THE APPLICATION OF PINCH TECHNOLOGY TO RETROFIT ENERGY INTEGRATION OF AN ENTIRE OIL REFINERY D. M. FRASER and N. E, GILLESPIE Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, South Africa ‘This paper reports the results of a detailed energy integration study of all the units ofan existing ol refinery using the methods of pinch technology. Previous reported studies on refin ‘degree of energy recovery: integration accounts for hhave been more limited. The refinery was found to incorporate a high 16% of current usage. An energy savings target 22% of current usage was established. Realistic retrofit proposals with a 2-year payback would lead to 46% of. target being achieved. The most common ways of achieving energy savings were changing the matching arrangements and adding extra area on reactor feed/ effluent heat exchangers. An important finding was the nega impact that inter-unit integration which violated pinch principles had on the energy recovery potential of the plant. The paper describes the approach taken to obtain these results and the conch ms drawn from the study. INTRODUCTION This paper reports the results of an energy integration study of all the units in an existing oil refinery, using the techniques of pinch technology. Previous reported stud- ies applying energy integration techniques to oil refiner- ies have concentrated on the etude pre-heat train (Clayton', Wood”, and Farhanieh and Sunden’) or the crude unit and the cat cracker (Linnhoff, et al* and Lee, et al), As far as is known, this is the first published study to tackle a whole refinery at once. The plant chosen for this study was the Caltex Refinery which is situated in Milnerton, Cape, South Africa. The refinery as studied comprised a crude distillation unit, a vacuum distillation unit, three hydrotreaters (for naph- tha, kerosene and diesel), a platformer, a visbreaker, and a fluid catalytic cracking unit. Primary products were LPG, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and HFO. The basis for the study was a nominal product spectrum and an overall energy usage of 100 MW. Actual stream flow rates were sealed to give this 100 MW energy usage. Exchanger areas were also scaled appropriately. In this paper, the major findings of this study will be discussed. Details may be found in Gillespie® and in Fraser’. The paper will first deal with the basis used for the study and the approach taken to establish possible energy savings, and then discuss the results obtained, including an analysis of the present plant situation as well as the potential to save energy. Next, the various forms of inefficient use of energy will be analysed and proposals made for reducing these. Finally, conclusions will be drawn and recommendations made. BASIS The basis for the study was a current total energy usage of 100 MW and a nominal product spectrum. This is not the actual plant usage, so both stream flow rates and exchanger areas were adjusted to allow for it. Be- cause of the length of time the study was to take, both the product spectrum and the configuration of the refinery were fixed at the start of the study. Throughout this paper the terms ‘current’ and ‘present’ will refer to this nominal plant condition, with 100 MW total energy use. Appendix 1 contains detailed stream information for each of the seven units on the plant, for this nominal condition. The unit numbers correspond to the different refinery sections as follows: Unit 1: Fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU), Unit 2: Crude and vacuum distillation units (CDU/VDU), Unit 3: Visbreaker (thermal cracking unit) (VBU), Unit 4: Platformer (reformer) (PLAT), Unit 5: Naphtha hydrotreater (NHT), Unit 6: Diesel hydrotreater (DHT), and Unit 7: Kerosene hydrotreater (KHT). The following information formed the cost basis for this study. Plant annual downtime was taken as 500 hours. All costs were taken at a base year of 1988 and reported in USS. The annual cost of capital was taken to be 20%, Equipment capital costs were taken from Douglas®, using M&S indices to update to 1988. Installed costs are as follows (all in S, with A in m? and Q in MW): Heat exchangers 6,480 A°-85 High pressure heat exchangers _7,500 A%°* Furnaces 132,500 Q°*5 Cooling on the plant was by fin-fan air coolers. In the absence of costing information for air coolers, these were costed as the equivalent cooling water exchangers, with a cooling water temperature range of 25°C to 50°C. The fuel cost was taken as $2.29/10° Btu, the average of the values quoted by Linnhoff and Kotjabasakis® and Trevedi, et al.!°, This was considered more realistic than the $4,00/10° Btu recommended by Douglas®. A furnace efficiency of 75%, was assumed. Steam and cooling water (0263-8762/92/805.00 + 0.00 © Institution of Chemical Engineers396 FRASER and GILLESPIE costs were taken from Douglas. Air cooling running costs were estimated as one-sixth of the cost of water cooling, on the basis of internal data obtained from Caltex Converting to SI units and allowing for annual operat- ing time gave the following conversion factors for MW of energy to S per annum: Fuel 86,000 HP Steam 103,000 Cooling Water 18,800 MP Steam 77,500 Air Cooling 3100 LP Steam 52,000 APPROACH This section briefly describes the way in which the analysis of the plant was tackled. The first step was to break the plant into seven sections (units). Each of these was modelled using a combination of test run data and computer simulations to establish the energy flows for the set of nominal production rates. The energy analysis of the plant was done using the principles of pinch technology, as set out by Linnhoff et al‘, Linnhoff and Hindmarsh‘, Linnhoff and Vredeveld'? and Gillespie and Fraser!