Pinch Technology for the

Synthesis of Optimal Heat and

B. Linnhoff
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology,
Manchester, England
Power Systems
Over recent years a new methodology for the analysis and design of heat exchanger
networks, called pinch technology, has led to significant energy savings in the
chemical and process industries. The methodology has later been extended to apply
to integrated heat and power systems (Townsend and Linnhoff, 1983). This paper
shows that pinch technology is firmly based in Second Law Analysis. In contrast to
conventional Second Law Analysis, however, it does not require a base case design.
Rather, it performs true synthesis. Also, it is capable of a methodical distinction be-
tween "inevitable" and "avoidable" exergy losses.

1 Introduction
In the design of energy systems, First Law "losses" describe
energy flows across the system boundaries; Second Law
"losses" describe lost potential. The latter form of loss is
generally accepted as a more useful concept for the engineer
seeking clues for design improvement.
Second Law losses are usually calculated in terms of irrever-
sible entropy gain or exergy loss. They are evaluated for any
system in nature with equations that are well documented and
unambiguous. Early work by Keenan (1932), Bosnjakovic
(1935), Rant (1956), Grassman (1959) and many others did
much to popularize Second Law Analysis based on
equilibrium thermodynamics in terms of available energy, en-
tropy or exergy.
Somehow, industrial application has lagged behind
academic enthusiasm. With the exception of perhaps low
temperature systems and power cycles, industrial processes
have almost defied improvement through Second Law inter-
pretation. The analysis seems difficult to utilize in terms of
practical design information to be derived from it.
This paper suggests that there are three main reasons for
this apparent lack of practical results. These are:
1 Equipment Choice. Safety, materials, and other limits
constrain the choice of practically available equipment. Thus,
inefficiencies and losses are often partly inevitable.
2 Network Interactions. Complex systems usually com-
prise a number of different unit operations with multiple inter-
connections and nontrivial interactions. Thus, in the network
context losses are rarely caused where they occur and the
magnitude of a loss rarely relates to the overall savings
available if the loss was avoided.
3 Capital Costs. The need for economic tradeoffs be-
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division and presented at the
1986 Winter Annual Meeting, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY or- MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the AES Division, September 1985; revised
manuscript received May 26, 1989.
tween energy and capital costs requires a certain inefficiency in
Second Law terms to achieve finite rate processes and finite
equipment sizes. Numerical relationships between the efficien-
cy of processes and their speed, and thus equipment size and
capital cost, are outside equilibrium thermodynamics. Once
again, inefficiencies and losses are therefore, at least partly,
inevitable.
The conclusive study of any practical system would have to
involve quantifying and interpreting these three effects. Such
interpretation is difficult. There are no systematic or unam-
biguous procedures known which distinguish practically
avoidable losses from those that are inevitable. For point
3 - capital costs - the technique of thermoeconomics has been
suggested (Tribus and Evans, 1962; Evans and Tribus, 1965;
El-Sayed and Evans, 1970); but it is probably fair to say that it
applies to the optimization of a system of given configuration
rather than to genuine synthesis.
This then makes the use of Second Law Analysis in design
very much a skill-based exercise. The analysis itself is exact
science. The interpretation unfortunately is not.
Over the past 10 years or so a new design method has emerg-
ed in the chemical industry. This method, "pinch
technology," initially related to heat exchanger networks. It
sets rigorous heat recovery targets for overall networks (sub-
ject to a minimum temperature difference) and identifies, in
true synthesis, network structures which achieve the target.
More recently, pinch technology has been extended to incor-
porate heat pumps and combined heat and power cycles. In
addition, it now offers capital-energy cost tradeoff optimiza-
tion during synthesis.
This paper explains the basics of pinch technology and
demonstrates its relationship with Second Law Analysis. It
shows that the exergy losses in an optimal design developed by
pinch technology are rigorously inevitable. The methods are
introduced with reference to heat exchanger networks. The
principles are then applied to heat and power systems to
enable a parallel treatment.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology SEPTEMBER 1989, Vol. 111 /137

Copyright © 1989 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 ^L m H1 m
245°c 180°c
120°c
Q55
70°c
m
^^m 215°c
STEAM
250°
220°

162.5° 50°cr;
0.34 0.15 1.63
STEAM
1
105°c
UTILITIES :
1 25°
172.5°
25"
CW
2.31
Steam-. 5.75 MW 105°c
CW : 9.25MW
Fig. 1 Example heat exchanger network |80°c
Q l = exergy loss(MW)

Table 1 Example problem data crTo=4.98MW.

