Process Integration Gothenburg – 20 Years Later

March 2013

Historical Overview of Early Development Bodo Linnhoff

formerly ICI, UMIST, Linnhoff March

It all started in the 1970s........

Looking back 40 years......

1970s

• Computers – only for number crunching

• No Word Processors – Typewriters !!

Looking back – 1970s

Use of Targets in Industry

Industry – 1970s

Example BP:

Setting Targets was Standard Practice

Using

‘Boston Learning Curves’

Boston Experience Curves (ref wikipedia)

eg, expect 20% improvement when doubling production

Industry – 1970s

Boston Learning Curves:

• Based on past performance

• No concept of ‘Best Possible’

Looking back – 1970s

Process Design in Industry

Process Design

How was it done in the 1970s?

Example ICI

Corporate Laboratory

Simulation Tools

Process Design in the late 1970s *)

Engineers Used Simulation Tools

*) imagine punched cards in the early 1970s

A Trial - and - Error Loop ?

Simulati

Industry – 1970s

Process Design:

• Trial - and - Error !!

• Not much by way of ‘Method’

The Idea of

Process Synthesis

Invention of Flowsheet

Process Flowsheet & Simulation Input Data

Processing Task

Simulation

Ultimate Goal: we only need one Simulation

Finish

University Research – 1970s

Process Synthesis • Branch-and-Bound, Monte Carlo • LP, NLP, etc

• Artificial Intelligence (IBM ‘Deep Thought’...)

University Research – 1970s

Process Synthesis Research:

Computers could play the game......

ie design simple flowsheets

......but they couldn’t hope to win!

Reaction from Industry – 1970s

What’s more important?

Clever Algorithm?

Or Better Flowsheet?

Response from Researchers

Give us a chance!

....and a faster computer?

Reference: IBM and Computers for Chess

Special Interest

Heat Exchanger Networks

or

HEN Design

HEN Design

Library of standard problems

Name of the game:

My (big) computer found a better solution

than your (big) computer !!

A Different Approach

Ponton and Donalson, 1974

• HEN Design • Match hottest cold stream with hottest

hot stream, etc • ....same again, etc

Ponton and Donaldson (1974)

A simple rule that’s worth knowing

Easy to see how an engineer

would use this

It Just Fits In

Simulation

Assess

Like it?

Finish

Linnhoff & Flower, AIChE Journal (1978)

• Targets before Design

• Zero Pinch *) Heatflow

• Use of Driving Forces

• Interactive Approach

*) was not called ‘Pinch’ yet

Pinch Technology – 1978

Grid DiagramGrid Diagram

Grid Diagram - helped with the interaction

Pinch Technology – 1978

All ‘standard’ literature problems:

(with a hand calculator)

Next: Try it out in Industry

It had seemed too easy......

Reality:

Control, Safety, Corrosion, Materials of Construction,

Design Types, Fouling, Foundations, Piping, Retrofit .....

??

Six Months Later

ICI Petrochemicals

HEN Design (Student) Project

(ref David Boland)

Real Project: Improvement!!!

Key Point

Simulation

Assess

Like it?

Finish

next step

ICI Corporate Laboratory:

IPDG

INTEGRATED PROCESS DESIGN GROUP

had a ‘Process Synthesis’ project

ICI – 1978 to 1982

Process Synthesis Team:

I Wardle, D Mason, J Turner, E Hindmarsh, H Dunford, W Townsend, R Smith

• R&D (eg Pinch Design Method, Appropriate Placement)

• More Publications

• Projects

• Training Course Development

• etc

Links with Academic Researchers

ICI invited:

Ed Hohmann, Rudi Motard, Art Westerberg,

George Stephanopoulos, Jim Douglas, Manfred

Morari, Jeff Siirola, Jack Ponton,

and others

Acknowledgement Ray Day

Ray Day was the boss everybody wants: Vision and Support

Ray Day’s programme

• Training Course with Engineers from Six Divisions

• Six Projects – All Successful

• Second Training Course, Based on Projects

• Further Projects

• Two Years Later:

Projects

The Reality of Project Work

• Data uncertain

• Operating cases uncertain

• Comfort zones (eg technologies)

• Utilities (eg step change costs)

• Infrastructure (tankage, piping, foundations, shared systems)

• etc

Always a Key Point

Simulation

Assess

Like it?

Finish

A Pattern was Emerging

• Two or three key ideas

• 80% of design unchanged

• Practical constraints respected

• Energy cost savings 20% and more

The Biggest Surprise

• Capital energy costs reduced

• Cheaper to build & cheaper to run

• Contradicted the assumption of trade-off

ICI in 1982 – The Good News

It Works!!

ICI in 1982 – The Bad News

Therefore:

Let‘s stop publishing

The World in 1982........

ICI: it works (but we stop telling)

A famous Professor: You are costing us 10 years!

Process Design people: who builds the plant?

Others: Keep going!

......friends and foes

Resistance to Innovation: A Case Study

y: One Third of Ships Lost Astronomy or Clock Makers? Solution Found 30 Years Resistance • Partiality • Sabotage

UMIST – 1982 onwards

• Research and Software

• Training Courses • Links to industry: Research Consortium

• Links to projects: Linnhoff March

• Publications (refereed and ‘glossy‘)

UMIST today: wait for Robin Smith

Research Consortium (1983) First Six:

• Shell • Exxon • BP • BASF • Norsk Hydro • Union Carbide First Consortium of its Kind?

by the way.......BP (1982)

BP had replaced Boston Experience Curves

with .....

.....with sensational results:

Potential found in mature processes

by the way.......BASF (1983)

BASF Leverkusen: no third power station

Energy key to debottlenecking of site

100 processes – 20% reduction

Published seven years later

Research – 1983 to 1990s

• HEN Capital Cost • Heat & Power – Multiple Utilities • Distillation – Process Onion • Retrofit Targets • Shaft Work targets (low T) • Constraints • Control • Total site • Water • etc

Terminology – 1983 to 1990s

• HEN Design

• Heat Integration

• Heat & Power Integration

•Process Integration

Testimonials – Early 1980s and on

• Union Carbide (1983) • Shell (1984) • Procter & Gamble (1985) • BP (1987) • Exxon (1989) • BASF (1990) • Mitsubishi (1992) • etc.

Government Agencies, Legislation – 1990s

• Gothenburg 1992 • Washington 1994 (Hazel O‘Leary) • Amoco – EPA – LM Project 1994 (USA) • IEA Implementing Agreement • UBA (Germany) • MITI (Japan) • Wärmenutzungsverordnung (Germany) • etc.

1990s to 2013

I now refer to other people

Many people here today have been here in 1992 also?

Reflection: we are 40 years on, really

But allow me a question:

If we award 100% for ‘on target‘ Process Design

each and every time in industry....

....then, where are we?

Good bye

Thank you for your attention

See you in 2034 ?

Bodo Linnhoff Ticino 2013