Energy 34 (2009) 880–893

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Improving energy recovery for water minimisation

Boondarik Leewongtanawit, Jin-Kuk Kim*
Centre for Process Integration, School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, University of Manchester, PO Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A graphical approach for the design of heat-integrated water systems has been proposed to improve
Received 22 August 2008 conceptual understanding for implications of heat recovery in water systems, as well as to provide
Received in revised form systematic design guidelines for selecting most appropriate integrated options in practice. The developed
26 February 2009
design method aims to fully exploit water reuse potentials between water-using operations, and
Accepted 19 March 2009
simultaneously to minimise any potential degradation of energy recovery resulted from water reuse.
Available online 5 May 2009
Graphical representations of heat-integrated water systems and their manipulation have been applied to
investigate systematically design interactions, impacts associated with stream merging and splitting, and
Keywords:
Water minimisation influences of non-isothermal mixing on heat recovery. Water Energy Balance Diagram has been devel-
Heat integration oped to improve energy recovery in water reuse network. Energy-efficient and cost-effective configu-
Water reuse ration for heat recovery has been identified, using improved Separate System Approach. The proposed
Heat recovery approach significantly reduces both water and energy requirements for single-contaminant water
systems.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction that automated method using mathematical programming were

Water and energy are essential resources for process industries.
Large amount of water is used for various operation tasks (e.g.,
reaction medium, extraction process, washing, etc), whereas
substantial amount of energy is utilised for heating and cooling
purposes. Process industry is currently facing powerful economic
and environmental driving forces to rationalise uses of energy and
water, due to the ever-increasing prices of water and energy, and
the stricter environmental regulations.
Process integration techniques have been regarded as an effective
and practical design methodology for energy saving and/or water
minimisation study. Early efforts were mainly to reduce energy
consumptions by indentifying thermodynamic bottlenecked point
(known as a pinch point) of processes and facilitating energy-
efficient heat recovery within the systems [1,2]. Graphical manipu-
lation of cumulative energy contents (i.e. enthalpy) against energy
quality (i.e. temperature), based on Energy Composite Curve, is uti-
lised for targeting maximum heat recovery, and then this graphical
method had been extended to study utility targeting or integration
with process (e.g., distillation, reactor, etc.,) at process level using
Grand Composite Curve, and site-wide energy efficiency using Site
Profile concept [3–7]. Further evolvement had been observed such
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 0161 306 8755; fax: þ44 0161 236 7439.
E-mail address: j.kim-2@manchester.ac.uk (J.-K. Kim).
exploited to handle design complexities (e.g. large industrial size
problem) or to consider more rigorous design objectives, such as
total annualised cost, plant operability and plant flexibility [4,8,9].
The concept of integrated network design gained from heat inte-
gration has been adopted to address the systems involving mass
transfers/exchanges during 1990s, which led to the developments of
new design methodologies, for instance, the synthesis of mass-
exchange networks developed by El-Halwagi [10], and the formation
of water pinch analysis developed by Wang and Smith [11]. One of
major developments in last two decades was the design methodology
for water systems which is based on exploiting water reuse and
recycling with the aid of Water Composite Curve [4,11,12], and
investigating distributed treatment systems using Effluent Composite
Curve [13,14]. Optimisation techniques have been incorporated to
these conceptual tools, in order to perform systematic economic
trade-off, to consider practical or engineering constraints and/or to
investigate the advantage of recycling and regeneration more effec-
tively [15–17]. Further improvements on the area of targeting, design
and optimisation of water systems have been made by employing
different tools and techniques, for example, mass problem table,
water-source and water-demand composite curves, water surplus
diagram, water cascade analysis and water-source diagram, which are
recently reviewed by Foo [18].
More recently, process integration has been applied to address
impacts of energy recovery in water systems. This new evolution
has been driven by the growing concern for environment pollution

0360-5442/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.03.004
 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893
Nomenclature
C Concentration of contaminant
FW Freshwater stream
OP Operation
Q Enthalpy
T Temperature
WW Wastewater stream
DTmin Minimum approach temperature
HU Hot utility
and the increasing stringency of environmental regulations. Its
objectives are both environmental and economic achievements
through water reuse and energy recovery. An example of the new
design method is a combination of water minimisation and energy
minimisation by Savulescu and Alva-Argaez [19] and Bagajewicz
et al. [20], in which importance on design interactions between
water reuse and heat recovery was acknowledged, and design
method for strategically combining heat integration concept with
water pinch analysis had been addressed.
Later, Savulescu et al. [21,22] investigated interactions existed in
the simultaneous study of water and energy minimisation, and
explained in detail for Two Dimensional Grid Diagram for the
identification of energy-effective water reuse schemes, and Sepa-
rate Systems for the design of heat recovery systems in the water
network. This graphical targeting method provided the conceptual
guidelines for targeting minimum water and energy requirements,
and for designing the water network integrated with Separate
Systems to achieve the target. They proposed three design rules to
select a most promising option among potential water reuse
possibilities. However, energy implications during the selection of
water reuse has not been fully considered. Consequently, more
energy requirements than the target may be necessary, and user’s
intuitive intervention is often required to minimise those potential
penalties during design stage.
On the other hand, optimisation models for the combined
design of water and energy networks have been proposed [23,24].
Leewongtanawit and Kim [23] proposed an optimisation frame-
work with MINLP, which allows the design of multi-contaminant
water systems and effectively deals with design complexity,
economic trade-off, consideration of piping costs and engineering
constraints with the proposed optimisation framework. The
developed automated method is able to design heat recovery
systems using either conventional heat exchangers network or
Separate Systems initially proposed by Savlulescu et al. [21].
Operation 1
Water reuse
Freshwater
Operation 2
Constraints
Energy
recovery
Operation N
Fig. 1. Heat-integrated water system.
881
These computer-aided design tools are effective for synthesis
purpose because the design procedure for investigation of decision
variables and their optimal selection is automated with mathe-
matical programming. However, this automated approach is often
limited to provide in-depth understanding about how water reuse
and heat recovery is interacted. Consequently, only limited
conceptual insights and knowledge are obtained for the synthesis of
heat-integrated water systems. Therefore, this study has been
conducted in order to obtain detailed conceptual knowledge for
design interactions between water-using subsystems and heat-
recovery subsystems (i.e. design impacts from water reuse on heat
recovery, and vice versa.). The graphic-oriented method is chosen in
this study for the analysis, because of its methodological advantage
in highlighting bottlenecked point(s) or area(s), as well as providing
potential options for improvement. The current study is based on
the fundamental evolvement of two existing decision support tools
(i.e. Two Dimensional Grid Diagram; Separate Systems) developed
by Savulescu et al. [21,22]. Water Energy Balance Diagram has been
developed to accommodate novel design concepts, while significant
methodological improvement have been made in the generation of
Separate System in the design of heat recovery systems.
Both synergetic benefits and structural limitations (or
constraints due to integration) from the combined analysis of
water-using and heat-recovery systems will be examined, and the
systematic design procedure will be formulated, which can be
readily applicable in practice. Before presenting significantly
improved design concepts for the design of heat-integrated water
systems in details, problem descriptions and basic concepts for the
simultaneous water and energy minimisation are first briefed.
2. Simultaneous water and energy minimisation
The levels of contaminants in water streams have been a major
issue for minimising water use in process industries. However, the
water stream is often subjected to not only the constraints of
concentration levels, but also the temperature levels, for example,
sterilisation operations. When a water-using process requires hot
water for the operation, water stream of the operation involves the
changes of concentration levels through the mass transfer between
process stream(s) and water stream(s), as well as the changes of
temperature levels resulting from heat transfer within the process.
Under these circumstances, both contaminant and temperature
conditions need to be considered simultaneously, if any attempts
for minimising water or energy consumptions for the site are made.
A typical heat-integrated water system shown in Fig. 1 includes
water-using operations, which require water at certain qualities
(i.e. contaminant and temperature levels). First, water is fed to the
contaminant level?
Operating temperature?
Wastewater
Operation 3
882 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893

