A Critical Comparison of Alternative Methods for HEN Retrofit Design

Jimmy D Kumana, MS Ch E
Consulting Engineer, Process Optimization
Houston, Texas 77091
Tel. (713) 957-1125, eMail jkumana@aol.com

Presented at 51st Canadian Chemical Engineering Congress

2nd Symposium on Process Integration
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (October 14-17, 2001)

ABSTRACT

The classical Pinch design approach to design of MER heat exchanger networks in new plants is
not suitable for retrofits. A number of alternative methods – based on mathematical programming
as well as heuristics - have been developed over the years, and some of them have been
formally encoded in commercially available software. Mathematical programming methods still
have a long way to go before they are ready for wide-spread commercial application. Heuristic
methods, based on Pinch Analysis, have been in commercial use for 15 years. Although very
good software is available, not much has been published in the open literature on specific design
methods. To a large extent, expert practitioners, both in industry and in the consulting world,
have kept the critical details of successful application to themselves, for very understandable
reasons. While this has protected their commercial interests, it has also had some negative
consequences – viz. impeding wider application of a very powerful energy optimization
methodology, and limiting the market for commercial software.

In this paper, the author hopes to take a small step towards remedying this situation. The major
techniques for HEN retrofit design based on Pinch Analysis are critically reviewed and compared
using two sample problems. These include:

• Compatibility by Inspection (Progressive Convergence)

• Area efficiency (“alfa” method)
• Network Pinch
• Path Pinch
• Problem Decomposition
• Original RPA, and
• Modified RPA (2 versions)

Preliminary conclusions are drawn, and recommendations are made on the suitability of the
different approaches for different classes of problems.

Keywords
Heat exchanger network design
HEN retrofit optimization
Energy conservation
Pinch analysis
Process integration
Optimization

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 1 of 28

INTRODUCTION

The design of heat exchanger networks is an important problem for energy intensive process
industries. The problem consists of two parts:

a) What is the optimum level of heat recovery?

b) What is the optimum HEN design to achieve this level of heat recovery?

The two questions are not independent. In fact, there is a complex interaction between them
(Figure 1) that can only be solved by repeated iterative calculation.

Process
Data &
Specs

HEN Design

Optimum Capital cost

Heat Rec % estimates

Utility CHP system

requirements design
Energy
contracts

Marginal CHP
costs operating
policy

Conver
Finish
ged?

Figure 1: Iterative Computation Procedure for Optimum HEN Design

The answer depends not only on local prices for fuel and power, but on the capital cost of the
HEN and on the net marginal cost of intermediate utilities (e.g. steam, refrigeration, etc.). The

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 2 of 28

HEN capital cost depends on its structure and design. The cost of intermediate utilities similarly
depend on the design of the CHP system, the operating policy, and details of energy purchase
agreements for primary utilities.

The first attempts to solve this problem took a mathematical programming approach [Ref 15]. A
comprehensive and accurate formulation of this problem becomes so complex that it has not
been satisfactorily solved even to this day. The alternative is to use heuristics, such as Pinch
Analysis, which has been far more successful in practice. The fundamental thermodynamic
insights (eg. Composite Curves) were first published in 1971 by Hohmann [Ref 7], and a HEN
design procedure based on this construction was developed by engineers at Chiyoda
Engineering Co in Japan [Ref 21]. This work was then further developed into a full-fledged
design methodology by Linnhoff, Smith, and coworkers [Refs 14, 19] at the University of
Manchester, Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST), in England. Over the past 15 years,
UMIST has become the pre-eminent institution in the world for R&D on practical process
integration and optimization techniques.

The great innovation of the Pinch Design Method (PDM) was that it was able to partially decouple
questions (a) and (b). It did this through establishing approximate energy and capital “targets”,
which did not require prior HEN design. This significantly reduced the design effort required to
find the optimum. The HEN design was done, then, for the optimum level of heat recovery,
following heuristic design rules that guaranteed achieving the energy target. The accuracy of the
capital targets, unfortunately, was not so good.

If the capital target is not correct, can we still rely on the results of the optimization?

The answer depends on how well the engineer has modeled the real world of the plant in the cost
equations used, and also on the thermodynamics of the problem data set. Kumana and Klavers
[Ref 12] have shown that for problems that have “tubular” or “tunnel” type composite curves (ie.
the curves are essentially parallel over a wide temperature range), and the region of overlap is
significant, the ∆Tm optimization is very robust. Tubular CCs are typical of oil refining and some
petrochemical processes. In the test problem (for a CDU), it was found that even when capital
costs were off by a factor of two (i.e. 50%-200% of the true cost), the maximum error in total
annualized cost was only 3%, and the ∆Tm could be relied upon to give near-optimum HEN
designs.

While capital cost accuracy is not critical for targeting, it is quite another story when it comes to
design. Over the past 15 years, the author has repeatedly encountered the problem that
individual sub-projects developed using the pinch method often do not have as good economics
as the collective “basket”. Plant management has a propensity to cherry pick – they do not seem
to appreciate that when implementing a process integration strategy, all the projects are
interrelated, and if one is rejected, that invalidates the rest as well. The only criterion for budget
approval appears to be quick payback, with no weight given to equally important considerations
such as magnitude of savings, commercial risk, long-term energy efficiency, or corollary
environmental benefits. If we had the ability to predict individual sub-project capital costs more
accurately at the targeting stage, this would side-step some of these problems. The PDM needs
to be improved in this regard.

The current “state of the art” in capital cost targeting assumes that installed HX capital cost is
some fixed multiplier (usually about 3 - 3.5) of the purchased HX cost, which in turn is estimated
as a function of HX surface area. While this may be reasonably accurate for the HEN as a whole,
it is not at all accurate for individual heat exchangers. First of all, the installed cost of any HX

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 3 of 28

match is only weakly correlated to the surface area. Factors such as type of design (S&T, spiral,
P/F, etc.), pressure rating, materials of construction, code stamp requirements, and even choice
of vendor have a significant bearing on purchase cost. Second, the dominant component of
installed cost is usually piping and controls, not the HX itself. Third, there are unavoidable
overhead costs associated with design and procurement of the HX, which can be quite
significant. Since these tend to be fixed regardless of the size of the unit, they are proportionately
higher for small HX than for large ones.

A more representative cost model for HX matches would therefore be:

Installed HX cost = Purchased HX cost + Piping/Controls cost + OH cost

Purchased HX cost = FI * { A + B*(area)n } * FP * FD * FM

where FP = pressure rating factor

FD = “design type” factor
FM = material of construction factor
FI = installation factor (foundations, structures, and labor), typically 1.5

Piping cost = f (pipe length, pipe diameter, material of construction, # of control loops)

where Length = f (plant layout), and Diameter = f (stream flow rate, allowable ∆P)

The most difficult item to estimate for new design is length, as the layout cannot be known ahead
of time. Fortunately, this is not a problem for retrofit.

Overhead costs, K$ = 2 + (area, ft2) 0.35

In some cases, eg. fired heaters, the purchased equipment cost is not a function of heat transfer
surface area, but of the heating capacity. Thus,

$ = A + B (duty, MMBtu/h)n

At the moment, only AspenPinchTM offers this cost model as an option.

In some ways retrofit design is easier than new design, because we can estimate piping costs
(the dominant component of installed HX cost) from data on the existing layout [Ref 3].

