A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration Methods

This paper compares Utility Heat Exchanger Network (UEN) design between two Total Site Heat Integration (TSHI) methods, the Conventional Total Site Targeting method (CTST) and the recently developed Unified Total Site Targeting (UTST) method. A large Kraft Pulp Mill plant has been chosen as a case s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: A.H. Tarighaleslami, T.G. Walmsley, M.J. Atkins, M.R.W. Walmsley, J.R. Neale
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. 2017-10-01
Series:Chemical Engineering Transactions
Online Access:https://www.cetjournal.it/index.php/cet/article/view/180
_version_ 1818878362185105408
author A.H. Tarighaleslami
T.G. Walmsley
M.J. Atkins
M.R.W. Walmsley
J.R. Neale
author_facet A.H. Tarighaleslami
T.G. Walmsley
M.J. Atkins
M.R.W. Walmsley
J.R. Neale
author_sort A.H. Tarighaleslami
collection DOAJ
description This paper compares Utility Heat Exchanger Network (UEN) design between two Total Site Heat Integration (TSHI) methods, the Conventional Total Site Targeting method (CTST) and the recently developed Unified Total Site Targeting (UTST) method. A large Kraft Pulp Mill plant has been chosen as a case study. Total Site targets have been calculated using a ExcelTM targeting spreadsheet and networks have been designed with the help of SupertagetTM for both the CTST and UTST methods. To achieve heat recovery and utility targets, both series and parallel utility heat exchanger matches for non-isothermal utilities are allowed in the CTST method, while series matches are allowed in the UTST method if the heat exchangers in series are from the same process. Series matches based on CTST method may create a dependency on two or more separate processes, which operational and control issues may occur, higher piping costs may be imposed, and utility target temperatures may not be achieved in the consecutive processes if one or more processes were to be out of service. Relaxation of the network can resolve these issues for the CTST method; however, if the relaxation occurs on the side of the utility loop that constrains heat recovery, the net heat recovery targets may not be achieved within the Total Site. The UTST method with its modified targeting procedure may offer slightly lower heat recovery targets but with simpler UEN design compared to CTST method are more realistic and achievable. Finally, after UEN design, non-isothermal utility loops need to be balanced in terms of mass and energy for both methods.
first_indexed 2024-12-19T14:12:58Z
format Article
id doaj.art-5a5c10e886254122815b431c68c06745
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2283-9216
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-19T14:12:58Z
publishDate 2017-10-01
publisher AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
record_format Article
series Chemical Engineering Transactions
spelling doaj.art-5a5c10e886254122815b431c68c067452022-12-21T20:18:04ZengAIDIC Servizi S.r.l.Chemical Engineering Transactions2283-92162017-10-016110.3303/CET1761127A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration MethodsA.H. TarighaleslamiT.G. WalmsleyM.J. AtkinsM.R.W. WalmsleyJ.R. NealeThis paper compares Utility Heat Exchanger Network (UEN) design between two Total Site Heat Integration (TSHI) methods, the Conventional Total Site Targeting method (CTST) and the recently developed Unified Total Site Targeting (UTST) method. A large Kraft Pulp Mill plant has been chosen as a case study. Total Site targets have been calculated using a ExcelTM targeting spreadsheet and networks have been designed with the help of SupertagetTM for both the CTST and UTST methods. To achieve heat recovery and utility targets, both series and parallel utility heat exchanger matches for non-isothermal utilities are allowed in the CTST method, while series matches are allowed in the UTST method if the heat exchangers in series are from the same process. Series matches based on CTST method may create a dependency on two or more separate processes, which operational and control issues may occur, higher piping costs may be imposed, and utility target temperatures may not be achieved in the consecutive processes if one or more processes were to be out of service. Relaxation of the network can resolve these issues for the CTST method; however, if the relaxation occurs on the side of the utility loop that constrains heat recovery, the net heat recovery targets may not be achieved within the Total Site. The UTST method with its modified targeting procedure may offer slightly lower heat recovery targets but with simpler UEN design compared to CTST method are more realistic and achievable. Finally, after UEN design, non-isothermal utility loops need to be balanced in terms of mass and energy for both methods.https://www.cetjournal.it/index.php/cet/article/view/180
spellingShingle A.H. Tarighaleslami
T.G. Walmsley
M.J. Atkins
M.R.W. Walmsley
J.R. Neale
A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration Methods
Chemical Engineering Transactions
title A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration Methods
title_full A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration Methods
title_fullStr A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration Methods
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration Methods
title_short A Comparison of Utility Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis for Total Site Heat Integration Methods
title_sort comparison of utility heat exchanger network synthesis for total site heat integration methods
url https://www.cetjournal.it/index.php/cet/article/view/180
work_keys_str_mv AT ahtarighaleslami acomparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT tgwalmsley acomparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT mjatkins acomparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT mrwwalmsley acomparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT jrneale acomparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT ahtarighaleslami comparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT tgwalmsley comparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT mjatkins comparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT mrwwalmsley comparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods
AT jrneale comparisonofutilityheatexchangernetworksynthesisfortotalsiteheatintegrationmethods