Integration Strategy of Gasification Technology: A Gateway to

Future Refining
J huma Sadhukhan and X. X. Zhu*
Department of Process I ntegration, UMI ST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, U.K.
Stri cter envi ronmental l egi sl ati on on emi ssi ons, product qual i ti es, and the i ncreased avai l abi l i ty
of heavi er and sourer crudes are the mai n dri vi ng forces for refi neri es to use gasi fi cati on
technol ogi es for the bottom of the barrel di sposal i nto producti on of hydrogen and cl ean energy.
However, economi c vi abi l i ty needs to be ful l y proven. Thi s paper takes the chal l enge of i ntegrati ng
gasi fi cati on to an overal l refi nery. To achi eve thi s, a four stage opti mi zati on strategy i s devel oped.
I n the screeni ng and scopi ng stage, the energy i ntegrati on opportuni ti es are expl ored. I n si te
l evel opti mi zati on, the overal l i ntegrati on among refi nery and gasi fi cati on i s consi dered to
maxi mi ze the margi n. I n process l evel opti mi zati on, appropri ate i ntegrati on among gasi fi cati on,
hydrogen, and uti l i ty systems i s deri ved to mi ni mi ze the i nvestment. Fi nal l y, the si mul taneous
opti mi zati on of si te and process l evel s i s carri ed out to trade off between benefi ts and i nvestment.
By appl yi ng thi s methodol ogy to a refi nery case study, si gni fi cant margi nal i mprovement i s
achi eved wi th mi ni mal i nvestment.
Introduction
The concept of gasi fi cati on i s not new. I t ori gi nated
from power generati on, where coal was gasi fi ed to
produce synthesi s gas to produce power. The hi stori cal
evi dence of the operati on of a coal gasi fi cati on pl ant goes
as far back i n ti me as 1878.
1
The Uni ted States fi rst
power pl ant based on coal gasi fi cati on technol ogy was
i nstal l ed i n 1980.
2
The concept of gasi fi cati on has begun
to attract much attenti on from the refi ni ng i ndustry
because of stri ngent envi ronmental regul ati ons on
transportati on fuel , sl ashi ng demands for fuel oi l s, and
uncertai nty i n the avai l abi l i ty of good crude oi l s. A
typi cal refi nery produces 30% heavy resi dues. I t i s
di ffi cul t for many carbon rejecti on technol ogi es (e.g.,
del ayed coki ng, vi sbreaki ng, sol vent deasphal ti ng, etc.)
to upgrade the heavy resi dues when hi gh vol ume i s
i nvol ved,
3
whereas gasi fi cati on i s a proven technol ogy
for the di sposal of a hi gh vol ume of the bottom of the
barrel to produce power. However, i t requi res a very
hi gh i nvestment, whi ch makes the appl i cati on of thi s
technol ogy i n refi nery very di ffi cul t. Therefore, i t i s a
chal l engi ng task for refi ni ng i ndustri es to economi cal l y
i ntegrate gasi fi cati on technol ogy, and thi s i s the major
theme of the paper.
Gasi fi cati on technol ogy i n refi ni ng has al so been
evol vi ng for qui te some ti me. Rhodes
4
di scussed the
appl i cati on of the fi rst coke-fuel l ed gasi fi cati on uni t and
four other gasi fi cati on projects based on Texaco I nc.s
gasi fi cati on technol ogy. I n al l of these appl i cati ons, the
most common aspect i s the power producti on usi ng
syngas from a gasi fi er to a gas turbi ne. Thus, i t i s fai r
to say that the earl y appl i cati on of gasi fi cati on adopts
the ori gi nal concept of an i ntegrated gasi fi cati on com-
bi ned cycl e (I GCC). Thi s trend has changed recentl y.
For exampl e, syngas from the Texaco gasi fi cati on pro-
cess can produce hydrogen, power, and steam.
5
Another
successful exampl e i s the Perni s refi nery (PER+project)
that uses the Shel l gasi fi cati on process to produce
hydrogen for the hydrocracker and for power.
6
Benefi ts
are al so i ndi cated i n the crude di et that are of l ow grade
emi ssi ons and the producti on of whi te products. Gas-
i fi cati on technol ogy i s thus i ntegrated wi th heavy end
processi ng uni ts, hydroprocessi ng uni ts, and a power
generati on uni t. I t has been shown that the appl i cati on
of gasi fi cati on can generate more economi c benefi ts i n
a more i ntegrated manner. However, no methodol ogy
for gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on to an exi sti ng refi nery
i nfrastructure i s avai l abl e. I n the case of the Shel l
Perni s project, gasi fi cati on technol ogy has been appl i ed
as an i ntegrated system to make pure hydrogen for the
hydrocracker, whi l e power and steam for refi nery usage
are generated i n an i ndependent power i sl and. Such an
approach can l ead to addi ti onal capi tal i nvestment
i ncurred from every equi pment i tem that gasi fi cati on
makes use of to meet the power, steam, and hydrogen
requi rements.
To overcome thi s probl em, we need to l ook at the
appl i cati on of gasi fi cati on to a refi nery from a di fferent
perspecti ve, that i s, to i ntegrate gasi fi cati on wi th an
exi sti ng refi nery i nfrastructure and to consi der these
two systems as an i ntegrated overal l system. From thi s
perspecti ve, thi s paper proposes a novel way of i ntegrat-
i ng gasi fi cati on to a refi nery by consi deri ng the proper
i ntegrati on of materi al , hydrogen, and uti l i ty.
By appl yi ng the present methodol ogy for gasi fi cati on
i ntegrati on, we can achi eve the fol l owi ng benefi ts. These
i ncl ude an i ncrease i n throughput, the processi ng of
heavi er and sourer crude, an i mprovement of properti es
of refi nery products, and reducti ons i n emi ssi ons. I n case
a refi nery has export faci l i ti es, the addi ti onal benefi ts
can be achi eved by exporti ng gasi fi cati on products,
hydrogen, syngas, power, steam, and carbon di oxi de. For
such an i ntegrati on probl em, the methodol ogy adopts
the phi l osophy of hi erarchi cal decomposi ti on and ai ms
to devel op an i mproved fl ow sheet by addressi ng al l of
the i nteracti ons at vari ous l evel s.
Problemof Integrating Gasification
Technologies
The probl em of i ntegrati on of gasi fi cati on technol ogi es
to an exi sti ng refi nery si te i s stated as fol l ows. Gi ven a
* Correspondi ng author. Current address: UOP LLC, 25
East Al gonqui n Road, Des Pl ai nes, I L 60071. E-mai l :
xxzhu@uop.com. Phone: 1-847-375-7042.
1528 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41, 1528-1544
10.1021/i e010380c CCC: $22.00 2002 Ameri can Chemi cal Soci ety
Publ i shed on Web 02/09/2002
refi nery fl ow sheet, the objecti ve i s to determi ne the
maxi mum feasi bl e scope for i ntegrati ng gasi fi cati on
technol ogi es and to generate a good conceptual i ntegra-
ti on scheme for the overal l system, achi evi ng the
opti mal trade-off between the economi c margi n and the
capi tal i nvestment.
The vari ous chal l enges are di scussed i n more detai l s
as fol l ows.
Growing Availability of Heavier and Sourer
Crude. We need to consi der the sel ecti on of feedstock
for gasi fi cati on i n a way to affect the overal l feed
sel ecti on for the refi nery. Thi s i s to expl oi t the benefi ts
of processi ng heavi er and sourer oi l fracti ons through
upstream process uni ts. Overal l , i t shoul d be possi bl e
to process heavi er and sourer crude.
Enhancement of Throughput. Further, a proper
materi al i ntegrati on scheme i s requi red to i denti fy
bottl enecks of the exi sti ng refi nery. Gasi fi cati on can be
used to overcome the bottl enecks i n order to i ncrease
the throughput.
Improvement of Product QualitiesandDisposal
of Heavy Ends. I nherentl y, gasi fi cati on can convert
bottom of the barrel s i nto val uabl e syngas. Syngas can
meet the enti re demand for hydrogen for hydrotreati ng
and hydrocracki ng faci l i ti es. Al ternati vel y, for a refi nery
confi gurati on wi thout a hydrocracki ng faci l i ty, gasi fi ca-
ti on can be used to upgrade the heavy fuel oi l s i nto
val uabl e syngas. For such refi nery, i f the source of
hydrogen from the exi sti ng reformer uni t i s l i mi ti ng,
addi ti onal hydrogen producti on from gasi fi cati on can
debottl eneck the refi nery si te. Furthermore, gasi fi cati on
can al so be i ntegrated wi th the nearby greenhouse
faci l i ty for the carbon di oxi de byproduct from the
hydrogen generator (steam shi ft reactor), recovery
system, and heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) of
a gas turbi ne. The product syngas shoul d al so be
consi dered for export to a nearby petrochemi cal compl ex.
Reduction of Emissions. Wi th respect to the envi -
ronmental emi ssi ons, gasi fi cati on shoul d reduce the
carbon di oxi de emi ssi ons by more than 35%wi thout the
greenhouse faci l i ty. I n the presence of a nearby green-
house, I GCC shoul d resul t i n zero carbon di oxi de
emi ssi ons. At the same ti me, SO
x
and NO
x
emi ssi ons
drop because of sul fur removal by 99% i n the form of
H
2
S and a reducti on of NO
x
emi ssi ons from a combi ned
cycl e by 90%, respecti vel y.
MeetingthePower Demandin theCompetitive
Marketplace. The power producti on aspect of I GCC
has al ready been expl ored. Now, the chal l enge l i es i n
the producti on of cheap power. The power i ndustry
deregul ati on provi des a good opportuni ty for the refi ni ng
i ndustry to have the abi l i ty to meet the enti re power
demand usi ng the cost-effecti ve onsi te faci l i ty. The
power can al so be exported to the el ectri cal gri d. The
power cost i s mai nl y contri buted by capi tal , operati ng,
and mai ntenance expenses. I t has been real i zed that
capi tal expense i s si gni fi cant as compared to the other
two expenses because of the l ow mai ntenance of a gas
turbi ne and the negati ve or very l ow pri ce of gasi fi cati on
fuel . Therefore, the questi on i s how to reduce the capi tal
i nvestment to achi eve an attracti ve payback ti me for
an I GCC system.
High Demand for Hydrogen and Steam. The
uti l i ty and hydrogen networks of refi nery and gasi fi ca-
ti on need to be i ntegrated i n a way to effecti vel y
maxi mi ze the recovery of heat at vari ous l evel s. I t i s
al ready seen that gasi fi cati on can be a source of useful
hydrogen. However, the probl em occurs i n the desi gn
and i ntegrati on of a hydrogen network to gasi fi cati on
i n order to reduce the cost si gni fi cantl y. Thi s i ncl udes
how to desi gn the recovery and producti on system of
hydrogen and di stri bute hydrogen i n the refi nery con-
sumer network i n the most cost-effecti ve way.
Reductionof Capital Investment of Gasification.
The ul ti mate chal l enge i s how to reduce the capi tal and
achi eve a desi rabl e payback for i ntegrati ng gasi fi cati on
technol ogi es. The methodol ogy shoul d be smart enough
to address and sol ve al l of the probl em i ssues of the
overal l i ntegrated system.
Review of Methods for Flow Sheet Synthesis
One general approach for fl ow sheet synthesi s i s to
devel op a fl ow sheet superstructure that i ncl udes al l
possi bl e i ntegrati on opti ons and to carry out opti mi za-
ti on to determi ne the most economi c i ntegrati on scheme.
For such an approach, al l of the desi gn opti ons are taken
expl i ci tl y i nto account i n one si ngl e stage of opti mi za-
ti on. Thi s resul ts i n a l arge and compl ex mi xed i nteger
nonl i near programmi ng (MI NLP) beyond the handl i ng
of current opti mi zati on al gori thms.
7,8
The major di sad-
vantage of such an approach i s that si tuati ons can ari se
where some desi gn opti ons that are economi cal l y prom-
i si ng remai n uni nvesti gated and enti rel y mi ssed out.
Such a si tuati on i s frequentl y encountered whi l e deal i ng
wi th a l arge probl em.
A more practi cal approach to deri ve the most eco-
nomi c i ntegrati on scheme can be through formal i zi ng
a deci si on hi erarchy based on heuri sti c rul es as a set of
stages or l evel s where more detai l s of desi gn deci si ons
are successi vel y added to the fl ow sheet. The hi erarchi -
cal decomposi ti on concept for process synthesi s has been
used for fl ow sheet desi gn for decades. Dougl as
9
i ntro-
duced the hi erarchi cal decomposi ti on for chemi cal pro-
cess desi gn. One of the advantages of such an approach
i s that i t does not wai t for the ful l data to be avai l abl e
before desi gn. The desi gn progresses wi th more detai l
of data generati on. The major drawback of such an
approach i s the l ack of consi derati on of i nteracti ons
between desi gn l evel s.
I t has been attempted to combi ne hi erarchi cal decom-
posi ti on wi th mathemati cal programmi ng.
10
The i dea
i s to decompose a l arge probl em i nto several smal l er
sol vabl e mathemati cal probl ems at vari ous l evel s. Such
methods mai nl y fol l ow the top-down approach to
generate detai l s of desi gn at the l ower l evel s. However,
the mai n di sadvantage i s that the probl em i s not
revi si ted at hi gher l evel s fol l owi ng bottom-up approach.
A methodol ogy has been proposed
11
where the feedback
desi gn mechani sm i s provi ded to coordi nate between
di fferent l evel s for thermal system desi gn. A l evel -by-
l evel decomposi ti on techni que has al so been appl i ed to
refi nery opti mi zati on.
12
Methodology for Integrating Gasification
Technologies
The probl em of i ntegrati on of gasi fi cati on to the
overal l refi nery i nfrastructure needs to address al l of
the compl ex i nteracti ons and economi c trade-offs for
every i ntegrati on opportuni ty exi sti ng i n the overal l
system whi ch consi sts of materi al , hydrogen, and uti l i ty
networks. Al l of the previ ous works i n thi s fi el d of
gasi fi cati on mai nl y focus on the uti l i ty and hydrogen
i ntegrati on aspects. Thus, a sel ected part of the refi nery
i nfrastructure i s separated out to expl ore such i ntegra-
ti on opportuni ti es. I n concei vi ng and formul ati ng the
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1529
probl em, gasi fi cati on i s not regarded as an i ntegral part
of the overal l refi ni ng system; therefore, many i ntegra-
ti on aspects, especi al l y the materi al i ntegrati on aspect,
are compromi sed i n the desi gn anal ysi s. As a resul t,
there are a number of mi ssed opportuni ti es for whi ch
there i s no guarantee on the i mprovement of overal l
economi cs; thus, i nvestment for gasi fi cati on i s not
justi fi ed for many refi nery cases. To address the overal l
i ntegrati on probl em, the resul t i s a very l arge and
compl ex mathemati cal probl em that i s beyond the
sol uti on capabi l i ty of al l avai l abl e techni ques i n a si ngl e
stage. Therefore, the methodol ogy proposed i ncorporates
hi erarchi cal decomposi ti on concepts i nto mathemati cal
programmi ng to sol ve an i ntegrati on probl em of gasi fi -
cati on technol ogi es i n the context of the overal l refi ni ng
operati on. The approach combi nes the top-down and
the bottom-up approaches.
Though the approach adopted that i s a combi nati on
of hi erarchi cal decomposi ti on and mathemati cal pro-
grammi ng i s not new, there are some compl ex i ssues
i nvol ved i n probl em formul ati on. To breakdown the
probl em, the most i mportant aspect i s to formal i ze the
subprobl ems i n vari ous stages by keepi ng i ntegri ty
among the subprobl ems wi thout sacri fi ci ng the cl ose
i nteracti ons among them. At the same ti me, the meth-
odol ogy shoul d be generi c to address al l ki nds of
gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on probl ems, i rrespecti ve of refi n-
ery confi gurati on. Therefore, a careful i nvesti gati on i s
requi red to i denti fy al l possi bl e probl em areas i n com-
mon for the refi ni ng i ndustry that can be handl ed and
sol ved i n one stage and then i ncl ude these desi gn
opti ons to si mul taneousl y opti mi ze them i n a stage.
Al so, i t i s very i mportant to establ i sh a cl oser rel ati on-
shi p between the stages so that, i n the end, there i s a
coherency i n the overal l anal ysi s. The proposed ap-
proach starts wi th targeti ng, fol l owed by si te l evel ,
process l evel , as wel l as i ntegrated opti mi zati on, and
the search wi ndows are defi ned for the vari abl es i n the
fol l owi ng stages. At each l evel , al l feasi bl e i ntegrati on