Fig. 2 Exergy losses in example heat exchanger network
Stream no. Supply Target Heat capacity
and type temp. temp. flow rate
(°Q (°C) (MW/°C)
HI (hot) 245 80 0.1
H2 (hot) 180 105 0.3
CI (cold) 70 120 0.05
C2 (cold) 50 215 0.2

Cost of steam = 190000 $/MW yr

Cost of CW = 7000 $/MW yr
Cost of exchangers = $30000 + 450
area095
Interest rate = 5 percent pa STEAM
Lifetime = 3 yr, 8000 hr/yr

2 Traditional Second Law Analysis of a Simple Heat
Exchanger Network
Consider the heat exchanger network (HEN) shown in Fig.
1. The required temperature changes are achieved by using
heat exchangers between process streams, a heater supplied
with steam at 250 °C and a cooler supplied with cooling water
at 25°C. The network performs the duties described in Table
1. It should be noted that the smallest temperature difference
occurring in the network (ATmin) is 10°C and occurs in ex-
changer 2. This is an important parameter for network design.
The question is, "Is it possible to reduce the hot utility con-
sumption?" The traditional approach to exergy analysis (for
example, King et al., 1972), would be to quantify exergy losses
for each item of plant. Such an analysis gives the results shown
in Fig. 2, where the boxes symbolizing equipment are propor-
tional in size to the losses. For the cost data given in Table 1
the annualized cost of this network would be M$ 2.10.
In a single heat exchanger the exergy loss is due to heat
transfer across a finite temperature difference. There are two
possible approaches to reducing this loss. First, it could be
utilities usage: 2 2 % less than
base case.
Fig. 3 Modified heat exchanger network
avoided if the heat exchanger was completely replaced by ideal
Carnot engines and/or heat pumps, which would exploit the
temperature differences in the exchanger while maintaining all
process stream temperatures in and out. The rest of the net-
work and the process would stay as they are. Alternatively, the
loss could be reduced by reducing the temperature differences
in the heat exchanger. However, this approach would require
altering the configuration of the process and the network.
Consequently, because of network interactions, there will be
changes to the temperatures and conditions in other pieces of
equipment at the same time.
Let us apply the first approach to the example. The largest
loss is in the cooler. A heat engine, such as a Rankine cycle,
could conceivably be used to recover some of the lost work.
However, for a practical engine with finite temperature dif-
ferences in the evaporator and condenser, only about 1.0 MW

Nomenclature

CP = heat capacity flow rate,

kj/s K amin minimum possible heat T temperature, K
Ex = exergy, kJ flow to cold utility, kJ/s ambient temperature, K
AEx = change in exergy, kJ Qh heat flow from hot utility, logarithmic mean
H = enthalpy, kJ kJ/s temperature difference, K
AH = change in enthalpy, kJ 2/imin minimum possible heat Ar m i n minimum allowable ap-
HEN = heat exchanger network flow from hot utility, proach temperature dif-
MER = maximum energy recovery kJ/s ference in heat exchanger
Q = heat flow, kJ/s AQ element of heat transfer, network, K
Qc = heat flow to cold utility, kJ oT„ = total system exergy loss,
kJ/s AS change in entropy, kJ/K kJ

1 3 8 / V o l . 111, SEPTEMBER 1989 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 H1 H2 T(°c Qh
-I0.5-
245°c 180°c

120°c 70°c
•037 C1 3.0 35-

171.6°
STEAM
0-
215°c =L 192.5* 150° 50°c
-180

Q25 0.36 1.55 C2

160°

?105°c
1.91 CW m-
r/To=4.44MW 1425"
|80°c Q ] = exergy loss. MW
Fig. 4 Exergy losses in the modified network A1Q5-
M--=ZJM
DATA FOR PROPOSED
— 35 — - 4.0--
HEAT TRANSFER:
+ initial temperature
difference
+ heat capacity
flowrates

IS TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE NO
SUFFICIENT ?
' YES 'r
HEAT TRANSFER dQ NO HEAT TRANSFER
FEASIBLE FEASIBLE
after dQ, temperature
difference to be
re-established on grounds
of heat capacity
Fig. 5 Algorithm for anlayzing heat exchanger network problems
of work could be recovered, assuming that a suitable working
fluid exists for the temperatures in question. A more com-
plicated system, using two cycles to match the temperature-
enthalpy profiles better, would improve the recovery to 1.4
MW. The capital cost necessary for this reduction in exergy
loss would be considerable. The necessity of finite driving
forces and realistic equipment sizes has a strong bearing on
improvements that are practically possible.
Let us now apply the second approach. Although the cooler
shows the largest loss, it is difficult, by inspection, to conceive
of design changes to the overall network which would reduce
the temperature differences in the cooler. Concentrating next
on exchanger 3, which has the second largest exergy loss, it is
quite easily possible by inspection to reduce its temperature
difference in a new network configuration as shown in Fig. 3.
The new losses are seen in Fig. 4. As Fig. 4 shows, the losses in
all other items of equipment have been reduced alongside that
in exchanger 3. Similarly, the overall requirement for heating
and cooling has decreased. The overall benefit is larger than
that in exchanger 3 alone. This illustrates the effect of network
interactions. The annualized cost of the modified network
would be M$ 1.82, a saving of 12.9 percent.
We accept the design in Fig. 3 as the best improvement we
can find by inspection. Exergy analysis has guided the search
CP- •CP
(MW/-C) 020 0.10 0 0.10 0.20 Q 3 0 ( M W A )
Fig. 6 Application of problem table algorithm to example problem
for a better design but not in any sense directly. The improved
design, which resulted from changing the topology of the heat
recovery network, could have been achieved by mere inspec-
tion aided by repeated simulations. Furthermore, we have no
indication as to whether our improvement is the best possible.
Perhaps, further improvements are yet to be discovered?
There are still exergy losses spread throughout the system (Fig.
4). To be complete, a design method should be capable of
identifying the point beyond which the losses involved are in-
evitable, or rather, beyond which practical improvement is a
genuine impossibility.
We had two approaches. The first was based on exact
replacement of individual pieces of equipment by different
items (engines, heat pumps) without changing their operating
parameters or the network configuration. The second was
based on changes to the operating parameters of existing
equipment including alterations to the network configuration.
The two approaches have conflicting effects. For instance,
although the second approach achieves a saving of hot utility,
the scope for work recovery at the cooler has been reduced.
The first approach, which we might call the "textbook" ap-
proach, tends to require complicated, expensive and even
unrealistic equipment. It is only practical when obvious op-
portunities exist for savings, based on known power recovery
or similar equipment. It is also focused on individual units
rather than integrated systems.
The second approach tends to be more difficult, but is prac-
tical. It aims at genuine synthesis of integrated systems. It
utilizes practical equipment. Nevertheless, when large losses
exist, there is obviously always a case for the first approach
not to be forgotten. In this paper we will use the second ap-
proach while remembering the first for use where appropriate.
As will become apparent, the methods developed allow a
seamless connection between the two approaches.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology SEPTEMBER 1989, Vol. 111/139

