See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268981907

Increase Capacity and Decrease Energy for Existing Refinery Distillation

Columns

Article  in  Chemical Engineering Progress · April 2003

CITATIONS READS

18 1,033

3 authors:

Mamdouh Gadalla Megan Jobson

Port Said University The University of Manchester
90 PUBLICATIONS   933 CITATIONS    105 PUBLICATIONS   1,154 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robin Smith
The University of Manchester
230 PUBLICATIONS   7,542 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fouling Modelling in Crude Oil Preheating Systems using Reconciled Data View project

Annual conference this year on the theme (Sustainable Vital Technologies in Engineering and Informatics) from 8-10 November 2016. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mamdouh Gadalla on 01 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Reactions and Separations

Increase Capacity and

Decrease Energy
for Existing Refinery
Distillation Columns
This method optimizes the existing distillation system
Mamdouh Gadalla, and its heat-exchanger network simultaneously,
Megan Jobson lowering energy consumption and freeing up
and Robin Smith,
UMIST capacity at a minimum capital investment.

D ISTILLATION COLUMNS ARE AMONG

the biggest energy consumers in the chemical
industries, particularly in oil refineries.
Retrofit projects in refineries mostly aim at reducing en-
ergy consumption and increasing throughput to increase
In refinery distillation systems, the energy-efficien-
cy of the process strongly depends on the heat-ex-
changer network design. For example, the duty and
temperature drop of each pump-around affects how
much heat can be recovered, and the connections be-
profits and meet market demands. Usually, plants aim to tween the heat exchangers (also known as matches)
achieve their retrofit objectives by reusing the existing and heat-exchanger areas determine how much heat is
equipment efficiently, rather than installing new towers actually recovered.
and heat exchangers, which requires a substantial capi- Within the last decade or so pinch analysis has
tal investment. been applied to identify modifications to the column
and the heat exchanger network. Linnhoff and
Retrofitting schemes Dhole’s idea is to use the column’s grand composite
A number of modifications have been suggested to curve (CGCC) to identify suitable modifications that
the distillation column and the heat exchanger network would save energy (6). Dhole and Buckingham ex-
to meet these two goals. Sittig suggests changes to im- tended this method for energy saving and debottle-
prove the efficiency of distillation systems, including necking of refinery distillation systems. Their method
the installation of new internals with higher efficiency, has three stages (7). First, column modifications are
the use of intermediate reboilers, etc. (1). Bannon and made using the CGCC, then the heat-exchanger net-
Marple recommend making other column modifica- work design is changed to save energy by adding
tions, such as installing pump-arounds at suitable loca- more heat-transfer area, and, finally, design changes
tions in the unit and adjusting the cooling duty for each are instituted to debottleneck the arrangement.
pump-around (2). Harbert’s idea is to install preflash Liebmann’s approach is a two-step method for
units or prefractionators before the crude oil distillation retrofitting (8). The distillation column is first modified
unit. This would save energy and increase the through- to reduce its energy demand, and the CGCC provides
put of the column (3). guidelines for improving the heat-recovery potential.
Rivero and Anaya call for installing additional trays, as Afterwards, the column is remodified, followed by a
well as adding reboilers to the stripping columns (4). Fras- reanalysis of the CGCC to further increase the heat re-
er and Sloley propose increasing the capacity of crude-oil covery. Overall, two levels of modifications are pro-
units by adding pump-arounds, reducing the operating posed, those that are relatively inexpensive and those
pressure and increasing the preflash overhead vapor (5). that require larger investments. Examples of inexpen-