opportuni ti es are i nvesti gated wi thi n the scope set by
hi gher l evel s.
The i mportant advantage of the method i s that the
desi gn deci si ons at vari ous stages are made based on
the mi ni mal data generati on. The typi cal ti me requi red
to generate data for gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on to refi nery
i s shown i n Fi gure 1.
The data requi rement and the ti me spent to generate
that data al so accord wi th the methodol ogy adopted
where the anal ysi s does not wai t for the ful l data set to
be generated and proceeds accordi ng to the avai l abi l i ty
of data. Thus, the i ntegrati on procedure i s decomposed
i nto four stages (Fi gure 2). At the end of each stage,
payback ti me for i ntegrati on of gasi fi cati on technol ogi es
i s eval uated. I f the payback ti me cal cul ated i s accept-
abl e, the study i s carri ed further to the next stage. I n
thi s way, no ti me i s wasted for the generati on of
i rrel evant data. Overal l , the phasewi se method for fl ow
sheet desi gn can reduce the engi neeri ng ti me to del i ver
the desi gn resul ts and, more i mportantl y, the compl ex-
i ty of the desi gn probl em.
Phase1: Screeningand ScopingAnalysis. After
recei vi ng the data on market pri ce and demands, a
prel i mi nary study i s carri ed out for screeni ng and
scopi ng anal ysi s on gasi fi cati on. The sol e purpose of thi s
stage i s to determi ne the scope for i ntegrati on of
gasi fi cati on technol ogi es for converti ng vari ous refi nery
streams i nto useful energy. Thi s i s an equi val ent
anal ysi s to desi gn for power producti on. Thi s anal ysi s
i s presented i n Fi gure 3.
The net profi t i mprovement for any stream used as
gasi fi cati on feed i s cal cul ated by the di fference between
the pri ce of total energy (steam and power) producti on
and the pri ce of the stream. The si mpl e payback ti me
of energy producti on from vari ous refi nery streams i s
cal cul ated from the net profi t i mprovement and the
capi tal i nvestment for a fi xed capaci ty. Vari ous refi nery
streams are characteri zed and compared by the qual i ty
of the syngas resul ti ng from the gasi fi cati on of these
streams i n terms of the hydrogen-to-carbon monoxi de
mol e rati o (denoted by X i n Fi gure 3) and i mpuri ti es.
The anal ysi s al so hel ps to capture the effect of changi ng
market pri ces of the gasi fi cati on feeds on the economi c
Figure 1. Exampl e of ti me esti mate to obtai n data.
Figure 2. Overvi ew of the stagewi se desi gn procedure for
gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on.
Figure3. Screeni ng and scopi ng anal ysi s: esti mati on of potenti al
benefi ts and payback ti me from energy producti on for vari ous
gasi fi cati on feeds.
1530 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002
margi n. Over a peri od of ti me (e.g., 2 years), the l owest
market pri ce of vari ous feeds are noted and i ndi cated
i n the fi gure. The mi ni mum payback ti me that can be
achi eved i s 8-9 years. Thi s payback ti me i s acceptabl e
to the power pl ants and i s equi val ent to the case where
gasi fi cati on i s appl i ed mai nl y for power producti on
through bottom of the barrel di sposal .
Phase2: SiteLevel Optimization. Once the data
on a refi nery fl ow sheet i s obtai ned, the target i s to
i ntegrate the overal l refi nery i nfrastructure and gas-
i fi cati on on top of energy i ntegrati on obtai ned from
screeni ng and scopi ng anal yses. From such an overal l
i ntegrati on, the objecti ve i s to reduce the payback ti me
achi eved from energy i ntegrati on. The mai n feature i s
to ful l y expl oi t the i nteracti ons among gasi fi cati on, gas
turbi nes, the vari ous materi al processi ng uni ts and
hydrogen, and uti l i ty networks of refi nery, as shown i n
Fi gure 4.
Thus, the i ntegrati on of energy (steam and power),
materi al (hydrocarbons), and hydrogen i s consi dered i n
a si ngl e stage to expl oi t the opportuni ti es exi sti ng i n
the i nfrastructure and i n the market to the ful l est to
i denti fy the maxi mum scope for gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on.
At thi s stage, capi tal cost mi ni mi zati on i s not addressed
yet, because the detai l ed data on capi tal cost correl a-
ti ons are not avai l abl e. The major i ssues to be consi d-
ered at thi s l evel i ncl ude the fol l owi ng: (1) determi na-
ti on of the number of gasi fi cati on trai ns, (2) sel ecti on
of feeds to gasi fi cati on and gas turbi nes, (3) choi ces
among the crudes to the refi nery, (4) feeds to other
refi nery uni ts, (5) amount and qual i ty of refi nery
products, (6) bl endi ng of streams, (7) connecti vi ty among
vari ous uni ts, (8) di stri buti on of hydrogen and uti l i ti es
i n correspondi ng networks, (9) sel ecti on of the appropri -
ate operati on mode for major uni ts, (10) ful l uti l i zati on
of major materi al processi ng uni ts, (11) i denti fi cati on
of l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ti es, and (12) rel axati on of the
exi sti ng capaci ti es of the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ti es.
The number of gasi fi er trai ns can be sel ected i n such
a way so that nei ther of the two benefi ts (i .e., di sposal
of the bottom of the barrel as gasi fi cati on feed and the
requi rement of products from gasi fi cati on) i s compro-
mi sed. The l arger val ue of the two capaci ty requi re-
ments deci des the capaci ty of the total gasi fi cati on. I f
the amount of the bottom of the barrel to be di sposed i s
more than the gasi fi cati on capaci ty requi rement based
on the products, the excess gasi fi cati on products can be
used for i nternal purposes, such as for refi nery debottl e-
necki ng. I f the reverse i s true, the bal ance of gasi fi cati on
feed can be sel ected from streams that can debottl eneck
the refi nery i n order to i ncrease the throughput. I n both
cases, the excess of gasi fi cati on capaci ty i s used for
i nternal purposes i n order to debottl eneck the refi nery.
Thus, gasi fi cati on i s i nvol ved i n materi al i ntegrati on
wi th the exi sti ng refi nery si te. The materi al i ntegrati on
of gasi fi cati on i s of parti cul ar i mportance because the
excess of gasi fi cati on capaci ty contri buti ng to materi al
i ntegrati on practi cal l y hel ps to reduce the payback ti me.
Al so, the extra trai ns based on the maxi mum l oad
provi de enough fl exi bi l i ty i n operati on and advantages
duri ng a shut down of gasi fi er trai ns. To determi ne the
gasi fi cati on capaci ty requi rement, the fl ow sheet shoul d
be ful l y i ntegrated i n order to mi ni mi ze capaci ty (Fi gure
4). The gas turbi ne shoul d be fi rst i ntegrated di rectl y
wi th vi abl e refi ni ng streams, such as off gases from the
hydrogen recovery system and gaseous and di sti l l ate
fuel s i n order to avoi d the cost of gasi fi cati on, syngas
cl eani ng, and cool i ng. The bal ance of power and steam
can be produced usi ng syngas from gasi fi cati on. The
requi red hydrogen i s enti rel y produced from syngas. A
part of syngas after cl eani ng can al so be exported to a
nearby petrochemi cal compl ex i f possi bl e. The di stri bu-
ti on of hydrogen and the uti l i ti es i n the networks are
opti mi zed to determi ne the mi ni mum demands from
gasi fi cati on. Gasi fi cati on capaci ty based on product
requi rements i s thus reduced.
Al though gasi fi cati on i s a fl exi bl e technol ogy deal i ng
wi th vari ous feedstocks, the most popul ar feedstock i n
refi ni ng i s heavy resi due. The range of feeds to gasi fi ca-
ti on i s avai l abl e i n the l i terature.
13
Sel ecti on of the most
appropri ate feedstock for gasi fi cati on i s a major task,
and the benefi ts are mani fol d. The aspect of overal l si te
debottl enecki ng to i ncrease throughput through gasi fi -
cati on feedstock sel ecti on was menti oned earl i er. The
si te l evel bottl eneck i n the processi ng uni ts i s bypassed
to send the excess feed stream to a gasi fi er or gas
turbi ne (i f vi abl e). Despi te the i ncrease i n throughput,
crude purchase costs can sti l l be reduced by processi ng
the heavi er and sourer crude.
The sel ecti on of feedstock to vari ous refi nery uni ts,
amount and qual i ty of products, and bl endi ng of streams
and overal l connecti vi ty are i nfl uenced by vari ous
factors of the refi ni ng si te and the market. The si te
factors are the avai l abi l i ty of vari ous streams, storage
capaci ty and asset uti l i zati on, and operati ng fl exi bi l i ty.
These are the si te constrai nts wi thi n whi ch the pro-
cesses are to be operated i n the best way to respond to
the market constrai nts on product demands and feed
avai l abi l i ti es, whi l e meeti ng product qual i ty speci fi ca-
ti ons. Sel ecti ng the appropri ate product and feedstock
di stri buti on i s a very i mportant consi derati on i n opti -
mi zati on wi thi n the process as wel l as market con-
strai nts.
For some of the major refi nery uni ts such as hydro-
cracker uni t, one of the concerns i s to sel ect the
appropri ate mode of operati on by determi ni ng the mai n
product to produce from the uni t (gasol i ne/jet fuel /di esel
for a hydrocracker). Thi s i s another i mportant vari abl e
to deci de that sati sfi es the process constrai nts and, at
the same ti me, expl oi ts the avai l abl e market opportuni -
ti es.
Si te l evel opti mi zati on i s subjected to the constrai nts
on hardware l i mi ts of major refi nery uni ts and market
l i mi ts of buyi ng and sel l i ng. These major uni ts i ncl ude
Figure 4. I GCC i nteracti on wi th other refi nery systems.
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1531
crude and vacuum di sti l l ati on uni ts, hydrotreaters (e.g.,
naphtha, jet fuel , di esel , and cracked naphtha hy-
drotreaters), hydrocracker, catal yti c reformer, catal yti c
cracker, del ayed coker, vi sbreaker, and bi tumen treati ng
uni ts.
Gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on i s consi dered to use the
auxi l i ary faci l i ti es of the exi sti ng i nfrastructure i n order
to save a si gni fi cant amount of capi tal i nvestment. The
auxi l i ary uni ts are gas processi ng and treati ng uni ts,
sul fur removal and recovery uni ts, and effl uent treati ng
uni ts. The auxi l i ary equi pment i ncl udes steam turbi nes,
compressors, bl owers, steam l et-down val ves, and ex-
changers. I n si te l evel opti mi zati on, the l i mi ti ng aux-
i l i ary faci l i ti es are i denti fi ed, and thei r exi sti ng capaci -
ti es are rel axed. The i ncremental capaci ty requi rements
for these faci l i ti es are determi ned and used for cost data
generati on to be used i n process l evel opti mi zati on.
At the end of thi s stage, the payback ti me i s esti mated
from the maxi mi zed economi c margi n and the total
i nvestment for I GCC.
Phase3: Process Level Optimization. The objec-
ti ve of thi s stage i s to mi ni mi ze the total annual i zed
cost that i ncl udes both the capi tal i nvestment and the
operati ng cost, whi l e meeti ng the targets on the product
requi rements obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on. I n
thi s stage, the i nteracti ons among gasi fi cati on, gas
turbi nes, and the vari ous auxi l i ary faci l i ti es from refi n-
i ng, hydrogen, and uti l i ty networks are consi dered. The
major processi ng uni ts are not i ncl uded. Thi s i s because,
i n si te l evel opti mi zati on, the major processi ng uni ts are
ful l y uti l i zed. The opti mi zati on i ssues at thi s l evel are
as fol l ows: (1) retrofi t of auxi l i ary faci l i ti es and (2)
desi gn of hydrogen recovery system.
The l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ti es are i nvesti gated to
sel ect the best opti on of retrofi tti ng to compare agai nst
the cost of new uni t set up for the requi red i ncremental
capaci ty obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on. Thus, the
cost i nformati on i s generated onl y for the auxi l i ary
l i mi ti ng faci l i ti es; therefore, no ti me i s spent for the
generati on of i rrel evant data.
The new uni ts i ncl ude gasi fi ers, syngas cool ers, gas
turbi nes, HRSG, hydrogen generators, and recovery
systems. The capi tal i nvestment i s predi cted from the
vari ous operati ng vari abl es obtai ned from si te l evel
opti mi zati on.
Process l evel opti mi zati on deal s wi th the desi gn of
hydrogen recovery system. The recovery system consi sts
of a combi nati on of vari ous hydrogen recovery processes,
such as pressure swi ng adsorpti on (PSA), membrane
separati on, methanati on process, and so forth. A metha-
nati on process i s used al ong wi th the carbon di oxi de
removal process upstream to the hydrogen generator for
the hi gh degree of puri ty requi rement. A combi nati on
of membrane and PSA processes (i n seri es or i n paral l el )
can be used very effecti vel y. Thi s opti on can be proved
better i n case of the absence of an upstream hydrogen
generator.
14
To consi der thi s opti on, si te l evel opti mi za-
ti on i s to be revi si ted wi thout the hydrogen generator.
The total mi ni mi zed cost from process l evel opti mi za-
ti on i s used to cal cul ate the payback ti me based on the
refi nery margi n obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on.
Phase 4: Integrated Optimization. I n the end,
once the rel ati on between the overal l refi nery economi c
margi n and gasi fi cati on capi tal i nvestment i s obtai ned,
the si te and process l evel opti mi zati on stages are
i ntegrated to trade off between the overal l margi n and
the i nvestment. The i ntegrated opti mi zati on i s to take
account of the hi gh degree of i nteracti ons between the
si te and process l evel opti mi zati on. For i ntegrated
opti mi zati on, the capi tal cost i nformati on i s added i n
the objecti ve functi on of si te l evel opti mi zati on. New
desi gn constrai nts that may be encountered i n process
l evel opti mi zati on are added on top of the constrai nts
at the si te l evel . The i ntegrated opti mi zati on i s carri ed
out wi th defi ni te desi gn opti ons. The fol l owi ng secti ons
di scuss the mathemati cal programmi ng at vari ous
stages.
Mathematical Models
General. The opti mi zati on model s are MI NLP mod-
el s. I n terms of mathemati cal model i ng, si te l evel
opti mi zati on model s are most i mportant because the
majori ty of the correl ati ons and constrai nts are devel -
oped i n thi s stage. A bri ef descri pti on of mathemati cal
model s at the vari ous opti mi zati on phases i s gi ven
bel ow. Nomencl ature of the model s can be found i n the
Appendi x A.
Phase2: SiteLevel Optimization. The model s for
si te l evel opti mi zati on are categori zed as fol l ows: (1)
model i ng of the refi nery uni ts, (2) model i ng of I GCC,
(3) model i ng of supporti ng networks (hydrogen, uti l i ty),
and (4) si te l evel opti mi zati on model .
1. Modeling of the Refinery Units. Process cor-
rel ati ons,
15
that are nonl i near i n nature, are used to
predi ct yi el ds (eq 1) and properti es of products (eq 2)
from the feed fl ow, properti es, and operati ng mode.
The functi ons (f and F) to predi ct the product yi el d and
property set for an operati ng mode are mul ti pl i ed wi th
the bi nary vari abl e (z
i,k
) for sel ecti ng the mode. The
fol l owi ng equati on i s to ensure that onl y one of the
operati ng modes i s sel ected for a process.
The pure hydrogen consumpti on and generati on are al so
cal cul ated for the hydrogen consumer (hydrocracker and
hydrotreaters) and the hydrogen source (reformer)
processes of the refi nery, respecti vel y.
The consumpti on and producti on of uti l i ti es, consump-
ti on of chemi cal s, and catal ysts are al so predi cted.
16
The
rel ati ons (eqs 5-7) are usual l y l i near wi th respect to the
feed fl ow. I n the case of a usage of uti l i ti es, a negati ve
si gn i s used to di fferenti ate usage from generati on. Thi s
conventi on i s fol l owed throughout the paper.
m
i,j
)

