 |
Brochure |
 |
Services |
|
Industry Sectors |
|
Members |
 |
Success Stories |
|
Events |
|
News |
|
Press Releases |
|
FAQ |
|
Contact us |
 |
Technology Watch Knowledge Base |
Pentagon Chemicals Manufacturing Improvements |
|
  |
|
|
|
PROBLEM STATEMENT |
|
 |
|
|
Work involved data collection to establish the current performance of the multi-stage batch reactor system involved in the manufacturing process. It established achieved efficiencies and gave an insight into levels of repeatability and opportunities for reduction of waste product generation. In addition, a benchmarking investigation was conducted to examine production efficiency. This formed the basis for a comparison against other significant players in this chemicals sector. The analysis led to the identification of areas where there is a general potential for performance improvement and to the identification of improvement potential for operation of the batch reactor system. The approach used in the case study is encapsulated in a software tool called POISE which allows speciality chemical companies to determine what type of process performance gap they have and to direct engineers towards the correct type of improvement activity. The key to how it works is the analysis of batch cycle times in a systematic and insightful way. |
In the Pentagon case study a dramatic 45% improvement in capability was identified by following this systematic approach. When this approach is coupled with the standard statistical/frequency based measures then the practising engineer has a truly effective toolkit with which to readily analyse and resolve plant robustness and performance issues. Outwardly this appears to be a very robust process with the narrow band between technical limit and guarantee limit indicating a very tightly controlled and reproducible process. However more detailed analysis of the data, particularly looking at the standard deviations on individual stage batch times showed, looking at the step data for each stage’ significant variation in performance between them. |
IMPROVEMENT APPROACH |
|
|
|
|
A Sustainable Manufacturing Analysis focusing on the detailed chemistry and unit operations of the process was carried out. It identified potential improvements in throughput of up to 45% with minimal capital spend by focusing on cycle time balancing and improving process ruggedness. The duplicated vessel steps of stages 1 and 2 and stage 4 remain limiting however even if the proven technical limit times of 28.1 hours for stages 1 and 2 (i.e. 14 hours cycle time) and 31.4 hours for stage 4 (i.e. 16.7 hours cycle time) can be achieved. Therefore there remains the potential to achieve significant further benefit from the application of new technology and/or process acceleration to these stages. Each of the six process steps were then analysed for process robustness to give a measure of the efficiency of each process stage. Crystal Faraday reported these in full. Although kinetic data was not available for review and analysis it is inferred from the chemistry that with the possible exception of stage 1 and 2 reaction kinetics are not limiting. |
The study identified several potential processing improvements for each stage. However the key finding was that a number of problems, particularly those associated with the limiting capacity of some utility systems, were ultimately related to the quantity of auxiliary materials (solvents, catalysts etc) being handled throughout the process. The mass balance shows that although the yield on primary hydrocarbon is high at 90% the product output of 640 kg per batch is accompanied by an effluent production of 12.5 tonnes (including product wash water). Whilst this ratio of kgs of by-product to kgs of product places the process in the mid-quartile for the sector (see Section 4) there is real potential for a reduction in batch times from a detailed review of requirements and a programme of reduction |
BENEFITS |
|
|
|
|
Overall Case Study Technical Conclusions: Each of the six process steps were then analysed for process robustness to give a measure of the efficiency of each process stage. These were reported in full by Crystal Faraday. Although kinetic data was not available for review and analysis it is inferred from the chemistry that with the possible exception of stage 1 and 2 reaction kinetics are not limiting. A very challenging test case for cumulative probability analysis Cycle time splitting AND stage duplication Requirement for Monte – Carlo analysis to combine inter-acting probability curves Very high OEE indicated due to: - Data smoothing due to hold up times Vessels utilised ineffectively Golden Batch concepts are the most insightful Large throughput improvement possible (+/-45%) |
Minimum capital Focus on cycle time balancing and process ruggedness Duplicated vessel steps still limiting Stages 1 and 2 39.7 hrs Average – Proven Technical Limit 28.1 hrs (i.e.14hrs cycle time) Stage 4 37.8 hrs Average – Proven Technical Limit 31.4 hrs (i.e.16.7hrs cycle time) New Technology /Process Acceleration To achieve significant benefit parallel development is required on: - stages 1 and 2,stage 4 and stage 5. A target of 10 hrs per stage from revised chemistry/process improvement would give a 77% increase in output |
|
|
||
| Search | Legal notice | |