A ~~ Better integration of process equipment and operations pays off twofold, through simplicity in structures, and the simultaneous best use of both energy and capital. Bodo Linnhoff and John A. Turner, Inperial Chemical Industries Ltd, Heat-recovery networks: new insights yield big savings (1 Process design usually involves the optimization of individual unit operations, with litle effort spent on the ‘optimal integration of overall processes as systems In this article, we will demonstrate that overall inte- aration can be neglected only at one’s peril. Here, we will concentrate on heatrecovery networks as one as- pect of total process integration. We will present a new approach with solved examples, and describe industrial studies carried out at ICL In doing 50, we will attack the conventional belief of an inevitable tradeoff between heat recovery and capi- tal cost. Reasons will be given as to why tradeofls need not always exist in the context of networks. The argu- ment is borne out both by a solved example and by the results achieved at ICL In most cases, design changes have been found that are less expensive in both energy and capital. Specifying the problem ‘The heat-recovery network (or heat integration) problem is defined by a series of hot and cold process streams requiring either the cooling of hot streams or the heating of cold streams. A typical specification for such a problem is shown in Table I The required temperature changes may be achieved by using interchangers between process streams and/or heaters and coolers supplied with utilities. The design task is that of identifying the optimum network of interchangers, heaters and coolers with respect to an- nual operating and capital costs. The maximum heat load handled by any particular heat-transfer unit may be constrained by the minimum allowable temperature approach between the hot and cold streams, AT i, ‘Two possible networks for the data given in Table I are shown in Fig. 1. The first (Fig. 1a) is the “no-fuss, no-complication design” and is usually the one re- garded as having the lowest capital cost. The second (Fig. 1b) is a network having the lowest utility usage. Most design engineers assume that the optimal solution rust lie between these two extremes. Later in this arti cle, we will challenge this assumption. ‘The methods used at ICI for tackling the problem are somewhat unconventional. They involve two phases: data analysis and network design. Data analysis yields targets that correspond to the performance characteristics of the economic optizaum network. These targets are invaluable when dealing with complex integration problems, and give conti- dence to an engincer’s current design or stimulate the engineer to search for a better solution, Furthermore, the targeting procedures give a new insight into a very simple but fundamentally important decomposition of the original problem into several parts. With this in- sight, even complex industrial problems can be easily solved by hand, Data analysis The cost of a heatsrecovery network, like the cost of any process plant, is expressed in terms of annualized capital and operating costs. Capital costs depend pri- 56 [TTHot steame Inrange wih hor aiey Oro ngs eteen Nuresel values refer ohost foat-0, oF etih . Lowest utility usage inarily on the number and sizes of the heat-transfer cunits (interchangers, heaters, coolers), while operating costs are dominated by total tility usage (both hot and cold), Targets are therefore set for the economic optimi zation of heat-recovery networks, based on the minimi- zation of utility usage, number of transfer units, and total heat-transfer area. Simultaneously, the targeting procedures define the problem decomposition into a number of design principles. In Fig, 2, we will represent the heat-recovery problem via a box through which the hot and cold streams flow—giving up and receiving heat, respectively. Heat taken from the utility source is labelled Qy, while heat rejected to the utility sinks is labeled Q,. For heat bal- ance, the difference between hot and cold process: stream enthalpies (ie., A/7) must equal the difference between utility heat flows ool | Qo = Qy = AH AH is a constant, depending on the process stream data only. Hence, any increase in Q, must lead to a corresponding increase in Q.. And, any saving in source utilities must lead to a saving in sink utilities giving a double incentive for minimizing utility usage. The cra- cial question is: What isthe minimum possible value for Qy in any given problem? Minimum utility requirements An algorithm to predict the minimum utility require- ments has been previously published [3] and will now bbe briefly described with reference to Example 2 (Table TD. A step-by-step description of the algorithm is tsven in an accompanying box on p. 59. A Cs ers ture range dhat by the hotest 7 ss-stream temperatures. This temperature range is di- is ture intervals (see box for definition), as shown in Fig. 3. Hot uty heat, Q,, is supplied (o the first interval, ‘The heat to be rejected GRC RGR ROVER ET Gee eee‘mpi aloe re im ivestuh 60+ x cy ox 1 Across the pinch b. Above the pinch_c. Below the pinch eee ne eee ee to the sink utility, 0, leaves the last interval. Definition ofthe temperature intervals ensures that a minimum ving force (AT, is maintained at all points ‘Justas Q, and Q, ie elated she orale steam enthalpy balance, the heat flows passed on be- ‘tween intervals, Q,, are related by the interval heat bal- ances, AH: Qi - Q1 = aH; Given the temperature intervals and the interval heat balances, itis possible to calculate all intermediate heat flows (and ultimately Q.) for any given value of Q. To demonstrate this, let us again consider Example 2, with the interval heat balances now specified, as given in Fig. 4. Column 1 in Fig. 4 shows the heat flows resulting from a value of Q, = 0. Between Intervals 3 and 4, the heat flow is negative (—50 units), ie. an infeasible con- dition, (Negativity implies that heat flows against the natural temperature gradient.) To remedy this situa tion, an extra 50 units of heat (ie. the largest infeasible flow) are supplied from the external source. The result- ing heat flows are all non-negative, and are shown in Column 2 of Fig. 4. Column 2 yields three important items of informa- tion, First, the minimum heat supply from external hheat sources, necessary for feasible heat flows, is 50 units, Second, the corresponding minimum heat load on external sinks is 60 units. Third, there is a point in the temperature range having zero heat flow. From now ‘on, we will call this point “the pinch.” Problem decomposition ‘Three important constraints regarding the pinch: = Do stot transfer heat across the pinch (Fig, 5a).