kK(i)
z
i,k
f
i,k,j
(m
i,j
, Phr
i,j
) i UNI T, k K(i),
j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (1)
Phr
i,j
)

kK(i)
z
i,k
F
i,k,j
(m
i,j
, Phr
i,j
) i UNI T, k K(i),
j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (2)

kK(i)
z
i,k
) 1 i UNI T, k K(i) (3)
m
i,j,e
)

kK(i)
z
i,k
f
i,k,j,e
i CONS, k K(i),
j HI N(i, j), e H (4a)
m
i,j,e
)

kK(i)
z
i,k
f
i,k,j,e
i SOURCE,
k K(i), j HOUT(i, j), e H (4b)
1532 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002
I n addi ti on to the refi nery major uni ts, the model s
16
for
a number of auxi l i ary uni ts that are not di rectl y
i nvol ved i n the producti on of hydrocarbon fuel s are
devel oped.
Connection AmongRefinery Units. The feed fl ow
to the uni t i i s the summati on of the product fl ows from
the vari ous upstream uni ts i and the i mported feed
stream.
Si mi l arl y, the product stream from the uni t i i s
di stri buted to the vari ous uni ts i and exported.
At the stream mi xi ng poi nts, the l i near form of mi xi ng
rul e (eq 10a) based on mass fl ow and one-thi rd mi xi ng
rul e based on the vol umetri c fl ow (eq 10b) are appl i ed
to cal cul ate the mi xture property set.
2. Modeling of IGCC. The model s for new I GCC
uni ts as menti oned earl i er are as fol l ows. A hydrogen
recovery uni t can al so be shared i f exi sti ng i n the
refi nery si te.
Gasifiers. The gasi fi cati on model i s to predi ct the
yi el d and composi ti on of the product syngas from the
feed to the gasi fi er. The set of si mpl i fi ed correl ati ons
for gasi fi cati on model i s devel oped based on the ri gorous
steady-state si mul ati on resul ts usi ng commerci al si mu-
l ati on software HYSYS, from AEA Technol ogy. The
gasi fi cati on feed i s characteri zed by the amount of the
major components, such as carbon (C), hydrogen (H),
and sul fur (S). The total feed fl ow (m
i,j
) and composi ti on
i n wei ght fracti on (wt
i,j,e
) are determi ned usi ng eqs 11
and 12.
The wei ghts of these components (C, H, and S) from eq
12 are converted i nto mol es usi ng the mol ecul ar wei ght
of the components.
The composi ti on of the product syngas i s approxi mated
i n terms of the major components, such as, hydrogen,
carbon monoxi de, carbon di oxi de, and hydrogen sul fi de,
gi ven by eqs 16-19. They are correl ated wi th the feed
composi ti on and the vari ous process parameters r1, r2,
and r3. Thus, the opti mum syngas composi ti on that
depends on the overal l si te requi rements ensures the
opti mum feedstock sel ecti on for gasi fi cati on and vi ce
versa. The two expressi ons (eqs 14-15) predi ct the
requi rements of oxygen and hi gh-pressure steam for
gasi fi cati on.
I n addi ti on, there exi sts a constrai nt on carbon mol e
bal ance through gasi fi cati on.
Here, there are three parameters (r1, r2, and r3) for
gasi fi cati on and one equati on (eq 20). Therefore, two of
them (r1 and r2) need to be speci fi ed dependi ng on the
gasi fi cati on technol ogy sel ected, and the thi rd param-
eter (r3) can be predi cted usi ng the constrai nt. The
choi ce of gasi fi cati on technol ogy i s based on the nature
of the feedstocks sel ected.
Syngas Cooler and HRSG. The major steam pro-
ducers are syngas cool ers and HRSG. Syngas cool ers act
as boi l ers, whi l e HRSG acts as a superheater usi ng gas
turbi ne exhaust. The syngas cool ers and HRSG are
model ed from the enthal py change of the syngas from
the gasi fi ers and the fl ue gas from the gas turbi nes,
respecti vel y, gi ven by the general i zed form of eq 21. I n
the case of syngas {j SYNGAS(i, j)} from the gasi fi ers
(i GASI FY) to the syngas cool er (i SYNCOOL), the
major components present are carbon monoxi de, hydro-
wt
i,j,e
) {

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
wt
i,j,e
}/{

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
}
i GASI FY, i UNI T, j FEED(i, j),
j PDT(i, j), e C, H, S (12)
n
i,j,e
) (wt
i,j,e
m
i,j
)/ mw
e
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), e C, H, S (13)
n
i,j,e
) (r1m
i,j
)/mw
e
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), e O (14)
n
i,l
ST
) (r2n
i,j,e
mw
e
)/mw
e
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), e ST, l HP (15)
n
i,j,eH
2
S
) n
i,j,eS
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), j SYNGAS(i, j) (16)
n
i,j,eH
) n
i,j,eH
+ n
i,l
ST
- n
i,j,eS
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), j SYNGAS(i, j), l HP (17)
n
i,j,eCO
) 2n
i,j,eO
+ r3n
i,l
ST
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), j SYNGAS(i, j), l HP (18)
n
i,j,eCO
2
) (1 - r3)/2n
i,l
ST
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), j SYNGAS(i, j), l HP (19)
n
i,j,eCO
+ n
i,j,eCO
2
) n
i,j,eC
i GASI FY,
j FEED(i, j), j SYNGAS(i, j) (20)
m
i,j
) g
1i,j
m
i,j
+ g
2i,j
i UNI T,
j FEED(i, j), j RS(i, j) (5)
m
i,l
ST
) g
1i,l
ST
m
i,j
+ g
2i,l
ST
i UNI T,
j FEED(i, j), l LEVEL (6)
W
i
) g
1i
W
m
i,j
+ g
2i
W
i UNI T, j FEED(i, j) (7)
m
i,j
)

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
+ m
i,j
i m
i, i UNI T,
j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (8)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
+ m
i,j
ex
) m
i,j
i, i UNI T,
j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (9)
Phr
i,j
)

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(m
i

,j
)
i
Phr
i

,j
/

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
i, i UNI T, j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (10a)
Phr
i,j
) [

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(v
i,j
)
i
1/3
Phr
i,j
1/3
]
3
/[

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(v
i,j
)
i
1/3
]
3
i, i UNI T, j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (10b)
m
i,j
)

jPDT(i,j)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
i GASI FY,
i UNI T, j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (11)
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1533
gen, carbon di oxi de, and hydrogen sul fi de (e CO, H,
CO
2
, H
2
S). For fl ue gas {j GTFLUE(i, j)} from the
gas turbi ne (i GT) to the HRSG (i HRSG), the major
components are carbon di oxi de, steam, and ni trogen (e
CO
2
, ST, N). The i nl et temperature (T
i
i n
) of syngas
cool ers and HRSG i s the desi gn vari abl e of the upstream
uni t i, the gasi fi ers and the gas turbi nes, respecti vel y.
The exi t temperature (T
i
out
) i s determi ned based on the
exi sti ng steam requi rement.
Total heat generated from I GCC i s the heat generated
from the syngas cool ers and the HRSG. The amount of
steam generated at the vari ous l evel s can be cal cul ated
from the uni t enthal py of steam (h
l
) (l atent heat + heat
of condensate), whi ch i s a functi on of exi sti ng steam
l evel pressure and temperature (eq 22). An effi ci ency
factor i s i ntroduced i n the heat bal ance expressi on (eq
21) i n order to take account of heat l oss whi l e transfer-
ri ng heat from syngas and fl ue gas to steam i n I GCC.
Thi s i s a conservati ve desi gn approach i n order to avoi d
an overesti mati on of the amount of steam generated.
The val ues of effi ci ency factors are dependent on the
equi pment and can be generated from experi mental
resul ts usi ng heat bal ance eqs 21 and 22.
Hydrogen Generator. The syngas after cool i ng and
cl eani ng (sul fur removal i n the form of hydrogen sul fi de
and recovery) consi sts of hydrogen, carbon monoxi de,
and carbon di oxi de, gi ven by the eqs 17-19. Hydrogen
generators (steam shi ft reactors) recei ve a fracti on of
cl ean syngas treated as an opti mi zati on vari abl e as feed
to steam shi ft the carbon monoxi de i nto hydrogen and
carbon di oxi de. The mol es of hydrogen, carbon monox-
i de, and carbon di oxi de i n the resul ti ng hydrogen
product stream are gi ven by expressi ons 23-25. The
hi gh-pressure steam requi rement i s correl ated wi th the
composi ti on of feed (eq 26).
Hydrogen Recovery. Both the generator and the
source produce hydrogen of l ower puri ty than the puri ty
requi red by many of the consumer processes of the
hydrogen network needi ng a hydrogen recovery system.
Recovery processes recei ve product hydrogen streams
(hydrogen pl us off gases) from the hydrogen generators
and the source consumer processes of the refi ni ng si te
as the feed streams (eq 27).
The fol l owi ng equati on cal cul ates the amount of pure
hydrogen i ntake i n the feed stream.
The yi el ds of product hydrogen (eq 29) and off gas (eq
30) from the recovery system are correl ated wi th the
two process parameters, the recovery (re
i
) of hydrogen
and hydrogen puri ty (y
i,j
), requi red by the consumer
processes.
The puri ty (y
i,jHI N(i,j)
) of hydrogen stream i s con-
strai ned by the mi ni mum composi ti on requi rement by
the consumer process i, di scussed l ater i n the secti on
on hydrogen network. The val ue of re
i
i s opti mi zed whi l e
deal i ng wi th the desi gn of hydrogen recovery system i n
process l evel opti mi zati on.
GasTurbine. The off gas from recovery processes (eq
30), a part of cl ean syngas and refi nery fuel s (gaseous
and l i qui d), i s combusted i n the gas turbi ne to produce
power and fl ue gas. Bal ance of syngas after bei ng used
for hydrogen and power producti on can be exported.
Essenti al l y, the amounts of syngas and refi nery fuel s
used i n the gas turbi ne are opti mi zati on vari abl es. The
gas turbi ne model s
17
al ready devel oped are used. The
resul ti ng carbon di oxi de i n fl ue gas after compl ete
combusti on i n gas turbi ne and heat recovery i n HRSG
i s recovered to export to a greenhouse.
3. Modelingof SupportingNetworks. The hydro-
gen and uti l i ty networks are model ed to take account
of the network i nteracti ons i n si te l evel opti mi zati on.
From the refi nery process model s, pure hydrogen and
uti l i ty consumpti on/generati on are obtai ned. These are
used to determi ne the network actual fl ow di stri buti ons.
Hydrogen Network. I t consi sts of hydrogen genera-
tor, source, recovery, and consumer processes. I n thi s
secti on, the mai n focus i s on the model i ng of hydrogen
bal ance of the consumers and hydrogen network i nter-
acti ons to i ntegrate wi th the overal l refi nery model . The
hydrogen bal ance model s of a consumer process are used
to predi ct the total fl ow of the i nl et (make up) and outl et
streams (purge) and, thus, the compressor work re-
qui red. For a typi cal consumer process, the fol l owi ng
hydrogen bal ance model
18
i s used. Hydrogen consump-
ti on pl us sol ubi l i ty l oss i s denoted as R
i
. Thi s amount
i s equal to the di fference between the hydrogen i ntake
and the output hydrogen.
Q
i
)
i
Q
(T
i
i n
- T
i
out
)