®. In order to perform this analysis effectively, a computer package called UCTNET was written which implemented the basic techniques of pinch technology". The analysis led to the following information for each unit: ‘© Minimum hot and cold utility targets ‘© Minimum heat exchange area (for grassroots design) ‘© Minimum network cost (capital plus operating, grass- roots design) ‘© Optimum minimum approach temperature (for grass- roots design) Energy savings targets for each unit were then estab- lished, using current minimum approach temperatures in the analysis. The potential to raise steam was determined using grand composite curves. Area and energy efficien- cies were obtained from an area-energy analysis. As there was already a fair degree of integration with the utility system, as well as between some of the units, the energy analysis of the plant was repeated without any of the present integration, both to establish the savings due to this integration as well as to determine the impact of the integration on the energy-saving potential Five of the units were then combined into two larger groupings, based on the pressures in the units, their proximity to each other and the current integration ‘between them. The above analysis was repeated for these combined units. Energy used above the target was classified into three sorts of inefficiencies: process-to-process cross-pinch ex- change, process-to-cold utility cross-pinch exchange, and unnecessary heating in unpinched systems. The units were then examined to ascertain to what extent these inefficiencies could be reduced by realistic changes on the plant. Each energy-saving proposal was costed and proposals with payback periods of the order of two years or less were considered viable. These propo- sals were discussed with plant personnel and modified in the light of their suggestions. The approach outlined above proved to be very effec- tive in achieving the required objectives. It was not possible, however, to look at the whole plant at once using the software that was available, because of the large number of streams on the plant. Another limitation was the fied plant configuration imposed by the scope ofthe study. The pinch techniques used were found to be very powerful in that they provided the means for checking the consistency of the data used and the results obtained. ENERGY SAVINGS In this section the major results of this study will be presented and discussed, starting with the current plant situation and possible energy savings, followed by an analysis of the effect of utility and inter-unit integration, Next, there is the potential to raise steam, an examin: tion of area and energy efficiencies, and then a discussion of possible energy saving techniques. This is followed by identification of energy inefficiencies and finally, a discus- sion as to how these may be reduced both for individual and combined units. Present Plant Situation and Potential Energy Savings In order to determine the minimum approach temper~ atures to use in the energy analysis of the plant, the optimum minimum approach temperature for each unit was determined. This optimum value (HRAT) is shown in Table 1, along with the actual minimum approach temperature (EMAT) in each unit and the pinch temper- atures for the hot and cold streams, using the EMAT values for the minimum approach temperatures. Table 1 shows HRAT values for both 10% and 207% annual capital charges. It will be noted that the values obtained are very sensitive to the capital charge chosen. HRAT values were found to be insensitive to the inclu- sion or exclusion of utility capital costs. Because of this and in view of the uncertainties regarding air cooler costs, the HRAT values reported here are those excluding utility capital costs. In all cases the optima are flat, so that for each unit there is a range of HRAT values about the optimum for which the total cost is essentially the same. It will be noted from Table 1 that the actual minimum approach temperatures (EMAT values) lie between the HRAT values for 10% and 20% capital for units 2 and 5 (CDU/VDU and NHT) and below the 10% values for all the other units, including the two unpinched units. This is due to the installed area being larger than the minimum and it also reflects the fact that the refinery was operating, below capacity at the conditions studied. As a result, the EMAT values were used for targetting in this study, rather than the optimum HRAT values. The pinch temperatures on unit 4 (PLAT) are low and on unit 2 (CDU/VDU) they are high, whereas on the other units they are at an intermediate level. On unit 2 the pinch temperatures are in fact so high that they are above the level of steam. It is not surprising, as reported later, that most of the steam-raising potential is on this unit ‘he present energy usage on the plant is summarised in Table 2, together with potential energy savings, using the costing information set out above. Table 2 also ‘Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992APPLICATION OF PINCH TECHNOLOGY TO RETROFIT ENERGY INTEGRATION 397 Table 1. Minimum Approach and Pinch Temperatures Optimum — Optimum Mog Aria caRAT) (0%) Unit CC) 20 G20) 70 140 3 140 20 4 100 200 5 40 100 6 (130) (130) 7 110 190 AQ+3) 80 190 130 240 Ba +546) ‘Note: Brackets indicate threshold tempera Actual ‘AT, Hot Pinch Cold Pinch (EMA) Temperature Temperature co) eo) CC) 67 = - wt 2720 2609 83 1350 1267 56 4 T39 83 1689 1606 36 56 1767 ima 83 20 2637 56 1017 96.1 tutes for unpinched units Table 2, Plant Energy Summary (based on 100 MW total energy usage) Hot Utility Cold Utility Current Current Current Usage Usage- Potential ~—_Usage--_—_ Potential Fucl LP Steam Saving Air Cooling Saving. Unit aw ow ow MW (MW) Individual Units 1 ‘188 1.88 2233 1.88 2 59.75 = 431 2846 431 3 119 028, 353, 028 4 142223 252 1098 252 5 863 421 1203 421 6 ost ost 336 061 1 129 = 056 479 056 Total gsse 442 1437 85.68 1437 Value 8245 oe 11m 2656 445 (Spat10~) ‘Combined Units (totals include units 1 and 7 as well) AQ+3), 6694 895 3208 895 BU+S+6) 2765 23, 144 2637 1d Total osss 442 2234 85.68 254 Value 8246 214 1875 2656 09 (Spat 10") presents the same analysis for the two larger groupings of units, The potential saving is the difference between current and target energy usage, as determined by pinch techniques. At present, the plant is spending $8,726,000 per annum on process heating and cooling; only 3.0% of this is cooling. This excludes steam used in the process and for driving pumps and compressors. It should be noted that the value of the potential saving is costed as fuel, apart from the 1.88 MW of low-pressure steam saving on unit 1 (FCCU), Table 2 shows that most of the hot utility is in the form of furnace fuel. Only four percent of the plant energy used for process heating is in the form of steam, all of which is Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992 low-pressure steam. All the cooling is by fin-fan air coolers. The potential savings of hot and cold utility in Table 2 (in MW) are identical for each unit and set of units, as one would expect from the principles of pinch technolo- gy. Any saving in hot utility actually achieved will lead to an equivalent saving in cold utility. The potential to save energy from the present position is $1,217,000 per annum ($1,172,000 + $44,500) com- pared to a total energy cost of $8,726,000, when each unit is examined in isolation (a saving of 14%). When the units are combined into the larger groupings, this poten- tial saving increases by 63% to $1,945,000 per annum ($1,875,000 + $69,900, 22% of current usage).398 FRASER and GILLESPIE Its interesting to compare these savings with the total usage on each plant as well relative to one another. Table 3 shows these comparisons. Table 3 shows clearly why previous studies have concentrated on crude unit energy savings, in that the combined crude and vacuum units account for 60% of the energy use on the plant. It is striking to note that despite this they only contribute 30% to the potential savings. This is partly due to the attention already given to the efficient use of energy on these units, and partly due to the fact that these units are characterised by a single dominant cold stream and many hot streams at different temperature levels. This latter fact allows for proper matching of streams without the techniques of pinch technology. As far as the combined units are concerned, the energy saving potential has increased by 95% for unit A relative to units 2 and 3 together (CDU/VDU + VBU), and by 52% for unit B compared to units 4, 5 and 6 together (PLAT + NHT + DHT). Effect of Utility and Inter-Unit Integration Table 4 shows the energy flows between the units. There it_ may be seen that the utility system is receiving 17.52 MW of energy from the process units, worth $965,000 per annum ($91 1,000 of low-pressure steam and $54,300 of air cooling). This energy is used for heating boiler feed water. Table 4 also shows that 5.17 MW of energy are being transferred by inter-unit streams, worth $461,000 per annum ($445,000 of fuel and $70,300-$54,300 of air cooling). The total saving is $1,426,000 per annum (16% of present usage). ‘Amore detailed analysis of the effect of these inter-unit streams shows that in some cases they had been inappro- Table 3. Energy Saving Comparisons Potential Current Use Potential Savings on Unit Saving Relative to _ Relative to Relative to Current Use Total Useon Total Savings on Unit All Units on All Units Unit 2) Co Individual Units 1 100 2 3 2 7 0 30 3 4 7 2 4 2 9 18 3 0 9 2 6 100 1 4 7 3 i 4 Combined Units 1 100 2 8 Ag +3) 1B a 40 BA +546) 37 20 9 7 8 2 2 Adding Individual Units 243 7 6 32 445 +6 25 30 4a ‘Table 4, Inter-Unit Energy Flows Hot Stream Duty Cold Stream Duty Unit ow) (Mw) Individual Units 1 000 0 2 039 935 3 0.00 0395797 4 000 000 5 205+ 273 0.00 ‘ 0.0 205 +273 7 000 000 Total sir 269 Value 4s 703 patio") lity itty 9554797 000 Tova 1132 000 Value out ° (Spa"lo-*) Combined Units AQ+3) 0.00 9554797 Ba +546) 0.00 ooo Total 000 1132 Value ° si (Spa*l0-3) priately placed. This detailed analysis involved compar- ing the targets obtained with the inter-unit streams with the targets obtained without them. If the streams are appropriately integrated the extra savings in hot utility should equal the duty of the hot inter-unit stream(s) and the extra savings in cold utility should equal the duty of the cold inter-unit stream(s). This is not true for most of the inter-unit energy flows, as shown in Table 5. If one examines unit 3 (VBU), it will be noted that the hot utility target has actually been increased by the integration, both of the utility streams (+0.09 MW) and of the utility and inter-unit streams (4047 MW). This is because some of the boiler feed- water (0.09 MW out of 7.97 MW) is being heated by a stream above the pinch, and also because the stream transferring energy to unit 2 (CDU/VDU, 0.39 MW) is taken from above the pinch. This stream has also been used below the pinch on unit 2, leading to no change in the hot utility target on unit 2, as well as to a reduction in the change of the cold utility target (9.55 MW-0.39 MW). As far as the transfer of energy between units 5 (NHT) and 6 (DHT) is concerned, 1.44 MW of the 4.78 MW of inter-unit energy flow is used below the pinch on unit 5, Thus the potential hot utility savings on unit 5 are less than they could have been while the potential cold utility savings have increased by the same amount. All this energy is removed below the pinch on unit 6, which is what should be done. This is an important conclusion, in that it highlights the problems which arise when energy-saving schemes ‘Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992APPLICATION OF PINCH TECHNOLOGY Table 5, Effect of Inter-Unit Energy Flows Target without Inter-Unit Streams Inter-Unit Streams TO RETROFIT ENERGY INTEGRATION 399 ‘Target with (Change in Target (with-without) Cold Hot Cold Hot Hot Cold Utility Utility Utility Uitiity Utility Utility Unit (mw) (MW) (MW) aw) aw) Utility and Inter-Unit Streams L 0.00 2064 0.00 2066 0.00 0.00 2 $544 3333 55.44 2416 000-918 3 63, 12 690 324 +047 787 4 184 845184 846 0.00 0.00 5 7178 639 441 783, 33600 F1at 6 0.00 135 0.00 276 0.00 479 7 073 423 073 423, 0.00 0.00 Total 88.52 91m 8563 na =289 —2040 Value 7537 2843 rss, 214 -2488 632 (Spat10~) Utility Streams Only (units without utility not shown) 2 ssa 3333 S848 23.78 0.00 ~9.55 3 643 in 633 34 +009 —187 Total 88.52 9172 B81 7420 4009-1143 Value 1537 2843 1545 2303 +81 540 (Spar10~) are not subject to pinch analysis, In all the cases here these inter-unit energy transfers were implemented before pinch technology became established. Thus, although they appear good and do indeed save energy in the short- term, they actually have a negative effect in the long-term because they reduce the potential to save further energy. In the combined units the inter-unit streams are inter- nal to the units. In both cases these streams are not transferring energy across the pinch, so the problem outlined above has been eliminated, It should be noted that the hot utitity target values, quoted in Table 5 incorporate the 2.23 MW of low- pressure steam used on unit 4 (PLAT) (see Table 2). The potential saving from the present position given above ($1,217,000 per annum) incorporates the inter-unit and utility streams, Without them the potential saving would have been $905,000 per annum ($8,726,000 (87,537,000 + $284,300). This represents a gain in po- tential saving of $312,000 per annum ($248,800 + $63,200). However, the inefficient use of utility and inter- unit integration has reduced the total potential saving due to the integration by $203,000 per annum from $515,000 per annum ($445,000 + $70,300). In. other words the potential saving could have been $1,420,000 per annum ($1,217,000 + $203,000), so it has been re- duced by 14%, Steam-raising Potential ‘The grand composite curve for each plant was used to analyse the potential to raise steam from surplus energy below the pinch. As the plant is in surplus as far as low- pressure steam is concerned, attention was focused on the ‘Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992 generation of medium- and high-pressure steam. Alterna- tive ways to raise steam are shown in Table 6, which shows also the maximum possible, as well as the pro- posed ways (indicated with asterisks). The proposals in Table 6 show that 3.4 MW of high- pressure steam may be produced on unit 1 (FCCU), 6.7 MW of medium-pressure steam on unit 2 (CDU/VDU) and 0.96 MW of medium-pressure steam on unit 6 (DHT), at a total value of $978,000 per annum, including cooling savings. This would leave only 2.19 MW of LP steam valued at $121,000 per annum unutilised. Table 6. Potential for Raising Steam Below the Pinch Pinch HP MP) LP Value of ‘Temperatures Steam Steam Steam —_Saving Unit hot/cold, °C) (MW) © (MW) (MW) (Spati0"*) 1 (unpinched) #34000 361 oo 340 214 oo = 0040 200 2 27261 1750000 186 oo 6700 540 oo 860078 430 3 135/127 00 ©0000 - 4 79/74 00 ©0000 5 177/168 00 001.29 rT 6 (unpinched) 039038039 93 00 ©7096 039 99 00 8001.49) 82 7 in, 00 = 00 Ost 28 Maximum Possible 55 ASL 1099 Proposed 34170 978400 FRASER and GILLESPIE Area and Energy Efficiencies The units were also examined to determine how eff- ciently they used the existing exchanger areas. This was quantified by using the area and energy efficiencies defined by Tjoe!*. The area efficiency is the ratio of the minimum area at the current plant energy usage to the actual area, and the energy efficiency is the ratio of the target energy usage at the existing area to the actual energy usage. Efficiencies for each of the seven units are listed in Table 7. Table 7 shows that the area efficiencies are generally low, the highest being 55% and the lowest 22%, This, ‘means that more effective use can be made of the existing, area. Attention was therefore given to this in examining possible energy savings. On the other hand energy effi- ciencies are generally high, reflecting the high degree of energy recovery on the plant. Possible Energy Saving Techniques A number of possible ways of saving energy have been identified in the literature. These are as follows: (1) Changing column operating conditions (Linnhoff et af*), Decreasing column pressure would reduce both overhead and bottoms temperatures, which can signifi- cantly affect utility requirements if the pinch is altered by this. Other options such as splitting column loads, ther- mal coupling and use of intermediate reboilers and condensers would be very costly in retrofit situations, (2) Installation of additional exchanger area (Ahmad?*). This would be additional area in existing matches and could involve modification of an existing exchanger or installation of an extra exchanger. (3) Changing the matching arrangement (Tjoe's). This would involve matching different streams against each other; each new match will generally involve consequent changes because of the other streams involved. This would normally require new exchangers, unless existing exchangers can be re-used, (4) Reuse of any discarded exchangers (Tjoe and Linnhofi'”). This becomes a possibility if new matches have required new exchangers. (5) Changing pumparound rates (Wood?). For constant Table 7. Area and Energy Efficiencies Area Efficiency Unit co Energy Eficiency Individual Units 1 0 2 55 91 3 41 2 4 48 9 5 2a 85 é . 