Subscriber access provided by - Access paid by the | UCSB Libraries
Article
Retrofit Design of Hydrogen Network in Refineries: Mathematical Model and Global Optimization Anoop Jagannath, Chandra Mouli R Madhuranthakam, Ali Elkamel, Iftekhar A Karimi, and Ali Almansoori Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.7b04400 • Publication Date (Web): 23 Feb 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 25, 2018
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
List of Figures: Figure 1. Existing hydrogen network from the example of Hallale and Liu.4 All flows in MMscfd. Figure 2. Tabulation to assign pressures of the new compressors for the example of Hallale and Liu.4 Figure 3. Flowchart for the Global optimization algorithm. Figure 4. Existing hydrogen network for Example 1. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 5. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 1. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 6. Existing hydrogen network for Example 2. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 7. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 2. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 8. Existing hydrogen network for Example 3. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 9. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 3. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 10. Existing hydrogen network for Example 4. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 11. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 4. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 12. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 5. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 13. Existing hydrogen network for Example 6. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 14. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 6. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 15. Existing hydrogen network for Example 7. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 16. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 7. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Figure 17. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 8 (example of Hallale and Liu4 ). All flows in MMscfd. Figure 18. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 8 (example of Hallale and Liu4) using the model M1-HYN. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 19. Tabulation to assign pressures of the new compressors for Example 9. Figure 20. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 9. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 21. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 10. All flows in MMscfd. Figure 22. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 11. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 93
Page 3 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
H2 Source (300 psia)
200 99%
90
110
K1
K2
90 310 RC1
110 (2200 psia)
(1600 psia)
490
B
A
(1500 psia)
RC2
(1700 psia)
40
10 50 (300 psia)
Fuel gas sink
Figure 1. Existing hydrogen network from the example of Hallale and Liu.4 All flows in MMscfd
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Units Highest network pressure Process unit B Process unit A Hydrogen source/fuel gas sink Lowest network pressure
Inlet pressure 2200 2200 1700 300 5
Page 4 of 93
Exit pressure 4 3 2 1
1600 1500 300 300
Figure 2. Tabulation to assign pressures of the new compressors for the example of Hallale and Liu.4
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 3. Flowchart for the Global optimization algorithm.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
HI
40
Page 6 of 93
80 0.95 40
K1
K2
40
40
43.585 RC1
34.045
RC2
DHT
HC
10.871
15.477
Fuel gas sink
Figure 4. Existing hydrogen network for Example 1. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 7 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
HI
40.121
77.357 0.95 37.236
K1
K2
40.121
37.236
43.464 RC1
25.817
DHT
HC
RC2
10.992
23.705
Fuel gas sink
Figure 5. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 1. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
HP HI
5.5
CR
15.5 0.80
80 0.95
Page 8 of 93
10 20
30
30
K1
30
K2
K3
7.382
RC1
17.381
12.297
46.203
RC2
HC
GOHT
RC3
RHT
39.130
1.204 1.869 RC4
DHT
5.736 1.434
10.392
2.716
NHT
RC5
2.236 Fuel gas sink
Figure 6. Existing hydrogen network for Example 2. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
HP
15.5 0.80
77.948 0.95
CR
31.5
15.5 30.613
31.336
K1
31.5
K2
K3
30.613
31.336
31.5
21.499 30.750
RC1
83.585
74.045 RC2
HC
8.079
22.726 35.084
GOHT
RC3
RHT 18.231
54.456
42.206
49.522
DHT
5.698
0.444
11.883 5.129
11.173 RC4
23.175
1.472
NHT
7.170
RC5
3.440 7.316
2.996 Fuel gas sink
Figure 7. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 2. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
HP1
40
80 0.95
40 43.585
RC1
50
K2
K3
40
50
34.045
HC1
10.871
RC2
HP2
90 0.96
40
K1
Page 10 of 93
40
K4
40 42.560
DHT
15.477
HC2
35.240
RC3
20.660
RHT
RC4
17.14 Fuel gas sink
Figure 8. Existing hydrogen network for Example 3. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
HP1
30.227
64.201 0.95
HP2
90 0.96
33.974
49.646
31.079
9.275
K1
K2 39.502
33.974
39.502
33.974
44.083
RC1
K3 49.646
RC2
31.079
49.646
40.071
HC1
K4
31.079
42.914
DHT
HC2
9.451 10.373
13.482
RC3
RHT
RC4
20.306 38.898 Fuel gas sink
Figure 9. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 3. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
HP
45 0.965
8.5 0.750
Page 12 of 93
CR
5
5
40
K1
K2
5
7.2
2.8
3.5
35
60.05
RC1
13.01
HC
RC2
0.65
0.95
DHT
NHT
3.614
1.425
RC3
Fuel gas sink
Figure 10. Existing hydrogen network for Example 4. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
HP
37.792 0.965
CR
8.5 0.750 5.982
31.810
7.838
K1
K2
6.227
0.417
34.350 60.7
RC1
8.586
16.684
RC2
HC
DHT
0.747
2.375
NHT
RC3
2.540 PSA 0.958
1.981 Fuel gas sink
Figure 11. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 4. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
HP HI
CR
15.5 0.80
62.355 0.95
Page 14 of 93
0.944 16.745