e
n
i,j,e
Cp
e
i SYNCOOL, HRSG (21)

i
Q
i
)

i

l(LEVEL-COND)
h
l
(P
l
ST,sat
,T
l
ST
)m
i,l
ST
i SYNCOOL, HRSG, l (LEVEL - COND)
(22)
n
i,j,eH
) n
i,j,eH
+ x
i
n
i,j,eCO
i GENER,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j) (23)
n
i,j,eCO
2
) n
i,j,eCO
2
+ x
i
n
i,j,eCO
i GENER,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j) (24)
n
i,j,eCO
) (1 - x
i
)n
i,j,eCO
i GENER,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j) (25)
n
i,l
ST
) x
i
n
i,j,eCO
i GENER,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j), l HP (26)
m
i,j
)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
i RECOV, i CONS, GENER, SOURCE,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j) (27)
m
i,j,e
)

i*i
(m
i,j,e
)
i
i RECOV, i CONS, GENER, SOURCE,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j), e H (28)
m
i,j
) {re
i
m
i,jHI N(i,j),e
}/y
i,jHI N(i,j)
i RECOV, i CONS, j HOUT(i, j), e H (29)
m
i,j
) m
i,j
- {re
i
m
i,jHI N(i,j),e
}/y
i,jHI N(i,j)
i RECOV, i CONS, j FUEL(i, j), e H
(30)
R
i
) m
i,j,e
+ m
i
H l oss
i CONS,
j HI N(i, j), e H (31)
1534 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002
Total refi nery gas yi el d (eq 33a) from a consumer i s
equal to the amount of gas i n the purge hydrogen
stream m
i,j
(1 - y
i,j
) and the gas sol ubi l i ty l oss (m
i
RG l oss
)
whi ch i s recovered from the l i qui d products i n the
separators. Thi s amount al so equal s to the gas genera-
ti on (r
i
) from the consumer reactor and the amount of
gas entered through the make up hydrogen stream m
i,j
-
(1 - y
i,j
) (eq 33b).
Al together, there are ei ght vari abl es and two bal ance
equati ons for hydrogen and refi nery gas. Four of them,
m
i,j,eH
, m
i
H l oss
, m
i
RG l oss
, and r
i
, are cal cul ated from the
consumer process yi el d model . These are the parameters
through whi ch the hydrogen bal ance model i s i ntegrated
wi th the refi nery yi el d model . y
i,j
i s to meet the
composi ti on requi red by the consumer process. Thus,
one of the fol l owi ng vari abl es (fl ow rate of make up
hydrogen and fl ow and puri ty of purge hydrogen) i s
treated as an opti mi zati on vari abl e through whi ch the
hydrogen model i s i ntegrated wi th the opti mi zati on
model .
A consumer or a recovery process i s i ntegrated wi th
the other consumers, generators, sources, and recovery
processes through hydrogen i ntake from these processes
(eq 34). Excess l ower puri ty hydrogen from consumers,
generators, sources, and recovery processes can be used
as refi nery fuel i n the fuel pl ant (eq 35).
The hi gh puri ty hydrogen recovered from a recovery
process i s fed to the consumer processes that requi re
hi gh hydrogen puri ty and excess hydrogen can be
exported (eq 36). The advent of excess hydrogen export
woul d be more promi si ng down the l i ne wi th emergi ng
fuel cel l technol ogy.
There are constrai nts on the mi ni mum puri ty (eq 37)
and pressure (eq 38-40) that are speci fi ed for the i nl et
hydrogen stream to every consumer uni t.
I f, P
iCOMP,jHI N(i,j)
i n
e P
iCONS,jHI N(i,j)
i n
I n case
The compressor work
19
(eq 39) at the consumer process
i nl et i s to be cal cul ated i n case i f the pressure requi red
i s more than the resul ted pressure of the i nl et streams,
whi ch i s equal to the mi ni mum pressure of the i nl et
streams.
Utility Network. The uti l i ty network consi sts of
steam and power networks. The vari ous components
model ed are steam l et down val ves, steam dri ven
turbi nes, and compressors. The steam fl ow i n, pass out,
and extracti on steam of the steam turbi nes are cor-
rel ated wi th the power obtai ned from the refi nery
process yi el d and network model s. The behavi or of
steam turbi nes i s represented by the Wi l l ans l i ne,
20
whi ch assumes the l i near correl ati on between the steam
fl ow and the work produced/requi rement by the steam
turbi nes/compressors. For the extracti on steam tur-
bi nes, the steam fl ow through each secti on i s cal cul ated
by decomposi ng the compl ex turbi ne i nto a seri es of
si mpl e turbi nes operati ng between two steam l evel s.
21
When these three equati ons are combi ned, the fi nal
form of eq 41d i s evol ved.
b
i,l
ST
i s the constant dependent on the equi pment and
the steam l evel . I n addi ti on to the eq 41d for a turbi ne/
compressor, there exi sts the steam fl ow bal ance equa-
ti on, where steam extracted at vari ous l evel s sums up
to the total steam fl ow i n. Thus, there are two equati ons
to descri be each of the steam turbi nes and compressors
to cal cul ate a maxi mum of two fl ows. The appl i cati on
of thi s model i s i l l ustrated wi th the hel p of an exampl e.
An extracti on steam turbi ne i s operati ng between
three l evel s: HP (hi gh-pressure steam), LP (l ow-pres-
sure steam), and the condensate. Therefore, HP steam
i s extracted i nto LP, and bal ance of the steam i s the
pass out condensate from the turbi ne. There are,
al together, three unknown steam fl ows at HP, LP, and
R
i
) m
i,j,e
- m
i,j,e
i CONS,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j), e H (32)
m
i
RG l oss
+ m
i,j
(1 - y
i,j
) ) m
i,j
i CONS, j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j),
j RG(i, j) (33a)
m
i,j
(1 - y
i,j
) + r
i
) m
i,j
i CONS, j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j),
j RG(i, j) (33b)
m
i,j
)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
i CONS, RECOV,
i CONS, GENER, RECOV, SOURCE,
j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j) (34)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
+ (m
i,j
)
i
) m
i,j
i CONS, RECOV,
i CONS, GENER, RECOV, SOURCE,
i FP, j HOUT(i, j) (35)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
+ m
e
ex
) m
i,j
i RECOV,
i CONS, j HOUT(i, j), eH (36)
P
i,j
i n
) mi n P
i,j
out
i COMP, i CONS, GENER, RECOV,
SOURCE, j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j) (38)

i*i
(m
i,j
)
i
y
i,j
) m
i,j
y
i,j
g m
i,j
y
i,j
req
i CONS, i CONS, GENER, RECOV,
SOURCE, j HI N(i, j), j HOUT(i, j) (37)
W
i
)
i,j
/(
i,j
- 1)1/
i
W
(RT
i
i n
m
i,j
)
{(P
iCONS,jHI N(i,j)
i n
/P
i,j
i n
)
(i,j-1)/i,j
- 1}
i COMP, j HI N(i, j) (39)
P
iCOMP,jHI N(i,j)
i n
g P
iCONS,jHI N(i,j)
i n
W
i
) 0 (40)
m
i,l
ST
a
i,l
ST
) W
i,l
ST
+ W
i,l
ST l oss
i COMP,
STUR, l (LEVEL - COND) (41a)
W
i,l
ST l oss
) f
i,l
ST
(m
i,l
ST
, a
i,l
ST
) i COMP,
STUR, l (LEVEL - COND) (41b)

l(LEVEL-COND)
W
i,l
ST
) W
i
i COMP,
STUR, l (LEVEL - COND) (41c)

l(LEVEL-COND)
m
i,l
ST
b
i,l
ST
) W
i
i COMP,
STUR, l (LEVEL - COND) (41d)
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1535
condensate l evel s. The mass bal ance can be carri ed out
to sum up the LP and condensate fl ows i nto HP steam
fl ow. I n addi ti on, there exi sts eq 41d, where the func-
ti ons of two mass fl ows at HP and LP l evel s are equated
wi th the total work from the turbi ne. Thus, there i s one
fl ow (ei ther of three fl ows: HP, LP, and condensate)
acti ng as opti mi zati on vari abl es through whi ch the
turbi ne model i s i ntegrated wi th the opti mi zati on model .
The steam l et down val ves are represented through
si mi l ar expressi ons by usi ng mass and enthal py bal -
ance. A more preci se model for l et down val ves al so
takes account of the smal l amount of water that i s
usual l y i njected to the val ve.
SteamBalance. For steam bal ance at vari ous l evel s,
the summati on of steam generati on, recovery, usage,
export, and i mport i s zero, taki ng the generati on and
recovery as a posi ti ve val ue and usage as a negati ve
val ue. For the condensate, there i s onl y make up water
buyi ng and no export.
4. Site Level Optimization Model. The objecti ve
functi on for maxi mi zi ng the refi nery margi n i s pre-
sented by expressi on 45. The refi nery profi t margi n i s
the di fference between the pri ce of sal es of products,
export of uti l i ti es, and the purchase costs of feedstock,
bl endi ng streams, uti l i ti es, chemi cal s, catal ysts, and
other operati ng costs of process uni ts.
ObjectiveFunction: MaximizeRefineryMargin.
Mass and energy bal ance equati ons around the uni ts
and equi pment are as fol l ows:
Hardware capaci ty constrai nt for the major uni ts i s as
fol l ows. For the auxi l i ary faci l i ti es, the capaci ti es are
rel axed i n case they are boundi ng i n opti mi zati on.
I n addi ti on, there are market constrai nts and process
uni t constrai nts on the properti es of products and feeds,
respecti vel y.
Market constrai nts on sel l i ng of products and uti l i ti es
and the purchasi ng of feeds and uti l i ti es are presented
here.
Fi nal l y, we can bui l d a si te l evel opti mi zati on model ,
consi sti ng of eq 45 as the objecti ve functi on together
wi th eqs 1-44 for model s and eqs 46-60 as constrai nts.
Phase 3: Process Level Optimization. Process
l evel opti mi zati on i ncl udes the fol l owi ng model s: (1) cost
of new uni ts, (2) desi gn of a hydrogen recovery system,
(3) network retrofi t, and (4) a process l evel opti mi zati on
model .
1. Cost of New Units. The annual i zed capi tal cost
of gasi fi er depends on the technol ogy sel ected and can
be determi ned from the vari ous desi gn vari abl es, r1, r2,
pressure of the gasi fi er, feed fl ow rate, properti es, and
the number of trai ns (nt) obtai ned from si te l evel
opti mi zati on.