Table 1 discharge temperatures. Minimum hot and cold utilities for Example
Operating data of Example 1 [21]. 1 are 3780 kW and 0 kW, respectively1. Both minimum freshwater
Operation Limiting Mass Load max
Cin max
Cout Temperature and energy requirements can be targeted ahead of design.
Flowrate (kg/s) (g/s) (ppm) (ppm) ( C) Two Dimensional Grid Diagram (Fig. 2) is then used to screen
Operation 1 20 2 0 100 40 design options for water reuse, subject to temperature constraints.
Operation 2 100 5 50 100 100 The diagram includes a concentration scale on the horizontal axis
Operation 3 40 30 50 800 75
and a temperature scale on the vertical axis, which captures both
Operation 4 10 4 400 800 50
concentration and temperature constraints of the operations. Three
design rules are applied to select most appropriate ways of reusing
system, as freshwater. Freshwater may undergo heating or cooling water between water streams, while degrading energy recovery is
when the temperature difference exists between temperature of intended to be minimal. As shown in Fig. 2, two non-isothermal
freshwater and the required water temperature for operations. mixing points for water reuse (one is at the inlet of Operation 3,
Water can be also reused between the operations. Reuse streams while the other at the inlet of Operation 4.) are selected among
may be heated up or cooled down, depending on the temperature possible reuse options. However, the resulting design achieves water
conditions of source and sink operations. Finally, water streams target (90 kg/s) but fails to achieve the energy targets, as additional
leave the system as wastewater. Wastewater may require cooling to 485 kW of hot and cold utilities is required (illustrated in Fig. 3). This
satisfy the discharge regulations for temperature. is because design rules for identifying reuse options within the
The design problem involves the combined water and energy intermediate water main at 100 ppm fails to consider fully the
minimisation. The synthesis of water reuse networks is a way to design consequence of water reuse selection on overall heat recovery.
all water-using operations in a holistic way, in which the freshwater Savulescu et al. [21,22] introduced a graphical design concept,
consumption and the wastewater generation can be systematically Separate System Approach, which is based on the idea of decom-
minimised by integrated allocation of water reuse according to the posing energy composite curves into ‘separate systems’ (i.e. enthalpy
quantity and quality of water required for water-using operation. On subsystems) as illustrated Fig. 3, to simplify the design of heat
the other hand, the synthesis of heat recovery systems maximises exchanger networks. A series of Separate Systems are generated by
potential recovery from waste heat, and identify the amount of energy fixing one of composite curves and modifying the other composite
to be exchanged between hot and cold water streams, and their curve to keep the same driving force for heat transfer (i.e. DTmin).
network configuration. Therefore, design tasks in the study of simul- From the data of water reuse network identified from Two
taneous water and energy minimisation are to identify targets for the Dimensional Grid Diagram, the energy composite curves are
design, namely, freshwater usage, energy consumption and waste- modified to create six blocks (i.e. separate systems) for Example 1,
water generation, as well as a network design to achieve the targets, and in this case the cold composite curve is modified both below
namely, water reuse network and heat exchanger network. and above pinch area. It should be noted that either hot or cold
An example from Savulescu et al. [21] is given in Table 1 for composite curves can be modified, and the modification chosen in
illustrating key design issues and drawbacks existed in their this design stage affects the network configuration and results in
method. The assumptions applied for their study are also employed potential penalty in energy target. As each separate system repre-
in the proposed study: sents a heat transfer unit, the simplified heat exchanger network
requires six heat transfer units (i.e. four heat exchangers, one heater
1) Single-contaminant is only considered for water use. and one cooler). The overall network is then configured from the
2) Water stream data are available for maximum inlet and outlet information on heat recovery from Separate System Approach and
concentrations, contaminant mass loads, and operating on water reuse from Two Dimension Grid Diagram.
temperatures. Therefore, the current study focuses on the development of
3) No heat loss or gain in the operation (i.e. fixed temperature a new conceptual method in order to provide a water reuse network
condition). without occurring any penalties on both water and energy targets,
4) No flowrate loss or flowrate gain in the operation as well as to facilitate a heat exchanger network with less number of
5) A single water source is available with 0 ppm and 20  C. heat transfer units and smaller heat exchanger areas. The under-
6) No discharge constraint of contaminant level for effluent. standing on simultaneous system interactions imposed by water
7) The discharge temperature is specified to be 30  C. system and energy system will be systematically investigated.
8) Design options associated with regeneration are not
considered. 3. New conceptual insights
9) Non-water-using operations are not included in the heat
recovery. To provide a better understanding, distinct features of water
10) An equal specific heat capacity for all the water streams streams (i.e. stream mixing and stream merging) are explored. The
(assumed to be 4.2 kJ/kg  C). stream mixing enables the introduction of non-isothermal mixing
11) A minimum approach temperature (DTmin) is 10  C for energy in the design of water reuse networks, while the stream merging
recovery. allows the generation of separate systems in the design of heat
12) Continuous operation for water-using operations. exchanger networks.

