Computers &em. Engng, Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. 809-832, 1991 0098-1354/91 $3.00 + 0.

00
Riated ia Great Britain Pcqml-ion Press plc

HEAT RECOVERY BETWEEN AREAS OF INTEGRITY

S. AHMAD~ and D. C. W. Htn
Centre for Process Integration, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester, M60 IQD, U.K.

(Received 14 February 199f;final revision received 18 July 1991; receivedfor publication 29 August 1991)

Ahatraet-Process plants are often divided into logically identifiable regions, each having associated
processing tasks. Such regions are necessary when considering the practical features of plant design such
as operational flexibility, safety, plant-layout, etc. The regions are therefore more generally described as
“areas of integrity”. This paper introduces the subject of heat recovery between areas of integrity. While
this is new to the heat integration literature the problem is well known in practice.
It is straightforward nowdays to predict the minimum overall energy consumption for such heat-
integrated systems. However, this can be achieved by several different schemes for heat flows between
the areas. The task then becomes identifying those schemes which offer maximum area integrity when
seeking minimum energy, with say the least number of interconnections between the regions. This paper
develops some understanding of the problem and gives a procedure for finding the required heat flows
between areas. The results are made available as targets, before any network design. Thereafter, a method
is shown which translates the heat flow schemes into actual network designs.

1. INTRODUCTION reduction in operating costs can be significant and

Within a single process there are certain regions
which can be readily identified, for example “front
end,” “back end,” “reaction section,” “separation
section” and so on, see Fig. la. Indeed, a whole
plant site similarly displays identifiable regions com-
posed of the various individual processes and the
utility system(s), (Fig. 1b). Broadly speaking, there-
fore, a plant is normally designed to have logically
identifiable regions, each having defined processing
tasks.
The existence of such regions is a necessary and
practical feature of plant design. The regions are
usually defined on the basis of several requirements
such as operational flexibility (start-up, shut-down,
control, operational independence, etc.), safety
(emergency shut-down, explosive materials, hygiene,
etc.) and plant layout (maintenance, access, roads,
etc.). Such regions are therefore more generally
described as “areas of integrity”.
Consider now the possibility of allowing heat
recovery between areas of integrity. There is
no contradiction implied here because heat inte-
gration need not violate area integrity if the
correct measures are taken. Such measures typically
include identifying those matching schemes between
the areas which are appropriate to the type of
integrity sought. In addition, auxiliary heaters and
coolers, or even buffer tanks, may become necessary
in practice.
Although extra capital is implied by using
such measures to maintain the area integrity, the
TCurrent address: Aspen Technotogy, Inc., 251 Vassar
Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
worthwhile. A simple example in Fig. 2 demonstrates
this. Areas A and B contain only two streams each
and are separated by a large distance. Long pipe-runs
are required if heat exchange is to be achieved
between the areas (Fig. 2a). By recovering heat only
within each area (without heat recovery between
the areas) and assuming a minimum temperature
approach of AT,, = 2O”C, the minimum overall
hot utility requirement is (Qd..t+ tQ,iJ, =
1400 + 0 = 1400 kW and the minimum overall
cold utility requirement is (Q,-_& +(Qo,,& =
0 + 1350 = 1350 kW (Fig. 2b). However, allowing
heat recovery between the two areas and treating
them as a single combined system reduces both
the hot and cold utility consumptions by 450 kW,
(Fig. 2~).
In general, the minimum energy requirement of
a system composed of several areas of integrity can
be easily predicted. This simply means treating all
the hot and cold streams from all the areas wllec-
tively as a single heat recovery problem. However,
there generally exists a prohibitively large number of
heat recovery schemes able to achieve the resulting
“energy target” (Linnhoff and Flower, 1978). Some
of these schemes will make considerably more inter-
connections between the areas than others. Some
schemes may not make full use of heat recovery
within each area before seeking integration with other
areas. Some schemes may make interconnections
between the areas which seriously compromise their
operational flexibility or other desired features of the
design.
Consider now some possibilities for network design
in the example of Fig. 2 to see how heat recovery can
be achieved between the two areas. The additional
810 S. AHMAD
(4
I example in Figs 2 and 3, it can be shown that only
n
!3
k ing the few essential heat flows, what are the different
m
B
a solution? How are alternative solutions generated?
3
Fig. 1. Examples of identifiableregions in: (a) a process;
and (b) a whole site.
capital cost required here by the long pipe-runs would
have to be compared with the energy cost savings.
To begin design using conventional techniques the
engineer could develop an initial network using the
Pinch Design Method (Linnhoff and Hindmarsh,
1983) such as in Fig. 3a. This initial minimum energy
network has two matches between the areas (shown
in bold), but is subject to some evolution to trade
off the energy and capital requirements. The number
of inter-area matches can be reduced from two
to one by sacrificing 150 kW of the energy savings,
(Fig. 3b).
The engineer now faces the question of whether a
better network may have been possible using a differ-
ent design strategy. What is really the correct amount
of heat transfer between the areas? How many
matches are required to achieve this? Luckily, only
two areas were considered here, but if three or more
areas of integrity were examined, the problem would
have been much more difficult.
Although the subject of heat recovery between
areas of integrity is known to be often addressed
in practice, and usually with good results, there
seems to be virtually no treatment of it in the
literature. For the design community in general,
no systematic procedures have appeared which tackle
the problem.
This paper considers a number of questions
towards understanding heat recovery between areas
of integrity. For example, how does the designer
know which few interconnections are essential
between the areas to achieve a scheme for full heat
and D. C. W. HUI
recovery? What are the energy penalties if any of
these heat flows are disallowed? In the case of our
one match with a duty of 450 kW is needed between
areas A and B to obtain full heat recovery (Fig. 4a).
Importantly, the location of this match can be deter-
mined without trial-and-error or exhaustive search.
After this match is placed there are a number of
possible networks to complete the design. One such
solution is shown in Fig. 4b.
These kinds of results are made available by
a procedure to be developed in this paper. The
procedure works in two stages. First, the necessary
heat flows are found between the areas to achieve
minimum overall energy subject to a specified value
of ATti. Some degree of design flexibility, however,
is also sought to allow the engineer to steer towards
“choosing” a good solution. For example, after find-
choices for the additional heat flows to complete the
How are individual preferences handled regarding
enforced or disallowed heat flows? These features
are incorporated in the first stage of the procedure.
Next, each heat flow may require more than one
match. The second stage of the procedure finds these
matches and, again, the designer is informed of the
choices available.
The procedure operates at the targeting stage,
using only the stream data, and makes the results
known before any network design. When used
interactively, the procedure allows the designer to
enforce certain preferences, typically based on a
judgement of those schemes which are felt to be
practically viable in a given project. From a more
academic viewpoint, or at least a somewhat more
mathematical approach, the procedure can automati-
cally generate all the possible heat flow schemes for
minimum energy.
The subject of heat integration between areas
of integrity is further complicated by the fact
that heat exchange can be performed either by direct
transfer or indirect transfer. That is, either by the
direct exchange of heat from a process stream in
one area to a process stream in another area as in
Fig. 5a, or alternatively, using a heat transfer
medium such as steam or hot oil to convey the heat
indirectly (Fig. 5b). Normally, direct heat transfer is
viable within a single area of integrity since the
streams and equipment therein are subject to similar
or related operational constraints. If this were not
the case the region would be better regarded as more
than one area of integrity. For heat integration
between regions, however, indirect heat transfer
is sometimes more practical and cheaper in terms
of the capital employed. This is often the case
when considering heat recovery between different
individual processes on a plant site and where the
heat recovery over long distances is better effected
through indirect transfer via the utility system.
 Heat recovery between area8 of integrity 811

