curve
Fresh Recycle Waste
• No flowrate should be passed through the
pinch (i.e. the two composites must touch)
• No waste should be discharged from
sources below the pinch
• No fresh should be used in any sink above
the pinch 69
EFFECT OF INTERCEPTION
Load
Sink
Composite
Curve
Material
Recycle
Pinch
Inter- Point
ceptor
Source
Composite
Curve
70
Minimum Flowrate Minimum
Fresh Waste
EXAMPLE 3: FORMIC ACID PROCESS
Quenching
Water
Gas
Quenching Gases
Separation
Column
Solid-Gas
System
Separator
Fly Stabilizing Quenching

Biomass Gasification
Ash Water Effluent
Fly-Ash Hydrolysis Organic

Stabilizer Water Waste
Paste to
Processing
Hydrolysis
Distilled
Reactor
Separation Water
Off-gas
Reactor Network
CO Methyl Methyl
CH3OH Formate Formate
Reactor Column Formic
Spent
Acid
Materials 71
Construction of the Sink Composite Curve
Sink Flowrate Maximum Inlet Maximum Inlet
260 kg/hr Mass Fraction Load of
240 of Impurities Impurities, kg/

hr
Load 220 Hydrolysis Reactor 6,000 0.0100 60
kg/hr
Quenching Column 3,000 0.0300 90
200
Fly Ash Stabilizer 500 0.1000 50
180 Fly-Ash
Stabilizer
160
150
140
120 Quenching
Column
100
80
60
40 Hydrolysis
Reactor
20
0 72
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Flowrate, kg/hr 9,500
Construction of Source Composite Curve
260
250
240
Load 220
kg/hr
200
180
160
Quenching
140 Effluent
120
100
80
70
60 Source Flowrate Mass Fraction Load of
40 Distilled kg/hr of Impurities Impurities, kg/
Water hr
20 Distilled Water 4,000 0.0175 70
Quenching Effluent 3,000 0.0600 180
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Flowrate, kg/hr 73
The Two Composite Curves
260
250
240
Load 220
kg/hr
200 Source
Composite
180
Curve
160
150
140
120
100
Sink
80 Composite
70 Curve
60
40
20
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
9,500
Flowrate, kg/hr 74
260
Source
240 Composite
Curve
Load 220
kg/hr
200
180
Material-Recycle
160 Pinch Point
140
120
100
80
Sink
60 Composite
Curve
40
20
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Minimum Minimum
Fresh Flowrate, kg/hr Waste
Water Water
= 3,667 = 1,167 75
Sink
Composite
MaterialCurve
ASSIGNING SOURCES TO SINKS Recycle
Pinch
TO MEET THE TARGETS Point
Source
Composite
Curve
• Below the pinch: Fresh Recycle Waste
• Total flowrate of sources = total flowrate demand of sinks
•  Total load of impurities in sources = cumulative maximum
allowable load of impurities for sinks
•  The sources below the pinch must be assigned to sinks below pinch
 •  Below the pinch, the total load of impurities of the sources fed to a sink
must equal the maximum load of impurities allowable for that sink.
•  Above the pinch:
• Match the flowrate while having the source below the sink
76
260
Assigning Distilled Water and Fresh
240 to the Hydrolysis Reactor
Load 220
kg/hr
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 Hydrolysis
Reactor Distilled
20 Water
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Fresh Distilled
Water Water
= 2,571 = 3,429 Flowrate, kg/hr 77
260
Assigning Distilled Water (571 kg/hr), Quenching Effluent (1,333 kg/hr),
240 and Fresh (1,096 kg/hr)to the Quenching Column
Load 220
kg/hr
200
180
160
140
120 Quenching
Column Quenching
100
Effluent
80
60 Distilled
Hydrolysis
Fresh
Water
Water
40
=1,096
Reactor
20 Distilled
Water
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Fresh
Water Flowrate, kg/hr
= 2,571
78
260
Assigning Quenching Effluent (500 kg/hr) to the Fly-Ash Stabilizer
240
Load 220
kg/hr
200
180 Fly-Ash
Stabilizer Quenching
160 Effluent
Quenching
140
Effluent
120 Quenching
Column Quenching
100
Effluent
80
60 Distilled
Hydrolysis
Fresh
Water
Water
40
=1,096
Reactor
20 Distilled
Water
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Fresh
= 2,571
79
AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TARGET
Sources Sinks
Distilled 3,429
Water Hydrolysis
Reactor
Quenching
Effluent
1,333 Quenching
Column
6
Fresh 1,09 Fly Ash Stabilizer
Water
Waste
80
260
AN ALTERNATE IMPLEMENTATION:
240 ALL THE FRESH IN THE HYDROLYSIS REACTOR
USE
Load 220
kg/hr
200
180
160
140
120 Quenching Quenching
Column Effluent
100
80 Distilled
Water
60
Quenching
40 Hydrolysis
Effluent
Reactor
20
Distilled
0 Water
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
Fresh
= 3,667
81
AN ALTERNATE IMPLEMENTATION:
USE ALL THE FRESH IN THE HYDROLYSIS REACTOR
Sources Sinks
Distilled 1,882
Water Hydrolysis
451 Reactor
Quenching
Effluent
882 Quenching
Column
Fresh Fly Ash Stabilizer

Water
Waste
82
USING THE MATERIAL RECYCLE PINCH DIAGRAM TO CRITIQUE DESIGNS
EXAMPLE 4: FOOD PROCESSING FACILITY
Scrubbing
Water
Scrubber
Wash
Water Offgas
Condensate I
Feedstock Washer
Processing
Condensate II
Facility
Main Product
Solid Byproducts
Waste
Two sources (Condensate I and II), Two Sinks (Washer and Scrubber)
83
El-Halwagi, M. M., “Process Integration”, Elsevier /Academic Press, Amsterdam (2006)

Sink Data for the Food Processing Example
Sink Flowrate Maximum Maximum
kg/hr Inlet Inlet
Mass Load, kg/hr
Washer 8,000 Fraction
0.03 240
Scrubber 10,000 0.05 500
Source Data for the Food Processing Example