i
m
i,l
ST
+ m
l
ST,ex
- m
l
ST,i m
) 0
i I , l (LEVEL - COND) (42)
Power bal ance

i
W
i
+ W
ex
- W
i m
) 0 i I (43)
Fuel bal ance

i
m
i,jFUEL(i,j)
+ m
Fuel ,ex
- m
Fuel ,i m
) 0
i I (44)

jPDT(i,j)
P
j
i
m
i,j
ex
-

jFEED(i,j)
F
j
i
m
i,j
i m
-

lLEVEL
m
l
ST,i m
B
l
ST
+

l(LEVEL-COND)
m
l
ST,ex
S
l
ST
-

j{RS(i,j)-FUEL(i,j)-RG(i,j)}
B
j
i
m
i,j
+ m
Fuel ,ex
S
Fuel
-
m
Fuel ,i m
B
Fuel
+ m
eH
ex
S
H
- W
i m
B
W
+ W
ex
S
W
+
m
eCO
2
ex
S
CO
2
+ m
jSYNGAS(iGASI FY,j)
ex
S
Syngas
i I (45)

jPDT(i,j)
m
i,j
) m
i,j
i I , j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (46)
E
i,j
+ E
i
i n
)

jPDT(i,j)
E
i,j
+ E
i
out
i I , j FEED(i, j), j PDT(i, j) (47)
(CAP
i
)
mi n
e m
i,j
e (CAP
i
)
max
i UNI T, j FEED(i, j) (48)
(Phr
i,j
)
mi n
e Phr
i,j
e (Phr
i,j
)
max
i I , j PDT(i, j)
(49)
(Phr
i,j
)
mi n
e Phr
i,j
e (Phr
i,j
)
max
i I , j FEED(i, j) (50)
(m
j
)
mi n
e

i
m
i,j
ex
e (m
j
)
max
i I , j PDT(i, j)
(51)
(m
j
)
mi n
e

i
m
i,j
i m
e (m
j
)
max
i I , j FEED(i, j)
(52)
(m
l
ST,i m
)
mi n
e m
l
ST,i m
e (m
l
ST,i m
)
max
l LEVEL
(53)
(m
l
ST,ex
)
mi n
e m
l
ST,ex
e (m
l
ST,ex
)
max
l (LEVEL - COND) (54)
(m
j
i m
)
mi n
e

i
m
i,j
e (m
j
i m
)
max
i I , j {RS(i, j) - RG(i, j)} (55)
(m
Fuel ,ex
)
mi n
e m
Fuel ,ex
e (m
Fuel ,ex
)
max
(56)
(m
e
ex
)
mi n
e m
e
ex
e (m
e
ex
)
max
e CO
2
, H (57)
(W
i m
)
mi n
e W
i m
e (W
i m
)
max
(58)
(W
ex
)
mi n
e W
ex
e (W
ex
)
max
(59)
(m
j
ex
)
mi n
e m
j
ex
e (m
j
ex
)
max
i GASI FY, j SYNGAS(i, j) (60)
C
i
) ntC
Gasi fi er
(r1, r2, P
i,j
, m
i,j
, Phr
i,j
)
i GASI FY, j FEED(i, j), j SYNGAS(i, j)
(61)
1536 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002
The annual i zed capi tal costs of the gas turbi ne and
syngas cool er and the heat recovery steam generator
depend on the power generati on and heat generati on
capaci ty, respecti vel y.
Mi ni mum val ues for W
i
and H
i
are constrai ned to the
val ues obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on.
2. Design of a Hydrogen Recovery System. To
desi gn the hydrogen recovery system, the annual i zed
capi tal cost correl ati ons
22
for PSA and membrane
recovery processes are used. The cost correl ati ons are
functi ons of hydrogen fl ow rate, recovery, and feed
composi ti on. I n the case of a membrane process, the cost
functi on al so i ncl udes the pressure rati o of the i nl et and
outl et pressures and the resi dual gas composi ti on. As
the pressure rati o across the membrane i ncreases, the
capi tal cost of membrane reduces; however, the com-
pressor work requi rement i ncreases. Thus, by opti mi z-
i ng the cost of recovery system, the trade off between
the membrane cost and the cost of compressi on i s
consi dered to deci de pressures across the membrane.
The expressi on for cal cul ati ng the compressor work
requi rement i s si mi l ar to eq 39. The recovery system,
consi sti ng of both the PSA and membrane processes i n
paral l el , i s gi ven by Fi gure 5.
I t i s to be noted that the PSA and membrane
processes can al so be arranged i n seri es. The recovery
(re
i
) i s opti mi zed to mi ni mi ze the cost of i nvestment,
whi l e meeti ng the puri ty and pressure requi rement by
the consumer processes.
3. Network Retrofit. For network retrofi t, the
deci si ons are taken whether to add a new uni t or to
sel ect the best retrofi t opti on for the exi sti ng l i mi ti ng
auxi l i ary faci l i ti es, as i denti fi ed from si te l evel opti mi -
zati on for the requi red i ncremental capaci ty. The l i mi t-
i ng faci l i ti es are those for whi ch the exi sti ng capaci ty
has been ful l y uti l i zed and rel axed i n si te l evel opti mi -
zati on. To make a deci si on whether to sel ect the best
retrofi t opti on or set up a new uni t, the bi nary deci si on
vari abl e z
i,n
, that i ndi cates the sel ecti on of the modi fi ca-
ti on opti on n N(i) (ei ther retrofi t or new uni t set up)
for the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ty i, i s used (eq 64). On
opti mi zati on, the total cost of each of the l i mi ti ng
auxi l i ary uni ts/equi pment woul d be equal to ei ther of
the two costs (i .e., the cost of the best retrofi t opti on or
the cost of new uni t set up) (eq 65). I n addi ti on, there
are constrai nts on the maxi mum l i mi ts of each of the
costs of the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ti es for new uni t set
up or retrofi t, dependi ng on the budget of the project
and the maxi mum requi rement of capaci ty modi fi cati on
obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on (eq 66a).
The cost of retrofi t opti on i s a functi on of type of
modi fi cati on and capaci ty i ncrement. The cost for new
uni t set up i s the functi on of the capaci ty i ncrement of
the base case. I t i s observed that the l ower the capaci ty
i ncrement, the hi gher i s the cost of the new uni t set up
bel ow a certai n capaci ty i ncrement l esser than that
whi ch i t i s more justi fi ed to make some mi nor modi fi ca-
ti ons of the exi sti ng uni t.
4. Process Level Optimization Model. The objec-
ti ve functi on i n process l evel opti mi zati on i s to mi ni mi ze
the total annual i zed cost presented by expressi on 67.
The total cost i s the summati on of the annual i zed
capi tal costs of the new uni ts, cost of retrofi tti ng of the
exi sti ng uni ts, equi pment, and the operati ng costs
i ncurred from them.
ObjectiveFunction: MinimizeAnnualizedCapi-
tal and Operating Costs.
Si mi l ar to si te l evel opti mi zati on, the mass and energy
bal ance equati ons are veri fi ed so as to sati sfy the si te
l evel sol uti on. The network (hydrogen and uti l i ty)
constrai nts (e.g., pressure and puri ty of hydrogen at the
i nl et of consumers) as di scussed i n si te l evel opti mi za-
ti on al so hol d for process l evel opti mi zati on. Wi th the
overal l system bal ance, the constrai nts on the mi ni mum
net producti on requi rement of hydrogen, power, steam,
and syngas from the overal l system to export are set
equal to that obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on.
Fi nal l y, we bui l d process l evel opti mi zati on model
consi sti ng of eq 67 as the objecti ve functi on together
wi th eqs 61-66 for model s and eqs 68-71 as con-
strai nts.
Figure 5. Hydrogen recovery system fl ow sheet.
C
i
) C1
i
W
W
i
w
+ C2
i
W
i GT (62)
C
i
) C1
i
Q
Q
i
h
+ C2
i
Q
i HRSG, SYNCOOL
(63)
C
i
)

nN(i)
z
i,n
C
i,n
i AUXI LI MI T (64)

nN(i)
z
i,n
) 1 i AUXI LI MI T, n N(i) (65)
C
i,n
- (C
i,n
)
max
z
i,n
e 0
i AUXI LI MI T, n N(i) (66a)
C
i,n
g 0 i AUXI LI MI T, n N(i) (66b)
(

lLEVEL
B
l
ST

i
m
i,l
ST,c
+

i
W
i
c
B
W
+

i
C
i
) +
(

lLEVEL
B
l
ST

iAUXI
m
i,l
ST,c
+

iAUXI
W
i
c
B
W
) +

iAUXI LI MI T

nN(i)
z
i,n
C
i,n
i (GASI FY, GENER, GT, HRSG,
RECOV, SYNCOOL) (67)
m
e
g,ex
g m
e
ex
e H (68)
W
g,ex
g W
ex
(69)
m
l
ST,g,ex
g m
l
ST,ex
l (LEVEL-COND) (70)
m
j
g,ex
g m
j
ex
i GASI FY, j SYNGAS(i, j) (71)
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1537
Phase 4: Integration of the Two Levels. The
objecti ve functi on for si te l evel opti mi zati on i s updated
wi th the cost functi ons for the capi tal i nvestment of the
new uni ts and the cost of retrofi tti ng used i n process
l evel opti mi zati on. The refi nery margi n i s now the
di fference between the sal es pri ce of products, export
of uti l i ti es, and the purchase costs of feedstock, uti l i ti es,
chemi cal s, catal ysts, and other operati ng costs of process
uni ts, annual i zed capi tal of new uni ts of I GCC, cost of
retrofi tti ng, or new uni t set up for the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary
faci l i ti es.
ObjectiveFunction: MaximizeRefineryMargin.
I n addi ti on to si te l evel opti mi zati on constrai nts, there
are constrai nts on the cost l i mi ts for the i ncremental
capaci ty of the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ti es. Thus, the
i ntegrated opti mi zati on model consi sts of eq 72 as the
objecti ve functi on together wi th eqs 1-44 and 61-65
for si te and process l evel model s, respecti vel y, and eqs
46-60 and 66 as si te and process l evel constrai nts,
respecti vel y.
The methodol ogy i s demonstrated wi th the hel p of a
case study.
23,24
Case Study
The refi nery case studi ed
25
(Fi gure 6) i s sel ected for
gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on. The major processi ng uni ts are
crude and vacuum di sti l l ati on uni ts (CDU and VDU),
naphtha, jet fuel , di esel , and cracked naphtha hy-
drotreaters (NHT, JHT, DHT, and CNHT), catal yti c
reformer (CCR), catal yti c cracker (CCU), hydrocracker
(HCU), and del ayed coker (DLC).
The products produced are l i qui fi ed petrol eum gas
(LPG), two grades of gasol i ne (regul ar wi th octane
number 90 and premi um wi th octane number 97), jet
fuel , and di esel . The refi nery processes three crudes of
di fferent speci fi c gravi ty and sul fur content. The data
for the case study are provi ded i n the Appendi x B. Thi s
contai ns market constrai nts (sal es/purchase costs i n-
formati on; producti on/consumpti on l i mi ts of products,
feeds, and uti l i ti es; and property constrai nts of end
products, bl endi ng i nformati on, and properti es of crudes)
and hardware constrai nts (uni t capaci ti es).
The mai n reason for i ntegrati ng gasi fi cati on technol -
ogy to refi nery i s to suppl y requi red hydrogen and to
coproduce steam and power. The refi nery has a very
hi gh demand of hydrogen for hydrocracker and vari ous
hydrotreater uni ts. I n addi ti on, there i s a good market
for power to export. There i s no si gni fi cant scope
i denti fi ed to export hydrogen and syngas. Through
gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on, envi ronmental i ssues are to be
taken care of. Gasi fi cati on i s superi or to many of the
avai l abl e power producti on and waste di sposal technol o-
gi es by addressi ng vari ous i ssues together regardi ng
envi ronmental emi ssi ons, mai ntai ni ng qual i ty of refi n-
i ng products, and waste management. The vari ous
benefi ts of gasi fi cati on on envi ronmental emi ssi ons are
al ready i ndi cated.
Regul ati ons are i mposed on the qual i ty of hydrocar-
bon fuel s that have a di rect i mpact on the envi ronmen-
tal emi ssi ons. There i s restri cti on on the sul fur l i mi t of
transportati on fuel s as wel l as fuel oi l s. I n addi ti on to
SO
x
emi ssi ons, reducti on gasi fi cati on i mproves the
qual i ty of hydrocarbon fuel s by removi ng more sul fur
through hydrogen addi ti on. Because of the stri ngent
envi ronmental restri cti ons on hi gh sul fur resi dual fuel
oi l s, the upgrade of these products remai ns questi on-
abl e, l eadi ng to a di mi ni shi ng market for these products.
Gasi fi cati on can i nherentl y di spose such refi nery bot-
toms to convert them i nto val uabl e products. Al so, there
are restri cti ons on the aromati c contents of transporta-
ti on fuel s, and thi s as wel l can be control l ed by the
producti on of hydrogen.
Phase 1: Screening and Scoping Analysis. As
shown i n the Fi gure 3, the screeni ng and scopi ng
anal ysi s esti mates a payback ti me of 8-9 years. Thi s
payback ti me i s acceptabl e to power pl ants and to a
refi nery subjected to energy i ntegrati on. Therefore, the
study i s carri ed out further to si te l evel opti mi zati on.
Phase 2: Site Level Optimization. I n si te l evel
opti mi zati on, model s of i ndi vi dual refi nery processi ng
uni ts, auxi l i ary faci l i ti es, vari ous components of I GCC,
and uti l i ty and hydrogen networks are devel oped and
i ntegrated through the di stri buti on of materi al streams,
uti l i ti es, and hydrogen. The capaci ti es of the major uni ts
are fi xed and are the same as the base case capaci ti es.
The capaci ti es of the auxi l i ary faci l i ti es are al l owed to
change i n case they are found to be l i mi ti ng. The
exi sti ng reformer i s the source of hydrogen. The con-
sumers are the hydrocracker and the vari ous hy-
drotreaters. The new hydrogen generator i s a steam
shi ft reactor that generates hydrogen usi ng cl ean syngas
from gasi fi er, fol l owed by syngas cool i ng and cl eani ng.
The i mportant deci si ons made i n thi s stage, as di scussed
i n the methodol ogy, are as fol l ows.
Feedstock for Gasification. For sel ecti ng refi nery
end streams as gasi fi cati on feedstock the market de-
mands, future trend and pri ces are consi dered. The
refi nery coke produced from the del ayed coker i s se-
l ected as one of the gasi fi cati on feedstocks determi ned
from i ts very l ow market pri ce and future demand. The
sel ecti on of the i ntermedi ate streams requi res i nsi ghts
to anal yze the processes and thei r i nteracti ons i n the
fl ow sheet. The mai n i ncenti ve for sel ecti ng the heavy
i ntermedi ate streams i s to reduce the costs of upgradi ng
Figure 6. Si mpl i fi ed fl ow di agram of the refi nery.