ATmir, = 2OT ATmh = ZPC

Area A
950 lcw

\
1400 kW

Long
Piimns
QOkW
Area B

W/D

20.0
12oYJ 3ooc 4
5.0
1350 kW
,‘“I
[

Fig. 2. Example problem of heat recovery between two areas of integrity: (a) streams in areas A and B;
(b) without heat recovery between areas; and (c) with heat recovery between areas.

Area

Area a (kW/‘=C)

A 2.5

B 20.0

A 20.0

B 5.0

90” 300
I I
(Temperatures: T; Duties: kw)
Fig. 3. Design for heat recovery &tween the areas in Fig 2: (a) minimum energy design; and (b) evolved
design.
812 S. - and D. C. W. Hm

00

Area ,110” ix &W~-3

A 110-4 2.5
* 0 & I 50”
B 20.0
170”
A 20.0
450 ,
1200 30-m 5.0
B I
’ 90”

1100 D (kWPC)
Area I
A 2.5

B 20.0

A 20.0

B 5.0
150 300
’ 90”

(Temperahues: T; Duties: kw

Fig. 4. An alternative design for heat recoverybetween the areas in Fig. 2: (a) essentialmatch@); and
(b) completed minimum energy design.

A typical example of this in practice is heat inte- The development in this paper is largely based
gration between the crude unit and vacuum unit in a on allowing direct heat transfer between areas of
refinery. integrity. A case study of area integrity in a given

(a)

Area A AreaA

Direct Indirect
Heat Transfer Heat Transfer

Fig. 5. Heat recovery between areas using: (a) direct heat transfer; and (b) indirect heat transfer.
 Heat recovery
process is used to demonstrate the procedure. How-
ever, the paper will also show that with a little
refinement the methods are also readily applicable
to the case of indirect heat transfer between areas of
integrity.
2. EXTENSIONS OF PREVIOUS WORK
In the absence of virtually any previous work
which explicitly addresses area integrity, this section
briefly discusses those techniques which display
potential for obtaining useful results to the problem.
Of the existing methods that could be adapted to
tackle the question of heat recovery between such
areas, the mathematical programming approaches
and the pinch technology approach are probably
the most obvious. Both types of methods have
their advantages and disadvantages, and both need
to make assumptions to simplify the problem. Never-
theless, some useful guidance can be offered to
the designer by these techniques towards a viable
solution as well as alternative solutions.
2.1. Mathematical programming
Mathematical programming methods for heat
exchanger network design have developed signifi-
cantly over about the last 10 yr and are currently at
a stage where a solution (or solutions) optimal in
energy (Papoulias and Grossmann, 1983), number of
units (Cerda and Westerberg, 1983), heat exchange
area (Saboo et al., 1986; Colberg and Morari,
1990) or total cost (Floudas et al., 1986; Yee and
Grossmann, 1990) can be generated automatically.
An attractive feature of such methods is that they
readily incorporate decisions for constraints (for-
bidden matches or disallowed heat flows) in the
problem definition.
Most mathematical programming procedures for
heat recovery problems begin by establishing the
minimum energy requirement using the transpor-
tation or transshipment model. Subsequently, for a
given network energy consumption, mixed integer
linear programming (MILP) is used to evaluate the
minimum number of heat exchanger units. Various
network structures may be generated to simul-
taneously achieve the energy and units targets. The
resulting networks are then subject to non-linear
programming (NLP) to minimize the total annual
cost of energy plus capital in the design. The overall
procedure is summarized in Fig. 6.
The formulation can be slightly modified to tackle
area integrity. Firstly, the minimum energy require-
ment is still found using the transportation model.
For the minimum number of matches the objective
function has to be changed to minimize the number
of matches between areas prior to establishing the
matches inside each area. In other words, the original
objective function in the MILP:
ming CJJ~,
1 J
betweenareas of integrity
Fig. 6. Overall procedurefor designingheat recoverynet-
works using mathematicalprogrammingtechniques.
needs to become:
min 5 5 Wuyu ,
i j
where ur/is a binary integer variable (0 or 1) determin-
ing whether a match exists between hot stream i and
cold stream J There are W hot streams and C cold
streams. W, is a weighing factor to discriminate
against a match between streams i and j. To minimize
inter-area matches, large W, are chosen for these.
This then formulates the area integrity problem for
a given overall energy consumption. The MILP
model minimizes (subject to WJ the number of
stream matches rather than the number of heat
exchangers, so that matches with more than one
exchanger (cyclic matches) cannot easily be predicted
or avoided.
The procedure has some drawbacks regarding
involvement from the designer when steering towards
preferred solutions. It is difficult to assess which
match decisions are responsible for either causing or
relieving penalties in the energy target. There is little
knowledge of how the solution is developed thereby
making it difficult to know of other choices avail-
able for completing the solution, or indeed any
knowledge of more practical solutions which are near
the “optimal’* one. Also, the designer is not told
which matches are essential and those which may be
substituted for other matches. Such features in the
design method are important because of the nature of
how area integrity problems arise. After all, safety,
operability, layout, etc. are not usually amenable
to the type of cost functions used in mathematical
programming. In brief, whether or not integrity
among the areas can be maintained despite the heat
integration requires the kind of user-interaction
perhaps lacking in this approach. Although not
providing an entirely practical tool, the mathematical
814 S.-andD.C.W.Hm

programml ng
‘ techniques can nevertheless be useful
to this problem. In particular, the NLP can be used
to optimize total cost once an acceptable design
structure has been identified by the designer.
2.2. Pinch technology
The pinch technology approach is driven by a
thermodynamic understanding of the heat integration
problem. In recent years the method has gained
widespread popularity for being easy-to-use by hand
and for giving significant physical insight into the
design problem.
One of the most important tools of pinch technol-
ogy is a diagram of the heat cascade for a set of
stream data (Fig. 7a). This diagram is called the
“Grand Composite Curve” (Linnhoff et al., 1982).
It is drawn in shifted temperatures to allow for
AT,, and shows the minimum overall heat surpluses
and deficits at any temperature for a heat recovery
system. The shaded areas in Fig. 7a reveal pockets
where process-to-process heat exchange can take
place. Importantly, the curve also reveals the “pinch”
location. This is the temperature at which zero heat
flow is required in the heat cascade. Thus heat
exchange is to be avoided across the pinch in mini-
mum energy designs. Overall, the system acts as a
net heat sink above the pinch and a net heat source
below the pinch.
With this background consider the scope for heat
recovery between two simple processes, A and B in
Fig. 7b. Morton and Linnhoff (1984) have shown that
at least an amount @,+a of heat can be recovered
between the processes. That is, the degree of hori-
zontal overlap with positive temperature difference