RETROFIT DESIGN PROCEDURES

A comprehensive annotated bibliography on the literature for HEN retrofit has recently been
published by Furman and Sahinidis [Ref 6]. Although many HEN retrofit procedures have been
proposed, the published literature has not been particularly useful, for several reasons:

• It is impossible to describe the procedure in comprehensive detail in a single

publication of limited length

• All the procedures require access to sophisticated software that is generally not
available to the average design engineer.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 4 of 28

 • The design engineer needs a high degree of understanding of pinch analysis in
general, familiarity with the software, and practical experience in the application of
these techniques to do an effective job

To truly understand how to use pinch techniques effectively, one has to start by taking a two-
week intensive training course (available through UMIST, AIChE, consultants, and software
vendors) not only in the fundamental principles but also in use of the software, which tends to be
extraordinarily complex and baffling to navigate without help. Even the experts in Pinch Analysis
have to spend several days familiarizing themselves with the unique architecture of each new
software package or version. It can get very confusing and frustrating.

Finally, the real learning only comes with working on an actual project, under the guidance of
someone who has done it before. There is no substitute for experience.

These twin barriers – cost and expertise – go a long way towards explaining why Pinch Analysis,
as powerful as it is, has not achieved more widespread application in industry.

Selection of appropriate HEN retrofit method

In this paper, we will confine ourselves to pinch-based heuristic methods. Although there has
been some success with mathematical programming techniques in real industrial problems [Refs
9, 10, 11], they will not be described, as they are not sufficiently well developed for general use.

A number of pinch-based methods have been proposed in the literature over the past 15 years.
The principal ones are:

a) Area Efficiency, or “α method”

b) Area Matrix
c) Remaining Problem Analysis (RPA)
d) Problem Decomposition
e) Network Pinch
f) Path Pinch
g) Progressive Convergence (compatibility by inspection)

Each will now be briefly described in turn.

The α method [Ref 20] was the first one to be published, in 1986. In retrospect it was more of a
method to define the boundaries of the feasible design space than a practical design tool.
Nevertheless, it was encoded into software, and found some limited success in oil refinery type
problems. It has since been superseded by better methods, as will be demonstrated in this
paper, and is now of interest for historical purposes only.

The α method was followed in rapid succession by the RPA and Area Matrix methods, both from
UMIST. The RPA method in its original incarnation, did not give particularly good results.
Modified versions of the RPA method (developed by the author as well as others), however, give
excellent results. The author’s version is described in detail at the end of this section. The Area
Matrix method, in the author’s opinion, holds great promise, but was not pursued at UMIST
beyond the initial R&D, nor was it followed up by researchers at other institutions. It was never
incorporated into commercial software and has regrettably been sidelined by neglect.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 5 of 28

The problem-decomposition (PD) method was the next significant idea – also from UMIST. It
seeks to simplify the problem by breaking it down into smaller sub-problems [Refs 16, 17] and
then determining the benefits of thermally linking these independent sub-systems through the
introduction of a “path” between them. A “path”, in pinch parlance, is a process-process heat
exchanger that connects a hot utility to a cold utility. Thus by increasing the amount of P-P heat
exchange in that path, the utility consumption is reduced by a like amount. The retrofit design
strategy consists of identifying which combination of sub-systems should be linked.

One advantage that has been claimed for the PD method is that it can be used with simpler (and
cheaper) software, because the hard work of determining the correct HEN structure has already
been done manually, in the preparatory stage. While this approach works reasonably well for
small problems, it is not practical for large ones. The number of alternative combinations that
have to be evaluated for thermal linkage of N subsystems is given by

C = 2N - 1

As the number of subsystems increases, the number of alternative designs that have to be
evaluated increases exponentially (see Table below), and rapidly becomes unmanageable if it
has to be done manually. The number of designs to be evaluated can be reduced somewhat by
recognizing that each combination must have at least one heater and one cooler (ie, a “path”).
Thus some combinations can be rejected by inspection.

Number of sub-systems Number of alternatives to be evaluated

2 3
3 7
4 15
5 31
6 63
7 127
8 255

For the PD method to be useful in practice, this preparatory work must be done through software
also. None of the currently available software has this capability, although one vendor (ESDU)
has announced that it will be available in their introductory commercial release of INTEGRITY.

The Network Pinch (NP) method, again developed at UMIST, is the most recent [Refs 1, 2, 23,
24]. The “path-pinch” method, developed by Linnhoff March Ltd, is very similar. Both seek to
identify structural changes to existing HENs that will give energy savings at minimum capital cost.
Both methods have been incorporated into commercial-grade software: Network Pinch in SPRINT
and AspenPinch, and Path Pinch in SuperTarget5. The driving philosophy of the NP algorithm is
minimum disturbance to the existing HEN. Thus even poorly placed (eg cross pinch) matches
are preserved, unless it is absolutely necessary to delete them in order to achieve the desired
energy savings.

“Progressive Convergence” is a name coined by the author to describe the approach described
by Jones et al [Ref 8]. It involves designing a HEN for a new plant, and comparing it against the
existing HEN. Features of the new design that are compatible with the existing HEN are then
sequentially introduced into the simulator (HEXTRAN), and tested for economic merit. Basically
this is a trial and error method, and very time consuming. It relies on the skill, judgment and luck
of the design engineer to get good results. It is a hit or miss proposition, with no consistency of
results, or guarantees of reaching even a near-optimum solution.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 6 of 28

Despite its drawbacks, the PC method as outlined by Jones et al does contain one valuable idea
– viz. the use of two distinct temp approaches, EMAT and HRAT, as design parameters. The
“pinch establishment” debunked this concept initially, insisting that EMAT should be set equal to
HRAT. Over time, though, it has been conclusively proven that allowing EMAT < HRAT gives a
lower capital cost for the same level of heat recovery by trading off reduced number of units
against additional surface area in the remaining units. This dual temperature approach concept
has now been generally accepted as being valid. It has been explicitly incorporated into both the
Network Pinch and Path Pinch methods, and implicitly in the mRPA methods.

Each method has its pros and cons. The appropriate method depends on a number of factors
such as:

• Nature of the composite curves

• Problem size (i.e. number of streams)
• Quality of available input data
• Amount of time available to solve the problem
• Required accuracy of final results, e.g. planning study vs plant design
• Skill and experience of the design team
• Access to specialized software

Carlsson et al [Ref 3] have proposed a way to include piping costs in the HEN design decision,
through construction of a heat exchanger match matrix. Unfortunately, their procedure does not
incorporate piping costs into the targeting stage; rather the matrix serves as a set of cost
constraints that indicates the penalty for making certain matches. Thus if there is a match with a
high piping cost, the design engineer can look for alternative matches that offer comparable heat
recovery with lower piping cost. Although this has to be done manually, it is not too tedious.
Overall, the idea of a piping cost match matrix is a valuable contribution to retrofit design
methodology.

Modified RPA method (author’s version)

The MRPA provides a systematic and logical framework for evolving a good retrofit design. It has
been used by the author for many years over a wide range of industrial processes and varying
design objectives with excellent results [eg. Ref 13]. While MRPA does not guarantee a
mathematically rigorous optimum, the designs are never bad; in fact, they are usually near-
optimal, and compare favorably with the best that can be obtained by other techniques.