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


(a)
(MW/°c
(b)
Fig. 7
3 Exergy Analysis With a Difference - Pinch Tech-
nology
3.1 Energy Targets. In the case of heat exchanger net-
work design, there now exists a design method which
minimizes the overall exergy loss for a predetermined trade-
off between energy and capital costs. The target levels of ex-
ergy loss, and therefore energy use, can be calculated prior to
design.
Pinch technology was derived by Linnhoff and his co-
workers (1982) following his work on exergy analysis. It stems
directly from exergy analysis as treated by him (1983). The ex-
ergy principles are expressed in a series of "themes." Those
which are relevant to heat exchangers are:
140/Vol. 111, SEPTEMBER 1989
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
0 8-0 16-0
Hoi composite curve
Cold composite curve
Composite curves
8
Consider load against level.
a
Do not degrade levels prematurely.
This sounds sensible but vague. Let us then develop the first
theme into a logic structure as shown in Fig. 5 (Linnhoff,
1983). First, to enable heat to be transferred, there needs to be
a sufficient temperature difference. Next, heat can be trans-
ferred until the temperature difference has become insuffi-
cient. In other words, there is a clear hierarchy. First we need
level. Level enables heat transfer to take place. Heat transfer
gives load. Then load re-establishes level, and so on.
The second theme helps to develop this logic structure into
an algorithm for several sources and sinks of heat.
"Premature" degradation of levels is heat exchange at ex-
Transactions of the ASME
 cessive temperature differences. To avoid this happening, all
streams are plotted with their heat capacity flow rates (CP)
against temperature. This has been done in Fig. 6 with the data
of the example problem. Seven temperature intervals are
established resulting from the original stream temperatures.
Within each of these there is either an overall requirement for
heat (negative enthalpy balance) or a surplus (positive en-
thalpy balance). The balance for each interval is easily
calculated from the stream data and is shown in Fig. 6 as ver-
tical line-up A.
There is a surplus of 3.0 MW of heat in the hottest interval,
a requirement of 3.5 MW of heat in the second hottest inter-
val, etc. (Note that the straightforward calculation of balances
assumes heat transfer within intervals at zero driving forces.)
In the second vertical line-up B, heat is now cascaded
downwards in temperature. A zero external heat supply has
been assumed.Thus, there is now a surplus of 3.0 MW to be
passed from the first to the second interval. Then, given that
the second interval requires 3.5 MW, there is a deficit of 0.5
MW passed from the second to the third interval, etc. A deficit
would require heat to be exchanged "upwards" in terms of
temperature which would violate the Second Law. Thus, the
third "cascade" is established (line-up C). The external heat
flow is now chosen to equal the largest deficit previously
established. This ensures that there will be one zero heat flow
in the cascade in the position previously occupied by the
largest deficit. All other heat flows are positive. We have a
setup which describes the limits of feasibility (some heat
transfer at ATmin = 0°C), and therefore the minimum
necessary external heat supply (Linnhoff, 1983). This
algorithmic development of the minimum energy requirement
is called the "problem table."
In more recent work, the foregoing procedure has usually
been expressed graphically through the composite curves
(Whistler, 1948). It is interesting to develop the relationship
between the problem table heat flow cascade, as described in
the foregoing, and composite curves.
Consider Fig. 7. Hot streams and cold streams are now dealt
with separately. Each group is again represented with heat
capacity flow rates plotted against temperature. Then, a
cumulative graph is established, representing the overall cool-
ing curve (hot streams, Fig. 7(a)) or overall heating curve (cold
streams, Fig. lib)) in temperature-enthalpy coordinates. These
"composite" curves essentially show the total heat capacity
flow rate, either hot or cold, in any given interval of
temperature.
Figure 8 shows a simple countercurrent profile of the com-
IMW)
Fig. 8 Combined composite curves
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
posite hot against the composite cold. We observe that there is
a point of zero temperature difference at T = 180°C and that
the necessary external heat supply is 0.5 MW. This cor-
responds to the information previously obtained in Fig. 6.
To set a practical target for external heat supply we need
temperature differences larger than zero. In Fig. 9, the com-
posite curves have been "shifted" relative to each other. (The
enthalpy reference point for the cold composite has been
chosen differently.) As a result, we see finite temperature dif-
ferences and an increase in the external heating requirements.
For ATmin = 10°C, Qh . increases to 2.5 MW. Adjustment
for ATmin can be accommodated in the problem table
algorithm too (Linnhoff et al., 1982).
3.2 Economic Targets. Recent work has shown that
overall capital cost can be estimated from the composite
curves (Linnhoff and Ahmad, 1989). Overall heat to be
transferred, temperature differences, heat transfer coeffi-
cients, pressure levels, etc., are all known. This allows us to
carry out a preliminary optimization of Armin on the basis of
composite curves as shown in Fig. 10. For Armin = 0°C,
capital cost is infinite and energy cost is (usually) finite. As
Armin increases, capital cost decreases, but energy cost in-
creases. Both costs together represent a prediction of the
overall costs of the entire network (capital and energy) yet to
be designed.
For our example, the optimum value of Armin is calculated
to be 11.0°C, corresponding to an annualized cost of M$ 1.65.
11°C is therefore the value which would normally be used in
developing a practical design. This value is not very different
from 10°C. The predicted annualized costs for 10°C and 11°C
are, respectively, M$ 1.6457 and M$ 1.6455. For the sake of
direct comparisons with the original base case, we shall con-
tinue to use 10°C for the rest of the example. In any case, we
expect a saving of approximately 19 percent in terms of total
cost over the base case design.
It is important to note that the above economic optimiza-
tion gives the value of Armin for networks. This is in contrast
to the method suggested by Ghamarian et al. (1985), and many
similar methods known to the author. Usually, A7"min is op-
timized, and hence the design of a single exchanger, by assum-
ing that the costs of utilities eventually saved are both known
and constant. Such an approach does not take account of net-
work interactions, and cannot optimize integrated systems
without considerable iteration.
3.3 The Pinch Principle. Figure 6 demonstrated that
there is a level in the heat cascade where the heat flow is exact-
Qc= 6-0
_ f-|
IMW)
Fig. 9 Composite curves for A7"min = 10°C
SEPTEMBER 1989, Vol. 111 /141
 k T MIN

