154 Chem. Eng. Technol.

19 (1996) 154-162

Systems Engineering Approach for Chemical Process Energy Optimization *

Jiirgen Koehler and Norbert Schadler **

Process energy integration and continuous improvement of process technology are everlast-
ing issues to ensure profitability of chemical productions. And both objectives become in-
creasingly important due to long-term environmental effects of energy degradation, such
as resource depletion, emissions and the release of “waste” heat. The key success factor for
process improvement lies in combining up-to-date expertise from different areas in an over-
all approach. One such approach is the systems engineering concept. It helps to structure
and to organize problem-solving processes. We strongly believe that the increasing com-
plexity of large and interlinked chemical production systems and the tightening of global
economic pressure force us to use more than ever systematic analysis and design methods
to guarantee optimality throughout the entire product life. First we present a brief introduc-
tion to systems engineering in general. Then, in the main part of the paper, we give exam-
ples for optimizing the use of energy in chemical plants in order to illustrate advantages
of the systems engineering concept. The examples range from improving the performance
of individual pieces of equipment over changes in the process structure up to optimizing
process clusters.

1 Introduction: On the Increasing Complexity
of Production Systems
The complexity of today’s production and business systems
is rapidly growing. The reasons are manifold. In the first
place, the number of criteria which have to be optimized to
remain economically competitive is continually increasing.
Productions have to be profitable, clean, energy efficient
and safe, to name the four obviously most important crite-
ria. One has to guarantee just-in-time output, to react
quickly to changes of the product quality requirements, and
one must cope with production site constraints. Political,
social and psychological influences act as well on business
systems. Of course, the list can easily be continued. Second-
ly, production technologies itselves (incl. specific pieces of
equipment) advance and become more complex to ensure
optimum production. Nowadays, elaborate monitoring and
feedback control systems maintain precise, efficient and
safe production at any time at the expense of more and
more process feedback loops. In modern production facili-
ties, process simulation programs are combined with pro-
cess control systems and the production personnel has to
handle all three. Innovative and complex production tech-
nologies, e.g. bioreactions, membrane systems or reactive
separations, are at the edge of widespread proliferation.
Multiproduct plants are state-of-the-art. Process intensifi-
cation, miniaturization and flexibilization [ 1 , 21 are proba-
bly the next, partly visionary topics of greatest interest.
Third, the amount of information which has to be pro-
cessed literally explodes. Legislative rules change to an
* Lecture presented by J. Koehler at the Eurotherm-Seminar “Ex-
ergoeconomicaf Analysis and Optimization in Chemical Engineer-
ing’’, 17. 18. July 1995 in Aachen, Germany.
~
overgrow rate inducing variability and usually tightening
process constraints. Enterprises evolve to “global players”
and exchange information throughout the world. They at-
tempt to optimally link heterogeneous and geographically
dispersed production conglomerates. Large-scale logistic
and production scheduling, thus appear as inherent issues.
The proper simulation of production, business and manage-
ment systems will be a requirement in the near future to op-
timize information exchange in product chains [3].
Fourth, the life cycles of both products and production
technologies become shorter thereby inducing increased in-
novation rates. Life cycle optimizations bring together
product development, process development, engineering,
production, product distribution and marketing to a for-
merly unknown degree. Hence, cross-disciplinary project
teams are one of the key topics today. T o simply keep one’s
products in the market, one has to comply with actual and
future consumer demands and opinions with respect to both
to the actual production and to future product designs.
We argue that the tremendous complexity of large and in-
terlinked chemical production systems compells the use of
systems engineering approaches to guarantee optimal per-
formance at every stage of the system’s life. Systems engi-
neering helps to systematically structure and organize prob-
lem-solving processes. It has its main origin in the 40th [4]
and is today a well established concept in many technical ar-
eas (we will not discuss social, biological or other system
classes here). A recent literature review revealed that sys-
tems engineering is considered also as a means to restruc-
ture and to improve educational “systems” in chemical en-
gineering [5J.