(a)

Process B

Fig. 7. Heaq recovery betweenareas of integrityusing pinch methods: (a) Grand Composite Curve for
a singleprocess;(b) overlapof Grand Compositesfor two processesto show maximumheat recoveryusing
steam; and (c) in some cases, more than one steam level may be requiredfor maximum energyrecovery
between processes.
 Heat recovery between areas of integrity 815

between the curves. They further show that if this
heat recovery is made by using a constant tempera-
ture heat transfer medium, say by raising steam at
temperature Ti from process A and rejecting it against
process B, then IQ- is the maximum amount of heat
that can be recovered in this manner. (The steam
heat transfer medium is shown as two different lines
with arrows in opposing directions to indicate the
utility has different shifted temperatures on the dia-
gram depending on whether it accepts or rejects heat.)
Furthermore, because all the information is provided
pictorially an elegant feature of this approach is to
be able to identify process and/or utility system
modifications which can improve the scope for such
heat recovery.
Morton and Linnhoff (1984) did not, however,
address further important enhancements of this tech-
nique which are now considered here.
Firstly, not all problems are as simple as the one
described in Fig. 7b. Sometimes there may need to be
more than one indirect heat transfer level between the
processes to achieve maximum recovery using con-
stant temperature media (Fig. 7~). In other cases
with several areas of integrity there may be several
options available for choosing how to perform the
heat recovery and all of which are equally effective in
energy terms. This will be discussed later.
If the indirect heat transfer medium is not
restricted to a constant temperature (such as steam)
but has a sloping profile on the Grand Composite
Curve (such as hot oil or tempered water) then heat
recovery can be further improved. This can be seen
in Fig. 8a by noticing that section XY of the profile
for process A can in fact feasibly supply heat to
section WZ of profile B. The argument is more clearly
demonstrated for the same processes in Fig. 8b where
the profile of process B is now inverted. This gives a
better reflection of the net heat demand and rejection
profiles as seen in “countercurrent” exchange for the
two heat cascades. This reveals that more tempera-
ture difference actually exists between the processes
than apparent from the “cocurrent” heat exchange of
these profiles in Fig. 8a.
If the process Grand Composites of the two pro-
cesses (that is, two areas of integrity) overlap in
temperature, which is very often the case in practice,
then some important observations now follow:
(i) the maximum amount of heat recovery
between the processes can be achieved by
direct heat transfer, Fig. 8;
(ii) various selections can be made for indirect
heat transfer between the processes, but in
general a sloping profile for the medium is
sufficient to achieve the same heat recovery as
a direct heat transfer scheme, Fig. 9a;
(iii) if a constant temperature heat transfer
medium is used then this offers equal or less
heat recovery than a medium with a sloping
profile, Fig. 9b.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. (a) Section XY of process A can transfer heat to section WZ of process B. (b) Full scope
for heat recovery between processesA and B is obtained from countercurrentprofiles for the Grand
Composites.
816 S.-and
04
ProcessA
Fig. 9. Indirectheat transferbetweenprocessesA and B with a mediumof: (a) slopingtemperatureprofile
(hot oil); and (b) constant temperatureprotile(steam).
For completeness, we can also state that if the Grand
Composites of the two processes do not overlap at all
in temperature then:
0) a constant temperature indirect heat transfer
medium offers the same degree of recovery as
a sloping profile medium;
(ii) indirect heat transfer offers the same degree
of heat recovery as direct heat transfer between
the processes.
Not apparent from the discussion so far is that
when more than two Grand Composite profiles are
to be examined according to the above technique,
the problem can become difficult to handle, with
the possibility of missing schemes offering maxi-
mum energy recovery. For example, Fig. 10a shows
the Grand Composite profiles of three processes.
If steam is used as the heat transfer medium then
the amount of heat recoverable between processes
A and B is Z&a, between B and C it is ZQac
and between A and C it is IQ,,=. However, the
total amount of heat recovery is less than
ZQ,+ZQ,c+ZQ, because the three component
amounts cannot all coexist simultaneously. For
example, if all of ZQAc is achieved, it is impossible
to achieve all of ZQAa and ZQX, (Fig. lob). The
heat flows between the processes therefore display
interaction: the choice of one amount prejudices the
other amounts. This leaves the designer with the
worry that perhaps there is another scheme which
offers more recovery than using all of ZQ, but
D. C. W. Hm
Process A
Process B
instead involving all three steam levels, such as shown
in Fig. 1Oc.
Although the pinch technology approach is in
keeping with some of our original objectives, that of
allowing user-interaction with the solution develop-
ment and giving some physical understanding to the
problem, it nevertheless has some drawbacks. Firstly,
it is difficult to establish which heat flows between
regions are essential and which are optional or can be
substituted for others. Next, the Grand Composite
Curves do not easily show how to manipulate around
disallowed heat flows to find the resulting energy
penalties. Furthermore, the selection of heat flows
can be remarkably difficult if interactions exist among
them and it can become easy to miss minimum energy
schemes.
Before moving. on to an alternative approach to
this problem, a useful direction can be set by briefly
reconsidering the example in Fig. 10. The maximum
heat recovery in this example was constrained by
using steam levels-the problem was being tackled
for indirect heat transfer. However, the full potential
for heat recovery actually exists when direct heat
transfer is allowed between the areas. Once the direct
heat transfer problem is solved, with a knowledge of
how much heat should flow between the different
areas, then the designer can choose to achieve these
flows using indirect heat transfer between the areas.
If inadequate profiles are chosen for the indirect heat
transfer media then the energy penalties will become
clear.
 Heat recovery between areas of integrity 817

(a)

IQAC

Process B
@AB

IQAC

IQBC I

Fig. 10. Possibilities for indirect heat transfer between three proces ses using different steam levets:
(a) maximum individual amounts of each steam level; (b) choosing the maximum amount of ZQAc here
precludes any amounts of ZQABor IQ=, . and (c) a different scheme with alJ three levels gJves more overaJJ
heat recovery.