Source Flowrate Inlet Inlet
kg/hr Mass Load, kg/hr
Fraction
Condensate 10,000 0.02 200
I
Condensate 9,000 0.09 810
II
84
Scrubbing
Water
10,000 kg/hr
Scrubber
Wash
Water Offgas
8,000 kg/hr Condensate I
Feedstock Washer
Processing Condensate II
9,000 kg/hr
Facility
Main Product
Solid Byproducts
Waste
Critique project proposed by engineer:

Recycle Condensate I to Scrubber
Reduce fresh water to 8,000 kg/hr (down from 18,000 kg/hr) 85
1,125
Load
kg/hr Before assessing
1,010
1,000
the proposed project,
let’s benchmark
875 Pinch Source using the material recycle
Composite pinch diagram
750 Curve
740
Scrubber
625 Waste
Sink
500 Composite Condensate II
Curve Material Recycle Pinch
375 Diagram For Food Processing
Facility without Proposed
Project
250
240
200
125 Washer Target for fresh AA == 2,000 kg/
Condensate I hr
(25% of proposed project)
0
0 2 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 86
18 21
Fresh Flowrate, 1000 kg/hr
1,125
Load Waste
kg/hr Let’s represent
1,010 proposed project
1,000
Proposed Pinch
875 Recycle Location
=
6,000
750 kg/hr
740
Scrubber
625
500 Condensate II
Proposed project:
375 6,000 kg/hr more than
fresh target
250
= Flowrate passed
240 through the pinch
200
Do not pass flow
125 Washer through the pinch
Condensate I
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 2728 32 36 40 87
18
Fresh Flowrate, 1000 kg/hr
1,125
Load If proposed project has been
kg/hr implemented, Can we still use pinch
1,000
analysis to reduce Fresh usage?
875 Improvement after implementation of

proposed project
750
740
Fresh usage: 5,300 kg/hr (265% of
625 target)
500
Condensate II
375 Big picture yields insights unseen by

detailed engineering (unit/stream
250 based)
240
125 Washer Short-term projects must be part of an

overall integrated strategy
0
0 4 5.3 8 12 14.3 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 88
Flowrate, 1000 kg/hr
Fresh Waste
CONCLUSIONS
•  Source and sink optimization rules
•  Targeting for direct recycle using material recycle pinch diagram
•  Source-Sink Mapping Diagram for synthesizing
implementation (many possible alternatives)
•  Big-picture insights unseen by detailed eng.
•  Short-term projects must fit in integrated
strategies
89
IN-CLASS EXERCISE II
90
EXERCISE II: FIND THE TARGET FOR MINIMUM AA USAGE IN VAM
PROCESS USING DIRECT RECYCLE
Gas CO2
Oxygen
H2O
Absorber II
5,100 AA 200
1,200 AA
+ Ethylene,
O2 and CO2
Absorber I
Ethylene
Oxygen 1,200 AA
Reactor 200 H2O
(7,000kg/hr (86% AA)
200 H2O Reacted)
Acid Tower Primary 10,000 VAM

(Evaporator) 10,000 VAM 100 AA
6,900 AA Tower
200 H2O
2,300 H2O
10,000 AA
6,800 AA
200 H2O
2,300 H2O
(75% AA) To Neutralization
and Biotreatment
PROBLEM DATA

Inlet Inlet
kg/hr Mass Load, kg/
Fraction hr
Absorber I 5,100 0.05 255
Acid 10,200 0.10 1,020

Tower

Mass Load, kg/
kg/hr Fraction hr
Bottoms 1,400 0.14 196

of
Absorber
II
Bottoms 9,100 0.25 2,275
of Primary
Tower
OUTLINE

LINGO
PROPERTY-BASED MATERIAL RECYCLE PINCH DIAGRAM
94
WHAT IS PROPERTY INTEGRATION?
Property-based, holistic approach to the allocation and

manipulation of streams and processing units which is
based on tracking, adjusting, assigning, and matching of
functionalities throughout the process.
po
El-Halwagi, M. M., I. M. Glasgow, M. R. Eden, and X. Qin, “Property Integration:

Componentless Design Techniques and Visualization Tools”, AIChE J., 50(8), 1854-1869 (2004)
  When process constraints are given in terms of properties
  When units perform on the basis of certain properties of streams,

not their chemical constituents (e.g. vapor pressure in
condensation, relative volatility in distillation, Henry’s coefficient
in absorption, etc)
  When dealing with mixtures of numerous components (e.g.,

complex hydrocarbons, natural textiles, paper/pulp etc.)
  When environmental regulations for process discharges involve

limits on properties (e.g., pH, color, BOD, etc.)
Process Sources Process Sinks
Lower Upper
S1 Sink 1 pi, Sink 1 < p i < p i, Sink 1
p11 , p 12, p 13
PROPERTY
S2 INTERCEPTION Sink 2
Lower Upper
pi, Sink 2 < p i < p i, Sink 2
p21, p 22, p 23
NETWORK
. . .
. . .
. . .
. (PIN) . .
Lower Upper
SN Sink N pi, Sink N < p i < p i, Sink N
pN1, p N2, p N3
Kazantzi, V. and M.M. El-Halwagi, Targeting Material Reuse via Property Integration,
Chem. Eng. Prog., 101 (8), 2837, 2005 .
Steps towards the objective:
•  Developing optimization formulation
•  Deriving optimality criteria
•  Developing visualization approaches
•  Defining targets ahead of detailed design!
PROPERTY MIXING
  Choose a finite number of targeted raw properties, pi .

