e Pergamon

Computers and Chemical Engineering Supplement (1999) S157-S160

«:> 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
PI!: S0098·1354/991OO125-8

Optimal Water Use and Treatment

Allocation
N. Benk6*, E. Rev, Z. Szitkai and Z. Fony6
Department of Chemical Engineering, Technical University of Budapest; 1521 Budapest, Hungary
*OLAITERV Contracting and Engineering Co. Ltd., 1519 Budapest, P.O. Box 270, Hungary

Abstract
Water consumption and emission can be decreased by optimal allocation of water re-use, regeneration and re-use.
regeneration and recycle in water consuming mass exchange networks and by applying optimally distributed
effluent treatment processes in case of several emission sources of different contamination levels. Several example
problems taken from the literature have been reproduced and solved by GAMS/MINOS/CONOPT package. In most
cases our optimal solution is identical to those of others; in some other cases, however, we found better solutions.
We also found our method more flexible than those based on targeting and conceptual design. Some example
problems involve constraints and/or specifications of those kinds the referred methods cannot deal with. Namely,
the constant mass load specification is substituted by either mass load proportional to the water flow rate (involving
constant concentration shift) or some other, even more realistic, non-linear functions. The optimal systems have
different structures according to the applied mass load relations.

Keywords: Optimal water allocation, mathematical programming, wastewater minimisation