With the direction in mind, the following sections
consider direct heat transfer between the areas. The
results can be subsequently used for indirect heat
transfer solutions. Importantly, however, the pro-
cedure to be developed will define the correct
amounts of heat flow between areas in minimum
energy solutions. Later on, the choices for matches
able to satisfy the heat flows will also be found.
3. TARGETS: A NEW APPROACH TO AREA INTEGRITY
This section develops a method for finding all the
necessary and sufficient heat flows between areas of
integrity in minimum energy solutions. The approach
requires the matrix representation shown in Fig. 11.
Here, three areas of integrity (A, B and C) are
considered. The matrix is labelled horizontally to
show heat is available from the hot streams in areas
A, B and C. The vertical labelling shows heat is
required by the cold streams in these areas.
If no heat recovery is allowed between the areas
(Fig. 1 la), then crosses appear in the matrix; the ticks
in the shaded boxes simply show that heat recovery
is allowed within each area. The minimum overall
energy consumption of the scheme in Fig. 1 la is
QTsT= Q,, + Qm, + QtimC, where TST abbreviates
“totally separated target”. If, however, heat recovery
is allowed between all the areas of integrity then
ticks are applied throughout (Fig. 11b). The mini-
mum overall energy consumption of this scheme is
evaluated by treating the streams from all areas as a
single heat recovery problem. The energy target for
this scheme is QTIT where TIT abbreviates “totally
integrated target”.
818 S. AHMAD and D. C. W. HUI
Q TST = Q minA + QminB + Q minC
Fig. Il. Matrixrepresentation
and energytargetfor: (a) totallyseparatedsystem;and (b) totallyintegrated
system.
Now Q, G &I-ST and the difference Qm=
Qrsr - Q, defmes the total energy penalty caused
by disallowing heat recovery between the areas of
integrity. To avoid this energy penalty, not all of the
inter-area heat flows shown in Fig. 11b need normally
be allowed. To determine which few of these flows are
necessary requires some further concepts which are
now developed.
3.1. Energy penalty
Rather than considering the energy penalty
caused by disallowing all the inter-area heat flows
(as in Fig. 1 la), it is possible to evaluate the energy
penalty from disallowing only one inter-area heat
flow. For example, in Fig. 12a the individual penalty
Qn = (Qce& - Qnr from disallowing heat flow in the
cell i = CA is determined by forbidding matches
between all hot streams in area C to all cold streams
in area A. Methods for calculating the “constrained
energy target” Qcxr in such cases are well docu-
mented in the heat integration literature (Cerda et al.,
1983; O’Young et al., 1988). The individual energy
penalties Qn can be found independentlyfor all the
inter-area heat flows i in the matrix by forbidding
heat recovery in each cell i but allowing all other heat
flows.
The individual penalties for the cells in Fig. 12a
are now shown in Fig. 12b. Disallowing only the
fT.T.T_J
AreaB
QTIT=Qmin(A+B+C)
heat flow in any one such cell incurs the energy
penalty shown. It follows that wherever Qn > 0 gives
the location of a heat flow necessary to achieving
minimum overall energy. In fact, Qn is the minimum
necessary heat flow required in ccl1 i for a minimum
energy solution.
So far, this establishes only those heat flows necess-
ary in any minimum energy solution, but not all the
heat flows required to complete such a solution. In
other words, the necessary heat flows may not be all
the suEcient ones for minimum overall energy. This
is because each heat flow with Qn = 0 is only un-
necessary when all other heat flows are allowed, but
this may no longer be true when any of the other heat
flows with Qn = 0 are disallowed. A check for this is
easily made by finding the penalty from disallowing
all of the heat flows with Qn = 0, while following the
necessaryheat flows with Qn > 0 (Fig. 13a). Ifthis total
penalty for the remaining cells (Q&x = 0 then no fur-
ther heat flows are required. If (Q&a > 0 then some
of the heat flows with Qn = 0 will need to be allowed.
3.2. Energy saving
Figure 13b now considers which of the heat flows
with Qn = 0 in Fig. 12b are required when (Q& = 0.
Here, one of the heat flows with Qn = 0 is allowed
while disallowing all the other heat flows with Qn = 0.
The resulting change in total penalty is termed the
Heat recovery betweem areaa of integrity
820 S. AHMAD and D. C. W. Hm
energy saving of heat flow i, or Q,. This can be done
in turn for all the cells with & = 0. If among these
there exists a cell with Qsi = (Q&= then allowing heat
flow i recovers all of the total remaining penalty.
Hence, i must be the only additional heat ilow now
required. Of course, it is possible that more than one
heat flow exists with Qsi = (Q,), and any one of these
can be chosen to complete the solution.
The other outcome could instead be that all heat
flows with Qpi - 0 have Qsi < (Qm)R. Hence, two or
more of these w-ill be required in addition to the
necessary heat flows with Qpi > 0. To handle this
situation we need to observe that any one heat flow
with Qpi = 0 can be disallowed. Doing so will not add
energy penalty to the problem. This gives a definite
stage at which the number of heat flows to be
considered can actually be restricted without affecting
the energy performance of the final solution. This
is important because the designer can choose accord-
ing to individual preferences which of these heat
flows to restrict. Alternatively, this is the stage
from which multiple solutions can be generated:
disallowing different heat flows with Qpi = 0 will
now lead to different final solutions, as for example
in Fig. 14a.
3.3 The remaining problem
When one of the heat flows in Fig. 14a is restricted
all the other cells which originally had Qpi = 0 will not
necessarily be able to return a zero individual penalty
any longer. This is because Qpi was evaluated assum-
(a)
QPi
Fig. 14. (a) There are usually choices for disallowing a heat flow with Qpi = 0. (b) After disallowingone,
the remaining heat flows may no longer show Qpi = 0.
ing all heat Bows except i were allowed. However, we
can still think in terms of finding a revised value of
Qn for these cells but subject to the one heat flow
which has been disallowed. Qpi can therefore be more
generally &fined according to the status of the
remaining problem. That is, Qti for a given cell
depends upon which heat flows are disallowed in
other parts of the matrix (Fig. 14b).
If any of the revised values of Qpi in Fig. 14b for
the remaining cells now show Qpi> 0 then clearly
these heat flows did not become necessary until the
heat flow elsewhere in the problem had been re-
stricted beforehand.
The idea of evaluating the performance of a
cell subject to what is happening in the remaining
problem can also be applied to the energy saving Q, .
In general, the energy saving Q, can be defined by
disallowing all heat flows in the remaining problem
except i. In Section 3.2 above, however, the values
of Qsi were determined subject to having allowed
the necessary heat flows with Qpi > 0. Hence, the
remaining problem had already been adjusted before
calculating the values of Q,. Ideally, we should have
started off the whole analysis by finding Q, for each
cell before allowing necessary heat flows. At that
stage, if any cell had been found with Q, = Q, then
only this one heat flow i would have been required to
achieve minimum energy and the solution is com-
pleted. Otherwise, all cells have Qsi < QpT and we
proceed to finding the necessary heat flow with
Q,+ > 0. The arguement here for energy saving is
@)
.
. . After disallow-
multiple ing one, remaining
. .
solutions cells may no longe
. . have Qpi - 0.
.
QPi
 Heat recovery betweenareas of integrity
identical to that explained in Section 3.2 except that
we are considering a larger remaining problem.
The remaining problem is therefore an important
concept determining the reference for calculating
energy penalties and energy savings. These values
in turn drive the decision-making for which heat
flows are necessary and which can be disallowed. The
remaining problem therefore needs to be treated more
carefully. It can be defined as those cells in the matrix
for which no decision has been made as to whether
their heat flows are definitely allowed (required) in
the final solution or definitely disallowed. In other
words, the remaining problem at any stage of devel-
oping a solution constitutes those cells which still
need to be determined. Each time a heat flow is
allowed or disallowed towards its place in the final
solution the corresponding cell is removed from
the remaining problem. In general, therefore, total
penalty (Q&R 1individual penalties ( Qpi)Rand energy
savings (Q& are all calculated for cells i which exist
in the remaining problem R.
3.4. Procedure
So far we have seen how energy penalties and
energy savings operate within the remaining problem
to identify which heat flows are required and which
can be disallowed. This understanding can be orga-
nized into a systematic procedure for finding mini-
mum energy solutions.
The procedure is shown in Fig. 15. It starts with
the remaining problem R being defined as R,, which
simply consists of only heat recovery allowed within
Fig. 15. Procedure.for finding necessaryand sufficientheat flows to allow for minimum solution(s).
821
each area of integrity. No heat flows between the
areas are yet decided. This initial state can have its
total penalty (Q& evaluated to check if this is zero.
If yes, we can stop immediately since there is no scope
for energy reduction from heat recovery between the
areas.
If (QPT& > 0 then (Q& is evaluated for each cell
i in R to check whether any of these equal (Q&s_
If yes, then only the one heat flow of duty (Q,& is
required to complete the solution and we can stop.
Otherwise, two or more heat flows arc required and
these are found by calculating (Q&_ Cells with
(Qr.JR> 0 locate the necessary heat flows in R and
these should transfer at least (Q& amount of
heat. Upon allowing such heat flows the remaining
problem R needs to be reset and is now defined to
exclude these cells since they have been decided.
For the cells in the revised remaining problem
(Qpr)R and (QsdR are calculated to check again if,
given the necessary heat flows, we can now stop
immediately [(QPT)R= 0] or only one further heat flow
is required [(Qsi)R= (Qpr),& If not, the penalties
(Q&R need not be recalculated before proceeding
because these are unaffected if the remaining problem
was only changed by allowing heat flows.
At this stage, all (Q& = 0 in R since only necess-
ary heat flows were allowed in defining R and no heat
flows have been restricted yet. Any one of these heat
flows in R can now be disallowed. Once this decision
is made the remaining problem R has to be reset
again. Disallowing the one heat flow will cause the
values of (Qn)R for each cell remaining in R to
Need only
matchi
822 S. AHMAD and D.C.W.Hm