  Describe mixing rule for each raw property in operator
form:
e.g. Operator for density,
Pi,s = ith property in sth stream

Source
Load Composite
Material Recycle/Reuse
Property Pinch Point
Sink
Composite
Fresh
Min. Fresh Flowrate

Min. Waste
Kazantzi, V. and M.M. El-Halwagi, Targeting Material Reuse via Property Integration, Chem. Eng. Prog., 101 (8), 2837, 2005 .
SYNTHESIS OF MASS-EXCHANGE NETWORKS (MENs)
MSA’s (Lean Streams In)

S1 S2 Sj SNS
L1? L2? Lj? LNS?
x1s x2s xjs xNSt
Waste R1, G1, y1s y 1t
Waste
(Rich)
Streams
R2, G2, y2 s
Mass y2 t
(Rich)
Streams
(Sources)
In
Ri, Gi, yis
Exchange yit
(Sources)
Out
RNR, GNR, yNRs
Network yNRt
x 1t x 2t xjt xNSt
MSA’s (Lean Streams Out)
El-Halwagi, M. M. and V. Manousiouthakis, 1989, "Synthesis of Mass Exchange Networks", AIChE J., 35(8), 1233-1244
Mass MASS-EXCHANGE PINCH DIAGRAM
Exchanged
Mass Exchange Excess Capacity

Pinch Point of Process MSAs
Lean Rich Maximum

Composite Composite Integrated
Stream Stream Mass
Minimum Exchange
Load
For
External y
MSAs
El-Halwagi, M. M. and V. Manousiouthakis, 1989, "Synthesis of Mass Exchange Networks", AIChE J., 35(8), 1233-1244
OUTLINE
o  Mass Integration
 Algebraic Approach to Material Recycle

LINGO
HOW TO GET SAME RESULTS ALGEBRAICALLY?
Load Material Recycle

Pinch Diagram
Source
Composite
Curve
Material Sink
Recycle Composite
Pinch Curve
Point

Flowrate
Fresh Recycle Waste
Networks Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 42, 4319-4328 (2003)
What happens if we start both composites from the origin?
Load Looking vertically (at a given Source

Flowrate), if source composite Composite
lies above sink composite Curve
 Infeasible (violates max.
admissible load of sink)
Sink
Composite
Source load Curve
Sink load
Flowrate
What happens if we start both composites from the origin?
Looking horizontally (at a given

Load load), if source composite lies to Source
the left of sink composite Composite
 Infeasible (shortage Curve
In flowrate)
Sink
Composite
Source load Curve
Source Sink
flowrate flowrate Flowrate
MAXIMUM INFEASIBILITY (FLOWRATE SHORTAGE)
Load
Sink
Composite
Curve
Source
Composite
Curve
Flowrate
REMOVING INFEASIBILITY BY SLIDING SOURCE COMPOSITE BY
Load
Sink
Composite
Curve
Source
Composite
Curve
Minimum Flowrate
Fresh
Almutlaq, A. and M. M. El-Halwagi, “An Algebraic Targeting Approach to Resource Conservation via Material Recycle/Reuse”,
Int. J. of Environ. and Pollution (IJEP), 29(1-3), 4-18 (2007)
How to determine Without a graph
Load
Sink
Composite
Curve
Source
Composite
Curve
Minimum Flowrate
Fresh
Load
Source
Checking residuals Composite
at corner points Curve
Examples
Sink
Composite
Curve
Interval 3
Interval 2
Interval 1
Flowrate
Almutlaq, A. and M. M. El-Halwagi, “An Algebraic Targeting Approach to Resource Conservation via Material Recycle/Reuse”,
Int. J. of Environ. and Pollution (IJEP), 29(1-3), 4-18 (2007)
ALGEBRAIC PROCEDURE FOR DIRECT RECYCLE
•  Rank the sinks in ascending order of maximum admissible composition,
•  Rank sources in ascending order of pollutant composition, i.e.
• Calculate the load of each sink and source:
• Compute the cumulative loads for the sinks and for the sources (by summing up their
individual loads)
• Rank the cumulative loads in ascending order.

6. Construct the Load Interval Diagram (LID)
kg/hr Interval Source Flow Sink Flow

Interval Load, Load ( ) Sources per Interval Sources Per Interval
kg/hr ( ),ton/hr ( ),ton/hr
0.0
Source 1 Sink 1
1
M1
2
M2
Source 2 Sink 2
Mk-1
k Source 3
Mk
Sink 3
Source
Mn-1 NSources
n Sink NSinks
Mn
Almutlaq and El-Halwagi, 2004
Material Balance around Each Load Interval
Subtract Interval
k

In general
Cascade Diagram
Interval
1
Interval
2
Residual negativity =
infeasibility
Interval
k
Interval
k
Revised
Cascade
Interval Diagram
1
Interval
2
Remove most negative

residual flowrate
Interval
k
Interval
k
EXAMPLE 5: MINIMIZATION OF AA USAGE IN VAM PROCESS
Gas CO2
Oxygen
H2O
Absorber II
5,100 AA 200
1,200 AA
+ Ethylene,
O2 and CO2
Absorber I
Ethylene
Oxygen 1,200 AA
Reactor 200 H2O
(7,000kg/hr (86% AA)
200 H2O Reacted)

6,900 AA Tower
200 H2O
2,300 H2O
10,000 AA
6,800 AA
200 H2O
2,300 H2O
and Biotreatment
El-Halwagi, M. M., “Process Integration”, Academic Press/Elsevier (2006)
LOAD INTERVAL DIAGRAM (LID)
Source Flowrate Inlet Inlet Cumul- Sink Flowrate Maximum Maximum Cumul-
kg/hr Mass Load, ative Kg/hr Inlet Inlet ative
Load, kg/ Mass Load, kg/ MaxLoad
Fraction kg/hr hr Fraction hr kg/hr
Bottoms of 1,400 0.14 196 196
Absorber II Absorber I 5,100 0.05 255 255
Bottoms of 9,100 0.25 2,275 2,471 Acid 10,200 0.10 1,020 1,275
Primary Tower
Tower
Interval Source Flow Sink Flow

kg/hr
Load,
Interval Load ( ) per Interval Per Interval

Sources Sources
0
Source 1 Sink 1
1 196 1,400 zmax=0.05 3,920
196 y = 0.14
2 59 236 1,180
255
3 Source 2 Sink 2
1,020 y = 0.25 4,080 10,200
1275 zmax=0.10
4 1,196 4,784 0
2471
Interval Source Flow Sink Flow
kg/hr
Load,
Interval Load ( ) per Interval Per Interval
Sources Sources
0
Source 1 Sink 1
1 196 1,400 zmax=0.05 3,920
196 y = 0.14
2 59 236 1,180
255
3 Source 2 Sink 2
1,020 y = 0.25 4,080 10,200
1275 zmax=0.10
4 1,196 4,784 0
2471
1,400 1 3,920
-2,520
236 2 1,180
-3,464
4,080 3 10,200
-9,584
Cascade Diagram
4,784 4 0
-4,800
Revised
Cascade Diagram
Cascade Diagram
9,584 Fresh AA
1,400 1 3,920 1,400 1 3,920