Minimum freshwater consumption and minimum utility

3.1. Stream mixing
consumption can be targeted prior to design, as explained in Savu-
lescu et al [21,22]. Minimum freshwater consumption can be deter-
Mixing between water streams is one of important degree of
mined through water pinch analysis, for example, the targeting
freedoms in the design of water reuse networks. The mixing is
methodology developed by Wang and Smith [11]. For Example 1, the
freshwater flowrate of 90 kg/s and the corresponding wastewater of
90 kg/s are minimum water requirements. Once the water targets are 1
The hot utility requirement is given: (30  C  20  C)$(4.2 kJ/kg  C)$
fixed, the energy targets can be considered. The utility requirement is (90 kg/s) ¼ 3780 kW. No cold utility, as a target, is required because the tempera-
a function of the overall flowrate of water, and the water supply and ture of effluent from the system is higher than that of freshwater.
 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893 883

T (°C)

100 50 kg/s
2
Point 1
11.667 kg/s
80
20 kg/s 3 40 kg/s

8.333 kg/s
60
0.952 kg/s
Point 2 5.714 kg/s
4
40 20 kg/s 4.762 kg/s
1
37.381 kg/s 6.905 kg/s

20
Water Water Water
Source Discharge Discharge
C (ppm) 0 ppm 100 ppm 800 ppm

Fig. 2. Two dimensional grid diagram [19,22].

allowed not only between streams with different concentration with Operation 4 in the Example 1. Effluent from Operations 1 and 2
levels, but also different temperature levels. This implies the heat could be reused in Operation 4. One option is to reuse water from
transfer can be made through heat exchangers (i.e. indirect heat Operation 1 to Operation 4, which requires heating for effluent
transfer) or mixing (i.e. direct heat transfer). This can be illustrated from Operation 1. On the other hand, if effluent from Operation 2 is
used for Operation 4, the reuse stream now requires cooling. These
two alternatives will have different impacts on overall heat
4265 recovery. Another possibility is to reuse water from both Operations
1 and 2, and then combine them, which involves direct heat
recovery by means of non-isothermal mixing without heat
100 exchanger unit required.
Hot composite curve
The introduction of non-isothermal mixing can replace indirect
heat recovery with direct heat recovery, which is able to contribute
Pinch
the reduction on the number of streams involving indirect heat
Temperature (°C)

75 TMIN transfer, as well as the heat duty for indirect heat transfer. This
could bring the potential reduction in the number and area of heat
65
exchangers. However, it might cause the bottleneck for indirect
heat recovery, and increase the demand of hot and cold utilities.
50 To explore the effects of non-isothermal mixing and its direct
Cold composite curve
heat recovery, six different cases are examined for evaluating non-
40
isothermal mixing in the water network design from Example 1.
30 Fig. 4 represents a water reuse network without any non-
isothermal mixing, which involves only the indirect transfer
20 scheme for heat recovery between hot and cold water streams.
3780 7560 15395 19320 23585
485 Enthalpy (kW) Fig. 5 presents the introduction of non-isothermal mixing (i.e.
direct heat recovery) at the inlet of Operation 4 between a hot reuse
Fig. 3. Separate System approach [19,22]. stream (RW2-4) and a cold reuse stream (RW1-4).

FW2 = 50.000 kg/s WW2 = 30.000 kg/s

OP 2 (100°C)
RW2-3 = 20.000 kg/s
FW3 = 20.000 kg/s WW3 = 40.000 kg/s
OP 3 (75°C)

WW4 = 5.714 kg/s

OP 4 (50°C)
RW1-4 = 5.714 kg/s
FW1 = 20.000 kg/s WW1 = 14.286 kg/s
OP 1 (40°C)

T = 20°C TOUT = 30°C

IN

Cold stream requires heating Hot stream requires cooling

Fig. 4. Water network design – Case 1.