14.755
27.102
17.564
K2
K3
13.936 K1
31.5
27.102 0.755
20.590 31.495
RC1
83.585
23.628 35.084
74.045 RC2
HC
31.5
GOHT
9.366
RC3
RHT 17.486
54.456
44.265
5.257
11.173 RC4
DHT
5.698
1.472 7.170
49.522
23.175 13.809
3.440
5.129
PSA
NHT
6.602
RC5
3.440
Fuel gas sink
Figure 12. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 5. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
HP
23.5 0.75
45 0.92
CR 10.66 0.65
44.35
0.04 11.31
K1
5.57
K2
2.64
1.56
85.7
HC
RC2
CNHT
36.75
RC3
12.80
11.31
38.78
RC6
IS4
RC1
DHT
3.47
3.59
JHT
NHT
4.32
6.55
RC4
3.6
Fuel gas sink
Figure 13. Existing hydrogen network for Example 6. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
HP
CR
23.5 0.75
28.918 0.92
Page 16 of 93
10.889
0.986
0.04
27.391
11.657
12.571
K1
4.977
K2
1.338
89.868
HC
IS4
10.538
34.612
RC6
11.875
RC2
7.122
CNHT
2.332
RC1
DHT
0.237
39.983
10.140
9.580 RC3
JHT 4.130
7.838
PSA
NHT
RC4
3.790 7.588
2.302
Fuel gas sink
Figure 14. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 6. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
HP1 HP
5.5
CR
15.5 0.80
80 0.95
HI
90 0.96
10 20
50
30
30
K1
K2
K4
K3
7.382
RC1
RC2
HC
GOHT
RHT
K5
50
17.381
12.297
46.203
40
30
40 42.560
RC3
HC2
RC5
20.660
35.240
RC6
CNHT
RC7
39.130 1.204 1.869 RC4
DHT
5.736 1.434
10.392
2.716
NHT
17.14
2.236 Fuel gas sink
Figure 15. Existing hydrogen network for Example 7. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Page 18 of 93
7.162 HP1 HP
CR
15.5 0.80
31.675 0.95
23.966 6.579
HI
90 0.96
7.534 0.885
52.5
1.130
11.694 30.306
24.921
0.804 K1 0.010 2.854
K2
HC
RC2
6.170 30.091
GOHT
37.784
DHT
1.470
49.646
5.315
35.820 42.914
RC3
RHT
HC2
39.420
CNHT
RC6
RC7
12.960
17.860
20.306
3.440
8.045 RC4
K5
6.180
8.282
40.949
RC1
K4
K3
NHT
RC5
PSA
5.7 13.722 31.068 Fuel gas sink
Figure 16. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 7. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 19 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
H2 Source (300 psia)
183 99%
90
93
K1
K2 (1500 psia)
90 310
93
N2
(1600 psia)
467 (2200 psia)
RC1
(2200 psia)
A
B
RC2
40 (1500 psia)
(1700 psia)
33 33 (300 psia)
Fuel gas sink
Figure 17. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 8 (example of Hallale and Liu4 ). All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
H2 Source (300 psia)
Page 20 of 93
183 99%
90
93 22.5
K1
K2 (1500 psia)
90 (1600 psia)
310
115.5
N2
467 (2200 psia)
RC1
(2200 psia)
A
B
RC2
17.5 (1700 psia)
(1500 psia)
33 33 (300 psia)
Fuel gas sink
Figure 18. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 8 (example of Hallale and Liu4) using the model M1-HYN. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 21 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Units Highest network pressure HC RHT GOHT/DHT Hydrogen source NHT fuel gas sink Lowest network pressure
Inlet pressure 2000 2000 600 500 300 300 200 8
Exit pressure 7 6 5
4 3 2 1
1200 400 350 300 200 200 200
Figure 19. Tabulation to assign pressures of the new compressors for Example 9.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
HP
CR
15.5 0.80
76.579 0.95
Page 22 of 93
16 15.5
23.245 5.835
31.5
(300 psia)
N2
K1
K2
10.950
(400 psia)
N3
K3 5.835
31.5
23.245
(500 psia)
16
31.5 (500 psia)
5.835 46.250
RC1
83.585 RC2
HC
9
13.621 35.084
74.045 GOHT
10.950 RC3
RHT 8.206
54.456
37.179
49.522
23.175 5.129
11.173 0.456 RC4
DHT
NHT 12.343 7.170 2.359
0.223 4.587
3.440 3.440
Fuel gas sink
Figure 20. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 9. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 23 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
HP
CR
15.5 0.80
62.255 0.95
16 21.892 10.241
16
24.353
(300 psia)
N2
15.5
0.01
K1
K2
K3
(500 psia) 10.251
24.729 48.981
RC1
83.585
74.045 RC2
HC 54.456
GOHT 23.175 5.272
2.260
(200 psia)
1.180 10.576
11.173
RC3
RHT
49.522
38.946
13.954
10.370 35.084
5.129
N1 RC4
DHT
RC5
NHT
1.472
(300 psia) 7.170
5.698
PSA
3.440 2.260
13.078
6.502
Fuel gas sink
Figure 21. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 10. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
HP1 HP
CR
15.5 0.80
31.430 0.95
Page 24 of 93
HI
11.122
90 0.96
4.378
4.603
27.112 4.318 2.947
23.584
K1
18.483
49.646 13.510
N2
0.010
K2
K4
K3
30.849
RC1
HC
RC2
28.341
3.069
GOHT
49.646
9.989
13.186
NHT
HC2
35.832
CNHT
RC6
RC7
20.306
2.091
2.146
DHT
39.408 42.914
RC3
RHT
1.720 RC4
K5
2.592
24.539
52.376
37.397
RC5
6.149 PSA
5.024
1.349
40.315 13.477 3.038
N1
1.349
Fuel gas sink
Figure 22. Optimal hydrogen network after retrofit for Example 11. All flows in MMscfd.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 25 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Retrofit Design of Hydrogen Network in Refineries: Mathematical Model and Global Optimization Anoop Jagannath1, Chandra Mouli R. Madhuranthakam2, Ali Elkamel1, 3, Iftekhar A. Karimi4 and Ali Almansoori*, 1 1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, The Petroleum Institute, P.O. Box 2533, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
2
Chemical Engineering Department, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi campus, P.O. Box 59911, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 3
Department of Chemical Engineering University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 4
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 4, Singapore 117585 Abstract The problem of retrofit design of refinery hydrogen networks is addressed in this work, using the mathematical superstructure optimization. The superstructure of retrofit hydrogen network design contains hydrogen using, producing and purifying units; along with compressors to facilitate hydrogen distribution. The developed mathematical model is formulated as a mixed integer nonlinear programming model (MINLP), with the objective being minimum total annual cost. The nonlinearity in the model is because of the bilinear, posynomial and linear fractional terms. A new heuristic method is presented which helps in assigning suction and discharge pressures for the newly retrofitted compressor. With such an assignment, the nonlinearity in the model is now only confined to bilinear terms. This bilinear MINLP model is solved to global optimality using the proposed global optimization algorithm. Tests on some literature examples show that the proposed algorithm can reach global solutions faster than some commercial *