The main advantages are that it is very flexible, and addresses the full range of practical real-life
design issues such as

• Inclusion of piping and other installation costs

• Incorporation of process modifications into the design
• Incorporation of constraints – viz. forbidden matches and preferred matches
• Ability to accommodate different optimization objectives – energy efficiency, operating cost
reduction, minimum change to the existing HEN, cherry picking fast-payback projects,
capacity debottlenecking, etc.

Another advantage is that the design engineer remains in control; it does not rely on “black-box”
software. On the minus side, it requires the design engineer to have a high level of expertise in

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 7 of 28

the practical aspects of pinch analysis as it applies to HEN design. The principal steps in the
MRPA method are summarized below:

Step 1: From composite curves choose process modifications.

Step 2: Find optimum ∆Tm for new design, including process modifications.
Step 3: Draw the existing HEN on the grid diagram, using ∆Tm (= HRAT) from Step 2.
Step 4: Develop a “match-cost matrix” for the process, indicating fixed piping costs for
each possible match.
Step 5: Develop a “new plant” design using pinch design method, giving preference to
matches in existing design. This will serve as a guideline for Step 6.
Step 6: Examine each HX to see how well it conforms to system temperature profile
(Driving Force Plot)
• Reposition the HX in the HEN by selecting new temp limits on hot and/or
cold streams. Use new design (Step 5) as guide
• If match is partially XP, make it either wholly below or wholly above the
pinch (depending on CP values)
• If match is completely XP, delete it.
Step 7: We are now left with the “remaining problem”. Treat this as a new design
(finish off the HEN) use match cost matrix as guide (Step 4).
Step 8: Evolution. Look for HX with small duties or small areas. Try to eliminate them
by shifting duties (using loops). Restore approach temperatures to the
minimum EMAT using paths.
• Duty is eliminated along loop (at cost of more area in other HX)
• Area is reduced along path (at cost of more energy use)

To apply this method effectively, a proper understanding of the key thermodynamic

interrelationships and available design options is essential.

The basic design equation for heat exchangers is

Q = U * A * CMTD = U * A * LMTD * Ft

where Q = heat transfer duty, in MMBtu/h or MW

U = 1/(1/h1 + 1/h2 + ff)
A = heat transfer surface area
CMTD = corrected mean temperature difference (driving force for heat transfer)
LMTD = log mean temperature difference
ff = fouling resistance
h1 and h2 = film heat transfer coefficients on the hot and cold streams
Ft = correction factor for temperature cross in the heat exchanger

To increase the amount of heat transferred in a particular unit, we have several choices:
• Add surface area
• Enhance heat transfer coefficient h
• Change HX in/out temperature specifications to increase LMTD
• Change HX in/out temperature specifications to increase Ft
• Any combination of the foregoing

Traditionally, design engineers have focused almost exclusively on increasing A. But there are
several other less expensive options. For example, the heat transfer coefficient can be increased

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 8 of 28

by increasing tube velocity, adding tube inserts for enhanced heat transfer, changing the type of
tubes (e.g. twisted tubes), replacing the tube bundle, or increasing the number of tube passes by
modifying the HX heads.

Tube velocity can be increased by increasing the number of tube passes (the HX heads must be
modified), replacing the bundle with smaller tubes, or increasing flow by adding recirculation loop,
as in Figure 2. All three options involve some capital cost, and increased pumping power cost as
well. In the case of flow increase by recirculation, there is an additional factor to consider: the
LMTD will go down, as illustrated in Figure 3, offsetting some of the benefit. This option should
only be considered for the stream with the smaller MCp, to negative impact of reduced LMTD.

Recirc F

Figure 2: Recirculation Loop Figure 3: Effect of flow increase is to reduce available

temperature difference for heat transfer

Now let us consider how to optimize LMTD. This can only be done by changing the temperature
range over which the HX operates. The goal is to minimize “criss-cross” by following the driving
force profile as closely as possible. This is done by examining the HX on the “Driving Force Plot”,
and repositioning the duty so as to achieve more “vertical” heat transfer, as in Figure 4c.

Temp Temp Temp

Q Q Q

Ht Tr duty Ht Tr duty Ht Tr duty

Figure 4a: LMTD too high Fig 4b: LMTD too low Fig 4c: LMTD = optimum

Keep in mind that the LMTD in some HX will go up, but in others may go down. The goal is to
optimize the distribution of LMTD among all the exchangers in the HEN.

Finally, let us look at Ft. This will be affected in part by the reshuffling of LMTD. It will be helpful
when LMTD is increased, but hurt when LMTD is reduced. The principal governing factor,

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 9 of 28

however, is the degree of “temperature cross” in the match, and this can be controlled by
choosing the mechanical design of the HX. For multipass S&T units, we can increase Ft by
increasing the number of shells (quite expensive). Alternatively, we could choose a different type
of HX (e.g. Plate and Frame) that offers more of a true countercurrent flow profile.

SOFTWARE

A number of very good software programs are available commercially. The more popular ones
are tabulated below. This list is provided for the reader’s information only; it does not purport to
be comprehensive, nor should it be construed as an endorsement of the listed vendors.

Program Name Available from *

Aspen Pinch Aspen Technology Inc, Cambridge, Mass, USA
HeatNet National Engineering Laboratory, Glasgow, UK
Hextran Simulation Sciences Inc, Brea, California, USA
Hxnet 5 AEA Hyprotech, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Integrity ESDU, London, UK
Pinch Express Linnhoff March Ltd, Northwich, Cheshire, UK
SPRINT Dept of Process Integration, UMIST, Manchester, UK
STAR Dept of Process Integration, UMIST, Manchester, UK
SuperTarget 5 Linnhoff March Ltd, Northwich, Cheshire, UK
* Go to www.pinchtechnology.com website for contact information

The SuperTarget 5 program has two alternative retrofit design procedures. One is for problems
with “tubular” composite curves, common to oil refining processes. It essentially uses a variation
of the network pinch methodology, called “path-pinch”. The other is intended for problems with
“divergent” composite curves, common to most other industries. It uses a form of the RPA
method combined with problem decomposition, and is specifically aimed at processes dominated
by multiple utilities, including steam generation.

HXnet uses a modified version of Network Pinch with an MILP solver, followed by NLP to find the
“best” modifications. It also has constraints that consolidate extra surface addition into just a few
exchangers. HXnet was not tested because the author did not have access to this program.

Typically, these programs are offered on an annual lease basis, at a cost that usually runs to
many thousands of dollars, although some are available for outright purchase. For the user, the
advantage of a lease is that it includes upgrades and software support (critically important). The
normal mode of use in industry is that the software is used in short intense bursts of 1-3 weeks
for a specific project, and then lies idle for several months at a time. It is difficult for potential
users to justify a long-term lease when they do not know when or how much they are going to use
the product. The market for the software would probably be significantly expanded if software
vendors offered a pricing policy that is more in tune with customer needs, viz. on a “pay-as-you-
go” basis, for computing time actually used, or even a pre-paid block of time that can be encoded
onto the security key. A couple of vendors have partially accommodated this market need by
offering short-term leases – by the month.

So what are your options if you have the interest but not the budget to purchase commercial-
grade pinch software?

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 10 of 28

You can try getting the academic/student versions of pinch software from AIChE (under their
CaChE program), you can purchase a copy of Shenoy’s book [Ref 18], which comes with basic
targeting and HEN design software (DOS version), or you can write your own program in to draw
composite and grand composite curves as a spreadsheet application. And finally, you can
contact the author for a free copy of a DOS program called BabyTarget (originally distributed by
Linnhoff March Ltd as a promotional tool).

