Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Simultaneous optimization and heat integration of the coal-to-SNG

process with a branched heat recovery steam cycle
Bo Huang a, Yang Li a, Rui Gao a, Yongfei Zuo b, Zhenghua Dai a,∗, Fuchen Wang a,∗
a
Key Laboratory of Coal Gasification and Energy Chemical Engineering of Ministry of Education, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai
200237, China
b
SEDIN Engineering CO., Ltd., Taiyuan 030032, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The coal-to-SNG process is an energy-intensive process, and optimizing the heat recovery network can
Received 9 October 2017 improve the economy and energy efficiency. This study proposes a branched, triple pressure level heat
Revised 28 January 2018
recovery steam cycle (HRSC) to recover waste heat, in which one branch is responsible for recovering the
Accepted 9 February 2018
waste heat from the water gas shift (WGS) unit, and the other branch is responsible for the methanation
Available online 22 February 2018
(METH) unit. The extended Duran–Grossmann model is used to optimize two heat exchanger networks
to match the branched HRSC superstructure. The temperature/pressure/flow rates of the HRSC streams
and the operating temperature of the WGS and METH units are optimized. The optimal bypass ratio of
the WGS unit as well as the recycle ratio and split ratio of the METH unit, are 0.506, 0.681 and 0.456,
respectively. The exergy efficiency of the coal-to-SNG plant is improved by 1.28% compared with the
industrial plant, which can reach 54.17%.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One way to improve the waste heat utilization efficiency is to

Natural gas (NG) is cleaner and more energy-efficient compared
with other fossil fuels. NG demand has increased at an annual rate
of 16.4% over the last five years (Li et al., 2016) due to increased
urbanization and industrialization in China. In 2014, the annual de-
mand of NG in China was 185.5 billion m3 , and 30% of the demand
relied on importation (Shaikh et al., 2017), which indicates that the
energy security situation is dire. Producing coal-based synthetic
natural gas (SNG) is a potential way to mitigate this energy se-
curity problem due to the relatively rich coal reserves in China.
The coal-to-SNG process consists of an air separation unit
(ASU), a gasification (GSF) unit, a water gas shift (WGS) unit, a sour
gas removal (SGR) unit, and a methanation (METH) unit, among
which, the GSF unit, WGS unit, and METH unit are strong exother-
mic processes. Take the METH unit as an example: 20% of the en-
ergy in the syngas is transformed into waste heat (Topsoe, 2009).
Considering the large amount of waste heat, heat recovery has an
important impact on the energy efficiency of the total plant. The
waste heat in the chemical plant is usually recovered by raising
steam or preheating boiler feed water (BFW) through a heat re-
covery steam cycle (HRSC).
∗
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: chinadai@ecust.edu.cn (Z. Dai), wfch@ecust.edu.cn (F. Wang).
conduct heat integration and optimize the heat recovery network.
There are generally two kinds of heat integration models. One
model is based on temperature intervals (heat cascade/problem
table algorithms), and it is represented by the transshipment
model (Papoulias and Grossmann, 1983). The original transship-
ment model requires the temperature intervals to be fixed, namely,
the interactions between the chemical process and the heat re-
covery network can only be realized by using discrete operating
temperatures for chemical processes and heat recovery streams.
Elia et al. (2010) have used this transshipment model to recover
heat from a hybrid coal, biomass, and natural gas to liquid (CBGTL)
process through steam cycles. Martelli et al. (2011) developed a
heat integration model that is based on the problem table al-
gorithm (Linnhoff and Flower, 1978). This model has been used
to optimize the operating conditions of the HRSC in a coal-to-
SNG plant (Martelli et al., 2011) and a coal to Fischer–Tropsch fu-
els plant (Martelli et al., 2013). Although the operating conditions
(pressures, temperatures, and flow rates) of the HRSC streams are
optimized, the coal-to-SNG or coal to Fischer–Tropsch fuels pro-
cess cannot be optimized. To exploit the heat recovery potential,
Navarro-Amorós et al. (2013) proposed dynamic temperature in-
tervals to take variable temperature into consideration, which has
the potential to investigate the synergy between operating condi-
tions of process streams and heat recovery steam/water streams.
Kong et al. (2017) used dynamic temperature intervals to simul-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.02.008
0098-1354/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
118 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128

Nomenclature turbine turbines in heat recovery steam cycle

recycle recycle in methanation unit
ASU air separation unit
Superscripts
BFW boiler feed water
in inlet
CBGTL hybrid coal, biomass, and natural gas to liquid
iso isentropic
CCS CO2 capture and storage system
out outlet
DNS dryness of steam
Pch pinch candidate
F molar flow rate of species in the stream
FCp heat capacity flowrate
FT total molar flow rate
GAMS general algebraic modeling system
taneously realize the chemical process synthesis and heat integra-
GSF gasification
tion.
GCC grand composite curve
Another heat integration model that can account for the inter-
HENs heat exchanger networks
actions between a chemical process and a heat recovery network is
HP high pressure
the Duran–Grossmann model (Duran and Grossmann, 1986), which
HRAT heat recovery approach temperature
is based on the pinch location method (PLM). This model is widely
HRSC heat recovery steam cycle
used in the field of simultaneous process optimization and heat
HRSC–CPP heat recovery steam cycle and captive power
integration. Baliban et al. (2011) conducted several investigations
plant
on heat and power integration for CBGTL process (Baliban et al.,
h enthalpy
2011, 2012, 2013). Recently, Yu et al. (2017) also applied the Duran–
K chemical equilibrium constant
Grossmann model to an organic Rankine cycles (ORC) system re-
QH heating utility
covering low-temperature waste heat in a refinery.
LP low pressure
The aim of this paper is to exploit the synergy between op-
LVH low-value heat
erating conditions of the coal-to-SNG process and the HRSC sys-
M mass flow rates
tem, and the most relevant work was done in the abovemen-
METH methanation unit
tioned Duran–Grossmann model-based papers. However, heat inte-
METH–HEN heat exchanger network in the methanation unit
gration in these papers occurred between all the cold/hot streams
MP medium pressure
from the total site, which is not reasonable because the location
NG natural gas
of each subsystem is relatively far from one another. Dowling and
NLP nonlinear programming
Biegler (2015) extended the Duran–Grossmann model to conduct
ORC organic Rankine cycle
heat integration of different groups of process units separately.
P pressure
In this paper, we will use the extended Duran–Grossmann
PC pinch candidate set
model to simultaneously realize separated heat integration within
QA heat absorbed by cold streams in heat recovery
the WGS unit and METH unit and heat integration between the
steam cycle
WGS unit and METH unit through water/steam integration. A
QC cooling utility
branched, triple pressure level HRSC is also proposed to recover
QR heat released by hot streams in heat recovery
waste heat from a coal-to-SNG process, with one branch corre-
steam cycle
sponding to heat recovery of the WGS unit, and the other branch
QSIA heat load of cold streams above the pinch candi-
corresponding to heat recovery of the METH unit. The operating
dates
conditions of the WGS unit and METH unit, as well as HRSC sys-
QSOA heat load of hot streams above the pinch candi-
tem, are optimized simultaneously. This paper is presented in the
dates
following order: the second section describes the coal-to-SNG pro-
SGR sour gas removal
cess, the third section provides the mathematical model, the fourth
SNG synthetic natural gas
section presents the results, and the last section summarizes the
SRW set of reactors restricted by water gas shift reac-
conclusions.
tion
SRM set of reactors restricted by CO methanation re-
action
SQA set of heat absorbers in heat recovery steam cy-
cle
SQR set of coolers in heat recovery steam cycle 2. Process description and research methods
T temperature
W power The flowsheet of the coal-to-SNG process is shown in Fig. 1
WHB waste heat boiler and can be generally described as follows: The ASU separates air
WWT wastewater treatment into nitrogen and oxygen. The steam, oxygen, and coal are then
WGS water gas shift fed to a gasification unit to produce syngas (CO + H2 ). The formed
WGS-HEN heat exchanger network in the water gas shift syngas is conditioned in the WGS unit to undergo the water gas
unit shift reaction, thereby meeting the H2 /CO ratio requirement. Af-
WGS-METH water gas shift and methanation unit ter removing H2 S and CO2 in the SGR unit, the conditioned syn-
ZH heat deficit gas is finally converted to CH4 rich gas in the METH unit. The
HRSC is used to recover waste heat and provide electricity (blue
Subscripts dashed line in Fig. 1). Apart from electricity, the HRSC also pro-
g equipment vides medium pressure (MP) steam (red line in Fig. 1) for steam
pump pumps in heat recovery steam cycle users and provides preheated BFW for the gasifier jacket and the
waste heat boiler (WHB) in the gasification unit.
 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128 119