7 50 Combined Units Ag +3) st 37 BE + 5+ 6) 30 66 heat removal in a pumparound, an increased rate would mean a higher return temperature. This reduces cross- pinch transfer on pumparound streams. It also gives better driving forces in pumparound exchangers. Three other possibilities were considered in this pro- ject: (6) Variation of stream flow rates by stream splitting. This will change the heat transfer capabilities of the exchanger(s) involved in terms of both heat transfer coefficients and driving forces. (7) Changing stream mixing points. This is considered where the streams being mixed are not at the same temperature. It will change stream temperatures as well as flow rates through exchangers and hence affect ex- changer driving forces and heat transfer coefficients. (8) Re-routing of feed streams. This can lead to improv ‘ments where the feed stream is a product on another unit where it is cooled down, only to be heated up again in the unit where it is a feed. Given the low area efficiencies on the plant, attention was focused on those techniques which would utilise existing area more effectively (items 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 above), Reduction of Unnecessary Energy Usage In order to see how best to approach the reduction of surplus energy usage on the plant, the causes of the inefficient use of energy were identified. Table 8 lists the surplus energy used on each plant according to the type of inefficiency: 72% of the energy surplus is involved in rocess-to-process cross-pinch exchange, 17%, in unnec- essary heating in unpinched systems, and 11% in process- to-cold utility cross-pinch exchange. Efforts were concen- trated on the area where most of the surplus energy was being used. Process-to-Process Cross-Pinch Exchange Process-to-process cross-pinch exchange occurs in units 2, 4, 5 and 7. Table 9 lists all the process-to-process cross-pinch exchangers. It will be noted that there are ‘two exchangers which each contribute roughly one-third of the total process-to-process cross-pinch exchange. In one case this represents nearly all the energy being Table 8. Types of Inefficient Use of Energy Energy Process-to- Unnecessary Processto- Surplus Process” ‘Heating in. Cold Utility (Potential Cross-Pinch Unpinched —Cross-Pinch Saving) Exchange Systems-—-Exchange Unit (MW) (MW) ow) (MW) 1 188 188 = 2 43t 43t aS = 3 028 = = 028 4 252 137 14 5 at 421 = 6 oot = 061 : 1 056 042 = os Total 1437 1031 249 137 Value 1217 919 158 140 pat0*) ‘Trans [ChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992APPLICATION OF PINCH TECHNOLOGY TO RETROFIT ENERGY INTEGRATION ‘Table 9. Process-to-Process Cross-Pinch Exchangers Fraction Fraction of |—_ of Total Exchanger Cross-Pinch Exchanger Crost-Pinch ‘Duty Exchange Duty Exchange Unit (MW) (Mw) ¢ 2 381 339 89 3 217 094 2 9 4 1405 oot 4 6 133, o77 2 7 5 1280 337 8 35 207 oss SL 6 7 478 042 9 4 Total 1031 transferred in the exchanger, whereas in the other it is only about one quarter of the total transfer. Tt was found that in general, at the highest temperature levels of exchange, approach temperatures were well above the minimum approach temperature and driving forces were also greater than the values given by driving force plots. This allows scope for additional area to take up the slack in approach temperature, thereby reducing cross-pinch exchange and hence furnace heating require- ments. Table 10 lists the proposals for reducing process-to- process ctoss-pinch exchange. In many cases it has been difficult to estimate the exact effect of suggested changes because of the simplified models used in this project more exact modelling using a package such as HEX- TRAN is required to determine the effects of changes on all exchangers in the network, Another difficulty in evaluating proposals was a lack of adequate models for the complex distillation columns on the plant. These are required because many possible changes have implica- tions for column operation The alternative costing given for the first unit 4 (PLAT) proposal reflects a suggestion by Caltex person- nel for stretching the existing exchanger. This was costed at half of the purchase price of a new exchanger of the total area required (given that existing equipment and infrastructure would be used). 401 It would appear that realistically only the first three proposals in Table 10 could be implemented at current energy prices, leading to a reduction in process-to-pro- cess cross-pinch exchange of 3.51 MW, which is only 34% of the total. It is, however, all of the cross-pinch exchange in unit 4 (PLAT) and half of the cross-pinch exchange in unit 5 (NHT). Unpinched Systems In unpinched systems either only heating or only cooling are needed. In units 1 and 6 only cold utility is necessary. Alll of the unnecessary heating in both of these units may readily be eliminated. The details are given in Table 11, The second alternative for unit 6 (DHT) involves stretching the existing exchanger (as in unit 4 above). Process-to-Cold Utility Cross-Pinch Exchange Units 3, 4 and 7 feature process-to-cold utility cross- pinch exchange. It proved much more difficult to elimin- ate this form of cross-pinch exchange. This is largely because of the low hot pinch temperature of 79°C on unit 4, where most of the potential savings are. The hot pinch temperatures are higher on units 3 (135°C) and 7 (Tro). A further problem is that most of the process streams concerned are column overheads undergoing condensa- tion in high-level fin-fan air coolers. These streams can- not readily be utilised in heating for thermosyphon reboilers (where the heat is most commonly required) because these need to be at ground level. A scheme suggested in a report from the United Kingdom Energy Efficiency Office (Clayton') may be modified to cope with this problem. In this scheme an extra accumulator is placed below the