00
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc
(Received 7 February 1989; final revision received 12 December 1989; receivedfor publication 1 Murch 1990)
AbstractPart I of this paper presented a procedure for the design of nearoptimum cost heat exchanger
networks. The procedure is based on setting targets for capital and energy costs and optimizing these
targets prior to design.
The procedure in Part 1, however, uses a simple model of capital cost. The present paper extends the
model of capital cost to allow for:
exploiting differences in heat transfer coefficients for reduced network area;
a nonlinear exchanger cost law;
noncountercurrent heat exchangers;
nonuniform materials of construction, pressure ratings and exchanger types in the network.
Using these extensions both targeting and design for minimum capital cost are considered.
751
752 S. AHMAD et al.
done by solving the following set of simultaneous shifted interval can be calculated by linear program
linear equations for the ATcontributions: ming. Ahmad (1985) has applied this technique to
shifted enthalpy intervals and found that in general
Aq.~$=x, j= l,...,$ (3a) it does predict a somewhat lower arca than the simple
and
area formula applied to shifted intervals.
However, there is no reason why consideration
f CP,(AT,  AT,) = 0, (3b)
11 should be restricted to only those intervals dictated
where by the composite curves. The composite curves can be
divided into successively smaller enthalpy intervals to
S, = number of streams at enthalpy interval edge i,
generate large numbers of stream segments as heat
CP, = heat capacity flowrate of stream j,
sources and sinks. If these are then solved as a single
k = stream which causes the interval edge i.
linear programming exercise, an even lower area
The temperature T: at which each stream j now target can be predicted (Saboo et al., 1986). ATshifts
crosses interval edge i is then given as follows: become unnecessary in this procedure if a large
enough number of intervals is used.
T,? = Tk + AT, f AT, (4)
where T, is the temperature at which stream k, the 2.3. Design ro exploit differences in heat transfer
interval generator, crosses the interval edge i. AT, coeficients
is used if k is a hot stream and + AT, is used if k is Although the simple area target used with
a hot stream. Hence T,? = Tk if j = k. Townsends result does not predict as low a target as
The result of applying ATcontributions to the linear programming it can be used as the basis of a
streams at each interval edge is thus to shift in design procedure for exploitation of hvalues.
temperature the stream population in each interval Temperature differences are smallest in the region
(Fig. 1). In other words, streams with different h of the pinch. Hence the temperature shift according
values cross the interval edge with different tempera to Townsends result [equation (3)] will usually have
tures. Equation (3b) simply ensures the interval the greatest effect in the region of the pinch. Because
remains in enthalpy balance after these ATcontribu each stream j has a different pinch temperature
tions have been applied to each stream. The minimum depending on the contribution Al;, the steam
area within each shifted interval can then be calcu population at the pinch also becomes shifted as in
lated by the simple area targeting formula discussed Fig. 1. Thereafter, the Pinch Design Method
in Part 1. Ahmad (1985) has shown that this approach (Linnhoff and Hindmarsh, 1983) can be used, but
does lead to a lower prediction of the area target. now to satisfy the shifted pinch temperatures.
2.2. Area targets which use linear programming Ahmad (1985) and Townsend (1989) have shown
that providing heat transfer coefficients differ by less
Rather than use the simple area targeting formula than one order of magnitude, the area targeting
in each interval. the minimum area within each calculations which exploit differences in the co
efficients usually predict an area within 10% of the
simple formula described in Part 1. Moreover, the
pJ I 1
I D design will often not achieve the area target since this
would normally require an extremely complex net
work structure which is seldom practical. The simple
pJ
rw
I i

D
formula will therefore be good enough for most
purposes.
Situations with larger variations in heat transfer
coefficients call for their exploitation to reduce area.
It is suggested to first compare the simple target
with one of the complex targets described above,
linear programming being the most reliable. If the .
(3 two targets predict similar areas, then we should
design for verticality as described in Part 1.
If, however, there is a significant difference between
the simple and complex area targets, the design
procedure should take account of the differences in
heat transfer coefficients. The simplest design method
to account for such differences is by shifting streams
at the pinch according to equation (3) and then
Fig. I. Different stream ATcontributions cause streams to following the design procedures described in Part 1.
have different temperatures at an enthalpy interval edge. If a problem has particularly small temperature
Cost optimum heat exchanger networks2 753
differences at points other than the pinch, then the NOW consider the deliberate exploitation of differ
ATshifts can also be applied there. The procedure is ences in heat transfer coefficients to reduce area. After
summarized in Fig. 2. Ahmad (1985) has further sug using the method of ATshifting on each of the en
gested that because heat transfer resistances combine thalpy intervals on the composite curves for this
in parallel, a useful heuristic at the design stage is to example, the resulting temperature at which the
match streams with low hvalues after the ATshift streams cross each interval are shown in Figure 4a.
ing of streams in order to isolate area deterioration. Using the simple area target formula in each such
interval the total area is predicted to be 2700 m*. Per
Example 1 forming linear programming for minimum area in each
The stream data in Fig. 3a is shown in enthalpy shifted interval predicts a total network area of 2480 m2.
balance with its utilities at AT,, = 30C. The prob By successively dividing the composites into yet more
lem is an extreme case in which heat transfer co (but smaller) enthalpy intervals and applying linear
efficients differ by up to a factor of 50. A simple area programming the area target converges to 2330 m2.
target based on vertical heat transfer between the In this case the difference between simple and
composites predicts minimum network area to be complex area targets (30%) is too large to ignore. An
3000 m2. improved design such as that shown in Fig. 4b starts
A design based upon vertical heat transfer is shown by using the shifted temperatures around the pinch.
in Fig. 3b. It has an area of 3510 m* and is 17% above Its area is 2650 m, being 14% higher than the linear
the simple target. The design after continuous opti programming area target. After continuous optimiza
mization to reduce area for fixed energy consumption tion to reduce area for fixed energy consumption the
is shown in Fig. 3c. This has an area of 2740 m2 which design is shown in Fig. 4c. The area is now 2570 m2,
is 9% below the simple target. or 10% above the linear programming area target.