-2,520 7,064
236 2 1,180 236 2 1,180
-3,464 6,120
4,080 3 10,200 4,080 3 10,200
-9,584 0 Pinch Location
4,784 4 0 4,784 4 0
-4,800 4,784 Waste
OUTLINE
 Introduction to Optimization and Modeling Using

LINGO

OPTIMIZATION
WHAT IS OPTIMIZATION?
The purpose of optimization is to maximize (or

minimize) the value of a function (called
objective function) subject to a number of
restrictions (called constraints).
OBJECTIVES OF THIS OPTIMIZATION SECTION
•  (1) Modeling and formulation of

optimization problems: how to take your
concepts and ideas
and transform them to optimization
formulations
•  (2) Examples: a broad array of
applications
•  (3) Computer-aided solution: LINGO
Types of Optimum Points
Objective
Function
Local
Minimum
Local
Minimum
Feasible
point (a)
Global
Minimum
Optimization Variable, x
MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMS
mathematical programming deals with the formulation, solution,
and analysis of optimization problems or mathematical programs
min (or max): f(x1, x2,……., xN)
subject to:
Inequality Constraints
g1(x1, x2, …….., xN) 0
g2(x1, x2, …….., xN) 0
.
.
gm(x1, x2, …….., xN) 0
Equality Constraints
h1(x1, x2, …….., xN) = 0
h2(x1, x2, …….., xN) = 0
Remember:
How to formulate? .
How to solve? .
hE(x1, x2, ….., xN) = 0 E N
Examples
maximize: (conversion of reactor)
subject to: reactor modeling equations
kinetic equations
limitations on temperature,
pressure and concentration
minimize: (cost of the plant)

subject to: material and energy balance
equations
equipment modeling equations
environmental, technical and
logical constraints
minimize: (pollutant discharge)

subject to: Production requirements
Processing constraints
Available technologies
Vector Notation
In a vector notation:
min (or max) f(x)
where xT = [x1, x2,….,xN]
of optimization variables
s.t.
g(x) < 0
where gT = [g1, g2,….,gm]
h(x) = 0
where hT = [h1, h2,….,hE]
Feasibility
Any vector (or point) which satisfies all the
constraints of the optimization program is called
a feasible vector (or a feasible point)
The set of all feasible points is called feasibility
region or feasibility domain
Any optimal solution must lie within the

feasibility region
Classification of
Optimization Programs
Consider the following generic optimization
program:
optimize (min or max):

z = f(x1, x2, …., xn)
subject to:
Linear Programs “LP’s”
A mathematical program is linear if
f(x1, x2, …, xn) and each gi(x1, x2, …, xn) where ( i = 1, 2, ….., m)
are LINEAR in each of their arguments, i.e.
f(x1, x2, …, xn) = c1x1 + c2x2 + …… + cnxn
gi(x1, x2, …, xn) = ai1x1 + ai2x2 + ……. + ainxn
where ci and aij ( i = 1,2,….., m; j = 1,2,….,n) are known constants.

Linear Programs “LP’s”
Or in a vector form:
minimize z = CTX
subject to: AX B
Where B and C are vectors of constants and A is a
matrix of constants.
Example of linear programming
min 5x1 + 4x2 Any program which is not linear is a
s.t. 8x1 + x2 3 nonlinear program “NLP”.
x1 0 e.g.
x2 1 min 3x + 6y2
s.t. 5x + x*y 0
Here,
xT = [x1 x2]
CT = [5 4]
BT = [3 0 1]
Integer Programming
They are optimization programs in which ALL the variables
must assume integer values. The most commonly used integer
variables are the zero/one binary integer variables.
MIXED INTEGER LINEAR PROGRAMMING “MILP’s”:

They are LINEAR PROGRAMS in which SOME of the variables
are real and other variables are integers
MIXED INTEGER NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING

“MINLP’s”:
They are NONLINEAR PROGRAMS in which SOME of the
variables are real and other variables are integers
Formulation of
Optimization Problems
STEP1: Determine the Objective Function:
• Determine the quantity to be optimized (the objective function).

• Identify the decision (optimization) variables that are need to
describe the objective function.
• Express the objective function as a mathematical function in
terms of the optimization variables.
Formulation of
STEP2: Develop Your Game Plan to Tackle the Problem
• Determine an approach to address the problem.

• What is your rationale?
• What are the key concepts necessary to transform your thoughts
and approach into a working formulation?
Formulation of
STEP3: Develop the Constraints:
• Transform your approach to a mathematical framework.

• Develop a search space that is rich enough to embed the solution
alternatives.
• Identify all explicit relations, restrictions, and limitations that are
needed to describe the approach. Express them mathematically
as equality and inequality constraints.
• Incorporate subtle constraints (e.g., nonnegativity or integer
requirements on the input variables).
Formulation of
STEP4: Improve Formulation:
• Avoid highly nonlinear constraints or terms that lead to difficulties

in convergence or solution.
• Use insights to simplify formulation or to provide useful bounds
on variables.
• Enhance the clarity of the model to become easy to understand,
to debug, and to reveal important information.
EXAMPLE 6. OPTIMIZATION OF FUEL BLENDING
A company intends to mix bio-diesel and petro-diesel to produce a cost-effective,
technically viable, and environmentally friendly fuel. The table gives data of the
available bio-diesel and petro-diesel to be mixed. These data include the cost of
each type of fuel, the heating value, and the extent of GHG emission upon
combustion. The densities of both fuels are assumed to be roughly the same.
For technical considerations, the heating value of the blend should not be less
than 119,500 Btu/gal. For environmental reasons, the GHG emission associated with
burning the blend should not exceed 6,540 gm CO2/gal. What is the optimal mixing
ratio of the two fuels which will minimize the cost of fuel blend ($/gal) while satisfying
the technical and environmental constraints?
Characteristic Bio-diesel Petro-diesel