reboiler. Non- condensables are piped directly from this accumulator to the original one under pressure control, while the con- densate is pumped there under level control. If the condensate is close to its bubble point this will require a pump with a low net positive suction head. While this scheme appears attractive, it would require detailed engineering and costing before it could be shown to be viable economically. In the end no feasible ways could be found to eliminate Table 10, Proposals for Reducing Process-to-Process Cross-Pinch Exchange Exchanger Exchanger Energy Value of ‘Area Cost Saving Saving Unit Proposal (my © OW Cpa) 4 Extra exchanger 270 285000 061 «$4000 (match 1, +100"%) (540) (89.000) "New exchanger 9 13900 07769000 thot 4-cold 3) 5 Extra shell 328 324000 213190000, (mateh 1, +25% New exchanger 106 134000 03229000 (hot S-cold 3) 1 xtra shell 153 197000 03128000 (omateh 1, 433%) Total 996 1079000 4.14369 000 (1266) ‘Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992 (883 000)402 Table 11, Proposals for Eliminating FRASER and GILLESPIE Innecessary Heating Exchanger Exchanger Energy Value of. ‘Area Cost Saving Saving Unit Proposal (nm) © MW) pa) 1 Replace steam by 188104 000 1 process stream 6 Extra Area it 212000 © 061 $4000 (match 1, +30%) —783)_——_(114 000) Total a7 212000 249158 000 (783) any of the process-to-cold utility cross-pinch exchange, largely because of reduction in driving forces elsewhere in the network. Additional Possibilities for Combined Units Table 12 summarises the proposals for the two com- bined plants. The potential for energy saving increases by 8.17 MW for the combined units. Just under half of this may be realised with the proposals presented. It should be noted that two of the proposals involve re- routing the feed from one unit to the next, for the reason outlined above. In both these cases there are times when the source and destination units are run independently of each other. At these times it would be necessary to revert to the present operating scheme in order to provide the cooling or heating required. ‘Summary of Proposed Changes The feasible plant changes discussed above are sum- marized in Table 13, which compares the energy saved by the proposed changes with the potential saving on each unit or combined unit. Table 13 shows that 42% of the potential may be realised for the individual units, 53% of the extra potential on the combined units, and 46% of the overall potential for both together. It is significant to note that none of these proposals involve the crude preheat train. The units with largest proposed savings relative to the potential are the un- pinched units (100% each), followd by the platformer and naphtha hydrotreater (just over 50% each). A point of note is that 4.58 MW of saving (44% of the total) has been achieved by making better use of existing (114 000) exchanger area, As a result, most of the unit area efficiencies have increased considerably: unit 1 from 40% to 60%, unit 4 from 48% to 62%, unit $ from 27% to 40%, unit 6 from $4% to 64%, unit Tirom 22% to 35% unit A from 51% to 53% and unit B from 30% to 39%. tis also of interest to note which of the possible energy ig techniques listed above were the most productive. Changing the matching arrangement led to 4.29 MW of saving (42% of the total), increasing exchanger areas to 3.35 MW of saving (32% of the total), and re-routing of feed streams to 2.70 MW of saving (26%, of the total). In all cases the exchangers whose areas were increased were reactor feed/effluent exchangers. As far as the other techniques are concerned, changes to column operation, changing pumparound rates and stream splitting could not be examined in detail, as mentioned above. Both match changes and feed re- routing were done as far as possible to redeploy existing exchangers, rather than discarding them. The possibility of changing a mixing point on unit 4 (PLAT) would have saved 0.52 MW, which was less than the savings by other proposals (and not additive), This concludes the study of ways to recover more energy on the plant. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions may be drawn from the work done: (2) The refinery studied already featured a high degree of energy recovery, with a significant amount of integration between the process units and the utility system, as well as between different process units. This led to savings of Table 12. Proposals for Energy Savings in Combined Plants Exchanger Area Unit Proposal (m') A Re-route feed from 2 tot B Reroute feed from 5 to 4 (new exchanger 218 hed, unit 8) 12, unit 6 vs 85 of, unit 4 Total 308 Exchanger Energy Value of Cost Saving Saving 6 (™W) pa) 1.25(uel) 111000 145 (fuel) 129.000 248 000 135000 1.64(steam) 90.000 383.000 434 320000 ‘Trans [ChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992APPLICATION OF PINCH TECHNOLOGY TO RETROFIT ENERGY INTEGRATION 403 ‘Table 13. Summary of Energy Saving Proposals Proposed. ‘Saving Potential Proposed Relative to Saving Saving Potential on Unit on Unit Saving on Unit Unit nw) i) %) Individval Units 1 188 188 100 2 431 = 0 3 028 0 4 232 138 55 5 421 23 Ef 6 061 Oot 100 7 056 0 Total 1437 600 2 ‘Combined Units (extra) Ag +3) 436 1.25 29 Ba +546) 330 309 aL Total 87 434 33 Individual Units and Combined Units Total 2254 10.34 46 11% for utility integration and 5% for inter-unit integra- tion, relative to the current use of energy on the plant. (2) The actual minimum approach temperatures for the five pinched units were generally below the optimum gtasstoots values. For the two unpinched units the minimum approach temperatures were considerably less than the threshold values. (3) The utility targets established by pinch technology (using the actual minimum approach temperatures) indi- cated that the maximum possible energy savings