44 www.cepmagazine.org April 2003 CEP

sive modifications include piping changes to avoid mixing offer a systematic approach to retrofitting. Rather, they
unlike streams together, and adjusting the stripping-steam propose various modifications. These methods suffer
flowrates. Capital-intensive options include replacing inter- from two more drawbacks: Some of the proposed col-
nals and relocating feeds and draws. umn modifications would require a substantial capital in-
Briones et al. (9) successfully applied Liebmann’s vestment, while others sometimes violate such con-
retrofit approach to discover modifications for reducing straints such as the maximum tray capacity. This ap-
the energy consumption of the crude-oil distillation unit. proach aims to identify the set of operating conditions in
Bagajewicz et al. adapted Liebmann’s approach by link- an existing distillation column that will allow the exist-
ing the pinch analysis with rigorous simulation and opti- ing heat-exchanger network (modified by adding heat-
mizing the column’s operating parameters (10). transfer area or changing the piping arrangements be-
tween exchangers, for example) to best recover heat. The
Improved method hydraulic limits of the column constrain which design
As helpful as they are, none of these retrofit methods solutions can be considered.
assesses the existing heat-exchanger network together Thus, we offer a systematic approach for retrofitting ex-
with the crude distillation column. Further, they do not isting refinery distillation columns. This method simultane-
ously considers the existing heat-exchanger network along
with reducing energy consumption and increasing the
Nomenclature throughput of the existing distillation unit.
A = total area required for heat exchangers, m2
a, b, c = flooding parameters (based on stage spacing) Framework used
Aexist = existing heat exchanger area, m2 The authors’s optimization framework uses models
Aret = area added for retrofitting, m2
for the column and the heat-exchanger network, as well
B = bottom product flow, kmol/h
Csb = capacity factor, dimensionless
as pinch analysis. Optimization is carried out using a
D = top product flow kmol/h successive quadratic programming (SQP) solver. The
DC = ratio of downcomer area to total area, dimensionless solver uses an algorithm that is aimed at large, sparse
DT = stage diameter, m nonlinear programs. In essence, a quadratic approxima-
Eret = total energy consumed after retrofit, MW tion of the highly nonlinear problem is solved during
FLV = flow parameter, dimensionless each iteration (11).
L = liquid mass flow, kmol/h The system is represented using a column retrofit
m, c = retrofit area model parameters in Eq. 12
model and a heat-exchanger network retrofit model. The
N = total number of stages in column
Nmin = minimum number of stages at total reflux
column model captures the relationships between operat-
NR = number of stages in rectifying section ing conditions, product quality and column design. The
NS = number of stages in stripping section heat-exchanger model presents the results of a detailed
R = reflux ratio study of options for improving heat recovery in the net-
RHK = fractional recovery of heavy key to bottom product work by making minor changes to the heat-exchange
RLK = fractional recovery of light key to top product hardware and configuration. For example, the sequence
Rmin = minimum reflux ratio, dimensionless of heat exchangers may be changed or a new exchanger
xfHK = mole fraction of heavy key in feed
may be installed.
xfLK = mole fraction of light key in feed
Udes = design vapor velocity, m/s
The column design is optimized using these two mod-
Umax = flooding velocity, m/s els. That is, its operating conditions are selected for a
V = vapor mass flow, kmol/h column with a fixed design (the given number of stages,
VV = vapor volumetric flow, m3/s diameter, feed and draw locations, etc.) to minimize the
sum of the utility costs and investment in the heat-ex-
Subscripts: changer network. The network retrofit model is used to
Fensk = Fenske calculate th cost of additional heat-exchange area during
Gill = Gilliland
the optimization. Thus, the optimization couples the two
Kirk = Kirkbride
independent models and accounts for interactions be-
Greek letters: tween the column design and the heat-exchanger-
αLK = relative volatility of light key network performance.
αHK = relative volatility of heavy key The column retrofit model uses the existing parameters,
ρL = liquid mass density, kg/m3 such as the number of stages and their distribution, loca-
ρV = vapor mass density, kg/m3 tions of condenser, reboiler and pump-arounds, and prod-
ξ = ratio defined in Eq. 3 uct specifications. The heat-exchanger network retrofit
φ = factor defined in Eqs. 4 and 5
model takes into account the network’s details, such as the
ΨGill = factor in Gilliland correlation, see Eq. 2
heat-transfer areas and duties for each exchanger, the ex-

CEP April 2003 www.cepmagazine.org 45

Reactions and Separations

isting matches, and the existing energy consumption. where:

During optimization, the user can vary the column’s op-  1 + 54.4ξ   ξ − 1 
ψ Gill = 1 − exp    0.5   (2)
erating conditions, such as changing the feed preheating  11 + 117.2ξ   ξ  
temperature, steam flows to each section, reflux ratio, and
temperature drop and flow of liquid recycled by pump-
arounds for minimum energy consumption. The hydraulic and:
constraints and capacity limitations of the existing column
R − Rmin
are taken into account during this process. ξ= (3)
Optimization of an existing refinery distillation unit R +1
identifies the optimum process changes for minimum The following two terms are defined as:
energy consumption. Since the retrofit design does not
N
change the dimensions or internals of the column, these α  min
modifications do not require a major capital invest- φ Fenske =  LK  (4)
 α HK 
ment. Rather, they are simply changes to the operating
conditions. Reducing the energy consumption of the ex- 1/ 2
 B  x fHK    NR 
2.427
=   
isting crude distillation unit allows the column through-
φ Kirk    (5)
put to increase, due to the resulting reduced vapor  D   x fLK    NS 
flows. In determining the maximum increase in
throughput, the model identifies any column bottle- The recovery of the heavy key in the top product is
necks that would limit this increase, and evaluates pro- given by:
posed modifications for debottlenecking.
1/ 2
To run the model, a FORTRAN code was developed φ Fensk  φ + 1
2
φ Fensk − 1 
that allows modeling via short-cut models, and an inter- RHK = 1−  Kirk  +4 
2(φ Fensk – 1)  φ Fensk  (φ Fensk ) 2 φ Kirk 
face was created between the code and a rigorous simu-  
lation package. This allowed the users to obtain ther- (φ Kirk + 1)
modynamic and physical data for the components and + (6)
pseudocomponents. 2φ Kirk (φ Fensk − 1)
A rigorous simulation was first performed on the ex- While the recovery of light product in the bottoms is:
isting arrangement (the base case) to initialize the short-
cut calculations, e.g., specifying the key components 1/ 2
 (φ 
Kirk + 1) 
2
and their recoveries, plus matching the product φ Kirk
RLK = 1 −   + 
 4(φ Fenske − 1)  ( φ Fenske − 1) 
flowrates to those in the existing operation. This rigor-
ous simulation should yield a reasonably accurate pic-  
ture of the product flows and compositions, steam
flows, pump-around duties, flowrates and temperature +
(φ Kirk + 1) (7)
drops, among others. The simulation results are useful 2(φ Fenske − 1)
in checking the validity of the column retrofit model, as
well as for initializing this model. The user’s manual of A similar retrofit model can be written for distillation
the simulation software that the reader employs will columns that employ steam stripping. In this case, con-
provide guidance on how to rigorously model refinery secutive flash calculations are used to model the stripping
columns. Further instructions on setting up the problem section (12). The two retrofit models relate the product
are found in Ref. 12. compositions to the existing number of stages, the distri-
bution of the stages, and the existing operating condi-
Retrofit model for the column tions. The models treat the distillation column as fixed
The short-cut column model is based on the Under- and calculate the product flows, temperatures, composi-
wood equation for the calculation of the minimum vapor tions and duties. This provides the basis for optimizing
flow in a column. The basic model equations are those of the existing column.
Fenske, Gilliland and Kirkbride together with consecu-
tive flash calculations (13), and key-component material Hydraulic analysis
balances. The retrofit equations for distillation columns To evaluate the column hydraulics, the diameter re-
with reboilers are: quired for vapor flow is calculated for those stages
where there is a significant change in the vapor and liq-
N min = N (1 − ψ Gill ) − ψ Gill (1) uid flows. Such stages include the top and bottom trays,
pump-around stages, and the feed stage. For sieve plates,
the diameter is calculated from the flooding limits via

46 www.cepmagazine.org April 2003 CEP

 Water Water

8 LN 8 LN
Existing
PA3 Retrofit Shortcut Heat-Exchanger Network PA3
7 7
Models Retrofit Models
6 HN 6 HN

PA2 Water PA2

5 5

Heat Exchanger Area

8 LN
LD 77 Heat-Exchanger LD
4 PA3
Network 4
6 HN
5
PA1 PA2 PA1
3 Steam 2 4 LD Retrofit Area
3 Steam 2
3 Steam 2
2 HD PA1 2 HD
HD Heat-Exchanger Network
2
Feed Retrofit Energy Demand Feed
1 Feed 1 Steam 1 1
Steam 1 RES
Steam 1
RES RES
Column Decomposition
Existing Distillation Existing System with Maximum
and Simulation
Column Energy Recovery and Minimum
Existing Heat Additional Exchanger Areas
Exchanger Network

Optimizer
(SQP)

Existing Stages Existing Diameter

(Fixed) (Fixed)

■ Figure 1. Optimization requires decomposing the column and coupling the heat-exchanger network using the retrofit models.
Key: PA = pump-around; LN = light naphtha; HN = heavy naphtha; LD = light distillate; HD = heavy distillate; and Res = residue.