Cost ($/gal) 3.80 3.20
Heating value (Btu/gal) 117,000 129,000
GHG emission (gm CO2/gal) 2,100 9,500
SOLUTION
Bio-diesel
X1 gal
Cost = $3.80/gal Fuel Blend
Heating value = 117,000 Btu/gal Basis: 1 gal
GHG emission = 2,100 gm CO2/gal
Heating value 119,500 Btu/gal
GHG emission 6,540 gm CO2/gal
Blending
Process
Petro-diesel
X2 gal
Cost = $3.20/gal
Heating value = 129,000 Btu/gal
GHG emission = 9,500 gm CO2/gal
Basis: 1.0 gal of the blended fuel. Heating value constraint:

Optimization variables:
X1 be amount of bio-diesel (gal)

X2 be amount of petro-diesel (gal) GHG-Emission constraint:
Objective function:
Z = cost of 1 gal of the blended fuel ($)
Mass balance (which can be written as a volume balance
because of the equal densities of the mixed fuels) :
Express Z in terms of X1 and X2:
X1 + X2 = 1
minimize Z = 3.80*X1 + 3.20*X2 Non-negativity constraints:
Optimization Software
We will use the software package: LINGO
A trial version can be downloaded from www.LINDO.com
To initiate the package, type double click on icon LINGO
How to write a LINGO model:
Objective Function:
min = ….; Or max = …..;
Then start entering constraints.
Each line must end by ;

LINGO SYMBOLS AND OPERATORS
= The expression to the left must equal the one on the right.
<= The expression to the left must be less than or equal to the expression on the right.
>= The expression to the left must be greater than or equal to the expression on the right.
< The expression to the left must be strictly less than the expression on the right.
> The expression to the left must be strictly greater than the expression on the right.
In writing constraints, the following symbols are used for arithmetic operations:
+ Addition.
- Subtraction
* Multiplication.
/ Division.
^ Power
The following are some of the mathematical functions used by LINGO:

@ABS(X) Returns the absolute value of X.
@EXP(X) Returns the constant e (2.718281...) to the power X.
@LOG(X) Returns the natural logarithm of X.
@SIGN(X) Returns -1 if X is less than 0, returns +1 if X is greater than or equal to 0.
@BND(L, X, U) Limits the variable X to greater or equal to L and less than or equal to U.
@BIN(X) Limits the variable X to a binary integer value (0 or 1)
@GIN(X) Limits the variable X to only integer values
EXAMPLE 6. USING LINGO TO SOLVE THE FUEL BELNDING PROBLEM
minimize Z = 3.80*X1 + 3.20*X2
X1 + X2 = 1
LINGO Formulation:
Min = 3.80*X1 + 3.20*X2;

117000*X1 + 129000*X2 >= 119500;
2100*X1 + 9500*X2 <= 6540;
X1 + X2 =1;
X1 >= 0;
X2 >= 0;
SOLUTION USING LINGO
Objective value: 3.440000
Variable Value
X1 0.4000000
X2 0.6000000
EXAMPLE 7: YIELD TARGETING IN ACETALDEHYDE PRODUCTION
THROUGH ETHANOL OXIDATION
β = 0.14*QR + 0.89
Yreactor = 0.33 – 4.2*10-6*(Trxn - 580)2
A14= β *A9 0.55 ≤ QR (MW) ≤ 0.76
300 ≤ Trxn (K) ≤ 860
2.5 ≤ RR ≤ 5.0
CH3CH2OH + ½ O2  CH3CHO + H2O
380.0 ≤ Tflash (K) ≤ 383.5
146
LINGO FORMULATION FOR THE ACETALDEHYDE BASE CASE
!Base case program;
Max = A14/Efresh;
! Base case data;
TFlash = 380; TR = 442; QR = 0.55; RR = 2.5; ERecycle = 0; A14 = 100000;
! Modeling equations;
E1 + E6 = EReactor + E2 + E17 + E18;
AReactor = A14 + A16;
AReactor = A5;
E1 = Efresh + ERecycle;
E2 = Alfa*E1;
Alfa = 10.5122 – 0.0274*TFlash;
TFlash <= 383.5;
TFlash >= 380.0;
E3 = E1 – E2;
E6 = 400;
YReactor = 0.33 - 0.0000042*(TR - 580)*(TR - 580);