are 14% of current usage, when examining individual units on the plant. (4) The potential to save energy increased by 63% to 22% of present use when larger groups of units were analysed. This is at the low end of the range of possible savings reported in the literature (20%-70%), which is to be expected in a mature technology such as oil refining. (5) Some of the integration between units was found to be inappropriate when analysed from a pinch technology viewpoint. This has led to the potential savings for the plant as a whole being reduced by 14%, (6) While there is little incentive to raise LP steam on the plant, 7.7 MW of MP steam and 3.4 MW of HP steam may be raised, which has a value which is 11% of current energy usage. This increases the total potential savings to 339% of current usage. (7) The area eficiencies on the plant were found to be rather low, showing a potential to use the area more effectively, ‘whereas the energy efficiencies were high, reflecting the high degree of energy recovery. (8) The types of inefficient use of energy were identified as process-t0-process cross-pinch exchange, unnecessary ‘ting in unpinched units, and process-to-cold_utility cross-pinch exchange, in order of decreasing significance, Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992 (9) A number of realistic energy-saving proposals were made, amounting to 42% of the potential for individual units and 53% of the increased potential for combined units, for an overall saving of 46% of the total potential. This is 10% of the current energy usage. These proposals eliminate 34% of the process-to-process cross-pinch ex- change in the individual units, all of the unnecessary heating in unpinched systems, and none of the process- to-cold utility cross-pinch exchange. (10) Better use of existing exchangers led to 44% of the proposed savings, as well as to improved area efficiencies on all the units concerned. Most of the savings were achieved by changing the matching arrangements on the units (42%), followed by adding extra area to the feed/ effiuent exchangers of reactors (32%) and re-routing feed streams to avoid cooling followed by re-heating (26%). (11) Significant savings can be achieved on units other than the crude unit. Ail the savings possible in this study were on units other than the crude unit, (12) The techniques of pinch technology used in this project were found to be appropriate for such a study, The principles of pinch technology were particularly helpful in checking the consistency of the data and in analysing the effect of utility and inter-unit integration, (13) The UCTNET package developed during the pro- ject proved to be a most effective tool in implementing the pinch techniques RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations which emanate from this study are as follows: (1) Studies aimed at energy savings in oil refineries should not concentrate exclusively on crude unit pre-heat trains. (2) Alll process modifications involving energy must be analysed from a pinch technology point of view, particu- larly if energy is transferred from one section of the plant to another. If this is not done the changes may be inappropriate and reduce the potential to save energy at a later stage. (3) There is a trade-off between tackling smaller plant sections in more detail and tackling the whole plant in less detail. Tackling smaller plant sections has the disad- vantage of eliminating the potential savings possible when considering larger groups of units (a 63% gain for this plant). It has the advantage that small sections can be tackled in a shorter time during which other plant changes are unlikely to occur (or will be readily incorpor- ated into the study) and it also means that process changes can be examined more thoroughly. (4) A detailed study of the possible use of overhead streams in thermosyphon reboilers needs to be done in order to assess its economic viability. (5) Matters requiring further study for this particular plant are as follows: (a) The detailed effects of the proposed changes need to be assessed using a package such as HEXTRAN, (b) The effect of distillation column changes need to be examined using suitable rigorous column models. Effects to be studied include reduction of column operating pressures and changing of pumparound rates.404 FRASER and GILLESPIE. (©) Specific ways of implementing the potential to raise refinery could be analysed and realistic proposals for steam need to be investigated. retrofit energy integration developed using the tech- In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that a whole ues of pinch technology. APPENDIX I: STREAM DATA Note: An asterisk next to @ stream number indicates that it is an inter-unit stream, Unit 12 FOCU Supply Target Heat Capacity Film Stream ‘Temperature Temperature Flow Rate Coefficient Type No ec) CO W/O) Wim. K) Hot 1 1655 900 22616 0.091 Hot 2 2820 1965 54.389 0492 Hot 3 2740 35 9.163 0076 Hot 4 1640 210 36.141 611 Hot 5S 3220 2610 4a321 1097 Ho 6 3630 2460 26.760 0326 Hot 7 3220 1650 172 0611 Ho 8 2040 1040 5.405 1097 Hot 9 1409 380 162055 0500 Hot 10 1445s 510 15252 0556 Cold IL 740 2980 62.462 0.306 Cold 12 143.0 1640 129.383 ost Cold 13 940 1250 126.440 osit Unit 2: CDUIYDU Supply Target Heat Capacity Film Stream Temperature Temperature Flow Rate Coefficient ‘Type No €O) €O) (ewe) (kW/m?.K) Hot 1 ims 616 116951 0.767 Hot 2 2600 1898 75.104 0.665 Hot 3 3090 260.5 95.138 ais Hot 4 3334 1398 143910 0318 Ho 5 1168 493 7202 0.608 Hor 6 m0 2100 303.711 0540 Hot 7 2100 8 58.800 0540 Hot 8 1460 182 144920 0682 Hot 305 182 152.687 0596 Hot 10 189.0 261 8.661 Osi Hot it 1989) ima 13477 0.199 Cold 12 260 261.7 221.887 0625 CW 3 261.7 3565 430.191 0.825 Cold 14 3382 4098 257.147 0443 Cod 15 267 96.1 36.283, 0283 Unit 3: VBU Supply Target Heat Capacity Film Stream Temperature Temperature Flow Rate Coefficient ‘Type No 0) CO) (EWPC) (Wim? K) Hot 1 1356 300 19.506 1136 Hot 2 2550 176. 