Introduction superstructure and removing some of its elements by

Use of fresh industrial water accompanied by
emission of used, and therefore contaminated, water
is a steady attribute of many chemical processes all
over the world. The contaminated water should be
treated and then either be emitted or used again in
some chemical process.
Water using chemical operations can be characterised
by several quantitative properties that specify their
target and provide constraints to the water they can
accept and the water they may let out. These
specifications and constraints are inherently
determined by the type and tile capacity of the
process, though in some cases they may be variables
involving costs. For the sake of unique handling of
the different chemical operations in tile mass
exchange network synthesis (MENS) problem, they
are characterised by the properties of tile water
streams they use or emit.
The structural tools for nunmusmg water
consumption and emission are re-use, regeneration
re-use, regeneration recycling, and distributed
effluent treatment. TIle above picture is further
complicated by tile possibility of applying several
regenerating and/or treatment processes with
different capacities and performance.
Optimal assignment and design of water consuming,
regenerating, and treatment system is therefore a
complicated task, and can be mathematically
formulated as mixed integer non-linear programming
(MINLP) problem.
Solution Methodologies
Early studies on the solution of the water network
problem applied the method of structure variables
(Takama et al, 1980a) and successive linear
progranuning (Takama et ai, 1980b, 1981). In both
methodologies the technique of fixing a
optimisation (either NLP or LP) is applied.
The terminology 'Mass-Exchange Networks' (MEN-
s) and methodology was then introduced (El-Halwagi
and Manousiouthakis; 1989, 1990a, 1990b; EI-
Halwagi, 1997) patterned after tile pinch theory of
HEN-s (Heat Exchange Networks), developed earlier
(LinnhojJ, B. et al, 1982). HEN-analogous terms, like
Problem Table, Composite Curve,' Pinch are
accordingly elaborated.
A similar, but different, approach has also been
developed with the terms of 'limiting water profiles'
for water consuming processes and 'treatment lines'
for treatment processes. (Wang and Smith, 199-1a,
1994b; Olesen and Polley, 1997).
Application of Mathematical Programming
Approach
The pinch-oriented approaches, preferably that of
Wang and Smith, provides us witil clear
understanding of the problem and its draft overall
solution, as well as targeting. However, tile complex
nature of multiple contaminant, multiple regeneration
re-use and recycling possibility, and multiple
treatment processes is not really caught by these
approaches but calls for an adequate tool that can
deal with it. This is tile reason we apply the
GAMSIMINOS/CONOPT package (Brook, A.' et ai,
1988) for tile problem sketched above. Although
MINLP includes integer variables, and in fact there
are tools in GAMS to involve them, here we restrict
ourselves to apply the synthesis strategy based on
superstructures and NLP.
Application of superstructure and NLP consists of
tile following steps:
I, Construction of a superstructure; 2, Assigrunent of
variables in the structure; 3, Compilation of equations
SI58 Computers and Chemical Engineering Supplement (1999) SJ57-SJ60
describing the balances and restrictions; 4,
Construction of a set of initial values; 5, Compilation
of additional equations describing the set of initial
values: 6, Compilation of additional equations
describing the objective function; 7, Optimisation
over the variables for minimal or maximal value of
the objective function: 8, Interpretation of the results
and decision on eliminating some units.
In case of elimination,jump back to step 3.; 9, Finish.
The mathematical model consists of the following
relations:
TIle water consuming, regenerating, and treating
processes are all considered as units. There are two
additional units: one for the fresh water source and
one for the used water sink. TIIC output water stream
from any real unit can, theoretically, branch out to
any other unit except water source.
Equality constraints arc constituted by component
transfer balances, mass conservation at branching and
unification points, as well as component conservation
at mixing (calculation of new concentrations).
Loss is usually not accounted for; but its possibility is
not excluded.
Some specific reformulation is also applied for
regenerators and treatment processes. Namely, the
specifications of these processes can be given in
several ways. One is to specify the removal rate, r~k;
an other one is specifying the output concentrations,
cI.kout •
Component transfer takes place at any process in the
networkaccording to Figure 1
process stream
~- ------- -------- ---
, m
wash ing water L-- --....J
Figure 1
Only the water stream side is considered in our
model; and the component transfer rate is counted for
by a variable m (for contaminant mass rate), if loss is
not considered:
in in out out
(1)
1It i •k =H; c i •k -J~ ci,k
In case of multiple contaminants the target may be
related to one or only a partial group of pollutants
while some non-targeted (or side effect)
contamination rates may be complicated functions of
the circumstances. For example a given rate of
contaminant A is to be washed out, by water, from
the process streams while washing out of
contaminant B depends on the inlet flowrate and inlet
concentrations in a complex way. In this case the rate
of washing out contaminant B can be expressed as a
complicated function:
m I. , B =f(W"i n ,CiinA ,Ciin)
B
••
(2)
Inequality constraints are constituted by limitations
according to the unit operations' and processes'
physical chemistry, operability, safety, as well as by
environmental regulations.
For all the units, the inlet (and outlet) concentrations
are usually limited from above.
For regenerating and treatment processes, the inlet
concentrationsare also usually limited from below.
TIle final emission should satisfy environmental
limitations. These are usually given as limit
concentrations, but may also be given as limit flow
rates, as well.
Either one or both of these limitations on the
emission can be active.
Arbitrary limitations may become necessary to apply
for computationstability.
TIle objective function is usually an economic
pointer, for example sum of all the computable costs
projected to one year, like:
Z =I.fw (IJ(fut)+ ~ [loAJV;in) + PJinv(H;"')]
(3)
I
Freshwater cost and operating cost are generally
proportional to the load, e.g.:
fjw(x)=dx ; f.,p(x)=cx (4)
and the investment cost can be estimated by a power
function, e.g.:
limo (x)-a/ (5)
Resolve the "Illustrative example" of Takarna et
aI,1980a.
This is a small network in a refinery with 3
contaminants (H2S, Oil, and Suspended Solid), 3
water-using processes (Steam strippers block, HDS
high pressure block. Desalters block), and 3
regenerating/treating processes (Foul water stripper.
Oil separator, a block of Coagulating, Sedimentation.
and Filtrating units). The original data are presented
in Table 1. Here the inlet flow rates of the water
using processes and the contamination rates or the
removal ratios. respectively. are fixed. TIle flowrates
should be fixed, because of the technology. E.g. the
rate of the stripping steam must be in a strong
connection with the feed rate of the distillation tower.
TIle method of Wang & Smith (wastewater
minimisation with varying flowrate in each item) is
rather specific. TIle inlet concentrations of the water
using processes are limited; concentrations about the
treatment processesare not.
TIle resolve of the case study (Resolve.) give a result
with lower fresh-water consumption due to the
utilisation of regeneration re-cycle. This opportunity.
and even regeneration re-use, is missing from the
earlier solution although it was not intentionally
excluded. The original solution is just a re-use and
end-of-pipe treatment structure. TIle reason why they
do not use the regeneration recycle must be the
problem of salt contamination increase due to the
intensive recirculation. TIle problem should be
extended with the salt as a contaminant (151
modification). The values can be found in the Wang
& Smith article, where the suspended solid as a
contaminant is missing. It is also an irrealistic
treatment of the problem because the desalter is very
sensitive to the suspended solids.
 Computers and Chemical Engineering Supplement (1999) S157-S160 5159
We also update the concentrntion limits of the stream. We solved the problem with a number of
nd
desalter with the specification of Nalco-Exxon (2 values of «; but practising industrial experts
modification). The oil and salt limit is so tight, but recommend the hypothesis of considering the outlet
the limit for SS is harder than we found in the oil concentrntion of the desalter as a fix value that
literature. can be 100ppm for a very well operated unit; and
We also build functions for the oil concentration of 200ppm can be good for calculations. (3rd
outlet water from the desalter. The hybrid function is: modification)
w We resolved the problem. with these modifications.
lit = a- lit <. + (1- a )n l j i . " , -
J- Wfix and got more realistic results (resolve-). All the
where m is fixed as it is found in the literature if 0.=1 optima are summarised in the Table 2.; the optimal
network after resolve, can be seen in Figure 2.
and 0.=0 means: the higher water flowrate in desalter,
the higher transferred oil to the outlet washing