Coal
GSF
Condensate
Condensate CO2,H2S Condensate
WHB

Gasifier
Air MPS Water Sour gas
Air Methanation
separtion gas shift removal
Waste water
Quench treatment
O2
LPS
SNG

BFW S2 S3 L1 E3 S4 E4 E5
E1 S1 E2
L1
BFW
Q Label
E1 L LP steam
S1 E2
S2 S MP steam
S3
MPS HRSC power E3
E4 E Electricity
S4 E5

Fig. 1. Flowsheet of the coal-to-SNG process. (For interpretation of the references to color in the text, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Coal Gas cooler

E-104 E-103 E-102

Lock
syngas
Syngas
hopper
Quench liquor
LP steam out
M-102
Condensate

Quench S-101
Gasifier Waste heat
boiler out2
steam
E-101
R-100 M-101 R-101
BFW
BFW Raw gas Steam
Main reactor
Pre-reactor

Steam&O2 Ash Lock

Gas liquor
Ash
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a Lurgi gasifier.
2.1. Coal-to-SNG process
2.1.1. Air separation unit (ASU)
Cryogenic air separation is widely used to produce high pu-
rity oxygen, which is proven to be a cost-effective technology
(Ebrahimi et al., 2015). This process separates N2 and O2 by us-
ing their different liquefaction temperatures. The ASU is driven by
electricity in this study, and the purity of O2 is 99.6 vol%.
2.1.2. Gasification unit
The product gas from the fixed-bed gasifier contains approx-
imately 8 vol% (wet basis) CH4 , so the fixed-bed gasifier is one
of the most suitable technologies to produce coal-based SNG. The
schematic diagram of a Lurgi gasifier is depicted in Fig. 2. Lignite
coal is fed from the top of the gasifier through a lock hopper, and
oxygen and steam enter the gasifier from the bottom of the gasi-
fier. The MP steam generated from the water jacket is used as the
gasification agent, but this amount of steam is not enough for gasi-
fication, which accounts for approximately 10% of the steam de-
Fig. 3. Flowsheet of the water gas shift unit.
steam is raised in the WHB, and this LP steam is used to treat
wastewater from the GSF unit and provide heat for the SGR unit.
The rest of LP steam is directed into the LP steam pipeline. In this
paper, the surplus LP steam is superheated and used to generate
power in the HRSC.
2.1.3. Water gas shift (WGS) unit
The WGS unit adjusts the CO/H2 mole ratio by converting a por-
tion of CO to H2 through the water gas shift reaction (1) to sat-
isfy the H2 /CO ratio requirement for the methanation reaction, in
which the favorable H2 /CO ratio is approximately 3.1. The water
gas shift reaction is an exothermic and reversible reaction; thus,
low temperature is favored for the forward direction.
CO + H2 O ↔ C O2 + H2 H298
0
= −41.1 kJ mol−1 (1)
The flowsheet of the WGS unit without heat recovery is shown
in Fig. 3. There are two serial reactors. R-100 is used to burn out
O2 in the raw gas, and raw gas from R-100 is split in S-101 so that
one stream is fed to the main WGS reactor (R-101), while the other
part is bypassed. The bypass ratio is a key parameter for the WGS
unit and its definition is shown in Eq. (2), wherein F TS−101out is the

mand for gasification (He et al., 2013). Extra MP steam is extracted
from the steam pipeline, and in this paper, this extra MP steam
is provided by extraction from the high pressure (HP) turbine or
MP turbine in the HRSC. The syngas exiting the gasifier enters the
quench cooler, in which the syngas is saturated with steam and
enters the waste heat boiler (WHB). Saturated low pressure (LP)
total molar flow rate at splitter S-101 outlet ‘out’ (see Fig. 3). The
operating temperature of the main WGS reactor is 473.15–773.15 K
(Boll et al., 2011), and a sulfur-tolerant catalyst is used due to the
existence of H2 S. The units E-101 to E-104 perform as coolers or
heaters to adjust the gas temperature to meet the operating re-
quirements. In E-103 and E-104, part of the water vapor in the syn-
120 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128

Gas cooler
E-211 E-210 E-209 E-208 E-207 E-206 E-205

SNG R-205 R-204 R-203

Condensate Condensate
5th Methanator 4th Methanator 3rd Methanator E-204
P-201
E-202
Steam
out
E-200 E-201 E-203
out2
M-201 R-200 M-202 R-201 S-202
R-202
Sweet gas out2
M-203
S-201
Sulfur guard st 2nd Methanator
out Steam1 Methanator

Fig. 4. Flowsheet of the methanation unit.

out
gas is condensed and removed. Finally, the syngas is cooled to ap- F TS−202
proximately 313.15 K and fed to SGR unit to remove H2 S and CO2 . RR = in
(5)
F TS−202
out out
F TS−101 F TS−201
RB = (2) RS = in
(6)
in F TS−201
F TS−101