It should be mentioned that none of the free/cheap software is good enough to do real projects
effectively, but it can get you started. It should also be noted that the dominant cost in any
optimization effort is the engineer’s time, not the software. Saving one week of the engineer’s
time will typically pay for a month’s software lease. And the benefits to the company from getting
a truly optimized design will pay for the software (and the engineer) a hundred times over.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE #1 – Aromatics Plant

This problem was used by Tjoe & Linnhoff [Ref 20] to illustrate their original α method. The
relevant process, utility and cost data are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Process, Utility and Cost data for Problem 1

Hot or M.Cp Ts Tt Duty, Q h value

No. Stream Name or ID Cold KBtu/h/F F F MMBtu/h Btu/ft2/h/F
1 H1 H 190 621 86 101.3 141
2 H2 H 303 428 320 32.8 88
3 H3 H 114 428 140 32.8 352
4 H4 H 379 320 113 78.5 70
5 C5 C 190 212 572 68.2 881
6 C6 C 133 95 327 30.8 176
7 C7 C 332 176 257 26.9 88
8 C8 C 114 140 338 22.5 35
9 C9 C 379 284 572 109.2 141

Hot or Ts Tt Cost h value

Utility Stream ID Cold F F K$/yr Btu/ft2/h/F
Fired Heat H 1000 700 28 200
Steam H 428 427 21 1500
Cooling water C 68 88 3 800

2 n
HX capital cost, $ = A + B(area, ft ) A 13000
B 145
n 0.83

Tjoe and Linnhoff determined that the optimum ∆Tm (HRAT) for retrofit was 26°C (about 47°F).
The composite curves for this ∆Tm are shown in Figure 5. (The author has chosen ∆Tm = 48 F
to avoid fractional degrees; it makes no difference to the results.) The grid diagram for the
existing HEN is shown in Figure 6.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 11 of 28

 DT=48.00°F, Qh=80.8, Qc=68.6
700

600 Hot Composite

Cold Composite

500

Te
m
pe400
rat
ur
e 300
[°F
]
200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400
Enthalpy [MMBtu/h]

Figure 5: Composite Curves for the Aromatics plant at DT = 48 F

332. (XP=1 1 .55)

621 . 345. 1 82.3 86.

1 XP=-3.25 H1
E1 E5 C1

428. 320.
2 XP=-3.64 H2
E2

428. 230.4 1 40.

3 XP=4.8 H3
E4 C2

320. 249.1 1 1 3.
4 H4
E3 C3

572. 487.9 21 2.
5 XP=1 3.64 C5
H1 Q: 52.3

327. 95.
6 XP=-3.25 C6
Q: 30. 8

257. 1 76.
7 C7
Q: 26.9

338. 1 40.
8 XP=4.8 C8
Q: 22.5

572. 370. 5 CP: . 38 284.

9 C9
H2 Q: 32.8

284. (XP=1 1 .55)

Figure 6: Grid diagram for Existing HEN – Aromatics Plant, DT = 48 F

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 12 of 28

The results of the various methods applied are detailed in Table 2. Three methods stand out as
giving clearly superior results - Network Pinch, Path Pinch and MRPA(jk). Both the NP method
(using SPRINT) and the Path Pinch method (using SuperTarget 5) gave the same HEN structure
as Tjoe and Linnhoff, depicted in Figure 7. In Table 2, the two solutions are consolidated under
the column heading NetP. The optimum retrofit consists of adding only one new HX, between
streams H4 and C5. Observe that this creates a new “path”. Jones et al [Ref 8] report the same
solution, which they imply they found by trial and error. Polley and Amidpour [Ref 16] describe
how their PD method also yields this same topology as one of the possible feasible solutions.

332. (XP=-.99)

621. 345. 182.3 86.

1 XP=-3.25 H1
NEW1 E5 C1

428. 320.
2 XP=-3.64 H2
E2

428. 230.4 140.

3 XP=4.8 H3
E4 C2

320. 286.9 216. 113.

4 H4
NEW E3 C3

572. 554. 278.2 212.

5 XP=1.1 C5
H1 Q: 52.3 Q: 12.5

327. 95.
6 XP=-3.25 C6
Q: 30.8

257. 176.
7 C7
Q: 26.9

338. 140.
8 XP=4.8 C8
Q: 22.5

572. 370.5 CP: 379166.69 284.

9 C9
H2 Q: 32.8

284. (XP=-.99)

Figure 7: Grid Diagram of Optimum HEN retrofit by Tjoe and Linnhoff

The Path Pinch method also allows the user to explore the potential for additional savings or
lower capital cost, using additional paths. The column labeled PathP gives the solution for 2 new
HX (and paths), which has lower capital (and savings) because it uses the new area more
efficiently, but comparable payback. See Figure 8. The user is then free to choose between the
available options.

The author attempted to duplicate the published results of Refs 8, 16, and 20 by independently
applying the methods as described in the referenced papers.

Tjoe and Linnhoff indicate that once the HEN is initialized at the correct ∆Tm of 26°C (47°F),
which is obtained by applying the α method, the structure shown in Figure 7 follows by simply
following the PDM. The existing HEN has no loops and only one path (H1-E1-C1). Figure 9
shows the “new plant” design initialized at ∆Tm = 48°F, following pinch rules.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 13 of 28

 Table 2: Summary of HEN Retrofit Results for Aromatics Plant

Existing Tjoe Net P Path P RPA-1 RPA-jk P-C NewDes2

Total Heating Duty 92.3 79.8 82.34 87.5 82.5 84.96 81.4 80.8
MMBtu over Target 6.6 -5.9 -3.36 1.8 -3.2 -0.74 -4.3 -4.9
Savings, MMBtu/h 0 12.5 9.96 4.8 9.8 7.34 10.9 11.5
Fired heater 12.5 9.96 4.8 9.8 7.34 15.9 11.5
HP steam -5
CW 12.5 9.96 4.8 9.8 7.34 11.5
Cost savings, K$/yr 0 388 309 149 304 228 340 357

Number HX - proc 5 6 6 7 9 8 9 11
- heaters 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
- coolers 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
- total 10 11 11 12 13 12 13 16
Number surplus HX 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0
Total area, ft2 63693 81637 75302 67555 97208 72639 93141 99097

Number of new HX 0 1 1 2 5 4 6 6
Total new area, ft2 0 17944 11609 3862 33515 8946 29448 35404
∆, K$ E1 149 115 40 320 0 259 75
E2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E3 321 225 99 0 0 135 332
E4 0 0 0 0 211 0 0
E5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N1 152 106 52 289 110 161 27
N2 0 0 29 140 35 79 244
N3 0 0 0 64 0 193 84
N4 0 0 0 122 0 164 293
N5 0 0 0 228 0 104 169
N6 0 0 0 0 0 28 154
N7 0 0 0 0 0 0 119

Delta Cap Cost, K$ 0 623 446 220 1163 356 1124 1498

Simple payback, yr 1.61 1.44 1.48 3.83 1.56 3.30 4.20

The new HEN initialization shown in Figure 9 has multiple loops and paths. Examples of loops
are:
• E1a-E1b
• E1a-H1-H2-N1-E1a
• E1a-N3-N4-N2-E1a
… and so on.