** Dr.-Ing. J . Koehler and Dr.-Ing. N. Schadler, Hoechst AG, Process We will try to highlight the advantages of the approach by
Engineering, D-65926 Frankfurt/M., Germany. giving several specific, but not too difficult industrial exam-
@ V C H Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, D-6945 1 Weinheim, 1996
0930-7516/96/0204-0154 $10.00+ .25/0
Chem. Eng. Technol. I9 (1996) 154- 162 155

ples for applying the thoughts and ideas of the systems
engineering concept to chemical process optimization under
the special aspect of optimizing the rational use of energy.
The system to be considered is generally an already existing
chemical process, a part thereof or even an entire produc-
tion site. The use of systems engineering ideas to the devel-
opment and design of new chemical processes will play only
a minor role in the following presentation, since it has been
intensively treated elsewhere [6 - 81.
2 Systems Engineering
Systems engineering in the very broad sense is an approach,
a methodology or a theory to systematically and efficiently
organize problem-solving processes. Systems engineering
supports all decision finding aspects for the development,
design, planning, optimization, use, evaluation, organiza-
tion, and management of man-made systems [9, 101.
Systems engineering is especially useful for dealing with
large and complex systems, if many disciplines have to be
integrated, if different solutions can possibly be reached,
and if the route to an acceptable solution is not yet clearly
visible [ l 1 , 121.
The overall concept is sketched in Fig. 1. The problem-solv-
ing process comprises all activities that help us to meet a
new challenge, to fulfil a task or to resolve a problem. Goal
is a new solution. But, in this context new does not signify
that it always has to be entirely new in the sense of an inno-
vation. In the vast majority of cases it is sufficient to com-
bine known knowledge, to extent the range of know-how
application or simply to transfer state-of-the-art technol-
ogy.
Take the example of a chemical production process given in
Fig. 2. Input and output flows are material, energy, infor-
mation, money etc. The ones you have to consider depend
on the problem you have to tackle and on the questions you
attempt to answer. There is no rule or definition on how to
select the system boundary, on which or on how many ex-
ternal connections must be included. There is always a sub-
stantial degree of freedom. The system environment is ev-
erything around our system to be analysed. You can consid-
er parts of the environment as constraints. System interac-
tion with the environment might occur also via information
flow over the system boundary. The selection of an appro-
priate system boundary for the desired analysis is probably
the most important success factor.
Internally, a system consists of subsystems or system ele-
ments (s. Fig. 3), which are defined by the same properties
problem,
task, problem solving process solution
challenge
f \
input-output problem solving formalism
environment abstraction levels
system elements system life cycle
Figure 1. Definitioi of systems engineering.

According to Daenzer [I31 and Buchel [I41 two conceptual

material
energy/exergy
information
money
etc.
,/’ environment

Chemical Production
, I material 1

1
Process outputs
key ideas of the systems engineering philosophy are (i) the (or any part thereof)
system concept, which provides instruments to define and
to structure “objects” and their elements, and (ii) the prob- t
lem-solving strategy with certain helpful formalisms to sup- external constraints: market, product chain, legislation,
port the development of problem solutions. These two most (disturbances) site, licenses, society etc.
general parts of the systems engineering concept are not re- Figure 2. A chemical process in view of the systems concept.
lated to specific applications - in the words of Asbjornsen
[t 51 they are “technology free”. They mainly cover proce-
dures, strategies and methods.
internal element = subsystem system boundary

2. I System Approach \
environment i
I
input r3 output
A system is defined by the system boundary, the internal output
structure (elements), the input and output connections and
the environment. Systems provide a definite function, they input
serve a purpose. In general class of man-made, “artificial”
systems one can distinguish organization and management
systems, political and social systems, economic and trade output
systems, language and symbol systems, technical systems
(transportation, communication, production etc.) and
many more. Figure 3. The system’s internal structure in a black-box represenfation.
156
as the overall system: boundaries, inputs, outputs, environ-
ment. Again, the depth of the recursion system -+ subsystem
--t subsubsystem and so on (decomposition) is problem-spe-
cific. The internal system elements are linked and co-oper-
ate to provide the function and the properties of the total
system - a system always serves a purpose. The state and
the behavior of system components are described by attri-
butes.
Take the more specific example of Fig. 4. The system is a
production site in the chemical industry. On site there are
several, often very many individual production facilities -
in other words “production systems”. They are connected
by material streams, because products from one facility
might be intermediates in the entire product chain and thus
raw materials for a next plant. The facilities share one com-
mon energy supply system. Steam on various levels and
electricity are generated in the central heat and power sta-
tion. Usually, additional electricity is bought from public
power suppliers. The import of from e.g. a public in-
cinerating plant is still the exception, but examples are
available. On site there are generally also several cooling
water and refrigerant systems.