9.887 0767 Hot 3 3533 1989 43.165 O34 Ho 4 1989 mt 13477 0.256 Hot 5 ith 750 19279 0.56 Cold 6 3078 4578 54.685 0341 Cold 7 1583 1600 221.490 0.625 Cold 8 1267 176.7 15.599 0.284 Cold 91267 1767 133329 0284 Cold 10" 1267 146.7 21368 0284 Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992APPLICATION OF PINCH TECHNOLOGY TO RETROFIT ENERGY INTEGRATION 405 Unit 4: PLAT Supply Target Heat Capacity Film Stream Temperature Temperature Flow Rate Coefficient Type No CO) €c) WCQ) (W/mK) Hot 1 5039 366.1 67382 1.136 Hot 2 3661 1789 3807 1136 Hot 3 366.1 2539 26.094 1136 Hot 4 3033 36.7 63175 1136 Hot = 5S 162 267 24568 1136 Ho 6 2322 122 15107 1136 Hot 7 4 322 39.780 1136 Ho 8 1120 239 0738 1136 Hot 9 612 22 15.556 1136 Hot 10 1572 322 7905 1136 Hot iL 433 263 478 1136 Hot 12 920 650 173 1136 Ho 3 1070 322 7671 1136 Cold 14 66.1 3706 76121 1136 Cold 15 2322 12 195.269 1136 Cold 16 367 1256 20378 1136 Cold 17 1120 1128 2506 929 1136 Cold 18 1372 163.9 106.929 1136 Cold 19 920 912 38.980 1136 Gold 20 3706 4956 94091 1136 God 21 4528 497.2 106519 1136 Cold 2 4806 4961 114.065 1136 Unit 5: NUT Supply Target Heat Capacity Film Stream ‘Temperature Temperature Flow Rate Coeflcent Tye No CQ + CO) WP) (kW/m*K) Hot 1 3283 339 s747t 1:36 Hot 2 612 500 191.086 1136 Ho 3 101? 17 108.792 1136 Hot 4 1689 883 27527 1136 Hot = S*# 839 1461 45556 1136 Cold 6 31 3250 57850 1136 Cold 7 39 1303 44252 1136 Cold 8 1756 1835 589.627 1136 Cold 9 1689 rma 1208.129 L136 Unit 6: DHT Supply Target Heat Capacity Film Stream Temperature Temperature Flow Rate Coefficient Type No CO) co) (EWP) (kW/m? K) Hot 1 3278 2367 86372 1136 Hot 2 256.7 300 14882 1136 Hot 3 i272 Daa 3815 1136 Ho 4 2539 146.1 45556, 1136 Cold 5S 2419 2456 41556 1.136 Cold 6 2a 3089 81700 1136 Cold 7 1689 im 1208.129 1136 Cok 8 839 1303 44252 1.136 Unit 7: KAT Supply Target Heat Capacity Film stream Temperature Temperature Flow Rate Coefficient Ty No CO) 0) (EWC) W/m? K) Hot 3128 2050 31,900 0738 Hot 2 3050 300 $032 0.2738 Hot 3 1361 22 0178 1249 Hot 4 1767 333 26.798 01368 Cold 5 1578 3100 31015 0238 ‘Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992406 FRASER and GILLESPIE Unit B: Units 4,$ and 6 [As for units 4, 5 and 6, withthe inter-unit stream left out of unit 5 REFERENCES, 1. Clayton, R. W., 1987, Cast Reductions in an Oil Refinery, Report No. RD/19/26, (Energy Efficiency Office of the Department of Energy of the United Kingdom), 2. Wood, R. M., 1986, The effect of distillation column conditions on the performance of heat exchanger networks—A case study, The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 11: 3) 3. Farhanich, B, and Sunden, B., 1990, Analysis of an existing heat exchanger network and effects of heat pump installations, Heat Recovery Systems and CHP, 10(3): 285-296, 4, Linahoff, B. Townsend, D, W., Boland, D., Hewitt, G. F, Thomas, BLE. A. Guy, AR. and Marsland, R, HL, 1982, User’ Guide on Process Inegration for the Eficient Use of Energy, (Institution of ‘Chemical Engineers, UK). 5. Lee, K. L, Morabito, M. and Wood, R. M,, 1989, Refinery heat integration using pinch technology, Hydrocarbon Processing, 68 (4): 49-53, 6. Gillespie, N.E., 1989, Energy retrofit ofan il refinery using pinch technology, M Se Thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa). 7. Fraser, D. M., 1992, Energy consercation and integration in a chemical plant, Final Report, Project EVD-1, (National Energy Council, Pretoria, South Arica) 8, Douglas, J. M., 1988, Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes, (McGraw-Hill, New York). 9. Linnhoff, B. and Kotjabasakis, E, 1988, Sensitivity tables for the design of Nexible heat exchanger networks: systems with Variable physical properties, Paper 39b, AICHE, Spring Meeting, March 1988, 10, Trevedi, K. K., O'Neill, B, K. and Roach, J. R, 1989, A new dual temperature design method for the synthesis of heat exchanger networks, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 13 (6): 667-685, 1. Linnhoft, B, and Hindmarsh, E.,1983,The pinch design method for hheat exchange networks, Chem Eng Sci, 38 (5): 745-763 12, Linnhoff, B. and Vredeveld, D.R., 1984, Pinch technology has come of age, CEP, 80 (7): 33-40, 13, Gillespie, N’E. and Fraser, D. M., 1989, Heat exchanger network synthesis: new concepts applied to old planls, S.A. Journal of Chemical Engineering, \\): 42-72. 14, Gillespie, N-E. and Fraser, D. M, 1989, UCTNET: A program for the analysis and design of heat exchanger networks, Symposium on Personal Computers and the Process Industry, (Northern Transvaal Branch of SAICHE, Pretoria) 15, Tjoe, T_N,, 1985, Retrofit ofheat exchanger networks, Ph D Thesis, (UMIST, Manchester, UK) 16. Ahmad, $,, 1985, Heat exchanger networks: cost tradeoffs in energy and capital, Ph D Thesis, (UMIST, Manchester, UK). 17, Tjoe, T. N. and Linnhoff, B. 1986, Using pinch technology for process retrofit, Chem Eng, 93 (8): 47-60. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i The financial support and the encouragement ofthe National Enersy ‘Counei through Me Tohaan Basson, aswell as Caltex Oil (SA) (PO) ad, through Messrs Johann Lubbe, Paul Buley, Ron Eases andStove de Broyn, is gratefully acknowledged. The Counell for Seentiie and Industrial Research also contributed financially through a bursary awarded to Mr Gillespie ADDRESS Correspondence concesning this paper should be addressed to Dr D. M, Fraser, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa. N. E. Gillespie is currently at Caltex Oil Refinery, P.O. Box 13, Milnerton, 7435 Cape, South Attica The manuscript was received 18 November 1991 and accepted for publication after revision 13 May 1992. ‘Trans IChemE, Vol. 70, Part A, July 1992