Examples of paths are:

• H1-N1-C1
• H1-N1-N4-N7-C2
• H1-N1-N3-N8-C3
• H2-N2-C1
• H2-N2-N4-N7-C2
• H2-E2-N5-N1-C1
… and so on.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 14 of 28

 340. (XP=1.91)

621. 595.8 345. 182.3 86.

1 XP=-4.76 H1
New2 E1 E5 C1

428. 320.
2 XP=-6.07 H2
E2

428. 230.4 140.

3 XP=3.89 H3
E4 C2

320. 307.4 236.5 113.

4 H4
New1 E3 C3

572. 487.9 237.2 212.

5 XP=8.86 C5
H1 Q: 47.5 Q: 4.8

327. 95.
6 XP=-4.76 C6
Q: 30.8

257. 176.
7 C7
Q: 26.9

338. 140.
8 XP=3.89 C8
Q: 22.5

572. 383.1 370.5 CP: .38 284.

9 C9
H2 Q: 4.8 Q: 32.8

284. (XP=1.91)

Figure 8: Path Pinch Retrofit for Aromatics Plant, with 2 new HX

332. (XP=.)

1 000. Tgt=40.8, Now=80.8 999.6

1 Fi r ed Heat {
H2 H1

482. Tgt=31 .9, Now=0.0 481 .

2 HP Steam

356. Tgt=8.2, Now=0.0 355.

3 MP Steam

621 . 590.3 369.9 254.9 233.3 21 0.5 86.

1 XP=-.96 H1
E1 a N1 E1 b N2 E5 C1

428. 383. 362.8 320.

2 XP=-3.64 H2
N3 N4 E2

428. 21 0.5 1 40.

3 XP=5.22 H3
N5 C2

320. 31 8.4 286. 21 5.1 21 0.5 1 1 3.

4 H4
N6 N7 E3 N8 C3

572. 429.9 399.2 327. 21 2.

5 XP=-.96 C5
Q: 26.9 Q: 5.8 Q: 1 3.7 Q: 21 .8

327. 1 40.4 1 08. 95.

6 XP=5.22 C6
Q: 24.8 Q: 4.3 Q: 1 .7

257. 1 76.
7 C7
Q: 26.9

338. 284. CP: 1 1 3636.4 1 76. 1 40.

8 C8
Q: 6.1 Q: 1 2.3 Q: 4.1

572. 429.9 31 9.9 285.6 CP: 3791 66.69 284.

9 C9
Q: 53.9 Q: 41 .7 Q: 1 3. Q: .6

88. Tgt=68.6, Now=68.6 68.

5 Cool i ng Wat
Q: 23.6 Q: 8. Q: 37.

284. (XP=.)

Figure 9: Initial HEN for Aromatics Plant, using PDM for new plant

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 15 of 28

The network evolution procedure of the pinch design method (PDM) was developed to simplify
the HEN by removing units, not adding them. Thus if a particular match does not already exist in
the initial HEN, then the evolution procedure using loops and paths will not add it. This can only
be done by manual intervention. Let us examine Figure 9 to see if all the existing HX as well as
the path proposed by Tjoe and Linnhoff are included. It is seen that the matches corresponding
to E1, E2, E3 and E5 are present, but the matches corresponding to E4 and the new HX between
streams H4 and C5 are not.

The author then attempted to develop a new initial design (Figure 10) that would be closer in
structure to Fig 6. Exchangers E1a and E1b were combined into a single unit, and one unit (N6
in Fig 9) was eliminated. Once again, we do not find matches corresponding to E4 or to the H4-
C5 match. It would be reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the formal pinch design method
DOES NOT lead to the structure of Figure 7. How did Tjoe and Linnhoff get there? Their paper
does not say, and their results cannot be replicated based on the information provided in the
article. The author has since discovered (through personal communication) that Dr Tjoe arrived
at his solution by following a procedure similar to Remaining Problem Analysis.

332. (XP=.)

621. 589.9 369.4 254.3 232.7 200.9 86.

1 XP=-1.07 H1
N1 N2 E1 N3 E5 Q: 21.7

428. 383.2 364.7 320.

2 XP=-3.64 H2
N5 N6 E2

428. 210.5 140.

3 XP=5.22 H3
N7 Q: 8.

320. 286.3 215.4 113.

4 H4
N4 E3 Q: 38.8

572. 429.9 398.8 327. 212.

5 XP=-1.07 C5
Q: 26.9 Q: 5.9 Q: 13.6 Q: 21.8

327. 140.4 95.

6 XP=5.22 C6
Q: 24.8 Q: 6.

257. 176.
7 C7
Q: 26.9

338. 288.5 176. 140.

8 XP=-.51 C8
Q: 5.6 Q: 12.8 Q: 4.1

572. 429.9 319.8 CP: 379166.69 284.

9 C9
Q: 53.9 Q: 41.8 Q: 13.6

284. (XP=.)

Figure 10: Alternative Initial HEN design for Aromatics Plant

In that regard, Jones et al were more forthcoming. They frankly admit that their procedure has a
strong element of trial and error. Would they have found the structure of Figure 7 if they had not
already been aware of it? Eventually, perhaps, but not without significant effort, and probably not
within the limited time budgets that are normally allowed for process “optimization”.

Applying the PD method [Ref 16] yields 4 independent subsystems, and therefore 15 alternatives
to be evaluated. Some combinations can be seen to be infeasible by inspection, and can be
discarded. There are several possible solutions, each with different economics, but all have a

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 16 of 28

common feature – they involve inserting a heat exchanger that establishes a new path between a
hot and cold utility. One of the solutions is the structure of Fig 7, which turns out to have the best
economics. Even though the problem size is relative small, the amount of effort required to
evaluate all 15 alternatives is significant. For larger problems, it would be positively intimidating.

Table 2 lists the results of the original RPA method under the column heading RPA-1. It consists
of eliminating those exchangers that have cross-pinch heat transfer, and treat the remaining
stream segments as a new design problem. Although the savings are quite good, the capital cost
is too high, with a payback of 3.8 years. Normally such a project would be rejected.

In the modified version of RPA (author’s variation of the original), we start with the existing HEN,
reallocate temperature ranges to the existing HX to improve the distribution of driving forces
across the HEN, and treat the residual stream segments as a new design problem. The matches
that were selected for change were:
E1 LMTD too high
E5 LMTD too low
E4 LMTD too high

Both temperatures and duties were respecified, while taking full advantage of existing surface
area. The resulting design is listed under the column heading RPA(jk), and shown in Figure 11.
There are two new HX. The structure is very different from Figure 7, yet has comparable
economics. Basically we have added much more surface area (N1) for existing match E1 and
created one new match N2. Notice that the new match creates a new path: C2-N1-E5-E1-H1.

332. (XP=4.16)

621. 482.9 306. 168.6 86.

1 XP=8.72 H1
N1 E1 E5 C1

428. 320.
2 XP=-3.64 H2
E2

428. 386. 188.4 140.

3 XP=.01 H3
N2 E4 C2

320. 249.1 113.

4 H4
E3 C3

572. 526.8 388.8 212.

5 XP=8.72 C5
H1 Q: 26.1 Q: 33.5

327. 291. 95.

6 XP=-.93 C6
Q: 4.8 Q: 26.

257. 176.
7 C7
Q: 26.9

338. 140.
8 XP=.01 C8
Q: 22.5

572. 370.5 CP: .38 284.

