See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337603981

Optimization of Steam Network in Shiraz Refinery Utility Systems Using

Variable Physical Properties

Conference Paper · November 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 62

3 authors, including:

Mohammadreza Omidkhah Mahmoud Reza Hojjati

Tarbiat Modares University Islamic Azad University Shiraz branch
183 PUBLICATIONS 4,917 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 143 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Feasibility study on caramel color production from grape and date and Microencapsulation of the color by freeze drying View project

Surface modification of TFC polyamide membrane View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmoud Reza Hojjati on 28 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimization of Steam Network in
Shiraz Refinery Utility Systems
Using Variable Physical Properties
Fakharzadeh, H.R.1*; Omidkhah2, M.R.;Hojjati3, M. R.

1-
M.Sc. Student "K.N Toosi University of technology" ,Tehran- Iran
2-
Department of Chemical Engineering, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran- Iran
3
-Department of Chemical Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch

* hfakhar@Hotmail.com

Abstract: Utility system design greatly influences the total site design and operation.
In this paper, it has been attempted to apply a method of assimilating solution to determine the optimum pressure level
of utility system by considering the variation of physical and thermodynamic properties due to temperature and pressure
changes. Mathematical programming methods are also used to reach the maximum profit.

Key words: Utility Systems, Total Site, Optimum Pressure Level, Physical and Thermodynamic Properties,
Optimization Techniques.

Introduction: The major concern in utility system design is determining the optimum pressure level of steam. The
total site includes chemical plant, heat exchangers network and utility systems.
Commonly, for the design of the utility system, the two essential factors of optimum pressure level and the arrangement
of equipment must be taken into consideration. Therefore, determining optimum pressure level of the utility system is
one of the most significant phases of designing such systems, which can be generally reached through the two following
methods:
1- Thermodynamic methods
2- Mathematical methods and optimization techniques.
In order to determine the optimum pressure level of the utility system, a great number of models have been presented,
some of which will be mentioned here.
Nishio for the first time posed the topic of choosing optimum pressure level of the steam header [1].
Later, Nishio and Johnson proposed a thermodynamic method in which the equipment chosen for the utility system
helped to minimize the energy loss in every unit. In this model, the generators (turbines, electrical engines) were
determined through linear programming (LP) [2].
Thermodynamic analysis of available energy had done on the basis of a number of heuristic rules which are used to
determine factory structure and condition of the design. Although minimization of wasting available energy leads to
maximizing factory output, the investing costs related to available equipment in the utility system haven't been
considered. Besides one of the shortcomings of such a method is that some of the major decisions to determine the
structure of plant were on the basis of heuristic rules, so it was possible to lose some choices includes optimum solution.
Another major limitation was that the relation of investing costs considered with linear capacity so the minimization of
total cost which was caused by economy of scale, weren’t considered.
Petroulas & reklaitis offered an analyzing method for utility system based on analysis of two subsystems, which were
coupled. The first subsystem determined the number of steam headers plus pressure exists in every system header. It
also was modeled as a dynamic program which minimized the wasting of available energy. The second subsystem
consisted of choosing generators and was formulated like LP with intention of minimizing input energy (steam &
electricity). In other words they applied a method of dynamic programming [3].
To optimize the conditions of steam header as continuous variables and a method of LP for determining the best
combination of generators with the intention of minimizing general wasting of real work.
 But optimization need to estimate VHPS steam property , steam temperature for each level , boilers & cooling system
loads and shaft work produce in each area, that in this case didn’t consider . Consideration of units fixed cost is another
limitation. In LP formulation of this case effect of drivers (turbine or electrical) selection is omitted and evaluate same
amount power and work.

After applying thermodynamic methods Brown showed every utility system may be distinguished with the ratio of
power and process heat (P/H) which depends lightly on the type of fuel(for general industrial equipment P/H required is
less than 2%) [4].

Table-1:Convenient P/H ratio in utility Services system.

Utility services system P/H ration

Steam cycle 0.2

Simple gas turbine cycle 0.65

Gas generator cycle 0.85

Combined cycle 1.1

But important problem is Design & Analysis of a system which can produce minimized Heat & Power required. Fuel
price in this case is a very important factor for system analysis and evaluation total cost.

After applying mathematical methods, Papoulis & Grossmann examined combining problem of power & head
production (CHP) in the field of integrating energy of chemical process. They presented some articles about using
mathematical programming as a way of integrating utility systems network. In the first article, the utility system has
been modeled as a superstructure which can be optimized by providing the requirements. In order to optimize the
structure and elements of utility system with fixed requirements of power and steam, the method of MILP is used.
Optimum utility system is made by a superstructure and modeled through simple scales. Their next task developed by
applying the predicted changes to process requirements like a requirement pattern of multi process utility system. In the
second article, heat changes of superstructure of utility system converted to some variables in formulating heat
circulation which make the computation of combining production of mechanical and required minimum energy,
possible [5,6,7].
In the next research, models of utility system and cascade diagram, of head with a general method of MILP for
designing the total site, are integrating. In order to determine pressure level of steam headers, Linnhoff & Morton
offered applying of grand composite curve [8].