AH-S.15
AH-15 I5w

=+%tzJzg
no*

E
199
A
MO-
10

AI?%

3;P
Ax-25

Area C
1 AH-123
Area B

(Temperatures: T; Duties: MW)

Fig. 16. Example process with three areas of integrity.

change. So the (Q& values are now recalculated
subject to the disallowed heat flow to see if any
(QdR > 0. This locates which additional heat flows
have become necessary after disallowing the earlier
one.
The procedure continues in this way, filling in more
and more of the undecided parts of the matrix and
reducing the size of the remaining problem. It is
essentially a recursive procedure which solves a small
part of the matrix in one level of recursion and then
applies the same rules all over again to solve the
remaining problem in further levels of recursion.
In all cases the procedure is guaranteed to stop with
a minimum energy solution. While the procedure
tries to minimize the number of heat flows required
in a minimum energy solution there is no guarantee
of this in one pass because of the stage where
the designer chooses which heat flow is disallowed.
Depending upon what choice is made here different
solutions with different numbers of heat flows
can emerge. Despite this, the procedure is easily
implemented on a desktop computer and can thus be
used to efficiently generate multiple solutions by
may differ from those shown here depending on the
type of integrity required by a designer, but the
example given is sufficient to demonstrate the pro-
cedure. Before starting this, however, it is worthwhile
to examine an analysis which could have been made
for this problem without the method in this paper.
Figure 17 shows how much additional heat recovery
above the totally separated target (QTsT) is achievable
by taking different combinations of the three areas.
The designer can soon establish from the energy
targets in this problem that no two areas taken alone
can fulfill as much heat recovery as all three areas
together. However, not all the six possible heat flows
between the three areas may be necessary to achieving
full heat recovery.
This is where the procedure developed in this paper
comes into effect (Fig. 18). It is soon found that
at least 7.1 MW of heat flow is required from area
C to A in any minimum energy solution for this
problem and that there will be a choice for other
Table 1. Stream data for pr-s in Fig. 16
T..