jPDT(i,j)
P
j
i
m
i,j
ex
-

jFEED(i,j)
F
j
i
m
i,j
i m
-

lLEVEL
m
l
ST,i m
B
l
ST
+

l(LEVEL-COND)
m
l
ST,ex
S
l
ST
-

j{RS(i,j)-FUEL(i,j)-RG(i,j)}
B
j
i
m
i,j
+ m
Fuel ,ex
S
Fuel
-
m
Fuel ,i m
B
Fuel
+ m
eH
ex
S
H
-
W
i m
B
W
+ W
ex
S
W
+ m
eCO
2
ex
S
CO
2
+
m
jSYNGAS(iGASI FY,j)
ex
S
Syngas
-

iAUXI LI MI T

nN(i)
z
i,n
C
i,n
-

i
C
i
i I , i (GASI FY, GENER, GT,
HRSG, RECOV, SYNCOOL) (72)
1538 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002
them i nto val uabl e end products. The other aspect i s to
rel ax and overcome the exi sti ng bottl eneck of refi nery
i n order to enhance the throughput through the mate-
ri al i ntegrati on of gasi fi cati on, as menti oned i n the
methodol ogy. The base case bottl eneck anal ysi s shows
that the del ayed coki ng uni t (DLC) i s the bottl eneck for
the refi nery. The other uni ts, i ncl udi ng the crude uni t,
have spare capaci ty to uti l i ze. Now, there are two ways
to debottl eneck the refi nery: ei ther to carry out revamp
study for capaci ty i mprovement of the DLC uni t or to
bypass DLC bottl eneck through gasi fi cati on feedstock
sel ecti on. The fi rst opti on does not hel p to i ncrease the
profi t from DLC. The second opti on of debottl enecki ng
refi nery i s as fol l ows. The DLC bottl eneck i s bypassed
(Fi gure 7) by taki ng the excess vacuum resi due pro-
duced from the vacuum di sti l l ati on uni t as the feed to
gasi fi cati on to i ncrease the throughput.
The maxi mum fl ow rates of these feed streams to
gasi fi cati on are al so determi ned.
OperatingVariablesof Gasification. The gasi fi er
i s an entrai ned bed gasi fi er deci ded upon feedstock
sel ected. The parameters, r1 and r2 as defi ned i n the
methodol ogy, are correspondi ng to the type of gasi fi er
sel ected.
Number of Trains for Gasifier. The other i mpor-
tant deci si on i s the number of gasi fi er trai ns. The
gasi fi cati on capaci ty uti l i zi ng the maxi mum amount of
feedstock comes wi thi n the capaci ty of two trai ns. The
doubl e-trai n gasi fi er produces hydrogen at 95 tonnes/
day from each trai n. The maxi mum amount of hydrogen
requi rement by the si te i s 140 tonnes/day. Excess
syngas, off gas from hydrogen recovery process, and
refi nery gaseous fuel s are taken to a gas turbi ne to
produce power and fl ue gas. Thus, a gasi fi cati on capac-
i ty equi val ent to 50 tonnes/day of hydrogen producti on
i s now avai l abl e for power producti on. On the basi s of
thi s maxi mum capaci ty of gasi fi cati on feedstock, the
amount of power producti on i s al so eval uated. There i s
an opti mi zati on constrai nt on the maxi mum power to
be exported. The power producti on shoul d be wi thi n the
maxi mum l i mi t on export after ful fi l l i ng the enti re si te
requi rement. I n case the power producti on exceeds the
maxi mum l i mi t on export, the two trai ns of gasi fi er are
sti l l to be retai ned. Thi s i s because the excess of capaci ty
provi des the fl exi bi l i ty i n operati on to deal wi th si tua-
ti ons when one of the gasi fi cati on trai ns needs to be shut
down. The bal ance of power can be consi dered further
for i nternal usage, i mprovement, and scope for i ncreas-
i ng export i n the case of power pri ce hi ke.
Selection of Feedstock toProcessingUnits. The
refi nery has both the catal yti c cracker and the hydro-
cracker. The catal yti c cracker i s fed wi th the more easi l y
cracked paraffi ni c atmospheri c and vacuum gas oi l s as
feeds, whi l e the hydrocracker feeds are aromati c cycl e
oi l s and coker gas oi l s. These streams to the hydro-
cracker uni t are comparati vel y easy to hydrocrack i n
the presence of hi gh-pressure hydrogen. Strai ght run
di sti l l ate i s another feed to the hydrocracker uni t to
i mprove the overal l qual i ty of feedstock. The di stri bu-
ti on of these feedstocks to hydrocracker and the ap-
propri ate mode of operati on are deci ded on the basi s of
the market demands of products whi l e sati sfyi ng the
process constrai nts. I n addi ti on, the crude sel ecti on to
the refi nery i s al so determi ned from the overal l si te
i ntegrati on.
The opti mi zati on i s carri ed out wi th an objecti ve of
maxi mi zi ng the overal l system gross margi n. The
constrai nts on properti es, hardware, and market l i mi ts
as i ndi cated i n the appendi x are appl i ed. The vari ous
deci si on vari abl es are the di stri buti on of crudes, feed
streams to vari ous uni ts, products from uni ts, steam
fl ows at vari ous l evel s, steam l et downs, steam extrac-
ti on at i ntermedi ate stages from steam turbi nes, fuel
generati on, consumpti on, and power producti on.
Results of Site Level Optimization. The benefi ts
of gasi fi cati on feedstock sel ecti on are as fol l ows.
Refi nery throughput i s i ncreased from 3957 kt/a to
4020 kt/a. The fi nal bottl eneck anal ysi s of the refi nery
i s gi ven i n Fi gure 8. Thi s shows that al l of the major
uni ts, i ncl udi ng hydrocracker uni t, have reached the
maxi mum capaci ty l i mi ts. No further throughput i m-
provement i s possi bl e because the new bottl eneck i s the
hydrocracker uni t i tsel f. (1) There i s an i ncreased i ntake
of heavi er and hi gh sul fur crude. API gravi ty i s i m-
proved from 31 to 29. Sul fur i ntake through crude i s
i ncreased from 56% to 62%. (2) Overal l , the feedstock
purchase cost i s reduced by $23 mi l l i on.
The benefi ts from product di stri buti on are as fol l ows.
(1) There i s i ncreased yi el d of gasol i ne by 0.8 MMbbl /a.
(2) Sul fur recovery i s i ncreased by 8%. (3) Margi nal
i mprovement from product sal es i s $15 mi l l i on.(4)
Addi ti onal revenues of $26 mi l l i on are obtai ned from
power export. Thi s amount of power export i s wi thi n
the maxi mum l i mi t.
The resul ts of si te l evel opti mi zati on are presented
i n Tabl e 1.
The capi tal i nvestment cal cul ated i s $0.4 bi l l i on. Thi s
capi tal cost i ncl udes the total i nvestment of I GCC. On
the basi s of margi nal i mprovement, the si mpl e payback
Figure 7. Refi nery debottl enecki ng through bypassi ng of DLC
bottl eneck.
Figure 8. Fi nal refi nery bottl eneck anal ysi s.
Table 1. Results fromSite Level Optimization
base case
on I GCC
i ntegrati on
crude i ntake, kt/a 3957 4020
API of crude 31 29
sul fur wt % of crude 56 62
feedstock cost MM$/a 519 496
gasol i ne yi el d, kbbl /a 15834 16635
sul fur recovery, % 62 70
revenues from product sal e, MM$/a 681 696
revenue from power export, MM$/a 0 26
refi nery gross margi n, MM$/a 156 220
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1539
ti me cal cul ated i s 6.3 years. The reducti on i n payback
ti me i s achi eved from materi al i ntegrati on i n the si te
l evel . The payback ti me i s acceptabl e; therefore, capi tal
cost mi ni mi zati on i s carri ed out i n the process l evel .
Phase3: ProcessLevel Optimization. I n process
l evel opti mi zati on, the objecti ve i s to mi ni mi ze the
capi tal i nvestment. The gasi fi cati on feed i s equal to that
determi ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on. For the prod-
ucts, the targets or constrai nts are set equal to that
obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on. Thus, the con-
strai nts are as fol l ows: (1) pure hydrogen from genera-
tor and recovery system g140 tonnes/day, (2) HP steam
producti on from I GCC g 1000 tonnes/day, and (3) net
power export from the gas turbi ne g 65 MW.
For hydrogen producti on, fl ow rate and puri ty can be
al l owed to change whi l e sati sfyi ng the mi ni mum pure
hydrogen requi rement from the generator and recovery
system. The hydrogen network i s opti mi zed for fl ow
di stri buti on wi thi n the gi ven constrai nts on process
operati ons of exi sti ng consumer and source uni ts.
From si te l evel opti mi zati on, i t i s determi ned that the
uti l i ty network i s not a bottl eneck for the i nfrastructure.
The exi sti ng steam turbi nes, l et down val ves, bl owers,
compressors, and exchangers of uti l i ty network can be
used after gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on. Therefore, the uti l i ty
network i s excl uded from process l evel opti mi zati on. The
constrai nt on the net steam producti on usi ng gasi fi ca-
ti on i s i ncl uded to keep the uti l i ty network fi xed.
The sul fur removal and recovery uni ts, such as a
uti l i ty network, have al so been desi gned on the basi s
of the maxi mum capaci ty l oad. Therefore, process l evel
opti mi zati on i s carri ed out i ntegrati ng the fol l owi ng
processes: gasi fi er, gas turbi ne, syngas cool ers, HRSG,
steam shi ft reactor, a hydrogen recovery system consi st-
i ng of PSA and membrane processes, and a hydrogen
network consi sti ng of consumers, sources, and hydrogen
compressors. Al though the hydrogen bal ance model s for
sources and consumers are i ncl uded, the process yi el d
model s at si te l evel are not necessari l y to be i ncl uded
as these processes are ful l y uti l i zed i n si te l evel opti -
mi zati on. The objecti ve functi on i ncl udi ng al l of the cost
functi ons for capi tal i nvestment and operati ng costs
guarantees a desi gn correspondi ng to the mi ni mum cost
whi l e achi evi ng the targets.
Results of Process Level Optimization. There i s
a reducti on i n capi tal i nvestment because of a si gni fi -
cant use of an exi sti ng i nfrastructure for uti l i ty system
and sul fur removal and recovery faci l i ti es. The cal cu-
l ated capi tal i nvestment i s therefore l ess than that
obtai ned from si te l evel opti mi zati on and i s equal to
$0.37 bi l l i on, based on whi ch the resul ti ng payback i s
5.5 years. Because the payback esti mated i s acceptabl e,
further opti mi zati on i s carri ed out to i ntegrate the two
l evel s. The vari ous process vari abl es determi ned from
thi s l evel are gi ven i n Tabl e 2.
Phase 4: Integrated Optimization. There i s no
si gni fi cant change i n terms of the fi nal overal l fl ow sheet
i ntegrati on. Thi s happens because the maxi mum ben-
efi ts are al ready achi eved from materi al i ntegrati on of
the overal l system and because thi s aspect has been
ful l y expl oi ted i n si te l evel opti mi zati on. Process l evel
opti mi zati on has al so ful fi l l ed the si te l evel product
requi rements. Therefore, no further i mprovement i s
suggested i n the i ntegrated opti mi zati on. However, thi s
phase of i ntegrated opti mi zati on i s essenti al to ensure
opti mal i ty. The payback ti mes obtai ned at the vari ous
stages are presented by the Fi gure 9.
I ni ti al l y, the payback reducti on i s more due to mate-
ri al i ntegrati on, and as the desi gn proceeds, the reduc-
ti on i n payback becomes i nsi gni fi cant. Thus, the anal y-
si s shows that i t woul d not be benefi ci al to i nvest money
beyond certai n i mprovements.
Conclusions
I t i s wel l understood that gasi fi cati on i s one of the
sol uti ons today for refi ni ng i ndustry to deal wi th an
i ncreasi ng avai l abi l i ty of l ow grade crudes and a l arger
producti on of bottom of the barrel s. However, the
i nvestment for gasi fi cati on i s not justi fi ed i f the i ntegra-
ti on i s restri cted onl y to sol ve the bottom of the barrel
probl em of the refi nery through energy i ntegrati on.
I ntegrati on of gasi fi cati on shoul d be consi dered i n the
context of the overal l refi nery operati on. The methodol -