2.2. Superstructure of the heat recovery steam cycles (HRSC)

2.1.4. Sour gas removal (SGR) unit
The production of a large quantity of CO2 in the shifted syngas
from the WGS unit will affect the methanation reaction; simulta-
neously, H2 S will poison the methanation catalyst. As a result, the
SGR unit is necessary for the normal operation of the METH unit.
The Rectisol process is widely used in chemical plants (Yu et al.,
2012), in which chilled methanol is used to absorb H2 S and CO2 .
The energy consumption of the SGR consists of the electricity con-
sumption for methanol refrigeration and the heat requirement for
the reboiler in the regeneration tower.
2.1.5. Methanation (METH) unit
The function of the METH unit is to convert syngas into the CH4
rich gas via CO methanation (3) and CO2 methanation reactions
(4). In the METH unit, reactions (1), (3) and (4) are considered.
−1
CO + 3H2 ↔ C H4 + H2 O H298
0
= −206 kJ mol
C O2 +4H2 ↔ C H4 +2H2 O H298
0
= −165 kJ mol−1
The TREMP (Topsoe, 2009) methanation process is employed for
the methanation unit in this model. The normal operating tem-
perature range of methanation reactors is 523.15 to 973.15 K, and
the catalyst can operate below its sintering temperature (approx-
imately 1023.15 K) (Blumberg et al., 2015). The flowsheet of the
METH unit in the base plant is shown in Fig. 4.
In the METH unit, six reactors in a series are used. R-200 is the
sulfur guard, and R-201 and R-202 are the main reactors. R-203,
R-204, and R-205 are gas cleaners to convert residual CO and H2
to CH4 . To control the temperature of the reactors, part of the ef-
fluent gas from R-201 is recycled to the inlet of R-201. Eqs. (5) and
(6) show the recycle ratio and the split ratio, respectively, as vital
operating parameters in the METH unit. The effluent of R-204 is
cooled to remove excess water, thus promoting the forward metha-
nation reaction. Finally, the effluent of R-205 is cooled to 313.15 K
via 3 serial coolers and knocks out condensate water.
2.2.1. Separated heat integration and water/steam integration
In this paper, we propose a branched HRSC to recover waste
heat from the WGS and METH units in an integral manner. Further,
we will conduct ‘separated heat integration’ within each subsystem
(Dowling and Biegler, 2015) and simultaneously realize heat inte-
gration between different subsystems through water/steam inte-
gration. As shown in Fig. 5, the ‘separated heat integration’ means
that the cold streams exchange heat with hot streams in the same
unit, namely, streams in the WGS unit do not exchange heat with
streams in the METH unit, and this configuration is reasonable as
the WGS and METH units are relatively far from one another. The
heat integration between the WGS and METH units is realized by
water/steam integration through the branched HRSC.
The unique feature of the HRSC is that it has two branches. The
upper branch is responsible for recovering the waste heat from the
(3) WGS unit, and the lower branch is responsible for recovering the
waste heat from the METH unit. Therefore, two separate heat ex-
changer networks (HENs) can be derived, namely, the WGS-HEN
(4) and the METH–HEN. It is worth noting that to simplify the model,
the mixing of branches in the HRSC is isothermal and isobaric. It
is important that the split ratios between the upper and lower
branches are optimization variables and can be different at each
splitter; this is how the water/steam integration between the WGS
and METH units is realized.
2.2.2. Branched HRSC with a captive power plant (HRSC–CPP)
In the coal-to-SNG process, the largest steam consumer is the
Lurgi gasifier, which consumes a large amount of MP steam (5 MPa,
723 K). However, the steam is insufficient, even if all the waste heat
is used to generate the MP steam; therefore, a captive power plant
(CPP) is applied to provide extra steam. In this paper, HRSC and
CPP are integrated to provide electricity and steam. The superstruc-
ture of the integrated HRSC–CPP is shown in Fig. 6, the HP steam
from the CPP boiler is fed into the HP turbine of the HRSC. We as-
sume that the temperature and pressure of HP steam generated by
the CPP boiler are the same as those generated by the HRSC.
 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128 121

WGS Process streams

WGS-HEN

Economizer Evaporator superheater

METH-HEN METH Process streams

Condenser

Fig. 5. Schematic of heat integration.

E-301 E-302 E-303

HP
P-301
Turbine T-301
E-402 E-403
E-401
HP Economizer HP Evaporator HP Superheater
Reheater

E-305 E-306 E-307 E-304 E-404

MP steam
user
P-302

E-406 E-407
E-405
MP
MP Economizer MP Evaporator MP Superheater T-302
Turbine
LP steam from
WHB

E-308 E-309 E-310

E-311 Boiler

P-303
E-411
E-409 E-410
E-408
LP Economizer LP Evaporator LP Superheater LP
T-303
Turbine

Deaerator coal
E-312

P-304 air
Demineralized water
E-412 Condenser
BFW

E-313
To water jacket

E-413

Fig. 6. Superstructure of branched heat recovery steam cycle (HRSC).