back-tracking and disallowing different heat flows at Area stream Type (2, (G5)
the required stage. Used in this fashion it is straight- A 1 Hot 300 60 0.30
A 2 Hot 70 25.00
forward to find all the minimum energy solutions and
to choose the one(s) with the fewest number of heat
A
A :
Cold
Cold
30
3.5
3;
100
0.30
0.25
flows. A 5 Cold 139 140 30.00
B 6 Hot 500 120 0.25
3.5. Example Cold 139 500 0.15
E 8
7 Cold 20 250 0.10
The procedure of Fig. 15 is now applied to the
c 9 Hot 120 119 15.00
example flowsheet in Fig. 16 which consists of three Hot 200 30 0.20
areas of integrity. The stream data are shown in E 10
11 Cold 110 160 0.25
C 12 Cold 200 201 25.00
Table 1. How the areas and their streams are chosen
 Heat -very
AdditionalHeat Recovery
above c&T WW
0 @
///////N//N//////H/
@ 0
t
ATmin = 10°C
Fig. 17. Analysis of heat recoveriesby combining differentareas in the example process.
heat flows elsewhere required in addition to this.
Thereafter, Fig. 19 continues the procedure to choose
to disallow the heat flow from area A to C and finds
two resulting solutions.
Finally, it remains to discover the duties of
the required heat flows in the final solution(s).
In minimum energy solutions this can be done by
evaluating the individual penalty from forbidding
each of the required heat flows in the final solution.
For our example solutions this gives the duties shown
in Fig. 20.
4. DESIGN: TRANSLATING HEAT FLOWS
INTO MATCHES
Once the heat flows between areas of integrity have
been found the next step is to identify some network
design(s) to achieve the scheme. This means finding
the individual streams which should be matched to
realize the heat flows. In principle, the matches can
be found by simply using the procedure of Fig. 15
but now assuming each stream to be a separate
area of integrity. In other words, for the example
in Fig. 16 the procedure can be used starting with
the initial matrix shown in Fig. 21a. This would
certainly be able to generate valid network designs
but a prohibitively large number of solutions will
usually results. This can be a lengthy task. Further-
more, such an approach would make redundant the
useful step of having found the heat flows between
the areas.
between areas of integrity 823
BC,A
t- AB,c
- AC.B
+
Totally Separated ’
Target
Q~sp 69.50hk
Usually, a better approach is to use the insights
gained earlier from identifying the heat Aows. For
solution 1 in Fig. 19 this means starting the procedure
again with the matrix in Fig. 21 b, in which the
disallowed heat flows (black cells) are ignored for
inter-area matches and the allowed heat flows (white
cells) are to be developed further for their matches.
This considerably narrows the search space and
assumes that the heat flows identified earlier are
indeed the only ones to be accepted in design. This
is usually the case if the heat flows have been
carefully selected to consider the type(s) of integrity
required between the areas. For solution 1 in Fig. 19,
a repeated application of the procedure can give the
matches shown in Fig. 21~.
Although many designs are possible here, the one
shown in Fig. 21c comes from first finding matches
6-l 1 and 6-12 to be necessary [(Qpi)R> 0] in Fig. 21 b
and then forbidding 9-3,!L4, 9-5 and 9-7 [(Qpi)R= 0]
all without any penalty. Match 9-8 then becomes
necessary. Finally, matches lo-4 and lG5 can com-
plete the solution.
So far, this establishes which streams are to be
matched between the areas of integrity, but not
how many heat exchanger units are required between
these streams (that is, the possibility of “cyclic”
matches) nor how much heat duty is required for
these units. To understand further these questions
about the design requires a brief review of some
recent results regarding the thermodynamics of con-
straints (or forbidden matches) in heat exchanger
824 S. AHMAD and D. C. W. Hm

start KlDTh = 38.95 MW (Q’ i)R

(QPi h Allow flow C -CA (‘$$R’ 24.95 MW

Fig. 18. The procedureof Fig. 15 applied to the example process. Heat flow CA is found necessary.

networks. The relevant work has been reported by
Linnhoff and O’Young (1987) and is discussed in the
next section.
4.1. The components of energy penalty
Figure 22a shows in outline that if a minimum
energy solution is to be achieved for a given of AT,,
in any heat recovery problem then zero heat flow is
required across the pinch. This means having:
l no cold utility above the pinch;
- no hot utility below the pinch;
l no Ijrocess-to-process heat exchange across the
pinch.
Many options normally exist in a network design
for satisfying these conditions. However, disallowing
certain heat flows or matches in a heat recovery
energy penalty can be decomposed and attributed to
the amounts of:
. cold utility above the pinch, Q,;
+ hot utility below the pinch, Q,,,;
l process-to-process heat exchange across the
pinch, Q,.
A procedure exists for quantifying Q,. QPhand Qrr
(Linnhoff and O’Young, 1987). What is important
here is that these three components are additive
in their contribution to the total energy penalty
caused by disallowed matches. For convenience, the
locations of these violations of the minimum energy
target are also shown on the grid diagram of the
streams in Fig. 22~.
4.2. Avoiding energy penalty

problem can prevent any of these conditions from The basic understanding of energy penalty is now
being fulfilled in the completed design. As a result, developed further for the area integrity problem.
forbidden heat flows or matches can incur energy The heat flows or matches determined by the pro-
penalty over the target amount (Fig. 22b). The total cedure of Fig. 15 for a complete design are the ones

(Q&R (%i) R DeIete any 0 penaltyflow

Two possible solutions

Solution1
(%‘i) R Allow flow B - C (QPT)R = 6.1. MW

Solution2

Fig. 19. Completion of the procedure thereafter results in two possible solutions if heat flow AC is chosen
to be disallowed.
 Heat recovery between areas of integrity 825

Solution 1 heat exchanger on the relevant side of the pinch.

If the cross-pinch component of energy penalty (Q,,)
for the match is non-zero then a heat exchanger is
required for the streams on both sides of the pinch.
Thus, the possibility of cyclic matches which span
the pinch is detected. Similarly, if a near-pinch
exists in the problem then the possibility of cyclic
matches which span this (Ahmad, 1985) can also be
examined.
6.1 MW Figure 23 shows the penalty components of the
matches for the example in Fig. 21~. This gives the
exchangers between areas as shown with their duties
Solution 2
in Fig. 24a. The rest of the design simply amounts to
matching wifhin each area the remaining streams on
each side of the pinch (Fig. 24b). The Pinch Design
Method (Linnhoff and Hindmarsh, 1983) is sufficient
for this part. The design achieves the hot utility target
of 30.55 MW.

25.45 h%w
(a)

Fig. 20. The duties of the requiredheat flows in the final

solutionscan be found from their finai QR values.

required in a minimum energy solution. Disallowing

such heat flows or matches will incur energy penalty.
More specifically, the energy penalty will be com-
posed of the components Qpc, Qp,, and Qpr, in the
locations of the network shown in Fig. 22~. There-
fore, in order to avoid the energy penalty means the
required heat flows or matches should transfer, on OJ)
each side of the pinch, the duties shown in Fig. 22d.
That is:
total duty = Qpe+ !&, + ZQ,, ,
of which:
duty above pinch = Qp+ Qpp,
duty above pinch = Qp,,+ Qm.
Also, Fig. 22c and 22d together show that in order
to avoid the Qp,, component of the energy penalty
needs an amount 2Q, of duty to be incorporated in Cc)
the required heat flow or match. \
These results are perfectly general. They apply
to any single heat flow or match, or any groups of
these.

4.3. Design procedure

When applied to individual matches, the results in
Section 4.2 are central to understanding how to
identify the heat exchanger duties in a completed
network design for an area integrity problem. Dis-
allowing each match independently, while allowing
all the other required matches, will give the amount Fig. 21. The matchesfor the networkdesigncan be found
of overall heat duty required by pairing the streams by repeating the procedure of Fig. 15 assuming each stream
to be a separate area of integrity. This can be started: (a)
in that match. If the above pinch or below pinch or
with none of the heat flows found earlier, or better still (b)
both components of energy penalty (Q, or Q,,) for using the heat flows found earlier-this gives the matches in
the match are non-zero then this will necessitate a (c) for solution 1 in Fig. 10.
826 S. AHMAD and D. C. W. HUI

QHmin

Qcmin+Qpc + Qpp+ Qph

(a)

Fig. 22. Components of energy penalty: (a) minimum energy system; (b) penalty components in a system
with constrained (forbidden) matches; (c) penalty components in the grid diagram; and (d) components
of heat duty for required matches.