884 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893
FW2 = 50.000 kg/s
OP 2 (100°C)
RW2-3 = 20.000 kg/s
FW3 = 20.000 kg/s
FW1 = 20.000 kg/s
OP 1 (40°C)
TIN = 20°C
Cold stream requires heating
Fig. 5. Water network design – Case 2.
Figs. 6 and 7 show different schemes for non-isothermal mixing
at the inlet of Operation 3. The non-isothermal mixing in Fig. 6 is
between a hot reuse stream (RW2-3), a cold reuse stream (RW1-3)
and a cold freshwater stream (FW3), while that in Fig. 7 is between
three streams: a hot reuse stream (RW2-3), a cold reuse stream
(RW1-3), and a cold freshwater stream (FW3).
Figs. 8 and 9 represent non-isothermal mixing occurred at the
inlet of Operations 3 and 4. The mixing at the inlet of Operation 4 is
one from Fig. 5. The mixing at the inlet of Operation 3 in Fig. 8 is one
from Fig. 6, while that in Fig. 9 is one from Fig. 7.
Different non-isothermal mixings result in not only different
network configuration but also different energy implications.
Table 2 summaries the results from six cases considered. The design
rules of Savulescu et al. [22] suggest only the introduction of non-
isothermal mixing between reuse streams. As illustrated above, the
introduction of non-isothermal mixing between hot (reuse) and
cold (reuse and/or freshwater) streams is also possible to satisfy the
water and utility targets in the design of heat-integrated water
systems.
3.2. Stream merging
In addition to stream mixing in the design of water reuse
networks, stream merging is another feature to manipulate water
streams in the design of heat exchanger networks. Fig. 10 illustrates
the abilities of stream merging, based on energy composite curves
from the water network in Case 6. All streams on the hot composite
curve are wastewater streams, whereas all streams on the cold
composite curve are freshwater streams. Kink points are the
consequences of the supply and target temperatures of all waste-
water and freshwater streams. The hot composite curve has five
kinks and the cold composite curve has four kinks. Each segment
FW2 = 50.000 kg/s
OP 2 (100°C)
RW2-3 = 11.667 kg/s
FW3 = 20.000 kg/s
RW1-3 = 8.333 kg/s
FW1 = 20.000 kg/s
OP 1 (40°C)
TIN= 20°C
Cold stream requires heating
Fig. 6. Water network design – Case 3.
WW2 = 29.048 kg/s
WW3 = 40.000 kg/s
OP 3 (75°C)
RW2-4 = 0.952 kg/s
WW4 = 5.714 kg/s
OP 4 (50°C)
RW1-4 = 4.762 kg/s
WW1 = 15.238 kg/s
Non-isothermal mixing TOUT = 30°C
Hot stream requires cooling
between the kinks on the hot composite curves originally consists of
individual wastewater streams which belong to each temperature
interval, and similarly each segment between the kinks on the cold
composite curve consists of individual freshwater streams.
If the energy composite curves are decomposed into blocks (i.e.
separate systems), for example, a block is defined as a region
between two kinks of the hot composite curve at enthalpy 0 kW
and 3780 kW. Four individual wastewater streams in this block can
be merged to create one single stream on hot composite curve, and
three individual freshwater streams can be merged as a one single
stream on cold composite curve. The merged wastewater and
merged freshwater can then be matched for heat recovery to create
a separate system (i.e. heat exchanger unit), in which correspond-
ing heat exchange (3780 kW) is based on vertical heat transfer.
3.3. Generation of separate systems
The generation of Separate Systems could be beneficial not only
for reducing the number of heat exchanger units, but also for
allowing the arrangement of vertical heat transfer. Since the
problem involves water systems, all streams have similar film
coefficients. In this sense, the vertical heat transfer pattern is
desirable for achieving minimum heat transfer area [25].
Five different options for generating Separate Systems for Case 6
are presented in the heat exchanger network design. Fig. 11
demonstrates the generation of Separate Systems by following all
kinks on both hot and cold composite curves. Each block is defined as
a region between two (hot or cold) kinks. As a result, seven Separate
Systems are created with maximum temperature driving forces.
Fig. 12 represents the generation of Separate Systems by
following the kinks and shape of the hot composite curve. Five
Separate Systems are generated between individual kinks on the
WW2 = 38.333 kg/s
Non-isothermal mixing
WW3 = 40.000 kg/s
OP 3 (75°C)
WW4 = 5.714 kg/s
OP 4 (50°C)
RW1-4 = 5.714 kg/s
WW1 = 5.953 kg/s
TOUT = 30°C
Hot stream requires cooling
 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893 885

FW2 = 50.000 kg/s Non-isothermal mixing WW2 = 35.000 kg/s

OP 2 (100°C)

FW3 = 20.000 kg/sRW2-3 = 15.000 kg/s WW3 = 40.000 kg/s

OP 3 (75°C)
RW1-3 = 5.000 kg/s
WW4 = 5.714 kg/s
OP 4 (50°C)
RW1-4 = 5.714 kg/s WW1 = 9.286 kg/s
FW1 = 20.000 kg/s
OP 1 (40°C)

TIN = 20°C TOUT = 30°C

Cold stream requires heating Hot stream requires cooling

Fig. 7. Water network design – Case 4.

FW2 = 50.000 kg/s Point 2 WW2 = 37.381 kg/s

OP 2 (100°C)
RW2-3 = 11.667 kg/s
FW3 = 20.000 kg/s WW3 = 40.000 kg/s
OP 3 (75°C)
RW1-3 = 8.333 kg/s
RW2-4 = 0.952 kg/s
WW4 = 5.714 kg/s
OP 4 (50°C)
RW1-4 = 4.762 kg/s WW1 = 6.905 kg/s
FW1 = 20.000 kg/s
OP 1 (40°C)
TIN = 20°C T = 30°C
Point 1 OUT

Cold stream requires heating Hot stream requires cooling

Fig. 8. Water network design – Case 5.

hot composite curve with minimum approach temperature
(DTmin ¼ 10  C), and the modified cold composite curve terminates
at a higher temperature from 100  C to 116.4  C. Instead of
following the shape of hot composite curve, Fig. 13 presents the
generation of Separate Systems by following the kinks on the hot
composite curve while maximising the temperature driving forces
as much as possible. The number of Separate Systems is main-
tained, but the modified cold composite curve now terminates at
temperature 100  C.
Fig. 14 shows the generation of Separate Systems by following
the kinks and the shape of cold composite curve. The number of
Separate Systems can be further reduced from five to four, and the
modified hot composite curve starts at a lower temperature (from
100  C to 92  C). In Fig. 15, the temperature driving forces are
maximised in each Separate System, and the modified hot
composite curve now starts at temperature 100  C.
Different generations of Separate Systems result in different
heat exchanger network configurations. Table 3 summaries the
results from those five different cases. If following the Separate
System Approach of Savulescu et al. [21,22], the number of Separate
Systems is dependent on the number of kinks on the hot composite
curve above the pinch, plus that on the cold composite curve below
the pinch, and every Separate System has minimum temperature
driving force.
From the illustration above, various ways for the generation of
Separate Systems is possible in the design of heat-integrated water
systems, and their optimal selections should be made to achieve
the minimum number of Separate Systems with maintaining
maximum temperature driving forces as much as possible, rather
than having minimum driving force of DTmin. This is an important
observation which had been neglected in the previous methods,
because the exploitation of different arrangement for the

FW2 = 50.000 kg/s Point 2 WW2 = 34.048 kg/s

OP 2 (100°C)
RW2-3 = 15.000 kg/s
FW3 = 20.000 kg/s WW3 = 40.000 kg/s
OP 3 (75°C)
RW1-3 = 5.000 kg/s
RW 2-4 = 0.952 kg/s
WW4 = 5.714 kg/s
OP 4 (50°C)

FW1 = 20.000 kg/s RW1-4 = 4.762 kg/s

WW1 = 10.238 kg/s
OP 1 (40°C)

TIN = 20°C TOUT = 30°C

Point 1

Cold stream requires heating Hot stream requires cooling

Fig. 9. Water network design – Case 6.

886 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893

Table 2
Summary of the introduction of non-isothermal mixing.

