Bodo Linnhoff

8/10/2019 Bodo Linnhoff

1/53

Process Integration Gothenburg 20 Years Later

March 2013

Historical Overview of Early Development

Bodo Linnhoff

formerly ICI, UMIST, Linnhoff March


2/53

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

Looking back 40 years......

1970s

Computers only for number crunching

No Word Processors Typewriters !!


3/53

Looking back 1970s

Use of Targets in Industry


4/53

Industry 1970s

Example BP:

Setting Targets was Standard Practice

Using

Boston Learning Curves


5/53

Boston Experience Curves (ref wikipedia)

eg, expect 20% improvement when doubling production


6/53

Industry 1970s

Boston Learning Curves:

Based on past performance

No concept of Best Possible


7/53

Looking back 1970s

Process Design in Industry


8/53

Process Design

How was it done in the 1970s?


9/53

Example ICI

Corporate Laboratory

Simulation Tools


10/53

Process Design in the late1970s *)

Engineers Used Simulation Tools

*) imagine punched cards in the early 1970s


11/53

A Trial - and - Error Loop ?

S

im

u

l

a

t


12/53

Industry 1970s

Process Design:

Trial - and - Error !!

Not much by way of Method


13/53

The Idea of

Process Synthesis


14/53

Invention of Flowsheet

Process Flowsheet &Simulation Input Data

Processing Task

Simulation

Ultimate Goal: we only need one Simulation

Finish


15/53

University Research 1970s

Process Synthesis

Branch-and-Bound, Monte Carlo

LP, NLP, etc

Artificial Intelligence (IBM Deep Thought...)


16/53

University Research 1970s

Process Synthesis Research:

Computers could play the game......

ie design simple flowsheets

......but they couldnt hope to win!


17/53

Reaction from Industry 1970s

Whats more important?

Clever Algorithm?

Or Better Flowsheet?


18/53

Response from Researchers

Give us a chance!

....and a faster computer?

Reference: IBM and Computers for Chess


19/53

Special Interest

Heat Exchanger Networks

or

HEN Design


20/53

HEN Design

Library of standard problems

Name of the game:

My (big) computer found a better solution

than your (big) computer !!


21/53

A Different Approach

Ponton and Donalson, 1974

HEN Design

Match hottest cold stream with hottest

hot stream, etc

....same again, etc


22/53

Ponton and Donaldson (1974)

A simple rule thats worth knowing

Easy to see how an engineer

would use this


23/53

It Just Fits In

Simulation

Assess

Like it?

Finish


24/53

Linnhoff & Flower, AIChE Journal (1978)

Targets before Design

Zero Pinch *) Heatflow

Use of Driving Forces

Interactive Approach

*) was not called Pinch yet


25/53

Pinch Technology 1978

Grid DiagramGrid Diagram

Grid Diagram - helped with the interaction


26/53

Pinch Technology 1978

All standard literature problems:

(with a hand calculator)


27/53

Next: Try it out in Industry

It had seemed too easy......

Reality:

Control, Safety, Corrosion, Materials of Construction,

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

??


28/53

Six Months Later

ICI Petrochemicals

HEN Design (Student) Project

(ref David Boland)

Real Project: Improvement!!!


29/53

Key Point

Simulation

Assess

Like it?

Finish


30/53

next step

ICI Corporate Laboratory:

IPDG

INTEGRATED PROCESS DESIGN GROUP

had a Process Synthesis project


31/53

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


32/53

Links with Academic Researchers

ICI invited:

Ed Hohmann, Rudi Motard, Art Westerberg,

George Stephanopoulos, Jim Douglas, Manfred

Morari, Jeff Siirola, Jack Ponton,

and others


33/53

Acknowledgement Ray Day

Ray Day was the boss everybody wants: Vision and Support


34/53

Ray Days programme

Training Course with Engineers from Six Divisions

Six Projects All Successful

Second Training Course, Based on Projects

Further Projects

Two Years Later:


35/53

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


36/53

Always a Key Point

Simulation

Assess

Like it?

Finish


37/53

A Pattern was Emerging

Two or three key ideas

80% of design unchanged

Practical constraints respected

Energy cost savings 20% and more


38/53

The Biggest Surprise

Capital energy costs reduced

Cheaper to build & cheaper to run

Contradicted the assumption of trade-off


39/53

ICI in 1982 The Good News

It Works!!


40/53

ICI in 1982 The Bad News

Therefore:

Lets stop publishing


41/53

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


42/53

Resistance to Innovation: A Case Study

y:

One Third of Ships Lost

Astronomy or Clock

Makers?

Solution Found

30 Years Resistance

Partiality

Sabotage


43/53

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


44/53

Research Consortium (1983) First Six:

Shell

Exxon

BP

BASF

Norsk Hydro

Union Carbide

First Consortium of its Kind?


45/53

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

BPhad replaced Boston Experience Curves

with .....

.....with sensational results:

Potential found in mature processes


46/53

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


47/53

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


48/53

Terminology 1983 to 1990s

HEN Design

Heat Integration

Heat & Power Integration

Process Integration


49/53

Testimonials Early 1980s and on

Union Carbide (1983)

Shell (1984)

Procter & Gamble (1985) BP (1987)

Exxon (1989)

BASF (1990) Mitsubishi (1992)

etc.


50/53

Government Agencies, Legislation 1990s

Gothenburg 1992

Washington 1994 (Hazel OLeary)

Amoco EPA LM Project 1994 (USA)

IEA Implementing Agreement

UBA (Germany)

MITI (Japan) Wrmenutzungsverordnung (Germany)

etc.


51/53

1990s to 2013

I now refer to other people

Many people here today

have been here in 1992 also?

fl ll


52/53

Reflection: we are 40 years on, really

But allow me a question:

If we award 100% foron target Process Design

each and every time in industry....

....then, where are we?

d b


53/53

Good bye

Thank you for your attention

See you in 2034 ?

Bodo Linnhoff

Ticino

2013

Documents

Bodo Linnhoff