2000

= 1500-

a
1000-

500-
Fig. 11 The pinch principle: system division and three forms of
cross-pinch heat transfer

245' : S7\ 220° /7\ 172.5° / T \ 60%

H1
1 11 0 2 5
A Turin (°c) 180° - - - - 105
Fig. 10 Capital/energy cost trade-off H2 — ( 3 ) °
,120°
-O 18625 70°
C1

ly zero for the minimum feasible energy input. In Fig. 8 there
is a point of closest approach between the composite curves.
These two temperature points are one and the same, called the
"pinch."
At the pinch, the process can be divided into two sub-
systems each of which is in heat balance with its respective
utility. Above the pinch only hot utility is required. The use of
cold utility in this region only increases the hot utility demand
(Fig. 11). Similarly, below the pinch only cold utility is re-
quired. If heat is transferred from a hot stream above the
pinch to a cold stream below the pinch, the subsystem heat
balances require that both hot and cold utility loads are in-
creased by the amount transferred. A design with no heat
transfer across the pinch gives the maximum energy recovery
(MER) possible.
From this thermodynamic analysis a design method has
been developed which guarantees networks having the target
energy recovery. Briefly, the design is treated in two parts,
above and below the pinch. Remembering that heating is
allowed only above the pinch and cooling below, it is usually
possible, by inspection, to design two sub-networks to achieve
the targets. In both parts, matches are made between hot and
cold streams in such a way that the number of equipment
items is minimized. After all the process to process matches
are made, matches to and from the utilities are used to com-
plete the solution (Evans and Tribus, 1965). Recognition of
the pinch division and the rules for utility placement make a
foolproof method of designing networks achieving MER.
3.4 The Heat Exchanger Network Grid. An essential
aspect of pinch technology is the simple way in which heat ex-
changer networks are represented. A simple grid (Linnhoff et
al., 1982) is used, as shown in Fig. 12, which illustrates the ex-
ample problem with the original design. The hot streams run
from left to right at the top of the diagram and cold streams
run "countercurrent" at the bottom. A heat interchange is
shown as two circles connected by a vertical line with the
^5> 50°
C2
ULZBj \Jtj3j \225j
L _ J : Heat load (MW)
Fig. 12 Grid representation of example problem
amount of the transfer written beneath the lower circle. With
this representation any design can be developed using any se-
quence of hot and cold stream matches and any design change
is possible without reordering or rerouting streams.
However, the main benefit of this representation is that
when the pinch temperatures are marked in, heat exchangers
transferring heat across the pinch are easily identified (see ex-
changers 1 and 2 in Fig. 13). Finally, the grid is a valuable tool
when studying the operability and flexibility of a process
(Linnhoff and Kotjabasakis, 1986).
3.5 Example Problem. To illustrate the use of pinch
technology, the grid representation and the design procedure,
let us now continue assuming that AT",,,;,, = 10°C does repre-
sent the optimum choice for lowest overall cost. It follows that
Qh = 2.5 MW is our energy target. It may be worth noting
that this does not so much represent a thermodynamic target
as an economic target: while it is possible to achieve designs
with Qh < 2.5 MW, it would not be cost-effective to do so.
Designs which achieve Qh = 2.5 MW at ATmia = 10°C are
predicted to be economic optima. Pinch technology reconciles
rigorous thermodynamics (composite curves) with economics.
Comparing Qh = 2.5 MW with the original network (Fig. 1)
and the network improved by exergy analysis (Fig. 3), we see
that although exergy analysis reduced the value of Qh from
5.77 MW to 4.41 MW, it should be possible to reduce Qh still
further to 2.5 MW for the same A:rmin.
To start the design procedure, we establish from the com-
posite curves that the pinch temperature corresponds to hot
streams at 180°C and cold streams at 170°C. The grid