9 C9
H2 Q: 32.8

284. (XP=4.16)

Figure 11: HEN Retrofit Design for Aromatics Plant using Modified RPA Method (jk)

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 17 of 28

Finally, let us look at the results of the “Progressive Convergence” method. This shows a
payback of 3.3 years. Better than the original RPA method, but much worse than all the rest.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE #2 – Pulp Mill

This example was taken from a paper presented in 1993 by Carlsson et al [Ref 3] in which they
attempted to correct the deficiencies in the pinch targeting method with respect to capital cost
estimation. They developed solutions for two cases – ∆Tm = 18oF and ∆Tm = 32oF. Zhu and
Asante presented the Network Pinch solution to this same problem [Ref 24].

The problem data are presented in Table 3. The composite curves are shown in Figure 12. A
∆Tm of 18oF was chosen to be consistent with the results presented by Carlsson et al. This
problem is interesting because it includes features of both tubular and divergent problems, and
has a “double pinch”.

Table 3: Process, Utility and Cost data for Problem 2

Hot or M.Cp Ts Tt Duty, Q h value

No. Stream Name or ID Cold KBtu/h/F F F MMBtu/h Btu/ft2/h/F
1 Hot 1 H 10 282 57 2.3 704
2 Hot 2 H 32 275 151 4.0 704
3 Hot 3 H 6307 232 230 11.4 546
4 Hot 4 H 257 221 203 4.6 247
5 Hot 5 H 255 169 151 4.6 352
6 Hot 6 H 1759 167 165 3.2 528
7 Hot 7 H 1592 151 149 2.9 528
8 Hot 8 H 22747 149 147 40.9 352
9 Hot 9 H 614 99 57 25.4 704
10 Cold 1 C 107 39 234 20.9 704
11 Cold 2 C 205 169 212 8.9 158
12 Cold 3 C 389 158 194 14.0 704
13 Cold 4 C 35 100 185 3.0 704
14 Cold 5 C 531 113 158 23.9 704
15 Cold 6 C 595 39 113 43.9 704

HX capital cost, $ = A + B(area, ft2)^n A 0

B 35
n 1
Utility ID Cost, K$/yr
Fired Heater 0
steam 26
Cooling water 0

The existing HEN has 9 process-process (P-P) heat exchangers as shown in Figure 13.
Carlsson’s proposed retrofit solution is shown in Figure 14. Their solution features 7 new HX and
additional surface area for one of the existing units. The key innovation in Carlsson’s method is
that capital costs for piping (see Table 4) are included in the design decision process.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 18 of 28

 DT=18.00°F, Qh=19.7, Qc=4.4
300

Hot Composite
250
Cold Composite

200
Temperature [°F]

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Enthalpy [MMBtu/h]

Figure 12: Composite Curves for Pulp Mill, at ∆Tm = 18oF

1 51 . (XP=21 .)

282. 57.
1 XP=1 .34 Hot 1
E2

275. 1 51 .
2 Hot 2
E6

232. 230.5 230.

3 Hot 3
E5 E4

221 . 203.
4 Hot 4
E8

1 69. 1 51 .
5 Hot 5
E7

1 67. 1 65.
6 Hot 6
E9

CP: 1 449996. 1 51 . 1 49.

7 Hot 7
E3

1 49. 1 47.
8 Hot 8
E1

99. 57.
9 Hot 9
C1

234. 60.5 39.

10 XP=7.77 Col d 1
H1 Q: 2.3

21 2. 1 69.
11 Col d 2
H2

1 94. 1 69.8 1 58.

12 Col d 3
H3 Q: 4.6

1 85. 1 00.
13 XP=1 .1 6 Col d 4
H4

1 58. 1 56.5 1 50.5 1 41 .8 1 34.3 1 1 8.5 1 1 3.

14 XP=7.72 Col d 5
H5 Q: 3.2 Q: 4.6 Q: 4. Q: 8.4 Q: 2.9

1 1 3. 1 07.9 39.
15 Col d 6
Q: 3. Q: 40.9

1 33. (XP=21 .)

Figure 13: Existing HEN for Pulp Mill, at ∆Tm = 18oF

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 19 of 28

 151.

282. 148. 57.

1 XP=.29 Hot 1
E2 C2

275. 151.
2 Hot 2
E6

232. 231.9 230.

3 Hot 3
E5 "E"

221. 215.8 203.

4 Hot 4
F E8

169. 151.
5 Hot 5
E7

167. 165.
6 Hot 6
E9

CP: 151. 149.

7 Hot 7
E3

149. 148.9 148.5 148.1 147.

8 Hot 8
D "C" B E1

99. 63.2 57.

9 Hot 9
A C1

234. 142.8 130. 39.

10 XP=.29 Cold 1
H1 Q: 1.4 Q: 9.8

212. 175.4 169.

11 Cold 2
H2 Q: 1.3

194. 166.4 158.

12 Cold 3
Q: 10.7 Q: 3.3

185. 133. CP: 100.

13 Cold 4
H5 Q: 1.2

158. 156.5 155.2 149.2 140.5 133. CP: 127.5 113.

14 Cold 5
H5 Q: .7 Q: 3.2 Q: 4.6 Q: 4. Q: 2.9 Q: 7.7

113. 75.5 39.

15 Cold 6
Q: 22.3 Q: 21.6

133.

Figure 14: HEN Retrofit Proposed by Carlsson et al for ∆Tm = 18oF

Table 4: Piping Cost Matrix for Pulp Mill, K$

Hot Cold Streams . . .

Stream 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 42 170 42 42 17
2 170 85 42 170 2 42
3 170 42 42 170 2 2
4 170 17 2 85 17 42
5 17 42 170 42 2 42
6 42 17 85 42 2 17
7 42 17 85 42 2 17
8 17 17 85 42 42 2
9 170 170 17 170 42 17

Table 5 summarizes the results obtained by the different methods for problem 2. We see that the
RPA, Network Pinch, and Path Pinch methods all give acceptable solutions with good payback,
but with different structures, savings, and capital investment.

Applying the author’s RPA method to this problem results in the design shown in Figure 15. It
features 6 new HX only, and no modifications to the existing HX.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 20 of 28

 Table 5: Summary of HEN Retrofit Results for Pulp MIll

Existing Carlsson PathP-1 PathP-2 PathP-3 PathP-4 RPA-jk NetP

Total Heating Duty 40.7 20 33.1 25.4 30 26.5 19.8 29.3
MMBtu over Target 21 0.3 13.4 5.7 10.3 6.8 0.1 9.6
Savings, MMBtu/h 0 20.7 7.6 15.3 10.7 14.2 20.9 11.4
Fired heater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HP steam 0 20.7 7.6 15.3 10.7 14.2 20.9 11.4
CW 0 20.7 7.6 15.3 10.7 14.2 20.9 11.4
Cost savings, K$/yr 0 538 198 398 278 369 543 296

Number HX - proc 9 14 11 13 11 13 13 11
- heaters 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 5
- coolers 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
- total 15 21 17 20 18 19 18 17
Number surplus HX 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1
Total area, ft2 8728 15095 9918 13444 11821 13232 15226 10796
Additional area, ft2 0 6367 1190 4716 3093 4504 6498 2068