2.2 Problem-Solving Strategy
For solving practical problems it is very useful to have a
“system”-atic formalism or procedure, which leads from
the task-definition over several iterative or successive steps
to the final decision [13, 16, 171. Fig. 5 is such a simplified
model. A rigorous problem or situation analysis is required
to identify and define the best objectives and to formulate
the tasks. The evaluation criteria have to be stated here, as
well. This first step is a very crucial one, because here we
must not refrain from asking, whether we are really tackling
the right problem. Further below an example is given where
this analysis step led to a change of the original task. Once
the objectives have been set clearly, the search for (resp. the
development of) solutions can be triggered. It consists of it-
erative steps between the synthesis of ideas, which increase
the number of alternative problem solutions, and subse-
0 emissions 0
-iIlmFek
heat and power st.
I resources constitutes also a decisive effort [lo]. It is men-
I
’ I l l L
Ill I i
‘public’
steam
1
c
) 1I 1I
I_
I
I
I
I 3 Systems Engineering Applied to Chemical Process
-
I
I Energy Optimization
I cooling water,
cooling water
inlet ~- I condensates,
- J
Figure 4. A production site comprising several production facilities and
the energy supply systems.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 19 (1996) 154-162
KICK-OFF
1-7
problem analysis I finding the
I
Y I c
r I ------------
$ 1
I I-/
synthesis of solutions I search for
solutions
_____---___-
selection of
solutions
I
I
L
+
d e c i s i o n - RESULT
Figure 5. A problem-solving formalism [ 5 ]
Went analyses, which lead to the early rejection of not ac-
ceptable options and thus to a reduction of the number Of
solutions. Finally, a solution has to be selected. But before
a decision can be made, the solutions, which have been gen-
erated, have to be evaluated according to the criteria de-
fined before.
Other important key elements of the problem-solving strate-
gy (s. Fig. 1) namely (i) the life cycle model and (ii) the prin-
ciple to switch between different levels of abstraction have
also been described extensively in the literature and will not
be touched upon here in more detail.
But be careful: The systems engineering concept stand-
alone is not sufficient. In order to arrive at nearly optimum
problem solutions it is not enough to define the system, to
develop subsystems, to include the constraints from the en-
vironment, etc. Other success factors are domain-specific
know-how and tools, which have then to be used to analyse
the given situation and to develop solutions. Systems engi-
neering only provides the backbone or the framework. One
is free to choose appropriate design tools, analysis methods
and representation techniques from the huge pool of avail-
able aids. Examples are mass and energy balances, exergy
analysis, pinch technology, sankey diagrams, steady-state
and dynamic process simulation, mathematical optimiza-
tion techniques, time-event charts and so on.
The management of systems engineering functions to inte-
site boundary
grate and organize all required project activities and
electricity from
tioned here for the sake of completeness but will not be
treated in this paper. Literature on project management is
public power st. abundant.
vapor outlet 3.1 Controlled and Manipulated Variables
Now, let us throw the bridge to chemical process energy op-
timization. What means process optimization? The answer
is “making money”, since the ultimate control loop works
Chem. Eng. Technol. 19 (1 996) 154 - 162
with economic data. The current profit situation of the in-
vestigated system has to be adjusted to meet the defined fi-
nancial and strategic goals, and the tool to d o so is process
optimization. In terms of cybernetics, Fig. 6 puts it in a
quite simple control loop. The economic success of a pro-
duction is measured. The achieved result is compared
against the setpoint and weighed against some overall stra-
tegic goals. In case of divergencies the “profit controller”
named process optimization takes corrective action, and the
so-called manipulated variables are set to altered “values”.
Examples for manipulatable variables in a chemical process
are process operation, equipment, scheduling, production
technology or even administration and organization. How-
ever, process economy is only one, even though the most
important controlled variable. Fig. 6 includes a list of other
process objectives or subgoals, which have to be met as
well, in order to reach the top goal of profitability. These
subgoals for process optimization are usually interlinked in
a complex way and include energy consumption, safety,
availability, maintenance etc. In terms of process analysis
the subgoals represent also the viewpoints under which pro-
duction facilities are usually been examined.