Case Utility Indirect heat transfer Direct heat transfer

Hot (kW) Cold (kW) Hot stream Cold stream Load (kW) Hot stream Cold stream Load (kW)
Case 1 3780 – 5 4 19560 – – –
Case 2 3780 – 5 3 19320 1 1 200
Case 3 4165 385 4 4 19175 1 1 1225
Case 4 3780 – 4 4 18720 1 2 1575
Case 5 4265 485 4 3 18835 2 2 1425
Case 6 3780 – 4 3 18480 2 3 1725

generation of Separate Systems allows better heat recovery (i.e. less
heat exchanger area, less number of exchangers) with maintaining
simpler configuration of networks. The new design method
proposed in the paper will accommodate this improved conceptual
understanding into the design framework.
4. New design methodology
4.1. Water energy balance diagram
Although minimum water and energy consumption can be
determined through targeting, different network configurations in
the design stage can result in penalty on targets. Therefore, it is
important to provide the guidance for the design of water reuse
networks and heat exchanger networks in order to achieve the
targets.
A heat-integrated water system is subjected to the constraints of
contaminant mass loads and concentration levels, as well as the
constraints of operating temperature levels. The design procedure
for water reuse network in this paper is to guide a designer to
identify a water reuse network with high water and energy effi-
ciency. Water Energy Balance Diagram is proposed for implementing
new conceptual insights, which is an extension of Two Dimensional
Grid Diagram, and new design procedures for distributing water
inside water mains are proposed with the aid of Water Energy
Balance Diagram.
Fig. 16 shows the water mains for the Example 1. Inside water
mains, water can be distributed in different ways to satisfy the
required flowrates and temperatures, and different water connec-
tions involve a variation in the energy consumption. Therefore, new
step involves a new representation of Water Energy Balance Diagram,
to incorporate the energy evaluation in the design of water networks.

Wastewater streams

30° 40°
10.238 kg/s
34.048 kg/s
40.000 kg/s Individual
5.714 kg/s
30° 40°

90.000 kg/s Merged

0 kW 3780 kW

T (°C) T (°C)
3780 3780
100 100

WW1
WW2
WW 40°C - 30°C
WW3
WW4

40 40
FW1 1
30 30
FW2 FW 20°C - 30°C
20 FW3 20
0 3780 0 3780
Enthalpy (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
Freshwater streams

20° 30°
20.000 kg/s
50.000 kg/s Individual
20.000 kg/s
20° 30°

90.000 kg/s Merged

0 kW 3780 kW

Fig. 10. Stream merging.

 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893 887

T (°C)
3780

100
WW 100°C -75°C HU
(34.048 kg/s)

75 WW 75°C -50°C FW 65°C -100°C

(74.048 kg/s) 5 (50.000 kg/s)
65
WW 50°C - 40°C
(79.762 kg/s)
4
50
WW 40°C
3
- 30°C FW 40°C - 65°C
(90kg/s) 40 2 (70.000 kg/s)

30 1 FW 20°C - 40°C
(90.000 kg/s)
20
3780 7130 7560 14905 14910 18480 22260
Q (kW)

Fig. 11. Separate system creation – Option 1.

One important development made in the new diagram is to shift
the temperature scale within the intermediate water main as
shown in Fig. 16. This allows the minimum approach temperature
(10  C in this Example) between hot and cold streams. The first
water main involves the distribution of cold streams, since fresh-
water is supplied from the water source to the operations with
higher temperatures. The intermediate water main involves both
hot and cold streams, as reuse streams can be either hot or cold
streams depending on the temperature conditions. After the
temperature scale is shifted down by 10  C within the intermediate
water main, the first half involves only the distribution of hot reuse
streams, while the second half involves only the distribution of cold
reuse streams. Finally, the last water main involves the distribution
of hot streams because wastewater is sent from the operations to
the discharge with lower temperature. Following design rules of
Savulescu et al. [22], as the sinks (i.e. Operation 3 and Operation 4)
operate at intermediate temperatures of the sources (i.e. Operation
1 and Operation 2), the introduction of non-isothermal mixing at
the inlet of the Operations 3 and 4 is possible.
Another important improvement is to incorporate heat cascade
diagram as shown in Fig. 17. This enables the evaluation of interval
heat balances between hot and cold streams. Following the problem
table algorithm in heat Integration [4], the heat cascade diagram
represents heat flows and identifies minimum hot and cold utility
requirements. The possibilities of non-isothermal mixing are not
only between hot and cold reuse streams, but also between hot reuse

T (°C)
3780
116.4

HU

100 WW 100°C - 75°C

(34.048 kg/s)

75 WW 75°C - 50°C FW 65°C - 116.4°C

(74.048 kg/s) (34.048 kg/s)
65 WW 50°C - 40°C
(79.762 kg/s)
3 FW 40°C - 65°C
50 (74.048 kg/s)
WW 40°C
- 30°C
(90 kg/s) 40 2 FW 30°C - 40°C
(79.762 kg/s)
30 1
FW 20°C - 30°C
(90.000 kg/s)
20
3780 7130 14905 18480 22260
Q (kW)

Fig. 12. Separate system creation – Option 2.

888 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893

T (°C)
3780

100 WW 100°C - 75°C

(34.048 kg/s) HU

4
WW 75°C - 50°C
75 (74.048 kg/s)
WW 50°C - 40°C FW 65°C - 100°C
65 (50.000 kg/s)
(79.762 kg/s)
3 FW 38.9°C - 65°C
50 (70.000 kg/s)
WW 40°C
-30°C
(90 kg/s) 40 2 FW 30°C - 38.9°C
90.000 kg/s)
30 1
FW 20°C - 30°C
(90.000 kg/s)
20
3780 7130 14905 18480 22260
Q (kW)

Fig. 13. Separate system creation – Option 3.

and cold freshwater streams entering the same operation. It should
be noted that cooling or heating in the intermediate water main for
reuse stream may or may not be necessary, subject to non-
isothermal mixing patterns, however the implications for energy
recovery from this non-isothermal mixing is reflected in heat
cascade diagram. In Fig. 17, the value in parenthesis represents the
enthalpy change for the water stream.
Fig. 17 illustrates the design and energy implication of a possible
water reuse network. For non-isothermal mixing at the inlet of
Operation 4, direct heat recovery (200 kW) occurs between the hot
reuse stream (0.95 kg/s, from Operation 2) and cold reuse stream
(4.76 kg/s, from Operation 1) entering the operation. At the inlet of
Operation 3 there is a mixing between freshwater stream and reuse
streams, as the location of reuse fed to the operation has been
moved to the inlet of the operation in order to achieve a uniform
flowrate throughout the operation. One part of direct heat recovery
(735 kW) is between the hot reuse stream (15 kg/s, from Operation
2) and cold reuse stream (5 kg/s, from Operation 1), while the other
(840 kW) between the hot reuse stream (15 kg/s) and cold fresh-
water streams (20 kg/s) entering the same Operation 3. Therefore,
part of freshwater stream to Operation 3 gains the direct heat input
by means of the non-isothermal mixing. These streams associated
with non-isothermal mixing (i.e. streams with dashed arrow in
Fig. 17) will not be included in the energy recovery, and the
remaining streams (i.e. three freshwater streams in the first water
main, two wastewater streams from second water mains, and two