122 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128
In this paper, a triple pressure level branched HRSC sys-
tem is used to exploit the heat recovery potential. Water
from the deaerator is pumped by the LP/MP/HP water pumps,
and water/steam absorbs heat in the corresponding economiz-
ers/evaporators/superheaters. Finally, superheated steams enter
the corresponding turbines to generate electricity. The exhausted
steam from the LP turbine then enters the condenser. Part of the
LP steam is extracted from the LP turbine and mixes with the con-
densed water in the deaerator, thus meeting the operating tem-
perature of the deaerator (377 K). In addition, the MP steam is ex-
tracted from the HP turbine or the MP turbine for MP steam users
(including the GSF unit, WGS unit, and METH unit). The GSF unit
produces saturated LP steam in the WHB, and part of the LP steam
is consumed by wastewater treatment and SGR units. The remain-
ing steam is superheated and injected into the MP turbine or LP
turbine.
3. Research methods
The overall model is formulated in the General Algebraic Mod-
eling System (GAMS). This model is a highly nonconvex NLP prob-
lem. There are 30 0 0+ constraints and 30 0 0+ variables, in which
20 0 0+ constraints and 20 0 0+ variables are nonlinear. The state-
of-the-art global solvers, such as GAMS/BARON, GAMS/ANTIGONE,
and GAMS/Lindoglobal, failed to get to the global optimal solution
within a reasonable time (100 h) for this model; therefore, a local
NLP solver, GAMS/CONOPT (Drud, 1994), is used to solve it, namely
the solution is a local optimal solution. In this paper, we will ob-
tain the initial solution with initial values provided by an Aspen
Plus simulation, and the initial solution will be tuned in the tun-
ing procedure. The recycle ratio of the METH unit (Li et al., 2014)
and the pressures of HP/MP/LP steam are key manipulated vari-
ables that have a relatively large influence on the efficiency of the
coal-to-SNG process. Each key manipulated variable has been dis-
cretized into equally spaced values according to its bounds. In the
tuning procedure, the model has been solved iteratively. In each it-
eration, only one key manipulated variable is fixed at a discretized
value and other variables are free, and the best-known solution is
kept and used as the initial value for the next iteration. Finally,
the best-known solution is used as the initial value for the model
without fixed key variables, and the final solution (best known) is
reported in this paper. Each iteration of the model takes about two
CUP seconds (Intel Core i7-4790 3.60 GHz).
3.1. Thermodynamic property model
In this paper, steam is treated as a real gas, while other gases
are treated as ideal gases, and the gas mixture is treated as an
ideal gas mixture.
ALAMO (Cozad et al., 2014) and Aspen Plus are used to fit the
enthalpy-temperature correlation for steam in the pressure range
of 0.1–125 bar and in the temperature range of 298.15–10 0 0 K. In
the proposed method, ALAMO generates 10,0 0 0 or more sampling
points (T, P) and calls the Aspen Plus model (which uses the
IAPWS-95 property package) via Python to simulate and retrieve
simulation results (enthalpy values), thus building an enthalpy-
temperature correlation. The R2 can reach 0.999, and the maxi-
mum error is less than 2%.
The steam enthalpy-temperature correlation generated by
ALAMO is shown below. The units of enthalpy, T, and P are
kJ kmol−1 , K, and MPa, respectively.
6.44 × 107
hH2O = − 585T + 0.176(T )2 + 3.53 × 105 ln (T )
T 4400
− 4.43 × 103 PH2O − 37.72(PH2O )2 − 6.17 × 10−3 (T )2 PH2O
+ 4.23 × 10−2 T (PH2O )2 − 2.02 × 106
3.2. Coal-to-SNG process model
An operating coal-to-SNG plant in northwest China is used as
the base plant in this paper. The operating conditions of the WGS
unit, METH unit, and HRSC system are optimized to exploit the
heat recovery potential, while the operating conditions of the ASU,
GSF unit, and SGR unit are fixed due to their relatively narrow op-
erating windows. The mass balance and energy balance model for
the WGS unit, METH unit, and HRSC are built rigorously, while the
operating data used for the ASU, GSF unit, and SGR unit are re-
trieved from the base plant in northwest China. In the following
paper, the WGS unit and the METH unit are combined into the
WGS–METH section.
3.2.1. The operating data of ASU, GSF unit, and SGR unit
In this paper, only the electricity consumption of the ASU
is considered, which is 0.6 kWh/Nm3 O2 at a pressure of 5 MPa
(Li et al., 2014).
As for the gasifier in the GSF unit, Yining coal is used as feed-
stock, for which the mass flow rates is 1081 kg h−1 . Tables 1 and 2
list the properties of coal and the consumption amounts of oxygen
and steam, respectively. The conditions of syngas exiting the gasi-
fication battery limit, or the source gas of the WGS unit, are listed
in Table 3. The saturated LP steam (0.6 MPa) generated in the WHB
is approximately 0.494 t steam/ t coal, of which 36.5% is used in
the wastewater treatment unit, and 35.5% is used in the SGR unit.
The remaining LP steam is superheated in E-311/E-411 in Fig. 6 and
then injected into the MP/LP turbines.
For the SGR unit, a simple input-output relation is used to sim-
ulate this process. The gas recovery ratio taken from the base plant
is shown in Table 4, namely, 100% H2 S and 97.55% CO2 is removed
in the SGR unit.
3.2.2. Models of the WGS-METH section
The mass balance and energy balance model of the WGS-METH
section is built to optimize the operating conditions. In the WGS-
METH section, there are mixers, splitters, coolers, heaters, flash
tankers and reactors. The models of the mixers, splitters, coolers,
and heaters are straightforward and are therefore neglected here,
following are models of the reactor and flash tanker.
In the WGS unit, the water gas shift reaction (1) is considered.
This reaction is equilibrium restricted, and the approach temper-
ature is 48 K in the WGS unit, which is determined by regressing
the base plant operating data.
In the METH unit, reactions (1), (3), and (4) are considered, and
only 2 of these 3 reactions are independent. Therefore, reactions
(1) and (3) are modeled in the METH reactors, and the gas compo-
sitions at the reactor outlet are close to an equilibrium state. The
approach temperature is specified as 0.8 K in this paper, and the
heat loss is approximately 2.2% of the reaction heat, which are also
determined by regressing the base plant operating data.
Equilibrium constant correlations for reactions (1) and (3) are
shown in Eqs. (8) and (9) Chein et al., 2016); P denotes the total
out stands for the molar flow rates of species i at the
pressure and Fg,i
outlet of equipment g. The set of reactors that are restricted by the
water gas shift reaction is defined as SRW = {R-101, R-201, R-202,
R-203, R-204, R-205}, and the set of reactors that are restricted by
the CO methanation reaction is defined as SRM = {R-201, R-202, R-
203, R-204, R-205}. The composition at the outlet of the reactors is
governed by Eqs. (10) and (11).
 
KgWGS = 1.767 × 10 −2
exp ∀g ∈ SRM (8)
Tgout
(7)
 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128 123

Table 1
Properties of raw coal.

Coal proximate analysis (wt%) HHV (ad) Ultimate analysis (wt%)

Mad Aad Vad FCad MJ/kg C H O N S

13.10 10.33 28.08 48.49 23.01 60.10 3.00 12.43 0.62 0.42

Table 2 The power output of the steam turbine is calculated by Eq. (13),
Gasification agent consumption.
ηturbine and ηgenerator are the isentropic efficiencies of the turbine
Gasification agent Value Quality and generator, which are assumed to be 0.8 and 0.96, respectively
Oxygen 207.57 Nm3 O2 /t coal Purity 99.6 vol% (Ensinas et al., 2007), and the set of turbines is defined as ST = {T-
MP steama 1.482 t steam/t coal 5.0 MPa, 723 K 301, T-302, T-303}. The HP and MP turbines are backpressure tur-
MP steamb 0.282 t steam/t coal 4.1 MPa, 520 K bines, while the LP turbine is a condensing turbine, and the steam
a
This extra steam is from the HRSC. dryness at the outlet of the LP turbine is greater than 0.9.
b
This steam is from water jacket. 
Wturbine = F Tgin · ηturbine · ηgenerator · (hin
g,H2O − hg,H2O )
iso
(13)
Table 3 g∈ST
Gas composition at the gasification battery limit.
DN ST −303 ≥ 0.9 (14)
Term Value

T/K 446.6 Heat absorbed by economizers, evaporators, superheaters and

P/MPa(A) 4 reheaters is calculated by Eq. (15), and the set of heat absorbers in
Flow rates/kmol h−1 100 the HRSC is defined as SQA = {E-301,…, E-313}∪{E-410,…, E413}.
H2 O 23.61
CO 13.28 Q Ag = F Tgin (hout
g,H2O − hg,H2O )
in
∀g ∈ SQA (15)
CO2 24.46
Composition/vol% H2 S 0.18 Heat released by the condenser is calculated by Eq. (16), and
H2 30.05 the set of heat coolers in the HRSC is defined as SQR = {condenser}.
N2 0.10
CH4 7.88
O2 0.23
Q Rg = F Tgin (hin
g,H2O − hg,H2O )
out
∀g ∈ SQR (16)
C2 H 6 0.21
The pressure drop between two pressure levels is restricted by
Equation (17).
Table 4
Performance of the SGR unit. PHP − PMP ≥ 0.5 MPa and PMP − PLP ≥ 0.5 MPa (17)
Components CO H2 CO2 CH4 H2 S The temperature change in the evaporator and condenser is as-
Recovery ratio/% 99.59 99.97 2.45 100 0 sumed to be 1 K so as to avoid the infinite heat capacity of streams
under phase change.