T able 1 Sspec ifircatiIOn 0 fth ecasest udy

Water-using W M ern• x
In

processes H2S Oil SS Salt* H2S Oil SS Salt*

(tIh) (kg/h) (kg/h) (kg/h) Kg/h (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Strippers 45.8 17.9 0.5 1.2 1.58* 0 0 0 0*
HDS highP 32.7 536 3.3 0.5 6.12* 500 20 50 -l5*
Desalters 56.5 1.3 5.7 2 532* 20 120 50 200*
cout=200'" 1000** 10** 2000**
Treatment R A b C
processes H2S Oil SS Salt* $/(t/h)b - $/h
FWS 99.9 0 0 0* 16800 0.7 1.0
OS 0 95 20 0* 4800 0.7 0
CSF 90 90 97 0* 12600 0.7 0.0067
Fresh water 0.3 $/t em..x
env
specific cost
Annual 8000 h/a H 2S Oil SS Salt
operation time
Annualisation 13.5 % (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
factor (B)
Environmental 2 2 5 -
limits
*.. 1st modification, **.. 2,na modification, ***.. 3,111 modification
Table 2: Resu ts 0 fth e case stu diy
Original state Takama etal Resolve, Resolve-
Freshwater flow rate (tIh) 135.0 102.3 45.8 60.2
Freshwater cost (M$/a) 323 246 110 144
Operating cost (M$/a) 1087 371 372 339
Capital cost (M$) 1060 676 658 907
Total annual cost (M$/a) 1550 707 568 603