Corresponding author:
[email protected] (Email), +971 2 607 5544 (Phone), +971 2 607 5200 (Fax)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 26 of 93
Page 27 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
MINLP global solvers. Keywords: refinery hydrogen network, retrofit design, superstructure optimization, bilinear program, bivariate partitioning, global optimization.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
1. Introduction Hydrogen management in a refinery can be defined as a methodology that studies and analyses the overall hydrogen balance (availability and demand) within a refinery, and seeks to determine solutions that result in its optimized overall hydrogen consumption. Petroleum refineries treat/react its products, by-products and/or intermediates with hydrogen to produce fuels with cleaner specifications complying with stringent environmental regulations. Its other uses in the petroleum refinery include: as a feed in gas processing operations and as a supplementary feedstock in the fuel gas systems to produce electricity. Process units in the refinery, namely hydrotreaters and hydrocrackers, are the major consumers of hydrogen. A hydrotreating process reacts liquid hydrocarbons with hydrogen (in presence of a catalyst) to remove sulphur and nitrogen. A hydrocracking process converts or upgrades low quality heavy constituents from atmospheric distillation units, vacuum distillation units, fluid cracking and coking units to more useful lighter boiling fractions, such as gasoline and jet fuel, by reacting them with hydrogen in presence of a catalyst. In both hydrotreating and hydrocracking processes, the unreacted hydrogen is recycled back to the reactor and some portion of the remaining gas (containing significant hydrogen content) is sent to fuel gas system as purge/off gas. Other process units that consume and utilize hydrogen in a petroleum refinery include lubrication plants, isomerization units, olefin saturation units, etc. Several units in a refinery, such as continuous catalytic reformer, semi-regenerated catalytic reformer, gas processing units etc., give out hydrogen (usually hydrogen-lean) containing streams. But the demand of hydrogen, in terms of both quality and quantity, in the hydrogen consumers far exceeds the supply available from these units; thus, the refineries resort to producing pure hydrogen ‘on-site’ using Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), Steam Naphtha
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 28 of 93
Page 29 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Reforming (SNR) or Partial Oxidation (POX) of natural gas. Refineries also import pure hydrogen to meet its additional or growing demand. ‘On-site’ hydrogen producers, hydrogen imports and auxiliary hydrogen producers (continuous catalytic reformer, semi-regenerated catalytic reformer, gas processing units etc.) constitute the hydrogen sources in a refinery. Additionally, a refinery may also choose to purify or upgrade the low-quality hydrogen lean purge/off gases from hydrogen consumers (mainly hydrocrackers and hydrotreaters) to a higher purity hydrogen gas by using hydrogen purification units. With decreasing market for heavy oils and more trend to process heavy crudes, the hydrogen demand has increased over the past years (In U.S., the total refinery hydrogen usage increased (by nearly 60%) from 2.5 billion cubic feet per day (approx.) in 2008 to 4.1 billion cubic feet per day (approx.) in 20141) and the demand is expected to increase in the years to come. As the hydrogen demand grows, hydrogen management approaches seem to be of pivotal importance for a refinery in leveraging opportunities required to maximize refinery profitability. A refinery needs an effective and systematic strategy to match or allocate the right amount of hydrogen flow from hydrogen sources with varying quality specifications to the hydrogen consumers; to recover the right amount of hydrogen from the hydrogen lean purge/off gases to be re-used in the hydrogen consumers; and to dispose right amount of hydrogen to the fuel gas system to produce surplus or additional electricity. This systematic (Process Integration2 based) strategy that studies and facilitates all the above mentioned interactions and tasks such as flow allocation, recovery and disposal of hydrogen gas within a refinery forms the optimal refinery hydrogen network synthesis/design. In simple words, the study concerning optimal distribution of hydrogen among the hydrogen sources, hydrogen consumers, hydrogen recovery units and hydrogen disposal units constitutes the refinery hydrogen network synthesis/design.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Hydrogen network design or refinery hydrogen network design belongs to a special category of Process integration2 called as Resource Conservation Network (RCN).3 Process integration refers to the holistic design approach of a process considered as a whole. RCN, is the area of process design, which addresses the optimum use of resource materials (hydrogen in this case) within a process (refinery in this case). The two approaches, used in literature, for solving RCN problems are pinch analysis and mathematical optimization.3 Pinch analysis (both graphical and algebraic method) is an insight based conceptual approach that is largely sequential (both in its targeting and design step), computationally simpler and it follows a methodology that is analogous to that of the pinch analysis used for heat exchanger network synthesis. Although pinch analysis has some important shortcomings, like its inability to address economical and operational aspects of design; it still serves as a