TR >= 300;
TR <= 860;
AReactor = YReactor*E3;
EReactor = (46/44)*AReactor;
E5 = E3 - EReactor;
E9 = E5 + E6;
A9 = A5;
A14 = Beta*A9;
Beta = 0.14*QR + 0.89;
QR >= 0.55;
QR <= 0.76;
E15 = E9;
E17 = Gamma*E15;
Gamma = 0.653*@exp(0.085*RR);
RR>=2.5;
RR<=5;
Global optimal solution found.
Variable Value
A14 100000.0
EFRESH 459685.8
TFLASH 380.0000
TR 442.0000
QR 0.5500000
RR 2.500000
E6 400.0000
EREACTOR 108113.2
E2 46060.52
E17 120956.7
E18 184955.4
AREACTOR 103412.6
A16 3412.616
A5 103412.6
E1 459685.8
ERECYCLE 0.000000
ALFA 0.1002000
E3 413625.3
YREACTOR 0.2500152
E5 149371.5
E4 257484.7
E9 149771.5
A9 103412.6
BETA 0.9670000
E15 149771.5
GAMMA 0.8076083
LINGO FORMULATION FOR ACETALDEHYDE YIELD TARGETING
! Yield Optimization;
Max = A14/Efresh;
A14 = 100000;
E1 + E6 = EReactor + E2 + E17 + E18;
AReactor = A14 + A16;
AReactor = A5;
! The following constraint is the ethanol balance around the mixing point of the recycle and fresh feed;
Efresh = E1 - ERecycle;
! Direct recycle is only allowed from E17;
ERecycle = E17; E2 = Alfa*E1;
Alfa = 10.5122 – 0.0274*TFlash;
TFlash <= 383.5; TFlash >= 380.0;
E3 = E1 – E2;
E6 = 400;
YReactor = 0.33 - 0.0000042*(TR - 580)*(TR - 580);
TR >= 300; TR <= 860;
AReactor = YReactor*E3;
EReactor = (46/44)*AReactor;
E5 = E3 - EReactor;
E9 = E5 + E6;
A9 = A5;
A14 = Beta*A9;
Beta = 0.14*QR + 0.89;
QR >= 0.55;
QR <= 0.76;
E15 = E9;
E17 = Gamma*E15;
Gamma = 0.653*@exp(0.085*RR);
RR>=2.5;
RR<=5;
Global optimal solution found.
Variable Value
A14 100000.0
EFRESH 106071.6
E1 305438.5
E6 400.0000
EREACTOR 104923.2
E2 1313.386
E17 199367.0
E18 235.0225
AREACTOR 100361.3
A16 361.3007
A5 100361.3
ERECYCLE 199367.0
ALFA 0.4300000E-02
TFLASH 383.5000
E3 304125.2
YREACTOR 0.3300000
TR 580.0000
E5 199202.0
E9 199602.0
A9 100361.3
BETA 0.9964000
QR 0.7600000
E15 199602.0
GAMMA 0.9988225
RR 5.000000
Solution to Yield Targeting in Acetaldehyde Production through Ethanol
Oxidation
151
DIRECT RECYCLE USING
OPTIMIZATION
152
SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR DIRECT RECYCLE
153
CONSTRAINTS
Splitting of Sources:
i=1,2,…,NSources
Splitting of Fresh:
Mixing of Waste Streams:
r=1,2,…,NFresh
Mixing before Sinks:
j = 1,2, …, NSinks
154
OBJECTIVE
Minimize cost of Fresh= Minimize Fresh Usage =
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESS INTEGRATION AND SIMULATION
155
EXAMPLE 8: ETHYL CHLORIDE PROCESS
model:
0.180*y1 - 0.060*z5 = 6.030;
y1 - 5*z6 = 0.0;
2*y2 + z2 - 2*y1 = 0.0;
y2 - 0.10*y1 = 0.0;
2*y3 + z4 - 2*y2 = 0.0;
y3 - 0.10*y2 = 0.0;
2*z5 - z2 - z4 = 0.0;
Pollutant: Chloroethanol (CE)
y: composition in the gas phase (ppmw CE)
z: composition in the liquid phase (ppmw CE)
156
El-Halwagi, M. M., A. A. Hamad and G. W. Garrison, 1996, "Synthesis of Waste Interception and Allocation Networks", AIChE J. 42(11),
3087-3101
SOLVING THE ETHYL CHLORIDE MODEL BEFORE MASS INTEGRATION
model:
0.180*y1 - 0.060*z5 = 6.030;
y1 - 5*z6 = 0.0;
2*y2 + z2 - 2*y1 = 0.0;
y2 - 0.10*y1 = 0.0;
2*y3 + z4 - 2*y2 = 0.0;
y3 - 0.10*y2 = 0.0;
2*z5 - z2 - z4 = 0.0;
The solution to this model gives the following compositions (in ppmw CE) prior to recycle:
y1 = 50.0
y2 = 5.0
y3 = 0.5
z2 = 90.0
z4 = 9.0
z5 = 49.5
z6 = 10.0
157
SIMULTANEOUS RECYCLE AND PROCESS MODELING
New compositions and flowrate entering the sinks 158