T (°C)
3780
100
WW 92°C - 75°C HU
(50.000 kg/s)

75 WW 75°C - 50°C
(70.000 kg/s)
FW 65°C - 100°C
65 (50.000 kg/s)
WW 50°C - 30°C
(90.000 kg/s) 2
FW 40°C - 65°C
50 (70.000 kg/s)

40
1
30 FW 20°C - 40°C
(90.000 kg/s)

20
7560 14910 18480 22260
Q (kW)

Fig. 14. Separate system creation – Option 4.

 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893 889

T (°C)
3780
100
WW 100°C - 75°C
(34.048 kg/s) HU

75 WW 75°C - 51°C
(74.048 kg/s)
FW 65°C - 100°C
65 (50.000 kg/s)
WW 50°C - 30°C
(90.000 kg/s) 2
FW 40°C - 65°C
50 (70.000 kg/s)

40
1
30 FW 20°C - 40°C
(90.000 kg/s)

20
7560 14910 18480 22260
Q (kW)

Fig. 15. Separate system creation – Option 5.

Table 3 recovery, with which the minimum hot utility (3780 kW) and
Summary of the generation of separate systems. minimum cold utility (0 kW) is identified. The streams involved in
Option Heat transfer unit (unit) Heat transfer areaa (m2) indirect heat recovery are also shown in Fig. 18.
Option 1 7 1380
The new tool, Water Energy Balance Diagram, allows the anal-
Option 2 5 1538 ysis of water reuse and energy recovery in the design of water
Option 3 5 1401 networks. The arrangements of direct and indirect heat transfer
Option 4 4 1517 between water streams are considered to determine the feasibility
Option 5 4 1412
of energy recovery. Therefore, the new design procedure enables
a
Based on the heat transfer coefficient of water stream ¼ 2.5 kW/m2  C, heat a designer to identify the water reuse network, which can achieve
transfer coefficient of steam ¼ 100 kW/m2  C (3 bar, 132  C)
the minimum freshwater and utility requirements.
The water reuse network in Fig. 17 not only satisfies the water
wastewater streams from third water mains) are now considered and energy targets, but also incorporates the features of non-
for heat recovery through indirect heat transfer. The problem table isothermal mixing. The non-isothermal mixing can partially
algorithm [3,4] is now applied to evaluate this indirect heat substitute indirect heat transfer with direct heat transfer. Such

T (°C)
90 kg/s 45.714 kg/s 0 kg/s
Limiting water 0 ppm 100 ppm 800 ppm
flowrate (kg/s)
50 kg/s
100° 2 2
100 kg/s 2 100°

20 kg/s
75° 3 3
40 kg/s 3 40 kg/s 3 75°

10 kg/s 50° 4
20 kg/s 4 5.714 kg/s 4 50°
40° 1 1
20 kg/s
1 40°
30°
20°
Water Water Water
Source Discharge Discharge
0 ppm 100 ppm 800 ppm
C (ppm)
0 kg/s 44.286 kg/s 45.714 kg/s

Source operartion Sink operartion

Fig. 16. Water distribution in water mains.

890 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893

T (°C)
90 kg/s 45.714 kg/s 0 kg/s (a) (b)
0 ppm 100 ppm 800 ppm Hot utility Hot utility

0 3780
100° 2 2
2 100° H = -2100 -2100 H = -2100 1680

H = -1005 H = -1005
-3105 675
75° 3 3 H = -670 H = -670
3 3 75° -3735 5
15
H = +255 H = +255
-3520 260
50° 4 H = +170 H = -170
4 4 50° -3350 430
40° 1 5 4.762 1 0.952 H = -430 H= -430
1 40° -3780 0
30° H= 0 -3780 H= 0 0
20° 50 20 20 10.238 34.048 5.714 40 (kW) (kW)
Water Water Water
Source Discharge Discharge Cold utility Cold utility
100 ppm 800 ppm
C (ppm) 0 ppm 44.286 kg/s 45.714 kg/s
0 kg/s
Source operation Sink operation

Stream involving indirect heat transfer Stream involving direct heat transfer

Fig. 17. Water energy balance diagram.

substitution is a potential to reduce the number and area of heat required. Not all streams involve the indirect heat transfer through
exchangers in the design of heat exchanger networks. heat exchangers, as some streams are subject to the direct heat
transfer via the non-isothermal mixing. The thermal data of
freshwater and wastewater streams, which involve the design of
4.2. New separate system approach
heat exchanger network, are represented in Fig. 18(a). Energy
composite curves are generated based on such thermal stream data
As the synthesis of heat exchanger networks here involves only
of freshwater and wastewater streams with 10  C of minimum
water streams, the design of heat exchanger networks can be
approach temperature. Fig. 18(b) represents the initial energy
simplified with the generation of Separate Systems. A new
composite curves.
systematic design approach of Separate System Generation is
developed to design a heat exchanger network, which involves
4.2.2. Step 2: Maintain the utility consumption and minimise the
a small number of heat transfer units with the arrangement of
number of separate systems
vertical heat transfer. A description of the procedure is as follows.
In order to obtain the minimum utility consumption, the heat
recovery between hot and cold composite curves must remain at
4.2.1. Step 1: Set up the initial energy composite curves
the maximum value. The heat recovery zone defines the start and
To complete the heat exchanger network design, the extraction
end of Separate Systems between wastewater and freshwater
of thermal stream data from the water reuse network (Fig. 17) is

a b
30°C 10.238 kg/s 40°C T (°C)
WW 1 3780
WW2
30°C 34.048 kg/s 100°C 100
WW 2
WW2
30°C 40.000 kg/s 75°C WW3
WW 3
WW2
30°C 50°C 75
5.714 kg/s WW3 FW2
WW 4 WW4
65
WW1
WW2
WW3 50
FW2
WW4
20°C 20.000 kg/s 40°C FW3
FW 1 40
FW1
20°C 50.000 kg/s 100°C 30 FW2
FW 2 FW3
20
20°C 20.000 kg/s 75°C
FW 3 3780 7130 7560 14905 14910 18480 22260
Q (kW)
Thermal stream data of water network Initial energy composite curves

Fig. 18. New Separate System Generation: Step 1.