142/Vol. 111, SEPTEMBER 1989 Transactions of the AS ME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PINCH
180° STEAM
m 245°
H2
180°
i I 250°
I'lS'f 57.5° 50 V
0-12 -0-22 1-28 0-30
2450
f\ 220°/^S 172.5°
180° 140°

70'
120V
0-34 m
155°

25°
1-32 -CW

0 : Exergy loss (MW) 105° ~J~80°

o-To = 3-58MW
170° Fig. 15 Exergy losses in MER design for AT m i n = 10°C
Fig. 13 Grid representation shows cross-pinch heat transfer

PINCH
analysis has been performed on the new network and the
180°
results are shown in Fig. 15. The total oT0 has been reduced to
3.58 MW. This is an improvement of 0.86 MW over the design

H1
245°
o -0 155° ^ 1 4 0 ° / ^ , 80°.
!
-^°J 105;
achieved by traditional Second Law Analysis and an improve-
ment of 1.4 MW over the base case.
The total annual cost for the final design is M$ 1.70,
HH) representing a saving of 19 percent on the original base case.
The target figure was M$ 1.65 showing that the targeting pro-
120 70c cedure was accurate within 3 percent. This accuracy is by no
C1 means unusual (Linnhoff and Ahmad, 1989).
^15^202.5^

L2^i L6.5i
-o
[22.51
rirV-^
£5 57.5,
Q
LL5]
50'
C2 4 Pinch Technology and Exergy Analysis
4.1 Exergy Analysis Using the Problem Table. Pinch
170° technology was derived from exergy analysis principles. In-
!--HeaHoad(MW)
(a) Grid representation
deed, it represents an expression of those principles in a
powerful but simple stand-alone design tool for heat ex-
changer networks. The techniques make exergy analysis ap-
plicable for genuine synthesis, with the added advantage of ac-
M counting for equipment choice, network interactions, and
STEAM 245° 180°
economic trade-offs, as described in the Introduction.
In the Introduction it was stated that the use of pinch
215V7A 202.5°/ 170° 57.5° ^ 50°,
technology led to designs whereby the exergy losses were
"inevitable." While it is easy to say so conceptually, it is more
180° 140° difficult to quantify this statement. We will now attempt ex-
actly that.
Figure 16(a) shows the composite curves for the example

J^V 70'
m problem with ATmin = 0°C. The composite curves predict the
utility requirements. The key observation is that we do not
need a network design to predict oT0 as well. Rather, aT0 can
155°
be evaluated from the equation
AEx (sources and sinks) + oT0 = 0 (1)
UTILITY USAGE
4 3 % less than base case We know all stream data and, with the composite curves, we
105°
also know the utility heat flows ahead of design. The exergy
(to) Traditional representation change for a constant temperature heat source or sink is given
Fig. 14 Maximum energy recovery design (MER) by
AEx = A / / [ l - r o / 7 1 (2)
representation is divided at the pinch. The separate networks for nonconstant temperature, the expression
are started at the pinch, with "essential matches," and pro-
ceed away from it (Linnhoff and Hindmarsh, 1983). The dEx = dH[l-T0/T]
resulting designs are then combined to produce the overall can be integrated (Linnhoff, 1983), assuming constant heat
MER network shown in Fig. 14(a). For the traditionally mind- capacity, to give
ed, the design is also shown in a conventional sketch in Fig.
14(b). It is probably fair to say that this design would have AEx = A / 7 [ l - r o / A r L M ] (3)
been difficult to find by inspection. Equations (2) and (3) can now be applied to each source and
For comparison with the previous designs, an exergy sink or to the segments of the composite curves. This is

Journal of Energy Resources Technology SEPTEMBER 1989, Vol. 1 1 1 / 1 4 3

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Qh Table 2 Exergy change using stream data
r—!
4T Stream AEx (MW)
HI -5.07
H2 -6.32
CI 0.47
C2 8.41
Steam -0.21
Cooling water 0.00
EAEx -2.72
ATmin -- 0°
Table 3 Exergy change by composite curve segments
s-
s •>
S
f ; Temperature
J/ s; interval (°C) AEx (MW)