ogy adopted for i ntegrati ng gasi fi cati on to the refi nery
i s a conceptual stagewi se desi gn approach that combi nes
hi erarchi cal decomposi ti on and mathemati cal program-
mi ng. The stagewi se desi gn anal ysi s breaks the bi gger
probl em i nto smal l er sol vabl e subprobl ems, where the
avai l abl e i ntegrati on opportuni ti es at each l evel are
captured wi thout sacri fi ci ng the sol uti on qual i ty. Thi s
i s al so useful to those cases as i n gasi fi cati on i ntegrati on
where the avai l abl e data are l i mi ted at the earl y stage
of anal ysi s. As the scope for further i ntegrati on i s
establ i shed, i t i s rel ati vel y easy to generate more
detai l ed i nformati on for the i denti fi ed scopes. Fi nal l y,
the study shows where to stop anal yzi ng when the
i mprovement i n payback becomes i nsi gni fi cant.
A successful materi al i ntegrati on of gasi fi cati on by
appl yi ng the methodol ogy not onl y sol ves the bottom of
the barrel probl em but al so enhances the throughput
and i mproves the overal l refi nery operati on by rel axi ng
the exi sti ng bottl enecks. The capi tal i nvestment for
gasi fi cati on i s l owered by i ntegrati ng i t effecti vel y wi th
the exi sti ng i nfrastructure. The use of exi sti ng auxi l i ary
faci l i ti es i s si gni fi cant for capi tal i nvestment reducti on.
Al l of these benefi ts of gasi fi cati on are onl y possi bl e to
achi eve i f i ntegrati on of gasi fi cati on i s consi dered i n the
context of the overal l refi nery operati on, and the overal l
Table 2. Process Level Parameters of IGCC
gasi fi er pressure, bar 65
temperature, C 1300
oxygen-to-feed wt rati o 1.09
steam-to-oxygen wt rati o 0.2
total cl ean syngas, MMscfd 64
fracti on of hydrogen recovered i n PSA 1
hydrogen puri ty from PSA, wt % 94
recovery of PSA, % 90
hydrogen fl ow from PSA, MMscfd 68
PSA off gas to gas turbi ne, T/D 195
gas turbi ne pressure rati o 27
Figure9. Payback reducti on i n the stagewi se desi gn procedure.
1540 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002
i ntegrati on aspects can be successful l y addressed by the
proposed conceptual stagewi se desi gn procedure.
Appendix A: Nomenclature for Mathematical
Models
General Indices. For the general set I , i n some
pl aces the i ndex i has been used i nstead of i to
di fferenti ate the upstream uni t from the downstream
uni t whi ch has been i ndexed i. i i s another i ndex to be
used to represent the uni ts whi ch bel ong to the general
set I .
Si mi l arl y, for streams bel ong to the general set J , the
vari ous i ndi ces j, j, and j have been used. The i nl et
streams are to be represented by i ndex j, whereas outl et
streams are referred by the i ndex j. j i s to refer the
resource (fuel s, refi nery gases, chemi cal s, catal ysts, etc.)
streams.
E ) {e/el ements or components}
I ) {i/al l uni ts, auxi l i ary faci l i ti es}
J ) {j/streams}
K ) {k/ operati ng modes of the major process uni t i
UNI T}
LEVEL ) {l/steam l evel s}
N ){n/sel ecti on of retrofi t opti on or new uni t set up opti on
for the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ti es i AUXI LI MI T}
Process Unit Sets. Al l of the process uni t sets, that
are treated di fferentl y i n model i ng, bel ong to the general
set I . For the common equati ons that are val i d for every
uni t, i t has been conveni entl y deal t wi th the general
set I .
AUXI ) {i/refi nery auxi l i ary faci l i ti es; AUXI I }
FP ) {i/fuel pl ants; FP I }
GASI FY ) {i/gasi fi er uni ts; GASI FY I }
GENER ) {i/hydrogen generators; GENER I }
GT ) {i/gas turbi nes; GT I }
HRSG ) {i/heat recovery steam generators of gas turbi ne
fl ue gases; HRSG I }
RECOV ) {i/hydrogen recovery uni ts; RECOV I }
SYNCOOL ) {i/syngas cool ers; SYNCOOL I }
UNI T ) {i/refi nery major process uni ts; UNI T I }
The subsets are as fol l ows:
AUXI LI MI T){i/l i mi ti ngauxi l i ary faci l i ti es;AUXI LI MI T
AUXI }
COMP ) {i/compressors, bl owers; COMP AUXI }
CONS ) {i/hydrogen consumer uni ts of refi nery; CONS
UNI T}
SOURCE ){i/hydrogen source uni ts of refi nery; SOURCE
UNI T}
STUR ) {i/steam turbi nes; STUR AUXI }
StreamConnection Sets.
FEED ) {(i I , j J )/feed stream j of the uni t i}
FUEL ) {(i I , j J )/fuel s j consumpti on or generati on
of uni t i}
GTFLUE ) {(i GT, j J )/fl ue gas stream j from uni t i}
GTFUEL ) {(i GT, j J )/fuel gas stream j to uni t i}
HI N ) {(i I , j J )/hydrogen i nl et stream (hydrogen +
gases) j to uni t i}
HOUT ) {(i I , j J )/hydrogen outl et stream (hydrogen
+ gases) j from uni t i}
PDT ) {(i I , j J )/product streams j from uni t i}
RG ) {(i CONS, j J )/refi nery gases j generati on of
uni t i)
RS ) {(i I , j J )/ resources: fuel , chemi cal s and
catal ysts j consumpti on of uni t i)
SYNGAS ) {(i GASI FY, j J )/product syngas stream j
from uni t i)
SteamLevels Set.
HP ) {l/hi gh-pressure steam l evel ; HP LEVEL}
COND ) {l/condensate l evel ; COND LEVEL}
Elements Set.
C ) {e/carbon; C E}
CO ) (e/carbon monoxi de; CO E)
CO
2
) (e/carbon di oxi de; CO
2
E)
H ) (e/hydrogen; H E)
H
2
S ) (e/hydrogen sul fi de; H
2
S E)
N ) (e/ni trogen; N E)
O ) (e/oxygen; O E)
S ) (e/sul fur; S E)
ST ) (e/steam; ST E)
Variables.
R
i
)hydrogen consumpti on pl us sol ubi l i ty l oss of consumer
uni t i CONS (kt/d)
r
i
) generati on of refi nery gases (other than hydrogen)
from consumer uni t i CONS (kt/d)
C
i
) capi tal cost of uni t i I (k$/d)
C
i
) capi tal cost of uni t i I (k$/d)
C
i,n
) cost of retrofi t or new uni t set up, n N(i) of the
l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ty i AUXI LI MI T (k$/d)
C
i,n
) cost of retrofi t or new uni t set up, n N(i) of the
l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ty i AUXI LI MI T (k$/d)
E
i,j
) energy out wi th the outl et stream j J from uni t i
I (kJ/d)
E
i,j
) energy i n wi th the feed stream j J to uni t i I
(kJ/d)
E
i
i n
) external energy i nput to uni t i I (kJ/d)
E
i
out
) external energy output from uni t i I (kJ/d)
m
e
ex
) components: carbon di oxi de, hydrogen e CO
2
, H
to export for the overal l si te (kt/d)
m
i,j
ex
) export of outl et stream j J from uni t i I (kt/d)
m
i,j
ex
) export of outl et stream j J from uni t i I (kt/d)
m
j
ex
) syngas j SYNGAS(i, j) from gasi fi er i GASI FY
to export for the overal l si te (kt/d)
m
Fuel ,ex
) fuel to export for the overal l si te (kt/d)
m
Fuel ,i m
) fuel to i mport for the overal l si te (kt/d)
m
e
g,ex
) component: hydrogen e H to export i n process
l evel opti mi zati on (kt/d)
m
j
g,ex
) syngas j SYNGAS(i, j) from gasi fi er i GASI FY
to export i n process l evel opti mi zati on (kt/d)
m
i
H l oss
) sol ubi l i ty l oss of hydrogen of consumer uni t i
CONS (kt/d)
m
i,j
) fl ow rate of outl et stream j J from uni t i I (kt/d)
m
i,j,e
) fl ow rate of component e E i n outl et stream j J
from uni t i I (kt/d)
m
i,j
) fl ow rate of i nl et stream j J to uni t i I (kt/d)
m
i,j,e
) fl ow rate of component e E i n i nl et stream j J
to uni t i I (kt/d)
m
i,j
) generati on or consumpti on of the resource (fuel s,
refi nery gases, catal ysts, chemi cal s, etc.) stream j
RS(i, j) of uni t i I (kt/d)
m
i,j
i m
) i mport of i nl et stream j J to uni t i I (kt/d)
m
i,j
) fl ow rate of outl et stream j J from uni t i I (kt/d)
(m
i,j,e
)
i
) fl ow rate of component e E i n outl et stream j
J from uni t i I to uni t i I (i * i) (kt/d)
(m
i,j
)
i
) fl ow rate of outl et stream j J from uni t i I to
uni t i I (i * i) (kt/d)
(m
i,j
)
i
) fl ow rate of outl et stream j J from the uni t i
I to fuel pl ant i FP (i * i) (kt/d)
m
i
RG l oss
) sol ubi l i ty l oss of refi nery gases of consumer uni t
i CONS (kt/d)
m
i,l
ST,c
) steam consumpti on at l evel l LEVEL of uni t i
I i n process l evel opti mi zati on (kt/d)
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1541
m
i,l
ST,c
) steam consumpti on at l evel l LEVEL of auxi l -
i ary uni t i AUXI i n process l evel opti mi zati on (kt/d)
m
l
ST,ex
) steam at vari ous l evel s except condensate l
(LEVEL - COND) to export for the overal l si te (kt/d)
m
l
ST,g,ex
) steam at vari ous l evel s except condensate l
(LEVEL -COND) to export i n process l evel opti mi zati on
(kt/d)
m
i,l
ST
) steam producti on or consumpti on at l evel l
LEVEL of uni t i I (kt/d)
m
l
ST,i m
) steam at vari ous l evel s l LEVEL to i mport for
the overal l si te (kt/d)
n
i,j,e
) number of mol es of component e E i n outl et stream
j J from uni t i I (kmol 10
-6
/d)
n
i,j,e
) number of mol es of component e E i n i nl et stream
j J to uni t i I (kmol 10
-6
/d)
n
i,l
ST
) number of mol es of steam at l evel l LEVEL
producti on or consumpti on of uni t i I (kmol 10
-6
/d)
P
i,j
i n
) pressure of i nl et stream j J to uni t i I (bar)
P
i,j
out
) pressure of outl et stream j J from uni t i I (bar)
Phr
i,j
) property set of outl et stream j PDT(i, j) from uni t
i I
Phr
i,j
) property set of i nl et stream j FEED(i, j) to uni t
i I
Phr
i,j
) property set of outl et stream j PDT(i, j) from uni t
i I
Q
i
) heat generati on of uni t i I (kJ/d)
re
i
) hydrogen recovery of recovery uni t i RECOV
r3 ) mol e fracti on of steam to gasi fi er converti ng to carbon
monoxi de
T
i
i n
) i nl et temperature to uni t i I (K)
T
i
out
) outl et temperature from uni t i I (K)
(v
i,j
)
i
) vol umetri c fl ow rate of outl et stream j J from
uni t i I to uni t i I (i * i) (kbbl /d)
W
i
c
) power consumpti on of uni t i I i n process l evel
opti mi zati on (kJ/d)
W
i
c
) power consumpti on of auxi l i ary uni t i AUXI i n
process l evel opti mi zati on (kJ/d)
W
ex
) power to export for the overal l si te (kJ/d)
W
g,ex
) power to export i n process l evel opti mi zati on
(kJ/d)
W
i
) power producti on or consumpti on of the uni t i I
(kJ/d)
W
i m
) power to i mport for the overal l si te (kJ/d)
W
i,l
ST
) power producti on or consumpti on of turbi ne, com-
pressor uni t i COMP, STUR usi ng steam at l
(LEVEL - COND) (kJ/d)
W
i,l
ST l oss
) work l oss of turbi ne, compressor uni t i COMP,
STUR usi ng steam at l evel l (LEVEL - COND) (kJ/d)
wt
i,j,e
) mass fracti on of component e E of i nl et stream
j J to uni t i I
wt
i,j,e
) mass fracti on of component e E of outl et stream
j J from uni t i I
y
i,j
)hydrogen composi ti on i n outl et stream j HOUTfrom
uni t i I
y
i,j
) hydrogen composi ti on i n i nl et stream j HI N to uni t
i I
y
i,j
)hydrogen composi ti on i n outl et stream j HOUTfrom
uni t i I
y
i,j
) hydrogen composi ti on i n i nl et stream j HI N to uni t
i I
Generalized Functions.
C
Gasi fi er
) cost functi on to predi ct capi tal cost of si ngl e trai n
gasi fi er i n k$/d
C
i
(Q) ) cost functi on to predi ct capi tal cost of uni t i I i n
k$/d
C
i
(W) ) cost functi on to predi ct capi tal cost of gas turbi ne
i GT i n k$/d
f
i,k,j
) functi on to predi ct yi el d of outl et stream j PDT(i,
j) from major uni t i UNI T operati ng i n mode k K(i)
f
i,k,j,e
) functi on to predi ct pure hydrogen e H generati on
i n outl et hydrogen stream j HOUT(i, j) by hydrogen
source i SOURCE operati ng i n mode k K(i)
f
i,k,j,e
) functi on to predi ct pure hydrogen e H consump-
ti on from i nl et hydrogen stream j HI N(i, j) by hydrogen
consumer i CONS operati ng i n mode k K(i)
F
i,k,j
) set of functi ons to predi ct property set of outl et
stream j PDT(i, j) from major uni t i UNI Toperati ng
i n mode k K(i)
f
i,l
ST
) functi on to predi ct work l oss of turbi ne, compressor
i COMP, STUR usi ng steam at l evel l (LEVEL -
COND)
Parameters.