Number of new HX 0 6 2 5 3 4 3 3
Total new area, ft2 0 6367 1190 4716 3093 4504 6498 2068
∆, K$ N1 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
(piping) N2 42 42 42
N3 17 17 17 17 17
N4 42 42 42
N5 42 42 42 42
N6 17
N7
N8 42
N9 170 170
C2 17 17 17 17 17

Tot Piping Cost, K$ 0 194 34 135 246 246 177 76

Tot new HX cost, K$ 0 223 42 165 108 158 227 72
Tot Installed, K$ 0 417 76 300 354 404 404 148

Simple payback, yr 0.36 0.17 0.34 0.88 0.67 0.33 0.26

Unlike the aromatics plant, Path Pinch and Network Pinch gave different solutions for this data
set. The best SuperTarget solution (labeled PathP-2 in Table 5) is shown in Figure 16. The
designs labeled PathP-3 and PathP-4 include a match (streams H3-C1) that has a very high
piping cost, and therefore do not have as good a payback. Neither SuperTarget 5 nor SPRINT
currently have the capability to directly include piping costs in the optimization. It should be noted
that both the NP and PP methods simply generate good initial designs based on the constraints
specified. They then have to be evolved manually. Many alternative designs are possible,
featuring varying degrees of heat recovery, number of units, and capital cost. The evolved NP
solution is shown in Figure 17.

With the P-D approach the existing HEN can be decomposed into 6 independent subsystems, as
shown in Figure 18. The procedure consists of creating new paths by connecting these
subsystems. For 6 subsystems, as many as 63 possible combinations would have to be
evaluated. Not a very appealing proposition to attempt by hand. Needless to say, the PD
method was not tested for this problem.

The other methods – α, original RPA, and PC were not attempted for this problem.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 21 of 28

 151. (XP=-.03)

282. 148. 57.

1 XP=-.03 Hot 1
E2 C2

275. 151.
2 Hot 2
E6

232. 230.4 230.

3 Hot 3
"E" E5

221. 203.
4 Hot 4
E8

169. 151.
5 Hot 5
E7

167. 165.
6 Hot 6
E9

CP: 1.45 151. 149.8 149.

7 Hot 7
New8 E3

149. 148.5 148.1 147.

8 Hot 8
"C" B E1

99. 62.7 57.

9 Hot 9
A C1

234. 145.8 133. CP: .11 39.

10 Cold 1
H1 Q: 1.4 Q: 10.1

212. 169.
11 Cold 2
H2

194. 169.8 158.

12 Cold 3
Q: 9.4 Q: 4.6

185. 147.8 100.

13 XP=-.52 Cold 4
H4 Q: 1.7

158. 154.2 148.2 140.7 132. 129.7 113.

14 XP=.52 Cold 5
Q: 2. Q: 3.2 Q: 4. Q: 4.6 Q: 1.2 Q: 8.9

113. 76. 39.

15 Cold 6
Q: 21.9 Q: 22.

133. (XP=-.03)

Figure 15: HEN Retrofit of Pulp Mill by modified RPA Method, at ∆Tm = 18oF

151. (XP=5.74)

282. 57.
1 XP=1.34 Hot 1
E2

275. 151.
2 Hot 2
E6

232. 230.6 230.5 230.

3 Hot 3
"E" E5 E4

221. 203.
4 Hot 4
E8

169. 151.
5 Hot 5
E7

167. 165.
6 Hot 6
E9

CP: 1449996. 151. 149.

7 Hot 7
E3

149. 148.6 147.5 147.

8 Hot 8
"C" E1 NEW1 C2

99. 70.1 57.

9 Hot 9
A C1

234. 131. 60.5 39.

10 XP=.21 Cold 1
H1 Q: 7.6 Q: 2.3

212. 169.
11 Cold 2
H2

194. 189.6 169.8 158.

12 Cold 3
H3 Q: 7.7 Q: 4.6

185. 100.
13 XP=1.16 Cold 4
H4

158. 156.5 150.5 141.8 134.3 133. 127.5 113.

14 XP=.02 Cold 5
H5 Q: 3.2 Q: 4.6 Q: 4. Q: .7 Q: 2.9 Q: 7.7

113. 107.9 68.5 39.

15 Cold 6
Q: 3. Q: 23.4 Q: 17.5

133. (XP=5.74)

Figure 16: HEN Retrofit of Pulp Mill by Path Pinch Method, at ∆Tm = 18oF

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 22 of 28

 151.

282 57.
1 XP=1.3 Hot
M2

275 151
2 Hot
M6

232 230. 230

3 Hot
M5 E

221 203
4 Hot
M8

169 151
5 Hot
M7

167 165
6 Hot
M9

CP: 151 149

7 Hot
M3

149 148. 147

8 Hot
"C" M1

99. 80. 57.

9 Hot
A C1

234 138. 60. 39.

10 XP=- Cold
H1 Q: Q:

212 169
11 Cold
H2

194 177. 165. 158

12 Cold
H3 Q: Q:

185 100
13 XP=1.1 Cold
H4

158 156. 150. 141. 134. 118. 113

14 XP=7.7 Cold
H5 Q: Q: Q: Q: Q:

113 58. 39.

15 Cold
Q: Q:

133.

Figure 17: HEN Retrofit of Pulp Mill by Network Pinch Method, at ∆Tm = 18oF

CONCLUSIONS

What lessons can we learn from these two representative problems?

1) The HEN retrofit design problem has been substantially (though not completely) cracked.

2) The EMAT and HRAT concept, where EMAT < HRAT, has been proven, and is now widely
accepted.

3) Three of the methods seem to consistently give good, though not identical, designs. They are
• Network Pinch
• Path Pinch
• modified RPA

4) The Problem Decomposition approach holds promise but is inconvenient to use until
commercial grade software becomes available to do some of the tedious number crunching.
For small problems, where the number of independent HEN subsystems is 4 or less, the PD
method may be a feasible option to determine HEN structure. But when the number of
subsystems is greater than 5, the number of alternatives is so large that it becomes
impractical to solve for all cases. The INTEGRITY program from ESDU, due for commercial
release in 2002, is reputed to be based on the P-D method.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 23 of 28

 H1

C1

C2

H4

C3

C4

H9

Figure 18a: Pulp Mill Problem Decomposition – HEN sub-systems #1 through 5

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 24 of 28

 H2

H3

H5

H6

H7

H8

C5

C6

Figure 18b: Pulp Mill Problem Decomposition – HEN sub-system #6

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 25 of 28

5) The Progressive Convergence by Inspection method generally gives very poor designs for
“tubular” problems, but may give better results for problems with divergent composite curves.

6) The “α-method” of Tjoe & Linnhoff has been superseded by better techniques.

7) The original RPA method consistently gives poor results compared to the others, and should
not be used.

8) Despite good progress over the past 10 years, there are still serious deficiencies in the pinch
design method with respect to capital cost estimation. Although inaccuracies in capital cost
do not have a significant impact on ∆Tm optimization, they DO have a major effect on
developing the optimum HEN structure. This is a subject that merits additional R&D effort.

The foregoing conclusions are consistent with the general consensus among those of us who
make a living from process optimization using Pinch Analysis [Refs 4, 5, 16, 22].

The NP method has been encoded as commercial software in Aspen Pinch, SuperTarget 5, and
SPRINT. These programs may appear expensive at first glance, but they are very powerful and
yield excellent results in the hands of a competent user. No serious work can be done without
one of them. SuperTarget 5 offers the additional capability of retrofit design using the “path-
pinch” method, and can deal with both tubular and divergent composite curves.