\=r
f /
Steam
245-215
Hot composite
-0.21
-1.22
Cold composite
—
Qc 215-180 -1.28
—
2.56
180-120 -7.06 3.53
120-105 -1.36 0.85
105-80 -0.46 1.15
80-70 _ 0.36
70-50 _ 0.42
|T CW - 0
E= -11.59 E=+8.87
E = -2.72

evitable exergy loss. Clearly, it could be reduced only by pull-

ATmin =10°
H
Fig. 16 Composite curves for example problem
demonstrated for the example problem in Tables 2 and 3. The
result is that
EAEx = - 2 . 7 2 MW
and with equation (1)
ffT0=2.72MW
Next we need to calculate oT0 for ATmin = 10°C. Consider
Table 2. Except for the utility source and sink, steam and cool-
ing water, all the stream data stay the same. Thus, we expect
<7ro(10°C) - <JT0 (0°Q = A//(steam) (1 - r o /T s t e a m )
+AW(cw)(i-r0/rcw)
or, since A//(steam) = AH(CW) = AH (utilities)
oT0 (10°C)-ffr o (0°) = A//(utilities)
[(i-r0/7-steam) + ( i - r 0 / r c w )
From the previous calculations, we know that AH (utilities) =
2.0 MW, and it follows that oT0 (10°C) = 2.72 + 0.86 = 3.58
MW.
Alternatively, in Table 3 the only interim results that change
are the first entry for hot streams (AH for steam) and the last
for cold streams (AH for cooling water). We again obtain
equation (4).
So, the result is that oT„ (10°C) = 3.58 MW, and this is in-
deed equal to what we have established, exchanger by ex-
changer, for the best network (see Fig. 15).
We have seen that pinch technology allows us to predict,
ahead of design, the total uT0 of an optimal network. The
contention in the Introduction was that this oT0 is the in-
ing the curves closer or by using equipment other than heat
exchangers.
Pulling the curves closer would be economically counter-
productive. The optimization of the overall Ar m i n through a
capital-energy tradeoff has ensured that the cT0 determined is
the inevitable loss caused by economic considerations. (This
was the third point mentioned in the Introduction.)
Using heat pumps and heat engines would be valid and will
be covered later. For the time being, however, we are
restricted to heat exchangers only. Often this is a practical
constraint. Subject to this assumption, the oT0 that is not ex-
plained by AT= 10°C (Fig. 16, oT0 (0°C) = 2.72 MW) is ex-
plained by the impossibility, due to network interactions, of
reducing all A F s to 0°C. Thus, oT0 (0°C) is the inevitable loss
due to equipment choice and network interactions, the other
aspects mentioned in the Introduction.
We now look back to Section 2 and compare results. Initial-
ly we observed a oT0 of 4.98 MW in the original network. Us-
ing second law principles, we reduced it to oT0 = AAA MW;
but we were uncertain how much further it could be reduced.
We now know that there was a further aT0 of exactly 0.86
MW possible, and indeed economically desirable.
Pinch technology has given us the following:
1 It quantifies oT0 inevitable (and utility cost), assuming
that heat engines and heat pumps are not used.
2 It quantifies the oT0 inevitable due to economic
considerations.
3 It finds a design with exactly cT0 inevitable and no more.
(4) Pinch technology has performed true synthesis and has given
us, with complete assurance, an optimal design. We are no
longer worried that there could be a better design out there
somewhere.
Incidentally, it is possible to draw composite curves against
a vertical axis showing the Carnot efficiency, 1 - T0/T, in-
stead of temperature. This was proposed by Umeda et al.
(1979), who called the plot the energy availability diagram.
The area between the curves and the utilities on such a
diagram will then be exactly equal to the exergy loss. Figure 17
shows Fig. 16(a) redrawn in this fashion. We will not continue
to do this here. For the design, ATmin is important and we do
not want to distort temperature. Also, while the area between
the undistorted curves is not strictly aT0, it is nevertheless in-