Among the effects which have to be considered as con-
straints or, sometimes equivalently, as disturbances in in-
dustrial projects are market conditions, legislative regula-
tions, patents, licences, production site constraints and oth-
ers (s. Fig. 2).
Clearly, we are dealing with a constrained multi-objective
optimization problem. And given the situation of our pro-
cess industries in the western hemisphere, energy optimiza-
tion is among the most important goals. However, stand-
alone energy optimization is seldom the case. It always goes
hand in hand with other goals as an essential part of overall
systems optimization. It must also be kept in mind, that
most goals (controlled variables) can be affected by most
system elements (manipulated variables). It is sort of an
“everything depends on everything” situation. And it is ex-
actly here, where the formal systems engineering
approaches offer most benefits.
3.2 Levels of Energy Optimization
The uppermost objective is to reduce the production costs
by reducing the consumption of fuels, electricity, cooling
water, raw materials and other valuable input streams. The
strategies to achieve a better overall energetic performance
cover a wide range of aspects. We intend to distinguish be-
tween the categories and optimization strategies given in
Tab. 1:
1 ) Optimizing the operation of a given process,
2) installing better process equipment,
3) changing the process (structure),
4) optimizing process clusters, and
5) developing new, more favorable products or production
technologies.
157
feedback
economic I ’ constraints / disturbances
1
I
result
profit
flexibility
availability
maintenance
etc. etc.
Figure 6. The control loop for optimizing chemical processes.
For each of the first four categories, we will present ex-
amples in the sections below and put them in the context of
systems engineering. Hornke and Lueke [I 81 give examples
in the fifth category. We cannot, of course, touch all rele-
vant aspects, but we will highlight some very important
ones.
The overall example we shall consider is part of a per-
formed total site analysis (s. Fig. 4). One main objective
Table 1. Categories or levels of chemical process (energy) optimization.
Engineering strategies and objects (examples)
Plant operation specify optimal controller setpoints, install op-
timal feedback control strategies, limit cooling
water flow, proper control of air coolers, meet
product specifications exactly, use preventive
maintenance plan, minimize material handling
(process logistic)
Plant equipment install up-to-date equipment (compact heat ex-
changers, structured column packings etc.),
reduce thermal and hydraulic losses, use
steam-driven pumps, check lighting design,
consider air coolers vs. IiquidAiquid ex-
changers, install adequately sized pumps,
check insulations
Process (structure) favor continuous over batch operation, devel-
op heat integration schemes (e.g. internal heat
exchanger network, heat pumps, vapor recom-
pression, condensate recovery), purge detri-
mental trace components (e.g. as side
streams), substitute process technology (e.g.
membrane or extractive separation vs. distilla-
tion, mechanical instead of thermal drying
units), modify reaction or separation sequence
(e.g. pressure shift, prefractionators)
Process cluster attempt total site heat integration, optimize
heat and power cogeneration (condensing tur-
bine, gas turbine), optimize product chain
(raw material + intermediates + final prod-
ucts) and not individual processes, minimize
transportabilities optimize outside-battery-
limits handling (product logistics)
Product search for new reaction paths or new produc-
tion technologies
Company optimize product portfolio, optimize number
of production sites, consider make-or-buy op-
tions
158
was the reduction of cooling water usage. Total site analys-
es to improve the energetic situation of a n entire production
cluster including the existing infrastructure are very com-
plex, challenging and also in terms of human relations diffi-
cult tasks. One has to deal with many different production
processes and to involve many people, partly confronting
them with unpleasant facts. Nowadays, there are even dif-
ferent companies located at one site. The product mix is
generally heterogeneous and spans from small biological
and pharmaceutical batch products over fine and speciality
chemicals up to bulk chemicals in huge continuously operat-
ed plants. Hence, process requirements and the process
owners’ goals are naturally divergent. These objectives with
respect to the energy supply systems have to be matched:
cheap steam vs. substantial steam generation reserves,
cheap electric power vs. process steam fed in the mains are
only two examples for very conflicting objectives. The main
challenge is to bridge the gap between the overall goal and
the many, often small problem solutions and process im-
provements. Simply the size of this task requires - more
than in other cases - a systematic analysis approach.