may alter the compositions and flowrates of the sources
SEGREGATION, MIXING AND RECYCLE FOR THE ETHYLT
CHLORIDE CASE STUDY
159
model:
! Objective is to minimize load of CE in terminal wastewater streams
min = F65*z6 + F25*z2 + F45*z4;
! Water balances around inlets of sinks
F1In - f21 - f41 - f61 - Fresh1 = 0.0000;
F2In - f22 - f42 - f62 - Fresh2 = 0.0000;
F3In - f23 - f43 - f63 - Fresh3 = 0.0000;
! CE balances around inlets of sinks
F1In*Z1In - f21*z2 - f41*z4 - f61*z6 = 0.0000;
F2In*Z2In - f22*z2 - f42*z4 - f62*z6 = 0.0000;
F3In*Z3In - f23*z2 - f43*z4 - f63*z6 = 0.0000;
! Water balances around sinks

F1In - F1Out = 0.0000;
F2In - F2Out = 0.0000;
F3In - F3Out = 0.0000;
! Water balances for sources to be split
F1Out - f65 - f61 - f62 - f63 = 0.0000;
F2Out - f25 - f21 - f22 - f23 = 0.0000;
F3Out - f45 - f41 - f42 - f43 = 0.0000;
! Process modeling equations
(0.15+0.2*F1In)*y1 - (F1In - 0.09)*Z1In = 6.030;
0.15*(y1 - y2) - F2In*(z2 - Z2In) = 0.0000;
(F2In/0.015)^1.3 - (1 - 0.015/F2In)*(y1 - 0.1*Z2In)/(y2 - 0.1*Z2In) - 0.015/F2In = 0.0000;
0.15*(y2 - y3) - F3In*(z4 - Z3In) = 0.0000;
(F3In/0.015)^1.3 - (1 - 0.015/F3In)*(y2 - 0.1*Z3In)/(y3 - 0.1*Z3In) - 0.015/F3In = 0.0;
y1 - 5*z6 = 0.0000;
! Restrictions on what can be recycled
Z1In <= 65.0000; Z2In < 8.0000; Z3In = 0.0000;
F1In <= 0.1500; F1In >= 0.0900; F2In <= 0.0900; 160
F2In >= 0.07500; F3In <= 0.0850; F3In >= 0.0750;
SOLUTION
Objective value: 0.488x10-6 kg/s  minimum CE discharge target
Variable Value
F65 0.0000000E+00 No Wastewater from Reactor
Z6 7.178572
F25 0.0000000E+00
No Wastewater from First Scrubber
Z2 60.96842
F45 0.7500000E-01
 Wastewater from Second Scrubber is 0.075 kg/s
Z4 6.508329
F1IN 0.9000000E-01
F21 0.9000000E-01
F41 0.0000000E+00
F61 0.0000000E+00
FRESH1 0.0000000E+00
F2IN 0.9000000E-01
F22 0.0000000E+00
F42 0.0000000E+00
F62 0.9000000E-01
FRESH2 0.0000000E+00
F3IN 0.7500000E-01
F23 0.0000000E+00
F43 0.0000000E+00
F63 0.0000000E+00
FRESH3 0.7500000E-01
Z1IN 60.96842
Z2IN 7.178572
Z3IN 0.0000000E+00
F1OUT 0.9000000E-01
F2OUT 0.9000000E-01
F3OUT 0.7500000E-01
Y1 35.89286
Y2 3.618950 161
Y3 0.3663237
IN-CLASS EXERCISE III
162
EXERCISE III: DEVELOP AND SOLVE A LINGO FORMULATION
TO MINIMIZE WATER DISCHARGE IN TIRE-TO-FUEL PROCESS
BY OPTIMIZING REACTION TEMPERATURE AND COMPRESSION PRESSURE
Gaseous Fuel To Atmosphere
Condenser
Flare
Wastewater
Decanter W1 = 0.27 kg/s
Reactor
Off-Gases Fresh Seal Wastewater
Light Water Pot W2 = G2
Tires Oil G2 = 0.15 kg/s
Pyrolysis Flare Gas
Shredded Reactor
Tires Trxn = 690 K
Water-Jet (0.15 kg/s (Water
Shredding Separation Finishing Liquid
water) Generated Fuels
= 0.12 kg/s)
Wet Cake
(W3 = 0.10 kg/s Wastewater) G1 + G2 + Wrxn = W1 + W2 + W3
Water-jet
Makeup Wrxn = 0.152 + (5.37 – 7.84x10-3 Trxn) e (27.4 –
Compression 0.04Trxn)
G1 = 0.25 kg/s
Pcomp = 70 atm
G1 = 0.47 e-0.009 Pcomp
G2 = 0.15 W2 = G2 W3 = 0.4 G1
IN-CLASS EXERCISE IV
164
EXERCISE IV: FORMULATE AND SOLVE AN OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM TO
MINIMIZE FRESH AA USAGE IN VAM PROCESS USING DIRECT RECYCLE.
GENERATE TWO IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR THE TARGET
Gas CO2
Oxygen
H2O
Absorber II
5,100 AA 200
1,200 AA
+ Ethylene,
O2 and CO2
Absorber I
Ethylene
Oxygen 1,200 AA
Reactor 200 H2O
(7,000kg/hr (86% AA)
200 H2O Reacted)

6,900 AA Tower
200 H2O
2,300 H2O
10,000 AA
6,800 AA
200 H2O
2,300 H2O
El-Halwagi, M. M., “Process Integration”, Elsevier (2006) and Biotreatment
PROBLEM DATA

Inlet Inlet
kg/hr Mass Load, kg/
Fraction hr
Absorber I 5,100 0.05 255
Acid 10,200 0.10 1,020

Tower

Mass Load, kg/
kg/hr Fraction hr
Bottoms 1,400 0.14 196

of
Absorber
II
Bottoms 9,100 0.25 2,275
of Primary
Tower
OUTLINE

LINGO
Industrial Applications and Concluding Thoughts

Launching PI Initiatives
•  Articulate a clear vision of the broad goals of the company
•  Perform a preliminary targeting analysis to determine priority areas of work
•  Develop a preliminary framework of tasks needed and the required human, technical,
and financial resources
•  Establish realistic expectation and targets of what process integration can deliver and
what resources it will take to perform the tasks
•  Describe anticipated constraints, corporate unique aspects, and challenges
•  Get enthusiastic support from senior management
•  Recruit local champions from among the process experts and the stakeholders
•  Form task-driven teams
•  Encourage an open environment which fosters creativity and out-of-the-box integrated
thinking where the dominating culture is “how do we make it happen?” instead of “why it
won’t work”
•  Measure, analyze, use process integration tools to develop, improve, synthesize,
feedback, refine, and sustain projects and strategies
•  Present the proposed changes in a way which focuses on gained insights, is easy to
follow, and highlights the key characteristics of the findings
•  Give focus to important issues
•  Consult with relevant individuals all along to capture process know-how, ensure that
appropriate details are included and hurdles are overcome
•  Start now!
EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
(Taken from El-Halwagi and Spriggs, 1998 and Dunn and El-Halwagi,
2003)
Project Motivation Approach Key Results
Type of Objectives
Process
Specialty -Water-usage Profitability Mass integration with direct -Water-usage reduction: 33%
Chemicals reduction enhancement and recycle and interception -Solvent-usage reduction: 25%
Process -Solvent-usage debottlenecking - Yield enhancement: 8%
reduction
- Yield
enhancement
Chemical and -Reduction of Meet environmental Heat and mass integration -VOC losses reduced by 50%
Polymer losses of VOCs regulations, reduce -Thermal load reduced by 90%
Complex -Reduction of losses, and allow -Payback period: 1.5 years
thermal load of future expansions
wastewater
Specialty Debottlenecking Soldout product Systematic elimination of 12% additional capacity and
Chemicals of the process with no additional two primary bottlenecks 25% reduction in hydrogen cost
Process and hydrogen capacity and and sitewide integration of with a payback period of less
management significant cost for hydrogen generation, usage, than one year
hydrogen and discharge
consumption
Kraft Pulping Water High usage of water Sitewide tracking of water Key results: 55% Reduction in
Process management and and buildup of non and non process elements water usage with a payback
conservation process elements followed by a mass period of less than two years
upon recycle integration study for water
minimization
Resin Production Soldout product Mass integration techniques Increase in Capacity by Process
Production debottlenecking with more market to determine subtle causes De-bottlenecking: 4% (>
Facility demands but a of process bottlenecks and $1million/yr additional
capped production eliminate them at minimum revenue)
capacity cost
(bottlenececk)
EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
(Taken from El-Halwagi and Spriggs, 1998 and Dunn and El-Halwagi,
2003)
Project Motivation Approach Key Results