   2 3.3.2. Boiler of the captive power plant (CPP)

−26830 F Tgout
KgMET H = 1.198 × 10 23
exp · ∀g ∈ SRM The heat absorbed by the boiler is calculated by Equation (18),
Tgout Tgout
in which ηboiler is the boiler efficiency, which is fixed at 0.85
(9) (Ensinas et al., 2007) in this paper, Mfuel is the mass flowrate of
coal fed into the boiler, and LHV represents the lower heating
out out
· Fg,H2 WGS out out
∀g ∈ SRM value of fuel coal. The amount of HP steam generated in the boiler
Fg,CO O − Kg · Fg,CO 2 · Fg,H2 = 0 (10)
is calculated by Eq. (19).

(Fg,H2 ) · Fg,CO
out 3 out
− KgMET H · Fg,CH4
out out
· Fg,H2 ∀g ∈ SRM Qboiler = ηboiler · M f uel · LHV (18)
O = 0 (11)
The effluent of the WGS reactor (R-101) and the 4th and 5th  
METH reactors (R-204 and R-205) need to be cooled to a low tem- Qboiler = F Tboiler · hout in
boiler,H2O − hboiler,H2O (19)
perature so that water vapor in the syngas is condensed. In the
flash model, we assume dry gas does not dissolve in the conden- 3.3.3. Extended Duran–Grossmann model
sate, the gas stream at the flash tanker outlet is saturated with Pinch analysis (Linnhoff, 1982) is a powerful tool to perform
water vapor, and excess water vapor is condensed. heat integration and target the heating/cooling utility. The analysis
requires fixed inlet/outlet temperature and flow rates; therefore, it
3.3. Heat integration model is difficult to use this method to simultaneously optimize the pro-
cess with variable temperature and flow rates. However, Duran and
3.3.1. HRSC thermodynamic model Grossmann (Duran and Grossmann, 1986) had proposed a mathe-
The electricity consumed by the LP/MP/HP water pump can be matical model that used floating pinch temperatures so as to op-
calculated by Eq. (12), where ηpump is isentropic efficiency, which timize the process and heat integration simultaneously. Hence, the
is assumed to be 0.8 (Ensinas et al., 2007), hing,H2O
stands for the Duran–Grossmann model has been adopted.
specific enthalpy of water/steam at the inlet of equipment g, hiso
g,H2O
As the Duran–Grossmann model is based on pinch methods, it
is the outlet enthalpy when the compression process is isentropic, obeys the rule that the pinch point always appears at the inlet of
and the set of pumps is defined as SP = {P-301, P-302, P-303, P- streams when the heat capacity flowrate (FCp) is fixed; thus, the
304}. Duran–Grossmann model treats each of the inlet temperatures of
the hot and cold streams as pinch candidates. Duran and Gross-
 F Tgin
Wpump = (hiso
g,H2O − hg,H2O )
in
(12) mann had observed that the true pinch temperature exhibits the
g∈SP
η pump largest heating and cooling utilities among all pinch candidates.
124 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128

Table 5 WGSF , WSGR , Wcompression are values of electricity consumption of the

Specific power consumption of auxiliary devices.
pumps in the HRSC, syngas recycle compressor in the METH unit,
Devices Specific consumption References ASU, GSF unit and SNG compressor, respectively. The electricity
ASU 0.6 kWh/Nm3 O2 (Li et al., 2014) balance is constrained by Eq. (26).
GSF 0.003 kWh/kg coal (He et al., 2013)
SGR 0.024 kWh/Nm3 syngas (Yin and He, 2011) Wauxiliary = Wpump + Wrecycle + WASU + WGSF + WSGR + Wcompression
(25)

The key point of Duran–Grossmann model is therefore to calculate

the heating utility (the same as heat deficit (ZH Pch )) of each pinch
candidate, where Q SIAPch /Q SOAPch are the total heat loads of the
cold/hot streams above each candidate. The set of pinch tempera-
ture candidates is defined as PC = {Tgin | g∈coolers or heaters in the
HEN}. The maximum heating utility (QH) is determined by Eq. (21).
The actual minimum cooling utility is determined by the heat bal-
ance Eq. (22), where(x)is the difference between the total heat
contents of the cold and hot streams. Constraint (23) is suitable
for the coal-to-SNG process as it has surplus heat to recover. To
use NLP algorithms, max operators in Eq. (21) should be smoothed
by Eq. (24), whereɛis a small number such as 10−4 . For a detailed
description, the reader can refer to the original paper (Duran and
Grossmann, 1986).
Z H Pch (x ) = QSIAPch (x ) − QSOAPch (x ) ∀Pch ∈ PC
QH = max{ZH Pch (x )}
QC = (x ) + QH
QH = 0
max{0, ς } ≈ 0.5(ς + (ς 2 + ε )0.5 )
In the original Duran–Grossmann model, there is only one set
of cold and hot streams that exchange heat with each other. In
this paper, the extended Duran–Grossmann model Dowling and
Biegler, 2015) is used with two sets of cold and hot streams. One
set of cold and hot streams corresponds to streams in the WGS–
HEN (see Fig. 5); the other set corresponds to streams in the
METH–HEN (see Fig. 5). So there are two sets of constraints ((20)–
(24).
3.4. Electricity balance
The electricity generated by HP/MP/LP turbines is used to meet
the electricity demand of all the auxiliary devices; the power con-
sumption of auxiliary devices is denoted as Wauxiliary , and the spe-
cific power consumption of the ASU, GSF unit and SGR unit are
listed in Table 5. The total power consumption of auxiliary de-
vices is calculated by Eq. (25), in which Wpump , Wrecycle , WASU ,
Wturbine − Wauxiliary = 0 (26)
3.5. Overall models and objective
The overall NLP model can be formulated as shown in P1:
ESNG
Max OBJ =
Ecoal
s.t.m(x ) = Wturbine − Wauxiliary = 0
(x ) = 0
(x ) ≥ 0
ω (x ) ≥ 0 (P1)
The objective is maximizing the total exergy efficiency: ESNG
represents the exergy of SNG, and Ecoal stands for the exergy of
(20)
gasification coal and the fuel coal. Fuel coal is used to fire the cap-
tive power plant boiler. The function m(x) represents the electric-
(21) ity balance of this process: the electricity consumption by auxiliary
devices is provided by the steam turbines with no surplus electric-
(22) ity to the power grid. The function (x) represents the energy and
material balance of the WGS–METH section and the HRSC system.
The function  (x)is the design specification of this process, such as
(23) the molar fraction of CH4 in SNG, which is set to 97.6% (the same
as the base plant) and the molar fraction of steam at the METH
reactors inlet, which is set to be greater than 14% to avoid carbon
(24)
deposition. The functionω(x) represents the constraints of the ex-
tended Duran–Grossmann model Eqs. (20)–((24)).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Model validation
A set of base plant data is used to verify the thermodynamic
property model and WGS-METH model. The gas conditions are the
same as the data in Table 3; the feed gas entering the WGS unit is
100 kmol h−1 .
In this paper, the operating conditions of the base plant are
used to conduct a simulation with an optimization model (formu-
lated in GAMS) to verify the thermodynamic property model and
WGS-METH model. Table 6 compares some key parameters.
The temperature and compositions of the base plant and GAMS
model agree very well, which indicates that the optimization
model is reliable.