3.3 Optimizing Plant Operation
Plant operation, i.e. processing of material, can mainly be
optimized by meeting exactly the required product specifi-
cations, even under occasional slight process disturbances.
If this objective can be realized by modern control tech-
niques, there is no need to remain cautiously on the safe side
of and beyond desired specifications in order to always
guarantee product quality. Adequate control systems also
serve to minimize warm stand-by periods, to reduce the du-
ration of start-up and turn-down times or to achieve time-
optimum batch processing cycles.
It is very likely, that during the life cycle of the product pro-
duction requirements and process operation deviate to an
appreciable extent from the original design specifications.
Ongoing evaluations and correct improvements may offset
this handicap. Not ignoring this fact and paying proper at-
tention is thus a main source for plant operation optimiza-
tion.
A first example is a conventional batch distillation. For our
purpose it is sufficient (note the intended vagueness of the
formulation) to distinguish four elements of the distillation
material,, material,
auxiliary
information,, information,
energy,
7 20
logistic
Figure 7. A systems analysis of a batch distillation arrangement.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 19 (1996) 154- 162
system: (i) the column incl. internals, (ii) the auxiliary
equipment like pumps, vessels and heat-exchangers, (iii) the
control and monitoring devices and (iv) column logistics.
Fig. 7 gives the black box representation including input
and output streams, where exergy is also considered, be-
cause a distillation column basically “consumes tempera-
ture” and not energy: Neglecting sensible heat effects, the
energy supplied to the column as a condensing steam at a
high temperature level is withdrawn at a lower temperature
using e.g. cooling water or air coolers.
The batch distillation to be considered is designed to sepa-
rate a light boiling fraction from the higher boiling main
product. The analysis of the control subsystem revealed that
the distillation, which is a relatively small part of a larger
production facility, is operated manually. In order to guar-
antee the distillate purity the reflux ratio is adjusted manu-
ally after inspection of temperature readings in the column
and in the top vapor line. Change of the reflux occurs in
several discrete steps (bold dashed curve in Fig. 8). This
type of hands-on operation always offers a considerable po-
tential for improvement, because the operator necessarily
has to remain on the “safe side” in specifying the value of
the manipulated variable (reflux ratio). As a rule, it is sel-
dom optimal to control an inherently non-steady, dynamic
process by adjusting variables in a few discrete steps.
The reflux/time profile after modification of the column
control structure is drawn as a bold line in Fig. 8: The re-
flux ratio is now adjusted continuously according to tem-
perature measurement in the upper column packing. In this
way the desired distillate composition is maintained
throughout the distillation process. As shown, the installed
control strategy yields distillation time, steam and cooling
water savings of more than 30To.
Consider, how by using the strict logic of systems engineer-
ing we first went down from the system “total site” to the
subsystem “individual production facility”, thereby exam-
ining the economic control loop (s. Fig. 6). We reached the
further subsystem “distillation” and mainly analysed its ele-
ment “control system”.
time savings,
.t---):
140
120
1W
80
60
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ’20 22 24 26‘28
Distillation time / h
Figure 8. Manual vs. automatic feedback control to optimize batch dis-
tillation time.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 19 (1996) 154- 162
3.4 Revamping Process Equipment
The continuous progress in apparatus design and materials
science contributes significantly to minimize energy con-
sumption. Hence, plant revamps to install improved, state-
of-the-art pieces of equipment in production processes
might offer a high potential for energy optimization as well.
Take only the following two obvious possibilities: High per-
formance plate heat exchangers allow to decrease the tem-
perature difference between two process streams for a re-
quired heat transfer duty. Modern structured column pack-
ings increase the number of theoretical separation stages per
column height, and reduce the energy consumption of the
column by lowering the required reflux ratio and the pres-
sure drop.
The next example belongs to this class of process im-
provements and involves the overhead system of a continu-
ously operated distillation column, which needed approxi-
mately 750 m3/h cooling water. The sketch on the upper
left side of Fig. 9 reveals that the shell side of the heat-ex-
changer was partly flooded with condensed distillate in or-
der to cool it down to the desired product temperature. Cor-
rosive attacks occurred in the region of the liquid/vapor in-
terphase (Should we be able to bridge the gap between cor-
rosion and energy optimization?).