valuable tool for designers in targeting, designing and de-bottlenecking different aspects of hydrogen network design. Mathematical optimization approach, although being computationally complex, less insightful and intuitively vague, is more useful, flexible and practical as it addresses operational and economic constraints; is more efficient because of the simultaneous (target and design step) method of design; is more effective as it is known to yield comparatively better quality of solutions. With its various advantages, the mathematical optimization method is chosen for the hydrogen network design problem in this work. In the mathematical programming approach, a superstructure diagram (diagram of all feasible solutions) is constructed first. Then, the hydrogen balance equations for the hydrogen producing (hydrogen sources), consuming (process units), purifying (purification units) and disposing units (fuel gas sinks) are written according to the superstructure. This forms the mathematical model for the hydrogen network design. The above developed model is then optimized based on a particular objective which gives the optimal network design for the hydrogen network.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 30 of 93
Page 31 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Hallale and Liu4 introduced an efficient superstructure and mathematical MINLP model for the hydrogen network design in an existing refinery with the incorporation of pressure constraints. To improve hydrogen recovery, their model allowed retrofitting of compressors and purifiers into the existing hydrogen network. Zhang et al.5 simultaneously integrated hydrogen network design with refinery planning system and pointed out the strong interaction between them through mathematical model. Liu et al.6 developed a systematic methodology for appropriate placement of purifier in hydrogen network design. They also compared the different technologies available for hydrogen purification. To solve the resultant MINLP, they proposed a strategy of using the solution from nonlinear term relaxations as an initial point to the original MINLP model. Fonseca et al.7 developed an adapted Linear Programming (LP) approach to deal with hydrogen distribution in a real refinery and showed savings in the hydrogen consumption. Khajehpour et al.8 applied engineering insights and developed a reduced superstructure approach to model hydrogen distribution network in a refinery. They used genetic algorithm to solve their model. Kumar et al.9 developed different models, namely LP, Mixed Integer Linear Program (MILP), Nonlinear Program (NLP) and MINLP, for hydrogen network design in a refinery. They concluded that, for the objective of minimum hydrogen consumption and total annual cost, the MINLP was more suitable. Hydrogen network optimization model along with a strategy for retrofitting a purifier into an existing network, for a real case study in China, was carried out by Liao et al.10 An improved NLP optimization model for hydrogen distribution in a refinery, involving multiple components along with hydrogen, was given by Jia and Zhang.11 They used more detailed models for hydrogen consumers, incorporated light hydrocarbon production aspect and carried out comprehensive flash calculations to represent an improved and efficient modeling and optimization approach for hydrogen network design. Multi-objective optimization
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
of hydrogen network design, using different objectives such as minimization of operating costs and minimization of investment costs, was carried out by Jiao et al.12 Elkamel et al.13 developed an MINLP model for refinery hydrogen network and integrated it with a NLP model of refinery planning. Their optimization model involved retrofitting an existing network with compressors and/or purification units. The objective used by them for refinery hydrogen network design was the minimization of total annual cost of the network. They combined this objective with the different objectives of various refinery planning scenarios and studied their interactions. Jiao et al.14 developed two methods (two-step approach and simultaneous optimization approach) to retrofit hydrogen networks in a refinery. In their work, conditions close to real systems were assumed. These included considering inlet flowrate and purity of hydrogen, recovery of purification units and hydrogen load in the process units as variables. Jhaveri et al.15 proposed five different optimization models to determine an optimal network for hydrogen distribution in a refinery. The new features included to their model were using different cost functions for different types of compressors, inclusion of export cost for unused hydrogen in the network etc. Jagannath et al.16 proposed an improved superstructure and a relatively simpler mathematical MINLP model for the refinery hydrogen network synthesis. Their optimization model also had some superior features such as lesser nonlinear terms, dedicated compressors for every gas stream connection, presence of heaters, coolers and valve expansions on gas stream connections, stream-dependent properties, fuel gas specifications etc. Although the model of Jagannath et al.16 had superior features, their model and superstructure was more useful in identifying targets in different hydrogen network aspects (such as minimum hydrogen consumption, minimum compressor power etc.) rather than in the actual design of hydrogen network.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 32 of 93