Qph = 10.0 MW

,Qph=6.1MV

Qph - 1.45 h%W

\
Qpc = 24.0 hfW

Fig. 23. Components of heat duty for the matches found in Fig. 21~.
 Heat recovery between areas of integrity 827

LcGzi 149’ a! (Mw/W

3ooo I
A q 0.3
25.0
0.25
15.0
0.2

0.1
0.25
25.0

wa 149- !a? (MIw/“c)

A 0.3
A 25.0

B 0.25
C 15.0
C 0.2

A 0.3
A 0.25
A 30.0
B 0.15
B
0.1
C 0.25
C 25.0
1390

Design for QJ-Jmin = QTIT= 30.55 MW

5 inter-area matches.
J
Fig. 24. (a) Matches with their duties for the solution in Fig. 23. These are all the inter-area matches needed
here for minimum energy. (b) Completed minimum energy design. The remaining matches are within each
area.

Once a completed minimum energy design is
obtained it can be evolved to simplify the network
structure and to balance the overall capital require-
ment against energy consumption. The existence of
heat load “loops” and “paths” in the network allows
evolution towards minimizing the total cost (energy
plus capital) of the design (Linnhoff and Hindmarsh,
1983). For example, in Fig. 24a matches 6-11 and
24 can be removed using the loops they lie on
(involving the coolers). Match 10-l 1 is cyclic (a loop)
and can be reduced to a single exchanger. Then,
match l&5 can be removed since it lies on the path
between the heater on stream S and the cooler on
stream 10. The results of such an evolution are shown
in Fig. 25a. Two exchangers between the areas
removed, as well as another two within the areas,
causing a small increase (4.95 MW) in energy wn-
sumption but the network structure is appreciably
simplified.
The final network design is reinterpreted back
in the flowsheet in Fig. 25b. It is interesting to note
that inter-area exchangers do not necessarily require
two pipe-runs between the areas.
4.4. Design for indirect heat transfer
Suppose that heat exchange between the areas of
integrity is to be achieved using indirect heat transfer.
As discussed in Section 2.2 this situation can restrict
the heat recovery possible between the areas if a
constant temperature medium such as steam is used.
Given this, the designer will want to identify those
schemes which offer better approach to the target
828 S. - and D. C. W. HUI

(a)

After Evolution
a? (Mw/“C)
0.3
25.0
0.25
15.0
0.2

0.3
0.25
30.0
0.15
0.1
0.25
25.0

QH = 35.50 MW with 3 inter-area matches

(b)

Area B I
Fig. 25. (a) After evolutionof the minimumenergydesign, the network is simplified with some additional
energy consumption. (b) The final design is translated back into the dowsheet for the example
process. I

heat flows identified earlier. This needs to he balanced
against the use of a reasonable number of utility
levels and few indirect heat transfer matches between
the areas. Thus there is a tradeoff between heat
recovery and design compltxity.
These features can be examined in the example
problem considered in Figs 16-25, but. now using
steam levels to convey heat between the areas.
Solution 1 in Fig. 20a shows the heat flows for
minimum energy which are to be approached using
steam levels. How these heat flows distribute can be
found by overlapping the Grand Composite Curves
for the three areas (Fig. 26a). The diagram offers a
better understanding of the indirect heat transfer
opportunities and immediately reveals that five steam
levels should be sufficient here to achieve a minimum
energy design. Prior knowledge of the required heat
flows between the areas makes it straightforward
to identify the duty of each level on the diagram,
otherwise this would have been very difficult to
arrive at.
The steam level (ZQ,& has a duty of only
1.45 MW, noticeably smaller than for the other
levels, and can be removed with little penalty. This
will cause the levels (ZQ,& and (ZQcs) to have
their duties reduced by 1.45 MW. This is because
removing (ZQ& = 1.45 MW, which goes into the
pocket for area C, requires for heat balance that
(ZQ& is reduced by 1.45 MW out of the pocket
(Fig. 26b). Similarly, (ZQ,-e) is reduced by 1.45 MW
in the pocket for area B. Next, it can be seen that
ZQca = 4.65 MW can now actually be placed at the
 Heat recovery betweenareas of integrity 829

600”

5000
a B
A
2‘l.OMW

4.6sMw
C
r35Mw

__-- AreaA

J
Fig. 26. Indirect heat transfer using steam levels for the example in Fig. 16: (a) five steam levels are n&cd
for minimum energy solution 1 in Fig 20a. Level (IQ,,& can he eliminated with little energy penalty (h)
to give four steam levels.