144/Vol. 111, SEPTEMBER 1989 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1c
of To = 2-72
A Tmin =0°
"Qc H
(MW)
Fig. 17 "Energy Availability" diagram
T1 Qhmin AQ
-AW
-PINCH
Qcmin
H alternative diagram derived from Fig. 6 is helpful in consider-
Oin=Qhmin-(AQ-AW)
Fig. 18 Appropriate placement of a heat engine
dicative of aT0. We think more is gained by the correct scale
for temperatures than is lost by an incorrect scale for exergy
losses.
5 Applying Pinch Technology to Combined Heat and
Power
5.1 Appropriate Placement. The application of pinch
principles to the integration of heat engines and heat pumps
with heat exchanger networks has led to a small number of
fundamental design principles which are expressed in rules for
"appropriate placement."
Consider Fig. 18. A heat engine absorbs heat at high
temperatures and rejects it at lower ones. If an engine were
"placed" such that its source was above the pinch temperature
and its sink below, it would effectively transfer heat across the
pinch. The effect on the overall energy balance would be the
same as if the engine were not integrated at all. Therefore,
engines must be integrated either entirely above (Fig. 18) or
entirely below the pinch. Cycles which require high input
temperatures, such as gas turbines, will normally be integrated
above the process pinch. Rankine cycles are conveniently
placed either above or below, depending on the pinch
temperature. The (First Law) efficiency of "appropriately
placed" engines can be said to approach 100 percent (Town-
send and Linnhoff, 1983).
A heat pump is an engine running in reverse and its place-
ment is reverse. A heat pump should be placed across the
pinch so that it can pump heat from the process heat source
below the pinch to the sink above. A heat pump integrated
wholly above the pinch simply alters the energy balance by us-
ing work to replace an equal quantity of heat. This is usually
an uneconomical proposition. Below the pinch the situation is
worse. The net overall effect of a heat pump integrated below
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Qhmin
Qcmin
Fig. 19 Derivation of the grand composite curve
the pinch is that work is converted into additional load on the
cold utility (Linnhoff, 1986).
5.2 The Grand Composite Curve. So far the heat ex-
changer network has been considered in isolation, with the
assumption of fixed utilities. The principles of appropriate
placement have been derived assuming that the system above
or below the pinch can provide or accept all heat transfers
from and to utilities necessary for the overall heat balance. An
ing these aspects in more detail. Figure 19 shows the derivation
of the "grand composite curve." Here the hot and cold
streams are combined and the net heat surplus or deficit for
each interval is plotted on a temperature-enthalpy diagram.
The resulting graph shows that heat can be recovered from
section A-B to C-B and from section E-F to G-F. This leaves
the external heating requirement D-C and cooling requirement
D-E. These requirements are served through the hot utility
K-L and the cold utility M-N.
Similarly to the composite curves, the grand composite
curve shows "areas" of heat transfer K-L-A-B-D-K and D-F-
G-N-M-D which resemble exergy losses oT0. If we were to
construct the grand composite curve for a vertical axis in terms
of the Carnot factor, then the relationship would be exact, in
perfect analogy to Fig. 17. The important difference between
the composite curves and the grand composite curves is that
the latter allows us to distinguish readily between avoidable
and inevitable exergy losses when we introduce different
utilities.
Consider again Fig. 19. It is obvious that the hot utility K-L
is hotter than necessary. Consequently, most of the area K-L-
C-D-K resembles exergy losses which would be avoidable
given a better (i.e., lower temperature) choice of hot utility. By
contrast, the exergy losses resembled by the area A-B-C-A
would not be affected, these losses are inevitable.
Similarly, cold utility could be used at higher temperatures
avoiding most of the exergy losses resembled by area D-E-N-
M-D. The losses resembled by area E-F-G-E remain
inevitable.
In pinch technology, the grand composite curve is not
drawn to assess inevitable exergy losses as such. Remember
that pinch technology, as a manifestation of Second Law
Analysis which works explicitly in terms of temperatures and
heat loads, has made the very evaluation of exergy losses per
se avoidable!
Instead, grand composite curves are used to select utilities.
Consider Fig. 20(a). In the top sketch, the grand composite
curve of a process with a high temperature external heating re-
quirement is "matched" by a flue gas line. The construction
SEPTEMBER 1989, Vol. 111/145
 T or steam (Fig. 20(d)) would not be economic. (The ATmin
shown between the utility lines and the grand composites in
Fig. 20 is implied to be economically optimized.) Further, a
steam-based solution would be inappropriate for the process
V it\ in Fig. 20(a) and a gas turbine would result in large exergy

Tc
1/
iTTm-^
losses with the process in Fig. 20(b). Subject to network in-
teractions, choice of equipment, and economics (see Introduc-
tion), the areas shown shaded in Fig. 20 resemble inevitable
exergy losses. Not qualitatively, but precisely.

rrr^ 6 Discussion
It may be appropriate here to briefly emphasize that Pinch
Technology is not new. It has a proven track record. It has
emerged over the last 5-10 years from within chemical
engineering. It led to significant results even early on (Linn-
hoff and Vredeveld, 1984) and has since been proven in over
500 studies worldwide (University of Manchester, 1985-1986).
Some companies have publicly testified to its results with
average energy cost savings of 50 percent at capital cost reduc-
tion in grass roots designs (Linnhoff and Vredeveld, 1984;
Steinmetz and Chaney, 1985). These results were typically
achieved in projects relating to modern state-of-the-art designs
previously thought to be optimized. Results in older plants
have reached 90 percent plus energy cost savings and payback
times measured in days. Such impact is perhaps more easily
understood if the following simple facts are borne in mind:

1 Pinch technology is based on a new scientific insight. New

science can "break" learning curves.
Fig. 20 Matching grand composite curves with appropriate utilities or
2 Pinch technology is basically simple. When based on fun-
engines
damental truth, the simpler a concept is, the bigger its impact
is likely to be.
3 Pinch technology is as fundamentally true as Second Law
Analysis. New principles must be compared to established
ones. It often turns out that a new principle is a special or
may resemble the radiant and convective sections of a process more general case of an old one. Pinch technology is a special
furnace. The slope of the line representing the flue gas in- case of Second Law Analysis. Second Law Analysis is fun-
dicates the furnace fuel requirement. damentally true but devoid of practically relevant constraints.
Alternatively, the same process could be appropriately in- Pinch technology expresses Second Law Analysis with the
tegrated with a gas turbine as shown in the bottom sketch. The constraints of equipment choice, network interactions and
initial flue gas temperature is now reduced and the slope is in- economics "built in." Pinch technology is Second Law
creased. The construction allows us to predict fuel require- Analysis made practical.
ment and shaft work recovery for the gas turbine, along with
associated temperature driving forces between the turbine and
the process. These are much reduced compared to the top Acknowledgment
sketch representing a simple furnace. Clearly, the exergy losses
at the process-utility interface have been reduced, resulting in The author expresses his sincere thanks to his colleagues
shaft work recovery. D. M. Jenkins and F. J. Alanis for their help in the prepara-
tion of this manuscript.
Consider now Fig. 19(£>). The top sketch shows a process
with low temperature external heating requirement provided
by LP steam. The situation at the process-utility interface does
not change if the LP steam is recovered from a back-pressure References
steam turbine (bottom sketch) instead of from the mains. It Bosnjakovic, F., 1935, Technische Thermodynamik, Teil 1, 1st Printing,
follows from Fig. 20 that grand composite curves are a unique Dresden and Leipzig.
tool for the designer to establish opportunities at the process- El-Sayed, Y. M., and Evans, R. B., 1970, "Thermoeconomics and the Design
utility interface prior to design. The capital cost implications of Evans,
Heat Systems," ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, pp. 27-35.
R. B., and Tribus, M., 1965, "Thermoeconomics of Saline Water
of prospective utility options can be studied while sound ther- Conversion," Industrial Eng. and Chem., (Process Des. Development), Vol. 4,
modynamics (i.e., "appropriate placement") are maintained. p. 195.
In the present context, a discussion of inevitable exergy 1985, Ghamarian, A., Thomas, W. R. L., Sideropoulos, T., and Robertson, J. L.,
"Incremental Heat Flux Method for Heat Exchanger Optimization," Ad-
losses as shown up in the grand composite curve is pertinent. vanced Energy Systems Symposium, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Miami, p.
The solution using furnace flue gas involves temperature dif- 19.
ferences higher than necessary - the area left white between Grassman, P., 1959, "Die Exergie und das Flussbild der technisch nutzbaren
the flue gas line and the process profile signals avoidable ex- Leistung," Allgemeine Warmetechnik, Vol. 9, No. 79.
Keenan, J. H., 1932, Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 54, p. 195.
ergy losses. All the other three solutions can be argued to in- King, C. J., Gantz, D. W., and Barnes, F. J., 1972, "Systematic Evolutionary
volve only inevitable exergy losses. A reduction of the gas tur- Process Synthesis," Ind. Eng. and Chem. (ProcessDes. Development), Vol. 11,
bine flue gas flow rate in Fig. 20(a) (bottom sketch) would in- No. 2, p. 271.
volve stack temperatures below dewpoint. Thus, the driving Linnhoff, B., 1979, "Thermodynamic Analysis in the Design of Process Net-
forces between the flue gas and the process are inevitable. works," Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds.
Linnhoff, B., 1983, "New Concepts in Thermodynamics for Better Chemical
Similarly, a lower temperature for either flue gas (Fig. 20(a)) Process Design," Chem. Engng. Res. Des., Vol. 61, p. 207.

146/Vol. 111, SEPTEMBER 1989 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Linnhoff, B., 1986, "The Process/Utility Interface," 2nd Int. Meeting, Na-
tional Use of Energy, Liege, Belgium.
Linnhoff, B., Townsend, D. W., Boland, D., Hewitt, G. F., Thomas, B. E.
A., Guy, A. R., and Marsland, R. H., 1982, "User Guide on Process Integra-
tion for the Efficient Use of Energy," The Institution of Chemical Engineers,
Rugby, England, (available in the U.S.A. through Pergamon Press Inc.,
Elmsford, N.Y.).
Linnhoff, B., and E. Hindmarsh, 1983, "The Pinch Design Method for Heat
Exchanger Networks," Chem. Engng. Sci., Vol. 38, No. 5, p. 745.
Linnhoff, B., and Kotjabasakis, E., 1986, "Downstream Paths for Operable
Process Design," Chem. Engng. Prog., May.
Linnhoff, B., and Turner, J. A., 1981, "Heat-Recovery Networks: New In-
sights Yield Big Savings," Chemical Engineering, November 2, pp. 56-70.
Linnhoff, B., and Vredeveld, D. R., 1984, "Pinch Technology has Come of
Age," Chem. Engng. Prog., July, pp. 33-40.
Linnhoff, B., and Ahmad, S., 1989, "SUPERTARGETING: Optimum
Synthesis of Energy Management Systems," ASME JOURNAL OF ENERGY
RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY, Vol. I l l , Sept., pp. 121-130.
Rant, Z., 1956, Forsch. Ing. Wes., Vol. 22, No. 36.
Steinmetz, F. J., and Chaney, M. O., 1985, "Total Plant Energy Integra-
tion," Chem. Engng. Prog., July, pp. 27-32.
Townsend, D. W., and Linnhoff, B., 1983, "Heat and Power Networks in
Process Design," (2 parts), AIChE Journal, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 742-771.
Tribus, M., and Evans, R. B., 1962, "The Thermoeconomics of Sea Water
Conversion," Report Nos. 62-63, University of California, Los Angeles.
Umeda, T., Harada, T., and Shiroko, K., 1979, "A Thermodynamic Ap-
proach to the Synthesis of Heat Integration Systems in Chemical Processes,"
Comp. and Chem. Eng., Vol. 3, p. 273.
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, 1985-1986
Centre for Process Integration, Fact Sheets Nos. 1-13.
Whistler, A. M., 1948, "Heat Exchangers as Money Makers," Petroleum
Refiner, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 83-86.

Change of Address Form for Journal of Energy Resources Technology

If you are planning Present Address - Affix Label or Copy Information from Label
To Move, Please
Notify The
ASME-Order Dep't
22 Law Drive
Box 2300
Fairfield, N.J. 07007-2300
Don't Wait! Print New Address Below
Don't Miss An Issue!
Allow Ample Time To Name
Effect Change.
Attention.
Address
City . State or Country. .Zip.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology SEPTEMBER 1989, Vol. 111/147

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use