3.6

0.2

1.2. 25.9
14.4 )
L . - - -. . .f-----.+...J·28.61----,..---~_l___l,

6.5
Figure 2.
Conclusions
No generally accepted approach for specifications found different specification approaches in the
has yet been developed in tile literature. We have literature studied. These differences may origin from
5160 Computers and Chemical Engineering Supplement (1999)SI57-S160
altering approaches to the problem and/or from the
applied methodologies.
One of the water using processes, in our case study,
is a block of steam strippers, At steam stripping the
steam flow rate is specified by the targeted water
using process (e.g. specified necessary boil-up),
therefore it is well fixed. On the other hand, there are
water-using processes whose main target is to wash
out some contaminants from the process stream; and
their operation can use more or less water in some
range. In this later case both upper and lower bounds
can be specified. A prop er methodology should
simultaneously deal with both specification types.
In our review of a case study we used this kind of
methodology. which is related on up-to-date
industrial practice.
An even more interesting problem is the
interdependency of contamination rates. It is an
actual research task to develop appropriately tailored
approximation formulas for specific water using unit
operations.
Considering the variety of the specifications that may
occur simultaneously in a single problem it seems
that no conceptual (targeting based or graphical)
method can cope with the general case. We discussed
some particular details in the application of the
GAMS/CONOPTIMINOS package. ' In spite of thc
MINLP formulation of the problem itself: the
approach of Cover & Eliminate (cover by
superstructure and eliminate by NLP) can be
successfully used . However, we think, the conceptual
methodologies provide the user with indispensable
tools for analysing, understanding, and interpreting
the problems and their solutions. Use of integer
decision variables (MINLP methodology) may be
preferable in case of large problems with many units
and connections.
We have to say thank to the Nalco-Exxon for the help
they gave us. We acknowledge the financial support
provided by Hungarian Scientific Research Fund
(OTKA) grant TOI6851.

Notation
Subscripts
a investment cost factor
fw fresh-water cost
b investment cost exponent
i running index for units
c operating cost factor (in eq. x)
inv .investment cost
c concentration
op operating cost
m mass load
w component flow rate
Superscripts
IV water flow rate
in inlet
Z objective function
out outlet
P factor for projecting investment
cost for a unit time period
References
Takama, N., Kuriyama, T ., Shiroko, K., Umeda, T. : "Optimal water allocation in a petroleum refinery", Camp.
Chem. Eng ., 4(4) 251-258 (1980)
Takarna, N., Kuriyama, T ., Shiroko, K., Umeda, T .: "Opt imal planning of water allocation in industry", J. Chem.
Eng. Japan, 13(6) 478-483 (1980)
Takama, N., Kuriyarna, T ., Shiroko, K., Umeda, T.: "On the formulation of optimal water allocation problem by
linear programming", Compo Chem. Eng., 5(..) 119-121 (1981)
EI-Halwagi, M.M., Manousiouthakis, V.: "Synthesis of Mass Exchange Networks", AIChE Journal 35(8) 1223-
1244 (1989)
El-Halwagi, M.M., Manousiouthakis, V.: "Automatic Synthesis of Mass-Exchange Networks with Single-
Component Targets", Chem. Eng. Sci., 45(9) 2813-2831 (1990)
El-Halwagi, M.M., Manousiouthakis, V.: "Simultaneous Synthesis of Mass-Exchange and Regeneration Networks",
AIChEJourna/36(8) 1209-1219 (1990)
El-Halwagi, M.M.: Pollution Prevention through Process Integration. Systematic Design Tools., Academic Press,
San Diego, 1997.
Linnhoff, B.,Townsend, D.W., Boland, D., Hewitt, G.F., Thomas, REA, Guy, A.R., Marsland, R.H.: "A User
Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy", IChemE, Rugby, 1982.
Wang, Y-P., Smith, R.: "Wastewater minimisation", Chem. Eng. Sci.; 49(7) 981-1006 (1994)
Wang, Y-P ., Smith, R.: "Design of distributed effluent treatment systems", Chem. Eng. Sci., 49(/8) 3127-3Iot5
(1994)
Wang, Y. P., Smith, R.: "Wastewater minimisation with flowrate constraints ", Trans. IChemE, 73A(/ I) 889-904
(1995)
Olesen, S.G., Polley, G.T. : "A simple methodology for the design of water networks handling single contaminants",
Trans. IChemE, 75A(May) 420-426 (1997)
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., Meeraus, A., Rosenthal, RE.: "GAMS. A User's Guide (reI. 2.25)" , boyd & fraser publ.
co., Danvers, MA, after Scientific Press, San Francisco, 1992 .