same temperature level as (ZQ,-J2. Thus three steam
levels emerge as this stage. Next, (ZQc-), = 3.5 MW
has a much smaller duty than the other levels and can
now also be eliminated. The resulting configuration
with only two levels for indirect heat transfer is
shown in Fig. 27a, with MP steam at 220°C for
(ZQ& =24.0MW and LP steam at 110°C for
(ZQc.Jz = 10.0 MW and ZQce = 4.65 MW.
The remaining utilities to be placed will provide
net heating and cooling to the process. This is
straightforward since the outstanding profile of each
area not satisfied by indirect heat transfer will need
external utilities. However, some judgement is advis-
able because some steam levels for indirect heat
transfer could be chosen to coincide with external
utilities in order to be practical. For example, if
MP steam is available here as an external utility,
say between 210 and 240°C then Fig. 27a shows it
could be used as the steam for (ZQ& as well as
for 30.0 MW of hot utility to area A. How the various
utilities relate and where to locate them among
the integrated areas is easily seen from the Grand
Composite Curves.
For each separate area, the relevant indirect heat
transfer steam levels with the required duties can
be included in the design grid and a network devel-
oped using the Pinch Design Method (Lint&off and
Hindmarsh, 1983). The networks for the separate
areas are then linked using the steam levels (Fig. 27b).
This overall network design may be further evolved
to remove small exchangers.
In summary, the analysis reveals how the heat
flows found from the targeting stage can be re-
interpreted on the Grand Composite Curves for an
indirect heat transfer solution. This representation
allows the engineer to evolve away from minimum
energy towards a more practical solution while being
made aware of any penalties incurred. Importantly,
 S. AHMAD
201-&_@
1.0
Fig. 27. (a) Next, ZQcs can be moved to the same temperatureas (ZQ& and the small duty of (ZQ,-_,),
can be eliminated. This leaves two steam levels. (b) A network design using the two steam levels.
this activity can be carried out on the curves before
developing a network design.
5. DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSIONS
The basic purpose of this paper is to introduce into
the research literature the problem of heat recovery
between areas of integrity. The problem is frequently
encountered in industry and provides a challenging
topic for investigation. The paper opens the subject
by proposing a new and systematic procedure for
designing minimum energy networks which feature
few interconnections between the areas of integrity.
The development focusses on obtaining a thermo-
dynamic understanding of the problem and appreci-
ating the design options available to the engineer.
These aspects are important for ensuring design
flexibility and allowing the engineer to build into
and D. C. W. Hui
Indirect Heat Transfer Solution
0.2
0.25
12.5
a e
25.0
24.0
the solution individual concerns for the type(s) of
integrity sought between the areas.
The procedure given here offers certain insights
regarding area integrity. In particular, these insights
show how to identify:
(a) the few heat flows and matches necessary
between the areas in any minimum energy
solution; and
(b) those heat flows and matches which are
su&%ent to complete such solutions.
Importantly, the method shows that rather than
treating area integrity as a problem of enforcing
constraints (forbidden matches) between areas, the
approach is to fmd which constraints should be
relieved to get minimum energy. If the design scheme
is to be steered away from minimum energy for
practical reasons then the options and consequences
 Heat recovery between areas of integrity
are made clear. The choices are indicated for the heat
flows or matches to select and thereafter the designer
can decide whether these will be achieved through
direct or indirect heat transfer.
The subject of area integrity is open to a number
of improvements and extensions. Future develop-
ments a;e excepted as follows:
(i) incorporation of capital targets. These can be
optimized with the energy target to predict
minimum total cost solutions;
(ii) separate methodologies for area integrity in
new design and retrofit. New designs should
be able to choose the best areas of integrity
to define whereas retrofits need to improve
designs based on existing or predesignated
areas;
(iii) multiple utilities with heat and power. Area
integrity can become an overriding concern
when dealing with a whole plant site contain-
ing several processes. Integration between the
processes using the utility system as a heat
transfer intermediary can offer remarkable
results but this has to be balanced against
power generation on the site;
(iv) process modifications to improve heat
recovery and area integrity. How areas
relate to each other in terms of creating
further opportunities for heat recovery and
capital reduction depends on how the areas
can be modified. Process changes may
also exist which actually enhance integrity
between the areas. A technique for finding
beneficial process changes could be extremely
valuable.
While the above developments represent substantial
strides to make, this paper provides an important
beginning. It is felt that area integrity will become a
more important part of heat integration understand-
ing as industry makes more such problems known to
the research community.
Acknowledgement-The authors would like to thank
Professor Bodo Linnhoff for useful suggestions in the
preparation of this manuscript.
NOMENCLATURE
CP = Heat-capacity flowrate, kW “C - ’
H = Enthalpy, kW
~QAB= Heat recovered between areas A and 0
using indirect heat transfer medium, kW
(QrrT)i = Constrained energy target from disallow-
ing heat flow i, kW
QHmio(Q,-& = Minimum hot (cold) utility target, kW
Q,, = Minimum energy target for streams in area
A, kW
(Qpi)* = Individual energy penalty from disallow-
ing only heat flow i in the remaining
problem R, kW
(Qpr)R = Total energy penalty from disallowing all
heat flows in the remaining problem R,
kW
831
(Q& = Energy saving from allowing only heat
flow i in the remaining problem R, kW
Q, = ~~l~$tegrated targetenergyconsump-
QmT= Todlly separatedtargetenergyconsump-
tion, kW
Qpe= Energy penalty component due to cold
utility above the pinch, kW
Qph= Energy penalty component due to hot
utility below the pinch, kW
Qm = Energy penalty component due to process-
to-process heat exchange across the pinch,
kW
R = Remaining problem of heat flows awaiting
to be determined
& = Initial remaining problem containing all
heat flows between areas but no heat flows
within areas
T = Temperature, ‘C
T. = Stream supply temperature, “C
TT = Stream target temperature, “C
AT,, = Minimum approach temperature for heat
exchange, “C
WV = Weighting factor to discriminate against
a match between hot stream i and cold
stream j
viJ= Binary integer variable, 0 to 1, determining
whether a match exists between hot stream
i and cold stream j
REFERENCES
Ahmad S., Heat exchanger networks: cost tradeoffs
in energy and capital. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Manchester, U.K. (1985).
Cerda J. and A. W. Westerberg, Synthesizing heat
exchanger networks having restricted stream/stream
matches using transportation problem formulations.
Chem. Engng Sci. 38, 1723-1740 (1983).
Cerda J., A. W. Westerberg, D. Mason and B. Linnhoff,
Minimum utilitv usage in heat exchaneer network
synthesis--a transport&on problem. Chem. Engng Sci.
38, 373-387 (1983).
Colberg R. D. and M. Morari, Area and capital cost
targets for heat exchanger network synthesis with con-
strained matches and unequal heat transfer cofficients.
Compurers them. Engng. 14, 1-22 (1990).
Floudas C. A., A. R. Ciric and I. E. Grossmann, Automatic
synthesis of optimum heat exchanger network configur-
ations. AZChE JI 32, 276290 (1986).
Linnhoff B. and J. R. Flower, Synthesis of heat exchanger
networks: I. Systematic generation of energy optimal
networks. AZChE JI 24, 633-642. (t978).
Linnhoff B. and E. Hindmarsh. The Pinch Design Method
for heat exchanger netwo&s. Chem. Engni Sci. 38,
745-763
-- f\----,-
19831.
Linnhoff B. and D. L. O’Young, The three components of
cross pinch heat flow in constrained heat exchanger
networks. AZChE Meering, New York (1987).
Linnhoff B. et al., User Guide on Process Integration for
rhe Eficient Use of-Energy. IChemE, U.K. (1982).
Morton R. J. and B. Linnhoff, Individual process improve-
ments in the context of site-wide interactions. ZChemE
Annl. Res. Mrg, Bath (1984).
O’Young D. L., D. M. Jenkins and B. Linnhoff, The
constrained problem table for heat exchanger networks.
ZChemE Symp. Ser. No. 109, pp. 75-l 15 (1988).
Papoulias S. A. and I. E. Grossmann, A structural
optimization approach in process synthesis-II. Heat
recovery networks. Computers &em. Engng 7, 707-721
(1983).
Saboo A. K., M. Morari and R. D. Colberg, RESHEX-
an interactive software package for the synthesis and
832 S. AHMAD and D. C. W. Hm

anaiysis of resilent heat exchanger networks-II. Discus- Yee T. F. and I. E. Gr oesmann, Simultaneous optimization
sion of area targeting and network synthesis algorithms. models for heat integration--II. Heat exchanger network
Computers &em. Engng 10, 591-599 (1986). synthesis. Computers &em. Engng 14, 116>1184 (1990).