Page 33 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Hydrogen network design capable of functioning under multiple modes of refinery operation were proposed by Ahmad et al.17 and Jiao et al.18 Mathematical model for hydrogen network design under uncertain operating conditions, mainly in the uncertainty in the hydrogen requirement at the process units, were developed by several authors.19-22 Inter-plant hydrogen network model, for network integration among multiple refineries, between oil refineries and petrochemical plants and in petrochemical complexes, were also developed in the literature.23-26 Many mathematical models for hydrogen network design were developed in literature which included: integration with hydrogen sulphide removal;27 integration with rigorous models of process units in a refinery;28, 29 models with fuel cells and hydrogen plant;30, 31 hydrogen system scheduling studies;18, 32 consideration of sustainability and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions;33 targeting of compressors and compressor works;34-36 based on exergy37 and thermodynamic38 analysis; constraints on the hydrogen-to-oil ratio at the hydrogen consumer;39 superstructure having hydrogen headers;40 models which involved more sophisticated design equations and rigorous procedure for the incorporation of purification units;41-43 using mixing potential concept;44,
45
and, comparison of different investigative network designs concerning hydrogen
utility flow with connections in the network, with the placement of compressors and purifiers and with different economic performance criterions.46 Apart from these, a more comprehensive review on the state-of-the-art practices used in the field of hydrogen network design and management were given in the works of Elshreif et al.47 and Marques et al.48 All of the mathematical optimization models, so far described in the literature for hydrogen network design, have only been solved to obtain locally optimal solutions. Clearly, the models for hydrogen network design are formulated as either NLP or MINLP. Nonlinearity exists in these models mainly in the form of bilinear terms. When new compressors need to be retrofitted
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
into the existing hydrogen network design, then along with the bilinear term, other nonlinear terms like linear fractional terms and posynomial occur in the mathematical model. All these nonlinearity (bilinear, linear fractional and posynomial terms) happen to be highly nonconvex in nature. This nonconvexity can give rise to multiple optimum solutions. Hence, there is a clear need to solve these nonconvex problems to global optimality. This forms the motivation for the present work. To the authors’ best knowledge of literature, only the work of Sardashti et al.49 has addressed the issue of global optimization in the context of hydrogen network synthesis. In their work, Sardashti et al.49 used linear relaxation of bilinear terms and bound contraction procedure of Faria et al.50 to solve their hydrogen network model to global optimality. This work, however, had few shortcomings. Firstly, they used linear relaxation of bilinear terms in their global optimization approach which is known to be weak and time consuming especially for medium and large sized problems.51 Second, their global optimization approach only dealt with the bilinear terms. Other nonlinearities like linear fractional terms and posynomial terms were not addressed by them. Third, the integration of the bound contraction methodology within a specific global optimization framework (like branch and bound method) was also not properly addressed by Sardashti et al.49 The objective of this paper is to address the retrofit design of hydrogen networks in a refinery. The approach used in this paper is developing a mathematical model by employing mathematical superstructure optimization with the objective to minimize the total annualized cost of the retrofitted design. Evidently, the formulated mathematical model for this problem is a nonconvex MINLP. The optimization of this nonconvex MINLP formulation results in the existence of multiple locally optimal solutions. Consequently, this nonconvex MINLP model is solved to -
global optimality using a deterministic global optimization approach. Several examples, ranging
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 34 of 93
Page 35 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
from small, medium, large and very large scale instantiations, are solved to illustrate the applicability of the proposed mathematical model and the global optimization approach to address the problem of retrofit design of hydrogen networks in a refinery. The major contributions of this paper are as listed as follows. 1. As mentioned earlier, the proposed mathematical MINLP model is nonconvex in nature. The nonconvexity, in this formulation, is attributed to the bilinear terms, linear fractional terms and posynomial terms. The bilinear terms arise because of the hydrogen balance mixing equations at the compressors, purification units and fuel gas sinks. The linear fractional term and posynomial term arise in the duty constraint of the new compressor retrofitted into the existing refinery hydrogen network (for the new compressor, their inlet and outlet pressures are unknown optimization variables). In this paper, a heuristic methodology for assigning the inlet and outlet pressures for the new compressors is developed. As a result of this, the other nonlinear terms, namely linear fractional terms and posynomial terms, are eliminated from the model. This is explained in a detailed manner in Section 3.1. 2. With the linear fractional terms and posynomial terms removed as stated in the previous point, the mathematical model (retrofit) of hydrogen network design becomes a pure bilinear MINLP (MINLP with only bilinear terms as the nonlinearity). A specific tailor-made global optimization algorithm is proposed to solve this nonconvex MINLP model of hydrogen
network design retrofit to -global optimality. The bilinear term is relaxed using bivariate
partitioning scheme employing incremental cost formulation (see Section 4 for details). This study, also, compares and contrasts the proposed global optimization strategy with the available global optimization solvers in GAMS52 for some of the examples. The comparison results are presented in Section 6 (Section 6, Computational aspects).