Table 6
Comparison between the base plant data and GAMS model results.

R-201a inlet R-201 outlet

Base Plant Optimization Model Base Plant Optimization Model

T/K 528.2 528.5 948.2 948.9

P/MPa 3.22 3.22 3.17 3.17
H2 O 14.16 13.98 24.41 24.19
CO 10.73 10.73 2.95 2.92
Composition/vol% CO2 3.13 3.12 4.61 4.62
H2 45.11 45.26 27.58 27.76
N2 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.26
CH4 26.50 26.53 40.18 40.25
C2 H6 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.00
a
R-201 is the first main methanation reactor.
 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128 125

Table 7
Operating conditions of the WGS-METH section.

R-101 R-101 R-201 R-201 R-202 R-202 R-203 R-203 SNG

inlet Outlet inlet outlet inlet outlet inlet outlet Product

P/MPa(A) 3.92 3.87 3.22 3.17 3.14 3.09 3.06 3.01 7.00
T/K 638.7 683.9 524.9 897.7 610.3 973.1 513.2 792.8 313.2
H2 O 23.40 18.70 14.00 23.70 10.60 18.70 18.70 29.50 0.30
CO 12.60 7.90 9.00 1.70 11.50 4.40 4.40 0.30 0.00
Composition/vol% CO2 25.30 30.00 3.30 4.50 2.90 4.60 4.60 3.30 1.10
H2 S 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
H2 30.50 35.20 38.30 20.70 44.50 29.20 29.20 11.60 0.40
N2 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.50
CH4 7.90 7.90 35.10 49.10 30.20 42.90 42.90 55.00 97.60

0.544
1000 Grand Composite Curve of the METH unit
0.542
Grand Composite Curve of the WGS unit
900
0.540

0.538 800

Temperature /K
Exergy efficiency

0.536 Split ratio

700
Bypass ratio
0.534
Recycle ratio
600
0.532

0.530 500

0.528 400
0.526
300
0.524
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio Enthalpy/kW

Fig. 8. Grand composite curves of the WGS unit and METH unit without stream
Fig. 7. Influence of bypass ratio, recycle ratio and split ratio on exergy efficiency.
generation.

4.2. Optimization results
In the following paper, the optimal operating conditions for the
WGS-METH section and the HRSC are described.
4.2.1. Optimal operating conditions for the WGS–METH section
Table 7 shows the optimal operating conditions of the main re-
actors in the WGS unit and METH unit, and apart from the tem-
perature, pressure, and compositions in Table 7, the bypass ratio
of the WGS unit is 0.506, namely, 50.6% of syngas bypasses the
WGS reactor R-101. In this case, steam in the raw gas is sufficient
for the water gas shift reaction and no extra steam is needed. For
the METH unit, the optimal recycle ratio is 0.681, which is rela-
tively low compared to the ratio of 0.85 reported in the literature
(Li et al., 2014). Such a low recycle ratio leads to a high operating
temperature in the methanation reactors. The temperature at the
R-201 and R-202 outlets is 897.7 K and 973.1 K, respectively, and
high temperature is advantageous for the cogeneration of electric-
ity (Gassner et al., 2011). The optimal split ratio is 0.456, namely,
54.4% of the syngas enters R-201, and 45.6% of the syngas enters
R-202. Fig. 7 shows the influence of the bypass ratio, recycle ra-
tio, and split ratio on the exergy efficiency. When the bypass ra-
tio of the WGS unit is between 0 and 0.6, it has a weak influence
on the exergy efficiency; however, when it exceeds 0.6, the exergy
efficiency decreases sharply. The influence of the recycle ratio on
exergy efficiency is relatively straightforward, and the exergy effi-
ciency initially increases and then decreases with an increase in
the recycle ratio. For the split ratio of the METH unit, the influence
on exergy efficiency is weak when it is between 0 and 0.5; how-
ever, the exergy efficiency decreases gradually when it exceeds 0.5.
Fig. 8 depicts the grand composite curves (GCC) of the process
streams within the WGS and METH units. There is approximately
412 kW/716 kW of waste heat that could be recovered or removed
in the WGS/METH units, respectively, when the heat recovery ap-
proach temperature (HRAT) is fixed at 10 K. It is obvious that the
waste heat of the METH unit concentrates in the high-temperature
region, while it concentrates in the low-temperature region for the
WGS unit; for this reason, we integrate the heat of these two units
to realize cascaded utilization of energy.
4.2.2. Optimal operating conditions for the HRSC
The electricity balance of the HRSC–CPP is shown in Fig. 9, from
which we can see that the electricity generated by the turbines
is 202.9 kW, 66.36% of which is consumed by the ASU (including
O2 compression). The second largest electricity consumer is SGR,
which accounts for 20.76% of total electricity consumption. The
electricity consumption proportion is similar to that of (Li et al.,
2014).
Apart from the electricity balance, Fig. 9 also depicts the wa-
ter balance of the HRSC–CPP. It is important to note that the flow
rates of the MP steam evaporated in the HRSC is 0, although the
superstructure of the HRSC has 3 pressure levels. A CPP boiler with
a capacity of 61.89 kmol h−1 HP steam is installed to meet the
electricity demand and MP steam demand of the system. To satisfy
the MP steam demand of steam users, 102.54 kmol h−1 MP steam
(5.0 MPa, 723.15 K) is extracted from the MP turbine, in which
89.00 kmol h−1 , 0.21 kmol h−1 , and 13.34 kmol h−1 steam are sent
to the gasifier, METH unit, and wastewater treatment unit, respec-
tively. To maintain the operation of the deaerator, 3.94 kmol h−1 of
LP steam (0.126 MPa, 379.53 K) extracted from the LP turbine is fed
to the deaerator. 142.01 kmol h−1 of demineralized water is heated
126 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128

61.89 kmol·h-1
86.80%
GSF
47.19 kmol·h-1 0.00%
WGS
102.54 METH
kmol·h-1 0.20%
WWT
13.00%
-4.58 kW HP Turbine T-301

MPS 66.36%
ASU
0 kmol·h-1 17.9 kW
20.76%
SGR

0.00 kW 7.13% SNG

MP Turbine T-302 131.2 kW compr Boiler
8.77 1.60%
From WHB GSF
kmol·h-1
14.43 kmol·h-1 4.15%
53.8 kW Pumps

-0.02 kW coal
LP Turbine T-303

air
3.94 kmol·h-1

142.01kmol·h-1
Deaerator
25.79 kmol·h-1
Demineralized water
-0.10 kW

16.94 kmol·h -1 Condenser

61.89 kmol·h-1
BFW
To water jacket
31.3 kmol·h-1

To WHB

Fig. 9. Water and electricity balance of the HRSC–CPP.