i,j
) rati o of heat capaci ti es (C
p
/ C
v
) of i nl et gas stream j
J to uni t i I
h ) power of heat generati on to predi ct cost of uni t i I
w ) power of work generati on to predi ct cost of gas
turbi ne

i
Q
) effi ci ency of heat generati on from uni t i I

i
W
) i sentropi c effi ci ency of power producti on or consump-
ti on of uni t i I
a
i,l
ST
) total power i ncl udi ng l oss per uni t mass fl ow of
steam at l evel l (LEVEL -
COND) of uni t i COMP, STUR (J/t)
B
Fuel
) buyi ng cost of fuel
B
j
) buyi ng cost of the resource (catal ysts, chemi cal s, etc.)
stream j {RS(i, j) - FUEL(i, j) - RG(i, j)} ($/t)
b
i,l
ST
) correl ati on coeffi ci ent for power producti on or con-
sumpti on of uni t i COMP, STUR usi ng steam at l evel
l (LEVEL - COND) (J/t)
B
l
ST
) buyi ng cost of steam at l evel l LEVEL ($/t)
B
W
) buyi ng cost of power ($/J)
(CAP
i
)
max
) maxi mum capaci ty of major uni t i UNI T(kt/
d)
(CAP
i
)
mi n
) mi ni mum capaci ty of major uni t i UNI T(kt/
d)
(C
i,n
)
max
) maxi mum cost of retrofi t or new uni t set up n
N(i) of the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ty i AUXI LI MI T
(k$/d)
Cp
e
) mol ar speci fi c heat of component e E (kJ/(kmol
10
-6
(K))
C1
i
Q
)correl ati on coeffi ci ent to predi ct cost of syngas cool er
and HRSG i SYNCOOL, HRSG
C1
i
W
) correl ati on coeffi ci ent to predi ct cost of gas turbi ne
i GT
C2
i
Q
) correl ati on constant to predi ct cost of syngas cool er
and HRSG i SYNCOOL, HRSG
C2
i
W
) correl ati on constant to predi ct cost of gas turbi ne
(k$/d)
F
j
) buyi ng cost of the feed stream j FEED(i, j) of uni t
i I ($/t)
g
1i,j
)correl ati on coeffi ci ent for consumpti on or generati on
of resource (fuel s, catal ysts, chemi cal s, etc.) stream j
RS(i, j) of uni t i UNI T
g
1i,l
ST
) correl ati on coeffi ci ent for steam producti on or con-
sumpti on at l evel l LEVEL
of uni t i UNI T
g
1i
W
) correl ati on coeffi ci ent for power producti on or con-
sumpti on of uni t i UNI T (J/t)
g
2i,j
) correl ati on constant for consumpti on or generati on
of resource (fuel s, catal ysts, chemi cal s, etc.) stream j
RS(i, j) of uni t i UNI T (kt/d)
g
2i,l
ST
) correl ati on constant for steam producti on or con-
sumpti on at l evel l LEVEL of uni t i UNI T (kt/d)
g
2i
W
) correl ati on constant for power producti on or con-
sumpti on of uni t i UNI T (kJ/d)
h
l
) speci fi c enthal py (l atent heat + condensate heat) per
uni t mass of steam at l evel l (LEVEL - COND) (J/t)
1542 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002
(m
e
ex
)
max
) maxi mum export of pure components: carbon
di oxi de, hydrogen e CO
2
, H (kt/d)
(m
e
ex
)
min
) mi ni mum export of pure components: carbon
di oxi de, hydrogen e CO
2
, H (kt/d)
(m
j
ex
)
max
) maxi mum export of syngas j SYNGAS(i, j)
from i GASI FY (kt/d)
(m
j
ex
)
mi n
)mi ni mum export of syngas j SYNGAS(i, j) from
i GASI FY (kt/d)
(m
Fuel ,ex
)
max
) maxi mum export of fuel (kt/d)
(m
Fuel ,ex
)
mi n
) mi ni mum export of fuel (kt/d)
(m
j
i m
)
max
) maxi mum i mport of resource (fuel s, catal ysts,
chemi cal s, etc.) stream j {RS(i, j) - RG(i, j)} to uni t
i I (kt/d)
(m
j
i m
)
mi n
) mi ni mum i mport of resource (fuel s, catal ysts,
chemi cal s, etc.) stream j {RS(i, j) - RG(i, j)} to uni t
i I (kt/d)
(m
j
)
max
) maxi mum demand of product j PDT(i, j) from
uni t i I (kt/d)
(m
j
)
mi n
) mi ni mum demand of product j PDT(i, j) from
uni t i I (kt/d)
(m
j
)
max
) maxi mum avai l abi l i ty of feed j FEED(i, j) to
uni t i I (kt/d)
(m
j
)
mi n
) mi ni mum avai l abi l i ty of feeds j FEED(i, j) to
uni t i I (kt/d)
(m
l
ST,ex
)
max
)maxi mum export of steam at l evel l (LEVEL
- COND) (kt/d)
(m
l
ST,ex
)
mi n
) mi ni mum export of steam at l evel l (LEVEL
- COND) (kt/d)
(m
l
ST,i m
)
max
)maxi mum i mport of steam at l evel l LEVEL
(kt/d)
(m
l
ST,i m
)
mi n
) mi ni mum i mport of steam at l evel l LEVEL
(kt/d)
mw
e
) mol ecul ar wei ght of component e E
nt ) number of gasi fi cati on trai ns
P
j
) sal es pri ce of product stream j PDT(i, j) from uni t i
I ($/t)
(Phr
i,j
)
max
) maxi mum val ues of property set of product j
PDT(i, j) from uni t i I
(Phr
i,j
)
mi n
) mi ni mum val ues of property set of product j
PDT(i, j) from uni t i I
(Phr
i,j
)
max
) maxi mum val ues of property set of feed j
FEED(i, j) to uni t i I
(Phr
i,j
)
mi n
) mi ni mum val ues of property set of feed j
FEED(i, j) to uni t i I
P
l
ST,sat
) saturati on pressure of steam at l evel l LEVEL
(bar)
R ) uni versal gas constant (J/(t K))
r1 ) oxygen to feed wt rati o to gasi fi er
r2 ) steam to oxygen wt rati o to gasi fi er
S
CO
2 ) sal es pri ce of carbon di oxi de ($/t)
S
Fuel
) sal es pri ce of fuel ($/t)
S
H
) sal es pri ce of hydrogen ($/t)
S
l
ST
) sal es pri ce of steam at l evel l (LEVEL - COND)
($/t)
S
Syngas
) sal es pri ce of syngas ($/t)
S
W
) sal es pri ce of power ($/J)
T
l
ST
) temperature of steam at l evel l LEVEL (K)
(W
ex
)
max
) maxi mum export of power (kJ/d)
(W
ex
)
mi n
) mi ni mum export of power (kJ/d)
(W
i m
)
max
) maxi mum i mport of power (kJ/d)
(W
i m
)
mi n
) mi ni mum i mport of power (kJ/d)
x
i
) hydrogen conversi on of generator i GENER
y
i,j
req
) requi red hydrogen composi ti on i n i nl et stream j
HI N to consumer uni t i CONS
Binary Variables.
z
i,k
) sel ecti on of operati ng mode k K(i) of major refi nery
uni ts i UNI T
z
i,n
) sel ecti on of retrofi t or new uni t set up opti on n N(i)
for the l i mi ti ng auxi l i ary faci l i ti es i AUXI LI MI T
z
i,n
) sel ecti on of retrofi t or new uni t set up opti on n
N(i) for the limiting auxiliary facilities i AUXI LI MI T
Appendix B: Data for the Case Study
1a. Purchase Costs of Feeds.
1b. Purchase Costs of Utilities.
2a. Sales Costs of Products.
2b. Sales Costs of Utilities.
3a. Consumption Limits of Feeds.
3b. Production Limits of Products.
3c. Production Limits of Utilities.
4. Property Constraints of Products.
5. Product Blending Streams.
6. Properties of Feeds.
crude 1 crude 2 crude 3 resi due natural gas
pri ce, $/bbl 16.00 19.75 19.02 10.00 9.00
gas, MMBTU power, MWh
pri ce, k$/uni t 2.30 0.067
l i qui fi ed
petrol eum gas
regul ar
gasol i ne
premi um
gasol i ne jet fuel di esel
pri ce, $/bbl 14.00 25.65 29.24 24.35 23.62
coke, kt sul fur, kt fuel , MMBTU power, MWh
pri ce, k$/uni t 13.00 120.00 1.00 0.035
crude 1 crude 2 crude 3 resi due
maxi mum, kbbl /d 100 70 70 10
l i qui fi ed
petrol eum gas
regul ar
gasol i ne
premi um
gasol i ne jet fuel di esel
mi ni mum, kbbl /d 0.10 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00
maxi mum, kbbl /d 0.50 2.00
power, MW
maxi mum export 85.00
product
RON
mi n
sul fur ppm
max
RVP
max
SG
max
cetane no.
mi n
regul ar gasol i ne 90 15 8.40 0.740
premi um gasol i ne 97 15 10.15 0.720
jet fuel 150 0.840
di esel 300 0.845 52
gasol i ne n-butane, i -butane, cracker gasol i ne,
strai ght run l i ght naphtha, reformate,
hydrocracker gasol i ne, and al kyl ate
jet fuel from jet hydrotreater
di esel from di esel hydrotreater and hydrocracker
crude 1 crude 2 crude 3
sul fur wt % 2.73 1.60 1.10
SG 0.8867 0.8540 0.8668
I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002 1543
7. Hardware Constraints.
Literature Cited
(1) Publ i c Heal th Assessment, Fai rfi el d Coal Gasi fi cati on Pl ant,
Fairfield, I owa. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/fair/fcgp1.html.
(2) http://www4.nati onal academi es.org/nae/nae.nsf/Awards/
1999+Founders+Award+Reci pi ent?OpenDocument.
(3) Phi l l i ps, G.; McGrath, M. Resi due Upgradi ng Opti ons for
Eastern Europe. Worl d Refi ni ng Associ ati on, Budapest, October
1998.
(4) Rhodes, A. K. Kansas Refi nery Starts Up Coke Gasi fi cati on
Uni t. Oil Gas J . 1996, 94 (32), 31.
(5) Penrose, C. F.; Rodarte, A.; Wal l ace, P. S.; Preston, W. E.
Gasi fi cati on of Refi nery Bottoms Enhances Profi tabi l i ty. AI ChE
Spri ng Nati onal Meeti ng, Atl anta, GA, March 2000.
(6) de Graaf, J. D.; van den Berg, R.; Zui devel d, P. L. Shel l
Gasi fi cati on Processes. AI ChE Spri ng Nati onal Meeti ng, Atl anta,
GA, March 2000.
(7) Grossmann, I . E. Mi xed-I nteger Programmi ng Approach for
the Synthesi s of I ntegrated Process Fl ow Sheets. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 1985, 9.
(8) Grossmann, I . E. Mi xed-I nteger Nonl i near Programmi ng
Techni ques for the Synthesi s of Engi neeri ng Systems. Res. Eng.
Des. 1990, 1.
(9) Dougl as, J. M. Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes;
McGraw-Hi l l : New York, 1988.
(10) Dai chendt, M.; Grossmann, I . E. I ntegrati on of Hi erarchi -
cal Decomposi ti on and Mathemati cal Programmi ng for the Syn-
thesi s of Process Fl ow Sheets. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1997, 22, 147.
(11) Manni nen, J.; Zhu, X. X. Level -by-Level Fl ow Sheet
Synthesi s Methodol ogy for Thermal System Desi gn. AI ChE J .
2000, 00, 1.
(12) Zhang, N.; Zhu, X. X. A Novel Model l i ng and Decomposi -
ti on Strategy for Overal l Refi nery Opti mi sati on. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 2000, 24, 1543.
(13) Phi l cox, J.; Fenner, G. W. A Texas Project I l l ustrates the
Benefi ts of I ntegrated Gasi fi cati on. Oil Gas J . 1997, 95 (28), 41.
(14) Kwon, S.-H.; Shi n, J.-W.; Oh, J.-K.; Heaven, D. L.; Con-
dorel l i , P. Hydrogen Producti on Al ternati ves i n an I GCC Pl ant.
Hydrocarbon Process. 1999, (Apri l ), 73.
(15) Bai rd, C. Petroleum Refining Process Correlations; HPI
Consul tants I nc.; 1987.
(16) H. J. Gary; Handwerk, E. G. PetroleumRefining: Technol-
ogyand Economics; 3rd ed; Marcel Dekker I nc.: New York, 1994.
(17) Manni nen, J.; Zhu, X. X. Opti mal Gas Turbi ne I ntegrati on
to the Process I ndustri es. I nd. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 4317.
(18) Al ves, J. Anal ysi s and Desi gn of Refi nery Hydrogen
Di stri buti on Systems. Ph.D. Di ssertati on, UMI ST, Manchester,
U.K., 1999.
(19) Smi th, J. M.; Van Ness, H. C. I ntroduction to Chemical
Engineering Thermodynamics, 4th ed; McGraw-Hi l l : Si ngapore,
1987.
(20) Church, E. F. Steam Turbines, 3rd ed; McGraw-Hi l l :
New York, 1950.
(21) Chou, C.-C.; Shi h, Y.-S. Thermodynami cs Approach to the
Desi gn and Synthesi s of Pl ant Uti l i ty Systems. I nd. Eng. Chem.
Res. 1987, 26, 1100.
(22) Towl er, G. P.; Mann, R.; Serri ere, A. J.-L.; Gabaude, C.
M. D. Refi nery Hydrogen Management: Cost Anal ysi s of Chemi -
cal l y-I ntegrated Faci l i ti es. I nd. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 2378.
(23) Sadhukhan, J.; Zhu, X. X. I ntegrati on of Gasi fi cati on
Technol ogi es i n the Context of Overal l Refi nery Opti mi sati on.
AI ChE Spri ng Nati onal Meeti ng, Atl anta, GA, March 2000.
(24) Sadhukhan, J.; Zhu, X. X. I ntegrati on of Gasi fi cati on
Technol ogi es i n the Context of Overal l Refi nery Opti mi sati on.
I ChemE I nternati onal Conference on Gasi fi cati on for the Future,
Netherl ands, Apri l 2000.
(25) Zhang, J. Opti mi sati on and Debottl enecki ng for the Overal l
Refi nery Operati on. Ph.D. Di ssertati on, UMI ST, Manchester, U.K.,
1999.
Received for review Apri l 30, 2001
Revised manuscript received November 6, 2001
Accepted November 29, 2001
I E010380C
CDU VDU NHT JHT DHT CNHT CCR CCU HCU DLC
kbbl /d 100 46 20 15 10 20 27 30 24 20
1544 I nd. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol . 41, No. 6, 2002