Eqs. 8–11 (14): range of internals and operating conditions. The correlation
and the parameters used should be suited to the existing in-
 −c  ternals, and yield a reasonable prediction of the entrain-
Csb = a − b × exp  (8) ment flooding characteristics. In Eq. 11, the design velocity
 FLV 
Udes is less than the flooding velocity Umax by some safety
factor. Typically, Udes is 70–80% of Umax.
L ρV Calculation of diameters of the distillation column al-
FLV = (9)
V ρL lows the analysis of the hydraulic performance of the col-
umn. The diameter profile along the column is obtained
ρ L − ρV by plotting the diameters for various stages vs. the stage
U max = Csb (10) number. This profile allows identifying the column bot-
ρV tlenecks that limit throughput enhancement. Column bot-
tlenecks occur on those stages in which the required di-
4VV
DT = (11) ameter is larger than the existing one. The diameter cal-
πUdes (1 − DC ) culations allow the existing hydraulic limitations of the
tion column to be considered in the optimization frame-
Fair (14) provides values for the parameters a, b and c work. Therefore, during this process, the diameter is cal-
found in Eq. 8. Kister (15) lists flooding correlations for a culated for the key stages. Then, the calculated diameters

CEP April 2003 www.cepmagazine.org 47

Reactions and Separations

Water
14 13 2 4 6 8 10 12

1 3 5 7 9 11
LN
9 11

13 12
6
PA3 21 22 18 15
8 1 7
HN
2 8

5
7
PA2 6 15

19
10 LD
3 18 25

26
5 16
PA1 Steam
4 22 27
9
24
HD
Crude 23
5 17
Steam
9

Res 10 28

■ Figure 2. The atmospheric crude unit and its heat-exchanger network before optimization was carried out.
Key: PA = pump-around; LN = light naphtha; HN = heavy naphtha; LD = light distillate; HD = heavy distillate; and Res = residue.

are compared with the existing ones to guarantee that the constraints of the column. Figure 1 illustrates the ap-
existing diameters are not exceeded; otherwise a penalty proach. The retrofit curve is obtained from an extensive
is imposed. Hence, the optimum distillation column will retrofit study on the heat exchanger network. The model
not have bottlenecks. relates the exchange area required for reducing energy
consumption, Aret, to the reduced energy consumption,
Retrofit model for the heat-exchanger network Eret. The model may take different forms; the power law
This model calculates the required area of the retrofitted form has been found suitable for a number of case stud-
heat-exchanger network, while considering the fixed pa- ies investigated.
rameters of the network (e.g., heat-transfer areas, duties,
matches, stream splits). The retrofit model and the associ- A = m( Eret )c (12)
ated parameters, m and c, are obtained from an extensive
retrofit study on the existing heat exchanger network. The additional area requirement for the retrofitted net-
The model, although simple, incorporates the details of work is related to the existing area of the network, Aexist,
the existing Heat-exchanger network in the process opti- and the total area requirement, A:
mization framework. The model allows the benefits of
energy savings to be weighed against the capital invest-
Aret = A − Aexist (13)
ment required to modify the heat-exchanger network.
Details on the model are found in Ref. 12, and these The heat-exchanger retrofit model mathematically de-
should aid the reader in performing his or her own analy- scribes a retrofit curve of an existing heat exchanger net-
sis.he optimization considers the details of the existing work (e.g., Figure 1). The retrofit curve is a graphical rep-
heat exchanger network simultaneously with the existing resentation of the capital-energy trade-offs in an existing
crude distillation column and accounts for the hydraulic heat-exchanger network; it consists of a plot of retrofit area

48 www.cepmagazine.org April 2003 CEP

 suggests that topology changes (e.g.,
resequencing of exchangers, installa-
Liquid
Liquid tion of new exchangers) are necessary
to overcome the limits caused by the
pinch. For no topology changes, the
network is optimized by adding area
to the existing exchanger units. The
white bar under the curve in Figure 1
Vapor Vapor Steam indicates the additional heat-exchang-
er capacity needed for the retrofit.
The heat-exchanger network
1. Increase Temperature 2. Reduce Steam Flow retrofit model simply considers the
Drop Across Pump-around
total energy demand and total area re-
Vapor
quirement, which greatly simplifies
the characterization of the heat-ex-
changer network during process opti-
Cooling
mization. The model allows the bene-
fits of energy savings to be weighed
against the capital investment re-
quired to modify the heat-exchanger
network. Details on the model are
found in Ref. 12 and these should aid
Vapor the reader in performing his or her
Liquid Liquid own analysis.
Note that the column configura-
3. Increase Liquid Flow 4. Adjust Feed Preheating tions before and after optimization
Through Pump-around are the same.