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 formally describes the different retrofit schemes and the hydrogen network design retrofit problem. The description of the mathematical model is presented in Section 3. In this section (Section 3.1), first, a detailed mathematical model for the retrofit of refinery hydrogen network is presented. Second (Section 3.2), the improvements and modifications proposed to this model, in comparison to other contemporary works in the area of hydrogen network design, are mentioned. The convex relaxation of the bilinear terms in the model and the global optimization strategy are explained in Section 4. Examples for illustrating the use of the proposed mathematical model and global optimization strategy are presented in Section 5. The computational details of the proposed model and global optimization are shown in Section 6. The conclusions from this work and some future works related to this area of retrofit hydrogen network design are given in Section 7. Appendix A provides a brief description of all the units in the retrofit hydrogen network design (hydrogen sources, process units, fuel gas sinks, existing and new compressors, existing and new purification units and pipelines) along with their flow connections. Secondly, it lists the nomenclature of all the variables and parameters involved in the model. The variable bounds for all the variables in this model are also provided in Appendix A. Appendix B provides a brief review into some of the literature concerning bilinear process network problems and the different methodologies for the convex relaxation of the bilinear terms. It also provides the description of the convexification constraints used to convexify the bilinear terms in this model. All the tables in this manuscript are provided in Appendix C. Some optimal hydrogen network synthesis diagrams are also present in Appendix C. Appendix A, B and C are provided in the Supporting Information accompanying with this manuscript. 2. Problem description
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 36 of 93
Page 37 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
This paper presents an improved mathematical model and optimization approach for the hydrogen network design retrofit in a refinery. Due to changing refinery production trends (such as processing heavy crudes and complying to stringent standards of final product quality) from conventional topping and hydro-skimming configuration to conversion (cracking based) and deep conversion (cracking and coking based) based configuration, refiners are forced to look out for a simple, efficient, economical and an attractive option to manage the hydrogen demand and usage in a refinery. Retrofitting or revamping an existing hydrogen network in a refinery seems to be an apt, manageable and an economical option for maintaining hydrogen needs and ensuring profitability of the refinery. Thus the focus of this work, similar to most other literature works, will be on retrofitting an existing hydrogen network in a refinery. Four retrofit schemes, as outlined in Hallale and Liu,4 are studied in this paper. First retrofit scheme involves low-cost modification such as flow re-routing and allocation. Since this scheme involves only flow rerouting and allocation, only pipelines are added and/or removed to/from the existing network. Second retrofit scheme is the addition of new purification units to the existing network along with the flow re-routing and allocation. Third retrofit scheme is the addition of new compressors to the existing network along with the flow re-routing and allocation. Fourth retrofit scheme is, the addition of both new compressors and purification units to the existing network along with the flow re-routing and allocation. This section (Section 2) states the hydrogen network design retrofit problem applicable to all the aforementioned retrofit schemes. An existing hydrogen network design consists of distribution of hydrogen gas among the different entities/units of a hydrogen network design namely a set containing hydrogen
sources ∈ , a set containing process units ∈ and set containing fuel gas sinks ∈ . The distribution of hydrogen gas among the different units of the hydrogen
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
network is enabled by the use of pipelines. In addition, since this mathematical model for hydrogen network design accounts for pressure constraints, compressors are also present in the existing hydrogen network design. Henceforth, these compressors will be referred as existing compressors; and are represented by a set containing existing compressors ∈ . The existing network also may have hydrogen purification units referred as existing purification units
denoted by a set containing existing hydrogen purification units ∈ . According to the
retrofit schemes mentioned previously, the existing hydrogen network can to be retrofitted with new pipelines, compressors and/or new purification units. New compressors are represented by a
set containing new compressors ∈ and new purification units are represented by a set
containing new purification units ∈ . Pipelines are represented as flow connections. The problem statement of the retrofit hydrogen network design is to re-design/synthesize an existing hydrogen network by modifying/revamping/retrofitting it with new equipments such as
pipelines, compressors and/or purification units such that there is savings in the cost and/or hydrogen utility consumption of the new network. The superstructure (set of all feasible design alternatives) of the retrofit refinery hydrogen network design can be visualized as flow connections to/from all the units in the hydrogen network. A brief description of all the units in the retrofit hydrogen network design (hydrogen sources, process units, fuel gas sinks, existing and new compressors, existing and new purification units and pipelines), along with their inlet and outlet flow connections are given in Appendix A (first part). Appendix A. can be found in the Supporting Information accompanying this article. To model the existence of flow connections, a generalized representation is preferred, since it eliminates the long and tedious process of writing each flow connection for all the units in the hydrogen network thereby reducing the length of this article. The representation of units in a
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 38 of 93
Page 39 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
network design using the convention of an origin (generic source) and destination (generic sink) is long known in the literature.16, 21, 24, 53, 54 They help in the generic representation and writing of model equations for a network design problem. With respect to hydrogen network design, any unit that can supply hydrogen gas to itself or other units is called an origin unit (Set containing
origin units ∈ ). Any unit that can receive hydrogen gas stream from itself or other units
is called a destination unit (Set containing destination units ∈ ). Hydrogen sources,
process units, compressors (both existing and new) and purification units (both existing and new) constitute the origin units. Fuel gas sinks, process units, compressors (both existing and new) and purification units (both existing and new) form the destination units. Refiners are usually interested in studying profitability analysis and monetary benefits associated with retrofit designs in addition to the savings in the utility (hydrogen gas) consumption. Besides, some of the units retrofitted into the hydrogen network, such as purification units and compressors; have substantial capital and operating expenses associated with them. Thus, considering the economic aspects associated with refinery hydrogen network design, the total annual cost is selected as the objective function for this optimization problem. With this understanding, the hydrogen network synthesis retrofit problem can be briefly stated as follows. Given:
1. Set of hydrogen sources ∈ giving out hydrogen streams with known flows, pressures, and purities
2. Set of process units ∈ with known inlet and exit flows, pressures and purity
3. Set of existing purifiers ∈ with known inlet flow ranges, known inlet pressures,
known inlet gas purity ranges and known hydrogen recovery for its feed streams. The
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
product stream from the purification unit have known pressures and product stream hydrogen purities, whereas the residue streams have known exit pressure and bounds on its gas purity.
4. Set of existing compressors ∈ with known inlet and outlet pressures; known maximum flow capacities.
5. Set of Fuel gas sinks ∈ receiving hydrogen streams having known inlet pressures, flow and purity ranges.
6. Set of new compressors ∈ which can possibly be retrofitted into the network. Unlike the existing compressor, their design pressures and existence are not known for these compressors. Maximum flow capacity of the new compressors are known.