Table 8
Operating conditions of the HRSC.

Pressure/MPa Tin/K Tout/K Total/kmol·h-1 WGS/% METH/%

HP economizer 12.50 377.15 600.72 47.19 9.50 90.50

HP evaporator 12.50 600.72 601.72 47.19 13.00 87.00
HP superheater 12.50 601.72 833.15 47.19 0.00 10 0.0 0
Reheater 11.07 814.65 832.72 109.07 0.00 10 0.0 0
LP economizer 0.30 377.15 406.49 14.43 10 0.0 0 0.00
LP evaporator 0.30 406.49 407.49 14.43 81.40 18.60
LP superheatera 0.30 407.49 446.61 14.43 10 0.0 0 0.00
LP superheaterb 0.60 432.15 491.88 8.77 10 0.0 0 0.00
demineralized water 0.20 318.15 373.16 142.01 10 0.0 0 0.00
BFW for jacket 4.50 377.15 423.15 16.94 10 0.0 0 0.00
a
Refer to the LP superheater (E-310/E-410 in Fig. 6).
b
Refer to the superheater (E-311/E-411 in Fig. 6) that heats the LP steam from waste heat boiler.

from 318 K to the deaerator temperature so as to maintain the wa-
ter balance of the HRSC–CPP, and 16.94 kmol h−1 BFW is heated to
423.15 K and fed to the water jacket of the gasifier.
The pressure, temperature, total flow rates and relative amounts
of steam/water generated by the WGS/METH unit are shown in
Table 8. The data of the 6th and 7th columns in Table 8 show the
distribution of water/steam in the WGS-HEN and METH–HEN. It
can be observed that waste heat from the WGS unit is used to gen-
erate LP steam and preheat the demineralized water as well as the
BFW for the water jacket of the gasifier, while the main function
of the waste heat of the METH unit is to generate HP steam. The
difference between this configuration and the conventional config-
uration is that a portion of the saturated HP steam (13.00%) is gen-
erated in the WGS unit and not generated in a conventional WGS
unit, and this portion of the HP saturated steam together with
other HP steam generated from the METH unit is superheated in
the METH unit.
4.2.3. Composite curves
To illustrate the heat recovery effect, composite curves of the
WGS-HEN (see Fig. 10) and METH–HEN (see Fig. 11) are shown.
From these two graphs, it is obvious that the cold and hot stream
composite curves are very close, indicating that waste heat is re-
covered efficiently.
4.3. Comparison with the base plant
To show the superiority of the proposed method, the heat re-
covery performance of the WGS-METH section between the base
 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128 127

Table 9
Comparison of heat recovery amount between base plant and optimized plant.

Case Streams P/MPa Tin –Tout /K Flow rates/kmol h−1 Exergy/kW

Base plant MP steam 5.49 378–736 42.20 352.62

LP steam 0.80 378–444 7.00
LP BFW 1 1.00 313–411 130.00
LP BFW 2 2.10 322–395 47
Optimized plant HP steam 12.50 377–833 47.19 437.36
Reheat steam 11.07 815–833 109.07
LP steama 0.30 377–447 14.43
LP steamb 0.60 432–492 8.77
Demineralized water 0.20 318–373 142.01
BFW for jacket 4.50 377–423 16.94
a
Refer to the LP steam raised in LP economizer/evaporator/superheater in the HRSC.
b
Refer to the LP steam from WHB that is superheated in the HRSC.

Table 10
Comparison of operating conditions between base plant and optimized plant.

Case Tin/K Tout/K Effluent/kmol h−1 Bypass ratio Recycle ratio Split ratio

Base plant R-101 549.9 618.4 37.48 0.624 0.550 0.420

R-201 528.4 948.9 50.67
R-202 534.9 948.8 37.96
R-203 603.2 809.1 34.59
Optimized plant R-101 638.7 683.9 49.20 0.506 0.681 0.456
R-201 524.9 897.7 58.69
R-202 610.3 973.1 36.74
R-203 513.2 792.8 32.50

plant and the optimized plant is compared. Table 9 lists the oper-
700 Hot Composite Curve of the WGS-HEN ating conditions of the HRSC streams in the base plant and opti-
Cold Composite Curve of the WGS-HEN mized plant. Syngas entering the WGS-METH section is the same
in these two plants, and SNG exiting the WGS-METH section of
600 the base plant and optimized plant is the same in terms of ex-
Temperature /K

ergy (4392.5 kW). The base plant recovers 352.62 kW of waste heat
in terms of exergy, while the optimized plant recovers 437.36 kW.
500 The heat recovery amount (in terms of exergy) can be improved by
24.03% by optimizing the operating conditions of the WGS-METH
section and the HRSC simultaneously. The exergy efficiency of the
400 coal-to-SNG process is 52.89% for the base plant, while it’s 54.17%
for the optimized plant. The exergy efficiency of the total plant has
been improved by 1.28%. The main difference of the HRSC between
300 the base plant and the optimized plant is that HP steam is not gen-
erated in the base plant (see Table 9), and the highest temperature
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 of the steam is 736 K in the base plant, while it is 833 K in the
optimized plant.
Enthalpy/kW
Table 10 compares the operating conditions of the main reac-
Fig. 10. Composite curves of the WGS–HEN. tors in the WGS-METH section. The main reactor of the WGS unit
(R-101) has been operated at a higher temperature in the opti-
1000
mized plant than that in the base plant, which gives the WGS unit
Hot Composite Curve of the METH-HEN the ability to generate HP steam. The relatively lower bypass ratio
Cold Composite Curve of the METH-HEN of the WGS unit ensures that the effluent of R-101 is larger (the
900
temperature is also higher), thereby improving the quality of waste
800 heat from the WGS unit. The recycle ratio of the METH unit in the
Temperature /K

optimized plant is larger than that in the base plant, which elim-
700 inates the steam requirements in the optimized plant. The split
ratio of the METH unit in the optimized plant is also larger than
600 that in the base plant, allowing the outlet temperature of R-202
to reach 973.15 K and with the higher temperature, to generate HP
500 steam.