 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893 891

a T (°C)
3780
b T (°C)
3780
WW2 WW2
100 100

WW2 WW2
WW3 WW3
WW2 WW2
75 75
WW3 FW2 WW3 FW2
WW4 65 WW4
WW1 65 WW1
WW2 WW2
WW3 50 WW3 50
FW2 FW2
WW4 WW4
FW3 FW3
40 40
FW1 FW1
30 FW2 30 FW2
FW3 FW3
20 20
18480 22260 18480 22260
QRECOVERY QRECOVERY
Keep the maximum heat recovery Minimise the number of separate systems

Fig. 19. New Separate System Generation: Step 2.

streams, as shown in Fig. 19(a). In order to obtain the minimum temperature driving forces between hot and cold streams should be
number of Separate Systems, the fewest kinks should be selected. In maximised. The shaded area in Fig. 20 (a) represents the modifi-
this case, the kinks on the cold composite curve are selected, as cation of the hot composite curve, which is minimised for achieving
fewer kinks on the cold than the hot composite curve within the maximum temperature driving force in each Separate System. The
heat recovery zone. The boundaries of each Separate System are stream merging enables each segment of composite curves to be
created at the selected kink points as shown in Fig. 19(b). treated as a single stream in the generation of Separate Systems.
Fig. 20 (a) shows that individual wastewater streams are isother-
4.2.3. Step 3: Maximise the temperature driving force in each mally or non-isothermally merged within individual Separate
Separate System Systems, while freshwater distribution from Separate Systems does
Each Separate System represents a single heat transfer unit not change the profile or create the temperature degradation of the
between a single hot stream and a single cold stream, in which the cold composite curve.
However, two non-isothermal mixing areas identified from
Fig. 20(a) have not connected with each other. Such a disjunctive
a Temperature
and discontinuous creation for mixing areas leads to infeasible
[°C]
design, which requires adjustment for original design to regain
100
HU
feasibility. Fig. 20(b) shows the updated design of Separate Systems,
in which two non-isothermal mixing areas are linked after relaxing
3
75 maximum driving force of heat transfer in second heat recovery
New non-isothermal
stream mixing areas zone. This heat recovery with reduced driving force will increase
2 the overall heat exchanger area required than necessary.
50

1 4.2.4. Step 4: Determine the water distribution between Separate

30
20
Systems and operations
Fig. 21 represents the completed water distribution with Sepa-
Enthalpy [kW]
rate Systems. As each Separate System represents a heat transfer
Maximising driving force for heat recovery unit of the merged wastewater and/or freshwater, there are three
heat exchangers between the merged wastewater and merged
b Temperature freshwater, and one heating unit between hot utility and the
[°C]
WW 100°C -75.035°C
merged freshwater. However, such generation of Separate Systems
(34.048 kg/s) involves the modification of energy composite curves. The initial
100
WW 75°C - 50°C HU composite curves represent the individual streams of the water-
(70 kg/s) FW 82°C -100°C
3 (50 kg/s)
using operations, while the modified composite curves represent
75
New non-isothermal FW 65°C - 82°C
the merged streams of the Separate Systems. Through mass and
WW 50°C - 30°C stream mixing area (50 kg/s) energy balances, the distribution of freshwater and wastewater
(90 kg/s)
50
2
streams between the Separate Systems and the operations are
FW 40°C - 65°C
(70 kg/s) identified as given in Fig. 21.
30
1 The new Separate System Generation aims to minimise the
20
FW 20°C - 40°C number of Separate Systems and the degradation of temperature
(90 kg/s)
driving forces, whereas the previous Separate System Approach
Enthalpy [kW] [22] suggested the large number of Separate Systems and the
Adjustment for gaining feasibility maximum degradation of temperature driving forces. As a result,
the new method allows a better generation of Separate Systems (i.e.
Fig. 20. New Separate System Generation: Step 3. improved heat exchanger network), with fewer Separate Systems
892 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893

10.206 kg/s
10.238 kg/s

5.714 kg/s
4.082 kg/s

40.000 kg/s
75.035°
34.048 kg/s

30° 50° 50° 75° 100°

HU
20° 40° 40° 65° 65° 82° 100°
50.000 kg/s
90.000 70.000 50.000 3780 kW
kg/s kg/s kg/s
20.000 kg/s

20.000 kg/s
Merged streams

Individual streams

Fig. 21. New Separate System Generation: Step 4.

10.206 kg/s
10.238 kg/s

5.714 kg/s
4.082 kg/s
40.000 kg/s

75.035° 34.048 kg/s

30° 50° 50° 75° 100° Non-isothermal

HU mixing
20° 40° 40° 65° 65° 82° 100°
50.000 kg/s
90.000 70.000 50.000 3780 kW OP 2 (100°C)
kg/s kg/s kg/s 15.000 kg/s
20.000 kg/s OP 3 (75°C)
0.952 kg/s
5.000 kg/s
OP 4 (50°C)
20.000 kg/s 4.762 kg/s
OP 1 (40°C)

Fig. 22. New overall network design.