7. Set of new purifiers ∈ which can be retrofitted into the existing network. Similar to the existing purifiers, the feed streams have known flow ranges, pressures,
hydrogen recoveries and purity ranges. The product streams have known pressures and product stream hydrogen purities and the residue streams have known exit pressures and purity ranges. Unlike the existing purifiers, their existence are not known. 8. Known capital cost (CAPEX) data for all units to be retrofitted such as purification unit, new compressor and pipeline. 9. Known operational cost (OPEX) data such as hydrogen consumption cost, compression cost and monetary value of hydrogen going to the fuel gas sinks. To Determine: 1. Amount of overall hydrogen required by the refinery 2. The retrofit network topology of hydrogen network with flows, purities and pressures at all points within the network
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 40 of 93
Page 41 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
3. Existence, optimal flows, capacities and/or duties of new equipments retrofitted into the network such as purification units, compressors and pipelines Aim: To minimize the Total Annualized Cost (TAC) of the retrofit hydrogen network We include two components in TAC. The first is the annualized capital expenditure (CAPEX) of the entire network, which includes the capital costs of all the retrofitted equipments such as new compressors, purification units and pipelines. The second is the operating expenditure (OPEX), which consists of the cost of hydrogen consumed, operating/electricity costs for the hydrogen gas compression and the costs/savings due to the use of hydrogen in the fuel gas sinks. The assumptions made in the hydrogen network retrofit design are given as follows. Assumptions: 1. The network optimization here is based on material balance; hence the gas flowrate considered here is standard volumetric flowrate. The standard conditions assumed are 600 F and 14.7 psia. All the flows are in standard volumetric flow basis (MMscf/day); purities of the gas and pressures of all the units are given in mole fraction and per square inch area (psia) respectively. 2. The model development is based on total flow model. 3. No phase change or chemical reaction occurs within the gas network flow. 4. Uncertainties may arise in terms of gas flowrate and purity in the real cases, but such uncertainties are neglected and constant flows are purities are assumed. 5. The major component in the total gas flow within the hydrogen network design is hydrogen. Hence, for simplicity reasons, the total flow of gas stream (gas stream with hydrogen and nonhydrogen components) is implicitly referred to as hydrogen gas stream. This, however, should not be confused as the component flow of hydrogen.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
6. All the process units in the refinery hydrogen network design superstructure, unless or otherwise mentioned explicitly, have recycle compressors associated with them. Recycle compressors facilitate the compression of the recycle stream for a process unit. The exit stream pressure from a process unit is usually lower than that of its corresponding inlet stream pressure. The recycle compressor compresses the recycle stream from a process unit to the pressure required at the inlet of the same. Thus, the inlet and outlet pressures of a recycle compressor is the exit and inlet pressure of a process unit respectively. In this model, the flow capacity of a recycle compressor is the capacity of the pipeline facilitating the recycle stream for a process unit. Also, in this model, the recycle compressor handles only the recycle stream from the process units (recycle stream from the corresponding process unit to which it belongs) and this cannot accommodate hydrogen flows from other units in the network. 7. Adiabatic compression is employed in the compressor. 8. The pressure drops are assumed to be zero in the pipelines. 9. All network streams are gaseous binary mixtures of hydrogen and inerts. The inert represents the generalized term for other hydrocarbons (non-hydrogen components) which are present along with hydrogen such as methane, ethane, hydrogen sulphide etc. in the refinery hydrogen network. 10.
The existing and new compressors in the hydrogen network design behave as makeup
compressors (as opposed to recycle compressors). Makeup compressors, unlike the recycle compressors, receive (give out) hydrogen streams from hydrogen sources, process units and purification units (process units, purification units and fuel gas sinks). Makeup compressors are required in hydrogen network design to satisfy hydrogen flow, purity and pressure requirements at the process units. Usually, the recycle stream from a process unit does not
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 42 of 93
Page 43 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
have the hydrogen flow, purity and pressure required at the inlet of the process unit. Although the recycle compressors bring the recycle stream to the pressure required at the inlet of the process unit, the flow and purity levels may not be fulfilled. The makeup compressors mixes the hydrogen streams from other units (hydrogen sources, other process units, purification units etc.) of the network to the flow, purity and pressure levels required at the inlet of the process unit. 11.
The present study only deals with the mathematical model for hydrogen distribution (in
terms of flow, purity and pressure) among the different units in a refinery. The mathematical model resembles a network optimization study. The different units in the hydrogen network design are characterized in the model only by their inlet and exit flows, purities and pressures. Inclusion of detailed mathematical modeling expressions for the different units (such as hydrogen sources, process units, compressors, purification units etc.) in the mathematical model of hydrogen network design is beyond the scope of the current study. The above explanation gives a brief description of the retrofit hydrogen network problem for a refinery. Section 5 (seen later) explains how this can be specifically modified and applied to the previously mentioned retrofit schemes. 3. Mathematical Model The mathematical model for the hydrogen network design retrofit problem is formulated based on the total gas flow. Alternatively, it can also be modeled based on component flowrate. For writing the material balance constraints for the different units in the retrofit hydrogen network design model, the units are lumped as single entities along with their mixers (MX) and splitters (SY). Thus, the constraints for the different units in the retrofit hydrogen network design are written only for these units/entities and not its corresponding mixers and splitters. In other words,
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 44 of 93
no separate material balance constraints are written for the splitter and mixers of these units. This approach helps to reduce the number of variables and constraints in the model. As mentioned earlier, the nonlinearity in this model is characterized mainly by the presence of bilinear terms (also linear fractional and posynomial terms for the case when new compressors are retrofitted). The discrete nature of the model is represented by existence of new equipment such as new pipelines, compressors and/or purification units. Hence, the refinery hydrogen network retrofit model is formulated as a nonconvex MINLP. This section is divided into two sections: Model equations (Section 3.1) and Improvements in the mathematical model proposed in this paper (Section 3.2). Section 3.1 is further divided into four sub-sections namely balance equations (Section 3.1.1), flow connections (Section 3.1.2), variable bounds (Section 3.1.3) and objective function (Section 3.1.4). 3.1 Model Equations 3.1.1 Balance Equations The indices and sets for units in the hydrogen network are given first. The nomenclature for the entire model containing information on the indices, sets, parameters, variables and binary variables are given in a consolidated form in Appendix A (second and third part).