The optimization framework

The optimization considers the
■ Figure 3. Column modifications that can overcome bottlenecks. details of the existing heat-exchanger
network simultaneously with the existing
crude distillation column and accounts
vs. energy demand. The model is based on the network for the hydraulic constraints of the column. Figure 1 illus-
pinch developed by Asante and Zhu (16). trates the approach. Note that the column configurations be-
The amount of heat recovery that can be achieved is fore and after optimization are the same.
limited by the network pinch. Network pinch analysis The overall strategy consists of:
1. Decomposing the crude distillation column into an
equivalent sequence of simple columns, which is simu-
Table. Base case vs. optimum case for constant feed flowrate. lated using the retrofit model.
2. Modeling the existing heat-exchanger network using
Parameter Base case Optimum case the retrofit area model.
Feed preheat temperature, °C 360 363
3. Simultaneously optimizing the operating conditions
of the existing distillation operation to minimize the sum
PA1 liquid flow, kmol/h 1,228 1,233
of the utility costs and additional exchanger area costs.
PA2 liquid flow, kmol/h 2,396 3,989 4. Taking as fixed, the existing number of stages, the
PA3 liquid flow, kmol/h 5,868 3,953 column configuration and diameters.
PA1 temperature difference, °C 40 44.1
PA2 temperature difference, °C 50 28.1 Example
PA3 temperature difference, °C 20 58.9 The approach was tried, using data from an actual unit
(Figure 2). The numbers inside of the column represent the
Main steam flow, kmol/h 1,200 1,088
number of stages in each section; note that this notation
HD-stripper steam flow, kmol/h 260 247
differs from that used in Figure 1. The grid in Figure 2 rep-
R/Rmin 1.2 1.11 resents the process streams, the heat exchangers connect-
ing them, and any other heaters or coolers, including the

CEP April 2003 www.cepmagazine.org 49

Reactions and Separations

furnace and steam heaters. The hot streams (i.e., those that Table 1 compares the base case with the optimized ar-
require cooling) run from left to right, while the cold rangement when the feed flowrate is unchanged. The op-
streams run from right to left. The numbers in the circles of timum energy consumption of the crude unit is 77.4 MW,
the heat-exchanger grid stand for individual exchangers in a reduction of 22% and a savings of $6.3 million/yr.
the network. The vertical lines represent the heat exchange Some investment is needed to improve the performance
between process streams. This figure shows the base case, of the heat-exchanger network; the energy savings arise
that is, before optimization. from changing process operating conditions (e.g., fur-
Two aims of the retrofit design are considered: (1) to im- nace inlet temperature, pump-around duties, feed tem-
prove the energy-efficiency of the process; and (2) to in- perature) such that more heat recovery is possible. The
crease the throughput by 20% over the current capacity. The payback for these modifications is 4 mo.
atmospheric tower is fed 100,000 bbl/d of crude oil. Before However, to increase the throughput would require
the retrofit, the scheme was consuming power at 99.5 MW, using larger diameters than exist in some sections inside
with a total operating cost of $28.4 million/yr. The heat-ex- the column. Therefore, to increase its capacity, the col-
changer network retrofit model was found to be: umn had to be debottlenecked. The column model and
hydraulic analysis identified the bottlenecked sections.
A = 6.75 × 10 6 Eret −1.61 (14)
Proposed modifications that can eliminate the bottleneck
are shown in Figure 3. Parts 1 and 3 in the figure show
increasing the amount of heat removed during a pump-
Literature Cited around; Part 2 represents reducing the flow of stripping
1. Sittig, M., “Petroleum Refining Industry Energy Saving and Envi- steam and, hence, the total vapor flow; and Part 4 illus-
ronmental Control,” Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ (1978). trates reducing the temperature and, therefore, the vapor
2. Bannon, R. P., and S. Marple, “Heat Recovery in Hydrocarbon fraction of the column feed. The unshaded arrows that
Distillation,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 74 (7), pp. 41–45 (July 1978). point toward each other mean that the required diameter
3. Harbert, W. D., “Preflash Saves Energy in Crude Unit,” Hydro- would be decreased.
carb. Proc., 57 (7), pp. 23–125 (1978). The optimized distillation unit has a 20% increase in
4. Rivero, R., and A. Anaya, “Exergy Analysis of a Distillation Tower
throughput and requires 94.8 MW of heating. The oper-
for Crude Oil Fractionation,” and “Computer Aided Energy Systems
Analysis,” Proc. of Winter Annual Meeting of ASME, 1 (11), pp.
ating cost saving is $1.9 million/yr, relative to the base
25–30 and 55–62, Dallas, TX (1990). case, with a payback of less than 1 yr. CEP