By separating the two functions “phase change by conden-
sation” and “distillate cooling” and thus removing the liq-
uid/vapor interphase from the apparatus the problem could
be solved. What else happened? The heat transfer coeffi-
cient for the cooling task was low because the condensate on
the shell side was a liquid almost at rest. The required heat
exchange was made possible by a large cooling water
stream, whose inlet and outlet temperatures differed by on-
ly three degrees. This increased the temperature difference
between the shell and the tube side, and the heat duty could
be achieved with the installed exchange area.
After inspection the main solution was the addition of a
small plate heat exchanger to separately cool the distillate,
see right-down hand side of Fig. 9. Additionally, one shell
cover (bonnet) was exchanged to achieve two-pass flow for
higher cooling water velocities and improved heat transfer
Figure 9. Column overhead condensation system for subcooling a dis-
tillate.
159
rates. The advantages are manifold: First, about 500 m3/h
cooling water are saved. Second, distillate subcooling can
be manipulated by a control loop around the additional
heat exchanger. And third, the reboiler steam demand of
the distillation decreases (!), because the large reflux stream
is no longer subcooled but merely at condensation tempera-
ture.
This is a marvellous example for how different properties of
a system may interact intensely and how one intended im-
provement may lead to substantially more benefits.
3.5 Changing the Process Structure
Changing the process structure is of course a major and ex-
pensive effort, which has to lead to substantial plant im-
provements in terms of efficiency to be economically justi-
fied. A frequent example is the addition of heat recovery
means, with many examples being published. Cases reach
from the simple installation of an additional heat exchanger
to sophisticated heat-pumping schemes. For instance, the
heat exchanger network can be modified to approach the
targets for minimum energy throughput. Pinch technology
is a key tool for this purpose and for unvealing the hidden
potential [ 191. Many examples for improving the energy ef-
ficiency by modified process designs can be found in the lit-
erature [ 18, 20 - 241.
On this level of process optimization we can also change the
process structure by modifying recycles: Installing small
side columns in recycle streams to purge components, which
are detrimental to the catalyst in the reactor, leads to less
by-product formation or higher yields and consequently to
lower product purification costs. Other examples are the
substitution of parts of the process technology like replac-
ing distillative separations by membrane or extractive sepa-
rations, like increasing the number of evaporation effects or
like switching from thermal to mechanical drying units.
The next example is part of a pharmaceutical production in-
volving methanol and other organic solvents, which are re-
covered from the main component water by batch distilla-
tion (left in Fig. 10). The solvents are withdrawn as one
overhead product, water remains in the bottom vessel and
is discarded via the on-site biological wastewater treatment
plant. Due to an increase of the production rate at the time
of the total site study one was about to design and install a
second batch column arrangement.
Stepping back from the original task “install a second col-
umn” to the more general objective formulation “separate
the solvent from the rest” shed a different light upon the
problem and led to a modified distillation system (right-
hand side of Fig. 10). The solvent recovery now occurs con-
tinuously. Since we are basically dealing with a stripping
unit only two major pieces of equipment were added to the
installation (drawn shaded): A small rectifying section to
keep water out of the organic distillate and a plate heat-ex-
changer for feed preheating.
1 60
Figure 10. Changing from batch to continuous distillation operation.
There are several advantages of the continuous process over
the batchwise: Both capacity and energy efficiency (use of
steam and cooling water) are increased. Process control be-
comes easier, because we are now operating a steady-state
and not a dynamic production (sub)system. Furthermore,
the wastewater purity can be controlled via a constant tem-
perature in the stripping section of the column acting on the
steam supply. And last but not least because of steady-state
operation process simulations to optimize the distillation in
case of production changes are also made easier.
Here we used the systems engineering principle to switch be-
tween different abstraction (or representation) levels [6].
We went from the initial level, i.e. the distillation column,
to the abstraction level above, i.e. the separation task.
Thus, we were able to generate a problem solution yet un-
considered. The essential question, which can be answered
by switching between different stages of abstraction, is:
“Are you tackling the right problem?”. It is equivalent to
state, that once you get stuck in details, it is always a good
idea to skip back to higher abstraction levels.