Then Swaney extended a transferring model for designing networks including heat engine and heat pumps. This
solution specified the choices of design and made a chance for deciding on choosing and final arrangements of
equipment [9].

Dhole & linnhoff presented the method of integrating total industrial plant with the intentional minimizing
consumption of utility system and through sink & source heat profiles. In this method sink & source profiles introduce
the amount of production and consuming of pure heat in total site. Lie this method showed the amount of required and
expelled pure heat in utility system after maximizing energy recovering in process [10].
Examining pinch doesn't lead to optimum solution because this way cannot be operated simultaneously with the
material balances. But it can present quickly integrated strictures among lightly complicated process. Raissi offered
determining optimum level of steam and the resulting minimum fuel requirement (MFR) or utility system costs through
applying examining total site [11].

As mentioned, for minimizing required energy cost (MCER) steam network integration is important stage of utility
system integration. Since steam can produce shaft work by expanding in turbines before consumption in process, Steam
network is related to cogeneration of heat & work. Marchal and Kalioventizeff, offers a general MILP formulation for
utility system integration for providing required energy with minimum cost. This formulation consist mechanical power
balance for cogeneration feasibility. Then, they offer a procedure based on thermodynamic and Ranklin cycle which can
be related to integrate rectangular in balanced Grand Composite curve (GCC) to determine optimum steam pressure.
Produced shaft work is proportional to rectangular area and can be estimated by Carnot cycle.
This system named Integration Combined Heat & Power (ICHP) and use process available energy for producing shaft
work. With a suitable mathematical formulation and steam network model equations can minimize energy costs by
cogeneration. [12]
Shang & Kokossis presented a method of systematic optimization to optimize the steam levels of utility system which
provide variable requirements of utility system in total site. In this method by the analysis techniques of total site, a
multi process MILP based on a new transition model is presented which specifies the optimum levels of steam with the
intention of minimizing the costs of utility system. This model can be used for the minimum fuel requirement (MFR)
[14].
But what is clear is that in all researches having been done so far, the physical & thermodynamic properties of fluid
such as density, heat capacity, viscosity and heat conduction during the operation, are considered constant and their
variation due to temperature and pressure haven't been considered. This may make a difference between computed
amount (theory) and real state, so the resulted optimum conditions may be incorrect. Omidkhah & Hojatti proposed
that, analyzing the utility system can be formulated as a MINLP and can overcome a great deal of limitations or
problems of methods which have been examined and presented to now, if there must exist optimum state in
superstructure. They considered variation on fluid physical and thermodynamic properties. [15]
In this paper we use second method which includes the following phases:
The first phase of synthesizing utility system is determining superstructure, in other words, considering a variety of
systematic combinations for utility system in total site. Since determining pressure level of steam is related to the upper
pinch point (because, only in upper area of pinch, the steam is used as a source of power and heat), creation of optimal
superstructure is only examined for upper area of pinch.
In as much as the purpose of this research is determining the optimal pressure level to maximize the annual profit in a
utility system, the stages of making a superstructure follow as:
1- Grand Composite Curve should be drawn in order to determine the different levels which need energy and to specify
the temperature condition and enthalpy (∆H) for each level.
2- A superstructure should be in a way that can keep deferent states, so first we should provide a complete list of
equipment which is used in superstructure.
Through providing a grand composite curve of a process, the parts that need energy as well as the required energy of
each level which should be provided by different levels of steam, are specified. Some of the total steam is used for
providing electrical energy required. Some other steam can pass through the turbine and make the following choices:
1-The output steam of the turbines can be directed into the next level as saturated vapor.
2-After being reheated, the output steam is utilized in another turbine, and later the output steam of the second turbine
can be directed into next level.
After completing and finalizing a superstructure, different equations such as objective function equation and related
constraints, mass–energy equations and equations related to applied equipment in a superstructure, should be written.
This is second phase of the synthesizing utility system. Shiraz utility system different operation scenarios as case
studies have been solved with this new model.

Main results and conclusions: Having probed several case studies, it was concluded that assuming constant
physical and thermodynamic properties for steam would likely result in a considerable error in design results. The
difference in the final results can't often be ignored, although assuming constant properties minimizes the number of
equations (esp. non-linear ones).
Such an assumption can significantly affect the exchanger heat loads. For instance, in one case study, there was about
17% of difference between the two states of assuming either constant or variable physical and thermodynamic
properties.
Furthermore, the arranging model of the equipment, in all investigations, is the same in the final structure. In other
words, assuming variation of physical and thermodynamic properties for steam would not change the final structure of
the steam distribution network. Thus, it can be suggested that: "First assume constant physical and thermodynamic
properties for steam and design the final structure of the steam network. Then considering variation of physical and
thermodynamic properties of steam, find the optimum steam pressure levels and heat load of exchangers."