(i.e. fewer heat transfer units) and larger temperature driving forces water and energy (i.e. less hot and cold utilities) and enables the
(i.e. smaller heat transfer areas). effective structure for water reuse and heat exchanger networks
It should be noted that although the new approach is illustrated (i.e. fewer heat transfer units and smaller heat transfer areas).
with the threshold problem, it can also be applied to pinch prob-
lems. Finally, an overall network configuration is a combined result
of the water network design (Fig. 17) from Water Energy Balance
Table 4
Diagram and the heat exchanger network design (Fig. 21) from Overall design comparison (I).
Separate System Generation. The new overall network design is
Requirements Graphic-based New design Improvement (%)
presented in Fig. 22. The design can achieve both the water and method by
energy targets and accommodate the features of non-isothermal Savluescu et al. [22]
mixing and Separate Systems effectively and systematically. Freshwater (kg/s) 90 90 –
Tables 4 and 5 summarise the results for the new design of Hot utility (kW) 4265 3780 11
Fig. 22. The new conceptual design method is significantly Cold utility (kW) 485 0 100
improved (Table 4), compared to previous graphic-based design Heat exchanger unit (unit) 5 4 25
Heat exchanger area (m2) 1584 1390.7 11.2
method [22], because it provides the design with better use of
 B. Leewongtanawit, J.-K. Kim / Energy 34 (2009) 880–893
Table 5
Overall design comparison (II).
Requirements Automated design New
by Bogataj and design
Bagajewicz [24]
Heat exchanger unit (unit) 4 4
Heat exchanger area for 3498.4 3370.4
water-to-water heat
recovery (m2)
Heat exchanger area for a 132.2 132.2
heater (m2)
* Based on the heat transfer coefficient of water stream ¼ 1 kW/m2  C (15  C–20  C),
heat transfer coefficient of steam ¼ 5 kW/m2  C (126  C).
The result is also compared with the one from automated design
method by Bogataj and Bagajewicz [24] in Table 5, by applying the
same design parameters. The methodological soundness and
coherence of the design method developed in this paper is clearly
demonstrated, and the developed design method is able to produce
high quality solutions as much as mathematical optimisation
methods can offer.
5. Summary
New conceptual design method for heat-integrated water
system design has been proposed. The new tool, Water Energy
Balance Diagram, allows the analysis of water reuse, as well as the
analysis of direct and indirect heat recovery in the design of water
reuse networks. The new procedure, Separate System Generation,
enables the systematic modification of energy composite curves for
simplifying the design of heat exchanger networks and minimising
exchanger areas for heat recovery. The proposed method provides
an efficient design of heat-integrated water systems, because the
introduction of non-isothermal mixing has been systematically
incorporated in the targeting and design method, which allows
achieving minimum water and energy consumptions, and cost-
effective arrangement for heat recovery existed in the water reuse
networks. Comparison has been made against previous design
methods using both graphical technique and mathematical opti-
misation, which shows the applicability and robustness of design
method proposed in this paper.
References
[1] Linnhoff B, Mason DR, Wardle I. Understanding heat exchanger networks.
Chemical Engineering Science 1979;3:295–302.
893
[2] Linnhoff B, Hindmarsh E. The pinch design method for heat exchanger
networks. Chemical Engineering Science 1983;38(5):745–63.
[3] Linnhoff B, Townsend D, Boland D, Hewitt G, Thomas B, Guy A, et al. User
Improvement (%) guide on process integration for the efficient use of energy. Rugby: IChemE;
1982.
[4] Smith R. Chemical process design and integration. UK: John Wiley; 2005.
[5] Varbanov P, Perry S, Klemeš J, Smith R. Synthesis of industrial utility systems:
–
cost-effective de-carbonisation. Applied Thermal Engineering
3.7
2005;25(7):985–1001.
[6] Kemp I. Pinch analysis and process integration: a user guide on process
integration for the efficient use of energy. 2nd ed. UK: IChemE; 2007.
– [7] Klemeš J, Perry S. Process optimisation to minimise energy use in food pro-
cessing. In: Waldron K, editor. Handbook of waste management and co-
product recovery in food processing, vol. 1. UK: Woodhead Publising; 2007. p.
59–89.
[8] Floudas CA, Ciric AR. Strategies for overcoming uncertainties in heat
exchanger network synthesis. Computers and Chemical Engineering
1989;13(10):1133–52.
[9] Daichendt MM, Grossmann IE. Preliminary screening procedure for the MINLP
synthesis of process systems II: heat exchanger networks. Computers &
Chemical Engineering 1994;18(8):679–709.
[10] El-Halwagi M. Pollution prevention through process integration: systematic
design tools. San Diego: Academic Press; 1997.
[11] Wang YP, Smith R. Wastewater minimisation. Chemical Engineering Science
1994;49(7):981–1006.
[12] Kuo W, Smith R. Design of water-using systems involving regeneration.
Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 1998;76(B):94–114.
[13] Wang YP, Smith R. Design of distributed effluent treatment systems. Chemical
Engineering Science 1994;49:3127–45.
[14] Kuo W, Smith R. Effluent treatment system design. Chemical Engineering
Science 1997;52:4273–90.
[15] Galen B, Grossmann IE. Optimal design of distributed wastewater treatment
networks. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1998;37:4036–48.
[16] Thevendiraraj S, Klemeš J, Paz D, Aso G, Cardenas G. Water and wastewater
minimisation study of a citrus plant. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2003;37:227–50.
[17] Gunaratnam M, Alva-Argáez A, Kokossis A, Kim J, Smith R. Automated design
of total water systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
2005;44:588–99.
[18] Foo DCY. 11th Conference on Process Integration, Modelling and Optimisation
for Energy Saving and Pollution Reduction (PRES 2008), Prague, Czech
Republic, 24–28 August, 2008.
[19] Savulescu L, Alva-Argaez. Direct heat transfer considerations for improving
energy efficiency in pulp and paper Kraft mills. Energy 2008;33:1562–71.
[20] Bagajewicz M, Rodera H, Savelski M. Energy efficient water utilisation systems
in process plants. Computers and Chemical Engineering 2002;26:59–79.
[21] Savulescu L, Kim J, Smith R. Studies on simultaneous energy and water min-
imisation – Part I: systems with no water re-use. Chemical Engineering
Science 2005;60:3279–90.
[22] Savulescu L, Kim J, Smith R. Studies on simultaneous energy and water min-
imisation – Part II: systems with maximum re-use. Chemical Engineering
Science 2005;60:3291–308.
[23] Leewongtanawit B, Kim J. Synthesis and optimisation of heat-integrated
multiple-contaminant water systems. Chemical Engineering and Processing
2008;47:670–94.
[24] Bogataj M, Bagajewicz MJ. Synthesis of non-isothermal heat-integrated water
networks in chemical processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2008;.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2008.05.006.
[25] Gundersen T, Grossmann IE. Improved optimization strategies for automated
heat exchanger network synthesis through physical insights. Computers &
Chemical Engineering 1990;14(9):925–44.