Type of Objectives
Process
Polymer and Identification Reduction in Sitewide tracking of energy A heat-exchange network and
Monomer of sitewide operating costs for usage followed by a heat utility optimization process
Production energy manufacturing integration study to identify design implemented
Processes conservation processes energy conservation resulting in a 10% reduction in
opportunities and the need for opportunities site utility costs, a 10%
to reduce additional steam reduction in site wastewater
energy costs generation for hydraulic load and a 5%
production capacity production capacity increase.
expansion. Annual
savings are in excess of $2.5
million/year.
Specialty Identification High operating costs Sitewide tracking of energy Five process designs
Chemicals of sitewide for utilities usage followed by a heat implemented leading to a 25%
Production energy integration study to identify reduction in energy usage with
Process conservation energy conservation a payback period
opportunities opportunities of less than one year
to reduce
energy costs
Petrochemical Develop power Significant usage of Energy integration with 25% reduction in steam cost
Facility co-generation steam for process uses emphasis on combined heat and cogeneration of 20% of
strategies and and high cost of and power optimization power requirement for the
optimize utility power usage process. Payback period is four
systems years.
DEALING WITH HURDLES
Discouraging Attitude Response
•  We don’t have the resources •  Let’s create resources from PI projects

or let’s apply PI within available
resources
•  We tried something similar, didn’t work •  Review earlier work, see if PI was
involved/properly applied
•  These concepts won’t apply to our plant •  There is now a trackrecord of tens
of very successful projects for a wide
variety of plants
•  Has anyone else applied it before? •  See previous response
•  Our process is too big for this approach •  See previous response
•  Our process is too small for this approach •  See previous response
DEALING WITH HURDLES continued
Discouraging Attitude Response
•  I am the process expert, there is no way •  Let’s incorporate your expertise into
that anyone else can do better a PI framework. Results are not
intuitively obvious with significant
benefits
•  I don’t wish to participate since I don’t •  Although we need a PI expert (internal

know PI or external) to lead, various skills are
needed to support PI projects. Also,
provide PI training to employees
•  Sounds great, but not now •  Each day without PI implies missed
opportunities
•  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it •  If process resources are not integrated

and optimized, it’ll be broke.
Let’s target and see if process ain’t
optimized! Start now!
CONCLUSIONS
- A process is an integrated system and must be

treated as such
- Paradigm shift from units and streams to holistic analysis

of mass and energy flows
- Targeting for the whole system ahead of detailed design
- Systematic mass integration tools for allocation, generation,

and separation
- PI: Systematic, Insightful, and Cost Effective

Home-taking Message:
Thanks and best of luck!

Pasi Handout 2011 El-Halwagi

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pasi Handout 2011 El-Halwagi

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Process Integration for Sustainable Design:

Systematic Tools and Industrial Applications

July 19-29, 2011, Angra dos Reis, RJ, Brazil

Triple Bottom Line: People, Planet, Profit

SUSTAINABLE PROCESS DESIGN?

• Increasing population, industrialization, and

And it is good for the business!

Identification of performance benchmarks

Examples of Specific Performance Targets:

 Minimum heating and cooling utilities

o Algebraic Approach to Material Recycle

MSAs and ESAs

New Technology Changes

Moderate-Cost Equipment Addition/

Minor Structural Modest Sink/Generator

Mass integration is a systematic “big-picture” methodology that provides

• Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Net Generation

Total WHOLE PLANT Total

Overall Mass Balance Before Mass Integration (BMI)

1. Adjust Design and Operating Variables to Reduce Fresh

FAFR= minimize f (manipulated design variables, manipulated operating variables)

Total WHOLE PLANT Total

Overall Mass Balance after Fresh Reduction

TAFR = FAFR + Net_GBMI 21

2. Maximize Recycle to Reduce Fresh Usage

TAFR = FAFR + Net_GBMI

Need to replace maximum load of fresh load with recycled

What is maximum recyclable load?

FAMI = WHOLE PLANT

Target After Mass Integration (AMI) 23

• Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Net Generation

Total WHOLE PLANT Total

Overall Mass Balance Before Mass Integration (BMI)

Minimizing Generation of Waste

Minimize generation (or maximize depletion) of targeted species

Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Generation (- Depletion)

Total WHOLE PLANT Total

Overall Mass Balance after Minimization of Generation

Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Generation (- Depletion)

Overall Mass Balance after Fresh Reduction and

TAGMIN, AFR = FAFR + Net_GMIN

FAMI = WHOLE PLANT

Target After Mass Integration (AMI) 27

Adjust design and operating variables to minimize fresh load,

Maximum total recycle

Revise overall material balance on targeted species

El-Halwagi, M. M., “Process Integration”, Elsevier , Amsterdam (2006)

• Fresh Load (in) = Terminal Load (out) - Net Generation

Total WHOLE PLANT Total

Overall Mass Balance Before Mass Integration (BMI)

Minimize terminal load

FAMI = WHOLE PLANT

Target After Mass Integration (AMI) 30

Water with Wet Pulp

Water with Wet Pulp

Water Slaker Offgas

G1 = 0.47 e-0.009 Pcomp

Wrxn, kg/s 0.12

El-Halwagi, M. M., “Process Integration”, Elsevier (2006)

 Set Pcomp = 90 atm G1 = 0.47 e

 Minimum water for shredding G1 = 0.2 kg/s

Water with the Wet Cake

•  Increasing population, industrialization, and

  Minimum heating and cooling utilities

o  Algebraic Approach to Material Recycle

•  Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Net Generation

•  Terminal Load (out) = Fresh Load (in) + Net Generation

•  Fresh Load (in) = Terminal Load (out) - Net Generation

•  Loss in the allocation of raw materials to the reaction system

•  Reaction yield not reaching its maximum

•  Insufficient recovery and recycle of unreacted raw materials

o  Algebraic Approach to Material Recycle

•  Should a stream (source) be segregated and split? To how many fractions?

•  Should streams or splits of streams be mixed? To what extent?

•  What is the minimum amount of fresh resource to be used?

•  What is the minimum discharge of unused process sources?

o  Algebraic Approach to Material Recycle

  When units perform on the basis of certain properties of streams,

  When dealing with mixtures of numerous components (e.g.,

  When environmental regulations for process discharges involve

  Choose a finite number of targeted raw properties, pi .