Let denote the flow out of the hydrogen source ∈ , then the mass balance equations
for this is given by Eq. (1). The lower and upper bounds on flow out of hydrogen source are given in Eq. (2).
= ∑∈ , + ∑!∈" ,! + ∑#∈$ ,# + ∑%∈& ,%
+ ∑'∈( ,' + ∑)∈* ,)
, ≤ ≤ &
∀ ∈
∀ ∈
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
(1) (2)
Page 45 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Next, the modeling equations for the existing and new compressors are considered. The amount and purity of gas entering and leaving the existing compressor must be equal. The material and component balance equation for an existing compressor ∈ are given by Eqs. (3) and (4).
The flow bounds into the existing compressor ∈ is given by Eq. (5). The duty of the
existing compressor ∈ , ./! , is given by Eq. (6); ! and ! represent the known outlet and inlet design pressures respectively. In case of retrofit design problems, these compressors are already operational and present in the network and hence their design pressures and their existence are known. These existing compressors, however, may or may not be present in the final optimal network. The other parameters in Eq. (6) are explained as follows. 0
represents the adiabatic index, 1 is the molar density (kmol/m3) of the gas stands and 2 is the compressor efficiency. In Eq. (6), the unit of ./! is in megawatt (MW); ! and ! are in
psia and flow into compressor ! is in MMscfd.
! = ∑∈3 ,! + ∑! 4 ∈"4
! 4 ,! + ∑#∈$ #,! + ∑%∈& %,! + ∑'∈( ',! + ! 4 ∈" ! 4 5!
∑)∈* ),! = ∑∈ !, + ∑! 4 ∈"4
! 4 ,! + ∑#∈$ !,# + ∑%∈& !,% ! 4 ∈" ! 4 5!
+ ∑'∈( !' + ∑)∈* !,)
∀ ∈
∑∈3 ,! . 7 + ∑! 4 ∈"4
! 4 ,! . 78! 4 + ∑#∈$ #,! . 79# + ! 4 ∈" ! 4 5!
∑%∈& %,! . 7 % + ∑'∈( ',! . 7:;' + ∑)∈* ),! . 7:;) =
78! ∑∈ !, + ∑! 4 ∈"4
! 4 ,! + ∑#∈$ !,# + ∑%∈& !,% ! 4 ∈" ! 4 5!
+ ∑'∈( !' + ∑)∈* !,)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
(3)
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
! ≤ !&
∀ ∈
∀ ∈
./! = < ? . >? . > =
=
B
=
I#J K
(4) (5)
. L< I# ?
∀ ∈
Page 46 of 93
IM%'J J
NOP N
− 1S . 49.81. ! (6)
The new compressors, which can be retrofitted into the existing network system, also have material and component balance equations similar to that of the existing compressors given by Eq. (7) and Eq. (8). The duty of the new compressor, ./9# , is given by the Eq. (9). U9#
and 9# are the outlet and inlet design pressures of the new compressor. Known bounds exist
on the capacity of the new compressor, indicating the maximum possible flow into the new compressor retrofitted into the network as shown in Eq. (11). Eq. (12) and Eq. (13) give the constraints which depicts the existence of the new compressor by the binary decision variable.
The design pressures and existence of the new compressors are now optimization (decision) variables and need to be determined, unlike the case of existing compressors for which these variables are known a-priori.
# = ∑∈3 ,# + ∑#4 ∈$4 #4 ,# + ∑!∈" !,# + ∑%∈& %,# + ∑'∈( ',# + #4 ∈$ #4 5#
∑)∈* ),# = ∑∈ #, + ∑#4 ∈$4 #4 ,# + ∑!∈" #,! + ∑%∈& #,% #4 ∈$ #4 5#
+ ∑'∈( #' + ∑)∈* #,) ∀ ∈
∑∈3 ,# . 7 + ∑#4 ∈$4 #4 ,# . 79#4 + ∑!∈" !,# . 78! + #4 ∈$ #4 5#
∑%∈& %,# . 7 % + ∑'∈( ',# . 7:;' + ∑)∈* ),# . 7:;) =
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
(7)
Page 47 of 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
79# ∑∈ #, + ∑#4 ∈$4 #4 ,# + ∑!∈" #,! + ∑%∈& #,% #4 ∈$ #4 5#
>? . >? . =
=
B
=
∀ ∈
# ≤ #&
./9# − \9# . ./ ≤ 0
./9# − \9# . ^./ ≥ 0
K
. L