Looking systematically after another methanol/water distil-
lation proved also to be very rewarding. The continuous dis-
tillation is illustrated in Fig. 11 [20]. It is operated at elevat-
ed pressure in order to permit use of the latent heat of the
overhead vapors in the reboilers of other columns. The bot-
tom product is water, but due to fouling problems the col-
umn is heated with live steam. Before the modifications it
received about 40 t/h high-pressure steam directly from the
mains (bold dashed line in Fig. 11). Since, first of all, it
should always be attempted to heat-integrated processes as
locally restricted as possible, i.e. not across larger distances
or over otherwise independent process sections, it was de-
cided to flash the bottom product to generate steam at
2 bar. This steam is compressed by steam ejectors driven by
HP-steam and used in the same column. A steam ejector
station comprising three differently sized ones is installed to
cover the entire range of column feed flow variation. The
maximum steam savings amount to 6.4 t / h , which give rise
Chem. Eng. Technol. 19 (1996) 154-162
methanol,
€22
M
methanol
HP-steam
0
Figure 11. Generation of steam by flashing a hot liquid column prod-
uct reduces the amount of steam required from the mains [17].
to a payback time of 2.2 years - a highly profitable process
improvement, because steam ejectors are cheap pieces of
equipment. Of course, the enthalpy of the hot liquid efflu-
ent (120°C) of the bottoms flash drum is also used else-
where in the process.
Note that the essential tool for developing the above de-
scribed solution is a meticulous mass and energy balance
around the distillation system, which immediately reveal,
that the energy content of the bottom product is very high
and available ( = exergy) on a fairly valuable temperature
level around 150°C. Note also that, of course, this systems
analysis is not yet the decisive step. You then need an inge-
nious engineer, a checklist or an equivalent synthesis
“tool”, which helps to stimulate the idea of flashing the bot-
tom product.
3.6 The Process Cluster
In the preceeding paragraphs we followed the decomposi-
tion principle. We began with a production site overview
and broke it down to individual pieces of equipment. Now
it is time to add up the achieved cooling water savings at the
total site system level. Fig. 4 is a rough sketch of the site we
considered before and Fig. 12 gives a ranked list of all cool-
ing water consumers. Accordingly, the situation is the fol-
lowing: There are a few large consumers, and it is of course
justified to tackle these production systems first in order to
check, if there is a larger potential for savings. However,
the many small heat exchangers also use a lot of cooling wa-
ter. Such ranked lists of energy consumers are always a very
effective means to structure the system analysis and to select
the important production facilities in terms of potential sav-
ings.
Overall results of the cooling water system analysis relative
to the actual situation are threefold: First, it has to be
checked whether only the minimum number of cooling tow-
ers is operated and if unnecessary valves and other throt-
tling devices are omitted from the cooling water distribution
Chem. Eng. Technol. 19 (1996) 154- 162
Figure 12. Diagram of cooling water users on site.
system. This can already induce some electric power savings
for cooling water pumps and for fans in the cooling towers.
Second, the cooling water system can be alleviated by mini-
mizing the water flow through maximizing the temperature
difference between cold cooling water inlet and warm outlet
(e.g. 10 K) at the process heat-exchangers. These flow sav-
ings, which d o not affect the processes’ energy throughputs
but only the cooling water circulation rate, might already
require certain modifications in production facilities. Here
again, we save on (expensive external) electricity (the fact
that electricity is consumed for the cooling water system is
reflected in Fig. 4 by the arrow going from the power line
to the cooling water system). In order to induce such savings
it is in the simplest cases sufficient to install a temperature
control means or to change the heat exchanger arrange-
ment, as shown before in one of our examples. Third, in
other cases there is a potential for energy consumption re-
duction in the individual production facilities, which opens
up through process modifications (cf. section 3.5).
In our case the largest portion of the savings in terms of
cooling water circulation is attributed to an increased tem-
perature difference between the cooling water stream enter-
ing and leaving the heat exchangers. Temperature measure-
ments and temperature feedback controllers can help to pre-
vent excessive cooling water use. It is also obvious that im-
mediate cost reductions in the cooling water system d o only
affect the block of variable costs, like energy and parts of
the maintenance costs. The block of fixed costs, which
amounts to roughly 60% (personnel, capital etc.) remains
unchanged in the short term.
4 Resumee
Continuous energy optimization of production facilities re-
mains a long-term objective to ensure both competitive
products and the efficient use of natural resources.