400
5. Conclusions
300
The synergy between operating conditions of the coal-to-SNG
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 process and the HRSC system are exploited by simultaneously opti-
Enthalpy/kW mizing the operating conditions of the HRSC streams and the coal-
to-SNG process. In this paper, a novel, branched, HRSC superstruc-
Fig. 11. Composite curves of the METH–HEN. ture for heat recovery and power generation is proposed that is de-
128 B. Huang et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 117 (2018) 117–128
signed to avoid the heat exchange between process streams in dif-
ferent subsystems and to realize heat integration between different
subsystems through water/steam integration. The extended Duran–
Grossmann model is used, and it covers two sets of cold and hot
streams to match the branched HRSC superstructure; hence, the
operating conditions for the two HENs are determined simultane-
ously.
The optimal exergy efficiency of the coal-to-SNG plant is 54.17%,
which is improved by 1.28% compared with the base plant. The op-
timal bypass ratio of the WGS unit, the recycle ratio of the METH
unit and the split ratio of the METH unit are 0.506, 0.681 and
0.456, respectively. It is shown that the recycle ratio of the METH
unit and the split ratio of the METH unit have a greater influence
on the exergy efficiency than the bypass ratio of the WGS unit. By
analyzing the exergy recovered by the HRSC, it is found that the
heat recovery amount (in terms of exergy) is improved by 24.03%
compared with the base plant, and this gain makes the major con-
tribution for the improvement of exergy efficiency.
This branched HRSC superstructure, together with the extended
Duran–Grossmann model, is suitable for the determination of oper-
ating conditions of the chemical plant and heat recovery network.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant No. 21776087, the National Key R&D Plan un-
der Grant No. 2017YFB0602604, and the NSFC–DFG joint project
under Grant No. 2171101208 are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Baliban, R.C., Elia, J.A., Floudas, C.A., 2011. Optimization framework for the simulta-
neous process synthesis, heat and power integration of a thermochemical hy-
brid biomass, coal, and natural gas facility. Comput. Chem. Eng. 35, 1647–1690.
Baliban, R.C., Elia, J.A., Floudas, C.A., 2012. Simultaneous process synthesis, heat,
power, and water integration of thermochemical hybrid biomass, coal, and nat-
ural gas facilities. Comput. Chem. Eng. 37, 297–327.
Baliban, R.C., Elia, J.A., Floudas, C.A., 2013. Biomass to liquid transportation fuels
(BTL) systems: process synthesis and global optimization framework. Energy
Environ. Sci. 6, 267–287.
Blumberg, T., Sorgenfrei, M., Tsatsaronis, G., 2015. Design and assessment of an IGCC
concept with CO2 capture for the co-generation of electricity and substitute
natural gas. Sustainability 7, 16213–16225.
Boll, W., Hochgesand, G., Higman, C., Supp, E., Kalteier, P., Müller, W.D., Kriebel, M.,
Schlichting, H., Tanz, H., 2011. Gas production, 3. gas treating. Ullmann’s Ency-
clopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
Chein, R., Yu, C., Wang, C., 2016. Numerical simulation on the effect of operating
conditions and syngas compositions for synthetic natural gas production via
methanation reaction. Fuel 185, 394–409.
Cozad, A., Sahinidis, N.V., Miller, D.C., 2014. Learning surrogate models for simula-
tion-based optimization. Aiche J. 60, 2211–2227.
Dowling, A.W., Biegler, L.T., 2015. A framework for efficient large scale equation-ori-
ented flowsheet optimization. Comput. Chem. Eng. 72, 3–20.
Drud, A.S., 1994. CONOPT—a large-scale GRG code. ORSA J. Comput. 6, 207–216.
Duran, M.A., Grossmann, I.E., 1986. Simultaneous optimization and heat integration
of chemical processes. Aiche J. 32, 123–138.
Ebrahimi, A., Meratizaman, M., Reyhani, H.A., Pourali, O., Amidpour, M., 2015. En-
ergetic, exergetic and economic assessment of oxygen production from two
columns cryogenic air separation unit. Energy 90, 1298–1316.
Elia, J.A., Baliban, R.C., Floudas, C.A., 2010. Toward novel hybrid biomass, coal, and
natural gas processes for satisfying current transportation fuel demands, 2: Si-
multaneous heat and power integration. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49, 7371–7388.
Ensinas, A.V., Nebra, S.A., Lozano, M.A., Serra, L.M., 2007. Analysis of process steam
demand reduction and electricity generation in sugar and ethanol production
from sugarcane. Energy Convers. Manage. 48, 2978–2987.
Gassner, M., Vogel, F., Heyen, G., Maréchal, F., 2011. Optimal process design for the
polygeneration of SNG, power and heat by hydrothermal gasification of waste
biomass: process optimisation for selected substrates. Energy Environ. Sci. 4,
1742–1758.
He, C., Feng, X., Chu, K.H., 2013. Process modeling and thermodynamic analysis of
Lurgi fixed-bed coal gasifier in an SNG plant. Appl. Energy 111, 742–757.
Kong, L., Avadiappan, V., Huang, K., Maravelias, C.T., 2017. Simultaneous chemi-
cal process synthesis and heat integration with unclassified hot/cold process
streams. Comput. Chem. Eng. 101, 210–225.
Li, S., Gao, L., Jin, H., 2016. Life cycle energy use and GHG emission assessment of
coal-based SNG and power cogeneration technology in China. Energy Convers.
Manage. 112, 91–100.
Li, S., Ji, X., Zhang, X., Gao, L., Jin, H., 2014. Coal to SNG: technical progress, modeling
and system optimization through exergy analysis. Appl. Energy 136, 98–109.
Linnhoff., 1982. A User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy.
Linnhoff, B., Flower, J.R., 1978. Synthesis of heat exchanger networks: I. Systematic
generation of energy optimal networks. Aiche J. 24, 633–642.
Martelli, E., Amaldi, E., Consonni, S., 2011. Numerical optimization of heat recovery
steam cycles: mathematical model, two-stage algorithm and applications. Com-
put. Chem. Eng. 35, 2799–2823.
Martelli, E., Kreutz, T.G., Gatti, M., Chiesa, P., Consonni, S., 2013. Numerical optimiza-
tion of steam cycles and steam generators designs for coal to FT plants. Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 91, 1467–1482.
Navarro-Amorós, M.A., Caballero, J.A., Ruiz-Femenia, R., Grossmann, I.E., 2013. An al-
ternative disjunctive optimization model for heat integration with variable tem-
peratures. Comput. Chem. Eng. 56, 12–26.
Papoulias, S.A., Grossmann, I.E., 1983. A structural optimization approach in process
synthesis—III: total processing systems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 7, 723–734.
Shaikh, F., Ji, Q., Fan, Y., 2017. An ecological network analysis of the structure, devel-
opment and sustainability of China’s natural gas supply system security. Ecol.
Indic. 73, 235–246.
Topsoe, H., 2009. From Solid Fuels to Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) using TREMP.
Halder Topsoe Technical Report.
Yin, A., He, L., 2011. Comparison of two rectisol processes. Nat. Gas Chem. Ind. 36,
53–55.
Yu, C., Huang, C., Tan, C., 2012. A review of CO2 capture by absorption and adsorp-
tion. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 12, 745–769.
Yu, H., Eason, J., Biegler, L.T., Feng, X., 2017. Simultaneous heat integration and tech-
no-economic optimization of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) for multiple waste
heat stream recovery. Energy 119, 322–333.