It can be suggested that, by using MINLP method and solving the model, we determine steam pressure level, each unit
loads will be optimized, preferred operation condition will be known and it leads us to install new equipment for more
profitable production and we can decide about amount of production and amount of sell. Also following benefits will be
supposed for the Shiraz refinery:
1- Reduction of total steam production costs in various operation scenarios.
2- Identification important steam and shaft work production parameters.
3- Recognition and reduction energy loss sources.
4- Suitable management to reduce expenses of energy consumption & goods production.
5- Prediction of steam consumption in various goods production.
6- Reduction air pollution by reducing fuel consumption.
7-
Our project starts with accurate plant data collection include required steam consumption rate and shaft work. Existing
refinery drawing can be used as one source of data gathering to determine energy potential and process requirements.

Special property of this paper includes following parameter in offered model:

1- Equipment (heat exchanger, turbine, pump, deairator,…) purchasing costs
2- Fuel consumption cost
3- Optimization of steam temperature and pressure for each level according to process demand
4- Optimization work production in turbines
5- Reduction of exergy loss in each steam level pressure and temperature letdown 6- Reduction of exergy loss in
condensate recovery section
7- Steam network parameter optimizing in various rates and quality of feed and products.

References:
[1] Nishio, M. (1977); "Computer Aided Synthesis of Steam and Power Plants for Chemical
Complexes", Ph. D. Thesis, London, Canada: The University of Western Ontario.
[2] Nishio, M. & Johnson, A. I. (1977); Chem. Eng. Prog. ; 73 (1), 7
[3] Petroulas, T. & Reklaitis, G. V. (1984); "Computer Aided Synthesis and Design of Plant
Utility Systems", A. I. Ch. E. J.; 30 (1), 69.
[4] Brown, D. H. (1982); Power App. Syst.; 101 (8), 2597.
[5] Papoulias, S. A. and Grossmann, I. E. (1983a); "A Structural Optimization Approach in
Process Synthesis-I, Utility Systems", Computers & Chemical Engineering Vol. 7, pp. 695-706.
[6] Papoulias, S. A. and Grossmann, I. E. (1983b); "A Structural Optimization Approach in
Process Synthesis-II, Heat Recovery Networks", Computers & Chemical Engineering Vol. 7, pp.
707-721.
[7] Papoulias, S. A. and Grossmann, I. E. (1983c); "A Structural Optimization Approach in
Process Synthesis-III, Total Processing Systems", Computers & Chemical Engineering Vol. 7,
pp. 723-734.
[8] Morton, R. J. & Linnhoff, B. (1984); "Individual Process Improvements in the Context of
Site-Wide Interactions", ICHemE Annual meeting, Bath.
[9] Swaney, R. E. (1989); "Thermal Integration of Processes with Heat Engines and Heat
Pumps", A. I. Ch. E. J, 35, pp. 1003-1016.
[10] Dhole, V. R. Linnhoff, B. (1992); "Total Site Targets for Fuel, Cogeneration, Emissions
and Cooling", Computers & Chemical Engineering Vol. 17, pp. s101-s109.
[11] Raissi, K. (1994); "Total Site Integration", Ph. D. Thesis, Manchester, UK: Department of
Process Integration, UMIST.
 [12] Marchal, F. & Kaliventizeff, B. (1998); "Identification of the optimal pressure levels in
steam network using integrated combined heat and power method", L.A.S.S.C., University of
Liege, Belgium.
[13] Mavromatis, S. P. and Kokossis, A. C. (1998); "Conceptual Optimization of Utility
Networks for Operational Variations-I. Targets and Level Optimization"; Chemical
Engineering Science Vol. 53, No. 8, pp. 1585-1608.
[14] Shang, Z. and Kokossis, A. (2004); "A Transshipment Model for the Optimization of
steam Levels of Total Site Utility System for Multi Period Operation"; Computers & Chemical
Engineering Vol. 28 pp. 1673-1688.
[15] Omidkhah, M.R.; Hojjati, M. R., Zeratkar, A. R.; "Pressure Level Optimization of Utility
System Considering Variable Physical and Thermodynamic Properties of Fluid". Accepted in
Iranian Chemical & Chemical Engineering Journal.(2008)
[16] Sandra R. Micheletto, Maria C.A. Carvalho, José M. Pinto," Operational optimization of the
utility system of an oil refinery"; Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 170–185

View publication stats