5. Fraser, A. C., and A. W. Sloley, “Consider Modeling Tools to Re-

vamp Existing Process Units,” Hydrocarb. Proc., 79 (6), pp. 57–63 MAMDOUH GADALLA recently completed his PhD at UMIST, Dept. of Process
(2000). Integration (P .O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, U.K. He has four years of
6. Dhole, V. R., and B. Linnhoff, “Distillation Column Targets,” research and teaching experience with the Atomic Energy Authority of
Computers Chem. Eng., 17 (5/6), pp. 549–560 (1993). Egypt and the Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Dept. of the United
7. Dhole, V., and P. Buckingham, “Refinery Column Integration for Arab Emirates Univ. Gadalla designs equipment for the retrofitting of
De-bottlenecking and Energy Saving,” paper presented at ESCAPE crude-oil distillation units. He holds a bachelor’s and master’s in chemical
engineering from Cairo Univ.
IV Conf., Dublin, Ireland, sponsored by IChemE, Rugby, U.K.
(Mar. 1994).
MEGAN JOBSON is a lecturer in the Dept. of Process Integration at UMIST
8. Liebmann, K., “Integrated Crude Oil Distillation Design,” PhD the- (Phone: 44 161 200 4381; Fax: 44 161 236 7439; E-mail:
sis, UMIST, Manchester, U.K. (1996). [email protected]). She carries out research, teaches and
9. Briones, V., et al., “Pinch Analysis Used in Retrofit Design of Dis- undertakes industrial studies on the synthesis and design of distillation,
tillation Units,” Oil & Gas J., No. 6, pp. 41–46 (June 1999). absorption and reactive separations. Previously, she worked as a
10.Bagajewicz, M., et al., “Energy Savings Horizons for Crude Frac- process engineer in the food industry. She did her undergraduate work
tionation,” Computers Chem. Eng., 23 (1), pp. 1–9 (1998). in chemical engineering at the Univ. of Cape Town, South Africa and
11. Biegler, L. T., et al., “Systematic Methods of Chemical Process De- holds a PhD in the same field from the Univ. of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
sign,” pp. 761–763, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1997).
12.Gadalla, M., “Retrofit Design of Heat-Integrated Crude Oil Distil-
ROBIN SMITH is a professor and head of the Dept. of Process Integration at
lation Systems,” PhD thesis, UMIST, Manchester, U.K. (2003). UMIST (Phone: 44 161 200 4382; Fax: 44 161 236 7439; E-mail:
13.Suphanit, B., “Design of Complex Distillation Systems,” PhD the- [email protected]). He has extensive industrial experience with Rohm &
sis, UMIST, Manchester, U.K. (1999). Haas and ICI. Smith has consulted extensively for process integration
14.Fair, J. R., “How to Predict Sieve Tray Entrainment and Flooding,” projects. He is widely published in process integration and is the author of
Petro/chem. Engr., 33 (10), pp. 45–62 (1961). “Chemical Process Design,” (McGraw-Hill). He is a Fellow of the Royal
15.Kister, H., “Distillation Design,” McGraw-Hill, New York, Chap. 6 Academy of Engineering and of the Institution of Chemical Engineers in
(1992). the U.K., as well as being a chartered engineer. In 1992, he was awarded
the Hanson Medal of the Institution of Chemical Engineers for his work on
16.Asante, N. D. K., and X. X. Zhu,“An Automated and Interactive
waste minimization. His main research activities include the design of
Approach for Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit,” Trans. IChemE,
reaction and separation systems, site utility systems, waste minimization
75, Part A, pp. 349–360 (Mar. 1997). and water-system design. Smith holds BSc, MSc and PhD degrees in
chemical engineering from the Univ. of Bradford, U.K.

50 www.cepmagazine.org April 2003 CEP

View publication stats