As discussed in this paper, the main benefit of applying the
systems engineering approach is not to guarantee optimum
problem solutions, but to guide systematically through the
problem-solving stages. Systems engineering’s most impor-
161
tant contribution is the help to structure the objects, which
are to be optimized, to select among the various optimiza-
tion criteria and to focus on all issue-relevant aspects. Sys-
tems engineering stresses the fundamental distinction be-
tween objects (systems), problem solving formalisms (e.g.
definition, synthesis and selection of solutions), synthesis
tools and project management. It permits critical and unre-
stricted analysis of existing systems and leaves enough space
for innovative thoughts. Systems engineering helps to en-
sure acting effectively (Do we the right things?) and effi-
ciently (Do we them properly?). Furthermore, the interac-
tion between various know-how domains is implicitly en-
couraged and promoted.
Maybe we can state the advantages of the systems engineer-
ing concept in one single illustrative phrase: “If you are ab-
solutely sure, that you are always tackling the right problem
at the right time and that you are assuming the really deci-
sive viewpoint, you dont’t need systems engineering
thoughts”.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express many thanks to the fol-
lowing colleagues in our process engineering group for con-
tributing to this presentation: J. Bartels, R . S . Krause and
K. Krejci.
Received: October 10, 1995 [CET 7801
References
[ l ] Benson, R.S., Ponton, J. W., Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., PartA 71
(1993) pp. 160- 168.
[2] Niwa, T., Chem. Eng. (1993) No. 6, pp. 102- 108.
[3] Benson, R.S., Comput. Chem. Eng. 13 (1989) Nos. 11/12,
pp. 1193-1198.
[4] Bruns, M., Systemtechnik - Methoden zur interdisziplinaren
Systementwicklung, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1991.
[5] Cameron, I.T., Douglas, P. L., Lee, P. L., Chem. Eng. Educ. 28
(1994) NO. 3, pp. 210-213.
[6] BlaB, E., Ger. Chem. Eng. 9 (1986) pp. 127-135.
[7] Blanchard, B.S., Fabrycky, W. J., Systems Engineering and
Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1981.
[8] BlaB, E., Die Entwicklung verfahrenstechnischer Prozesse, Salle
und Sauerlander, Frankfurt 1989.
[9] Chestnut, H., Systems Engineering Tools, John Wiley & Sons,
New York 1965.
[lo] Johnson, R.A., Kast, F.E., Rosenzweig, J.E., The Theory and
Management of Systems, McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Ltd., Tokyo
1973.
[ I l l Haberfellner, R., ZfO 7 (1973) pp. 373-386.
[12] Guidat de Queiroz, C., Enfropie29 (1993) No. 180, pp. 62-65.
[13] Daenzer, W.F., Systems Engineering, 2nd ed., P . Hanstein Ver-
lag, Koln 1978.
[14] Buchel, A., Industrielle Organisation 38 (1969) No. 9,
pp. 373 - 385.
[15] Asbjornsen, O.A., Comput. Chem. Eng. 13 (1989), Nos. 11/12,
pp. 1309- 1315.
162
[16] Umeda, T., Lat. A m . J. Chem. Eng. Appl. Chem. 12 (1982)
pp. 77-88.
[17] Rippin, D.W.T., Chem. Eng. (1969) Nos. 7/8, pp. 284-288 and
p. 305.
[18] Hornke, J., Lueke, J., Energiewirt. Tagesfragen 45(1995)No. 3,
pp. 166-170.
[I91 Linnhoff, B., et al., A User Guide on Process Integration for the
Efficient Use of Energy, Inst. Chem. Engineers, Rugby 1982.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 19 (1996) 154-162
[20] Arnold, D., Bartmann, L., Chem.-Zng.-Tech. 53 (1981) No. 7,
pp. 497 - 507.
[21] Mix, T. W., et al., AZChE Symp. Ser. 76 (1980) No. 192,
pp. 15-23.
[22] Schulze, J., Chem. Znd. 31 (1979) No. 6, pp. 407-411.
[23] Schliiter, L . , Schmidt, R., Chem.-Zng.-Tech. 54 (1982) No. 2,
pp. 143-153.
[24] Billet, R., Energieeinsparung bei thermischen Stofftrennverfah-
ren, Hiithig Verlag, Heidelberg 1983.