The modified RPA method involves more manual interaction with the S/W than NP and PP. It is
flexible, and has given consistently good results for both tubular and divergent-shaped composite
curves, over a wide range of industries. It also has the advantage that it can be used with the full
range of available pinch software, including HXnet, Hextran, HeatNet, and STAR. The
disadvantage is that it is not as quick or easy as NP or PP, and requires both more effort and
more skill from the engineer.

The modified RPA approach is not incompatible with either NP or PP. It simply offers the
capability to address other objectives beyond a quick retrofit with a fast payback. It that regard it
is more versatile. It still requires good software to develop good projects in a reasonable period
of time.

Let me not leave you with the impression that SuperTarget 5, Star/Sprint, and AspenPinch are
only about Network Pinch. That is only one of the many features they have. They can do far
more – including new HEN design, total site analysis, distillation column optimization, and so on.
These are essential tools for any serious attempt at process optimization.

Finally, because some of the advanced design concepts, tools, and procedures are relatively
difficult to master, the trend in software has been to build in as much intelligence and automation
as possible. The user must guard against the risk of losing insight, and therefore missing
process-specific opportunities for additional savings in energy and/or capital costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) The NP and Path Pinch methods are both excellent for quickly generating one or two good
design ideas with a fast payback. They should normally be the first choice for HEN retrofit.
The savings potential, however, is usually limited, as the algorithm is designed to cherry pick

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 26 of 28

 just one or two fast-payback projects. This means that the full target savings potential is
unlikely to be achieved. With Path Pinch, there is the option of generating additional paths for
additional savings, though at higher capital investment.

2) The modified RPA method is recommended as a design tool when a more comprehensive
study is required, and management is more interested in large energy cost savings or other
objectives (eg. capacity debottlenecking), rather than merely getting a quick payback.

3) For any serious project, high-grade commercial software is essential, and you will need to
learn how to use it properly. There is simply no escape. It is not cost-effective to waste
valuable engineering time to save on relatively modest software costs.

ABBREVIATIONS

AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineers (New York)

CC Composite curves
CDU Crude oil Distillation Unit
CHP Combined Heat And Power
CW Cooling Water
DFP Driving Force Plot
EMAT Exchanger Minimum Approach Temperature
HEN Heat Exchanger Network
HRAT Heat Recovery Approach Temperature (same as ∆Tm for the HEN)
HX Heat Exchanger
JK Author’s initials
K Thousand
MER Maximum Energy Recovery
MM Million
mRPA Modified RPA
NP Network Pinch
OH Overhead
P/F Plate and Frame
PC Progressive Convergence
PD Problem Decomposition
PDM Pinch Design Method
PP Path Pinch
R&D Research and Development
RPA Remaining Problem Analysis
S&T Shell and Tube
UMIST University of Manchester, Institute of Science and Technology
XP Cross-Pinch

ACKNOWLEDEMENTS

The author is grateful to his colleagues who have provided input in the preparation of this paper
[Refs 4, 5, 16, 19, 22], but in particular to Dr. Anthony Waters of Linnhoff March Ltd whose
technical support and assistance in the use of SuperTarget 5 was invaluable. Thanks are also
due to LML as a company for permission to use SuperTarget 5 output files in this manuscript.

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 27 of 28

REFERENCES

1) Asante N and Zhu X X, “An Automated Approach for HEN Retrofit Featuring Minimal
Topology Modifications”, Comp Chem Eng, Vol 20 supplement (1996) pp S7-12
2) Asante N and Zhu X X, “An Automated and Interactive Approach for HEN Retrofit”, Trans I
Chem E, Vol 75 part A (March 1997), p 349
3) Carlsson A, Franck P and Berntsson T, “Design Better HEN Retrofits”, Chem Eng Prog
(March 1993) pp 87-96
4) Cripps H R, HRC Consultants Ltd, personal communication, Aug 2001
5) Eastwood A E and Shilling R, “Target for Cost-effective Heat Recovery Enhancements”
paper presented at CE Expo, Houston, Tx (June 1999)
6) Furman K C and Sahinidis N, “A Critical Review and Annotated Bibliography for HEN
Synthesis in the 20th Century”, Monograph published by Dept of Chem Eng, Univ of Illinois
(April 2001)
7) Hohmann E C, “Optimum Networks for Heat Exchange”, PhD Thesis, Univ of Southern
California (1971)
8) Jones D A, Yilmaz N Y, and Tilton B, “Synthesis Techniques for Retrofitting Heat Recovery
Systems” Chem Eng Prog (July 1986), pp 28-33
9) Kovac A and Glavic P, “Retrofit of Complex and Energy Intensive Processes – I”, Comp
Chem Eng, Vol 19, no 12 (1995), pp 1255-1270
10) Kovac A and Glavic P, “Retrofit of Complex and Energy Intensive Processes – II: Stepwise
Simultaneous Superstructural Approach”, Comp Chem Eng, Vol 24 (2000), pp 125-138
11) Kovac-Kralj A and Glavic P, “Simultaneous Retrofit of Complex and Energy Intensive
Processes – III”, Computers Chem Eng, Vol 24 (2000), pp 1229-1235
12) Kumana J D and Klavers H W, “Sensitivity of ∆Tmin Optimization to Accuracy of Capital
Cost Estimates”, Proc of ASME’s 31st National Heat Transfer Conference, Houston, Tx (Aug
1996), paper 62d
13) Kumana J D, “Simultaneous Yield/Energy Optimization of a VDU in a Wax Extraction Plant”,
paper presented at 50th Canadian Congress of Chem Eng, Montreal, Quebec (Oct 18th,
2000)
14) Linnhoff B, “Pinch Analysis – A State-of-the-Art Overview”, Trans I Chem E, Vol 71, part A
(Sept 1993)
15) Masso A H and Rudd D F, “The Synthesis of System Designs II: Heuristic Structuring”,
AIChE Journal, Vol 15, no 1 (Jan 1969), pp 10-17
16) Polley G T and Amidpour M, “Don’t Let the Retrofit Pinch ‘pinch’ You”, Chem Eng Prog (Nov
2000), pp 43-48
17) Polley G T, “Pinch Technology Without Tears”, Proc 23rd Indus Energy Tech Conf, Houston,
Tx (May 2001), p 25
18) Shenoy U V, “Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis”, Gulf Publishing Co, Houston, Tx (1995).
[Gulf Publishing was recently acquired by Butterworth Heinemann]
19) Smith R, “Chemical Process Design”, McGraw-Hill Inc, New York (1995)
20) Tjoe T N and Linnhoff B, “Using Pinch Technology for Process Retrofit”, Chem Eng (April
28, 1986), pp 47-60
21) Umeda T, Itoh J and Shiroko, “Heat Exchange System Synthesis”, Chem Eng Prog (July
1978), pp 70-76
22) Waters A, Linnhoff March Ltd, personal communications (July – Oct, 2001)
23) Zhang J and Zhu X X, “Simultaneous Optimization Approach for HEN Retrofit with Process
Changes”, Ind Eng Chem Res, Vol 39 (2000), pp 4963-4973
24) Zhu X X and Asante N, “Diagnosis and Optimization Approach for HEN Retrofit”, AIChE
Journal, Vol 45, no 7 (July 1999), pp 1488-1503

D:\Papers\HEN retro Halifax (text).doc Page 28 of 28