Perform Design
I
I
I
l
1 Optimise
1 
Design
1
I
L__J
Fig. 2. General procedure for selecting which area target method to apply.
754 s. hibUD el al.
rkW/41rkW/&C1
Al,,,i : 300( 1 SimpleAre0 lcrget = 3000m2 CP h
(a)
u&m 0.50
.?2*85 1.00
@2 670 AH=220.32 1~~~161.16 800D z04 0.40
0343 AH= 989.92 !AH=31122 900b
I 5.36 5.00
170 22.65
267O
@ 2.04
5.36
9.33
26
19.61
Areo = 2?40m2
(cl
Fig. 3. Example lstream set with significantlydiffering heat transfer coefficients: (a) simple area target
is 3OOOm* at AT,,,,, = 30C; (b) design using pinch gives 3510 m*; and (c) after continuous optimization
design achieves 2740 m2.
If the network area is to be reduced even further 2520 m* (8% above target), which after optimization
towards the target, then design can be performed reduces to 2450 m2 (5% above target). Clearly, this
around more intervals with shifted temperatures. requires several more exchangers and the network
This is done in Fig. 5 for the example by using one simplicity is adversely compromised for a small re
more interval with small temperature differences as duction in area. If we wished we could carry this
well as the pinch. The initial network has an area of procedure further by shifting temperatures at more
Cost optimum heat exchanger networks2 755
(I IA&
1
1ET2 TG
770 22.85 l00
5.38 S00
933 0 10
1IV61 5.00
3 3 2.00
(b)
2285
2.06
9.33
1961
Fig. 4. Example I: (a) ATshifted streams in enthalpy intervals and corresponding area targets; (b) using
ATshifts at the pinch, a minimum number of units design initially has a total area of 2650m2; and (c)
and 2570mz after continuous optimization.
intervals which would steer the design to a lower area streams in enthalpy intervals is 16% higher. The area
but increased complexity. target based on no stream shifting and the simple area
The results so far of this example are summarized formula (that is, the vertical model) is 29% higher.
in Fig. 6. The basis of comparison is the target of Consider now the energyapital tradeoff for this
2330 m* predicted by linear programming. The target example using the cost data in Table 1. How does the
based on the simple area formula applied to shifted optimum value of ATmi, differ between the area
756 S. AHtao et al.
(a Area = 2520m2 1
1683
17' 22.85
2.01
I I I _
270.1
0
1310!
I
I o_Dw 5.31
I
9.33
276 1130
(b Area= 2k50m2
2.04
5.38
9.33
19.61
Fig. 5. Example 1: (a) using ATshifts at two interval edges, a resulting initial design has a total area of
2520 m2; and (b) which is reduced to 2450 m2 after continuous optimization.
predicted from the vertical model and that from examples with a steeper optimum are more likely to
linear programming? The two area targets are tabu show this behaviour.
lated for some values of AT,,,, in Fig. 7 and the cost Delaby (1989) has reported several more examples
target profiles generated from these are also shown. with large and small differences in hvalues and for
As expected, there are noticeable differences in cost various types of composite curves which show the
between the two models. Remarkably, however, the same behaviour, whether the optimum is steep or
slopes of the cost profiles are similar and the optimum shallow. There is little variation in the difference
value of AT,, is hardly changed between thetwo between the two total cost profiles. As discussed
methods. This occurs despite a shallow optimum in earlier, the linear programming model simply selects
both total cost profiles (only a 10% variation in total the correct c&scrossing to perform between different
cost over the entire AT,, range examined), whereas hvalues to minimize the area achievable at a given
Cost optimum heat exchanger networks2 757
L % Area
116%' 1 Few AT shifted intervals 8 simnle area toroet (Fiaure Loi
108% /Design around ATshifts at pinch & another intervol IFigure 501
Fig. 6. Example Iemparison between the different area targets and designs obtained.
energy recorvery. Consider the possible mechanisms difference. There is a large incentive for area
governing this: reduction by selective crisscrossing to exploit
hvalue differences. However, the very fact that
1. At small values of AT,,, any crisscrossing will
temperature differences are small means that the
have a large effect on area because most of the
degree ofcrisscrossingpossible is significantly re
area occurs in regions of small temperature
stricted. In other words, there is a limited scope to
Table 1 move away from verticality when AT,, is small.
Instalkd exchanger cost law 2. For large values of AT,, the reverse becomes
Cost (9 = 45,400 + 20 I A true. There is sufficient room in temperature
where A heat exchanger area (m) difference for plenty of crisscrossing. The prob
Plant life = 6 yr, capital interest = 10% per mnzm
lem is now that driving forces are large, criss
Utility cost data crossing becomes less effective as a means for
Cost of hot utility = 110 (0 kW yr) reducing area. In other words, there is now less
Cost of cold utility = 10 (S kW yr) incentive to do crisscrossing.
758
(a>
0.6,
ATrni Energy. Vertical Area LP Area
[VI tkWl [mzl [m*l
o3
0.2
Fig. 7. Example Icomparison between the vertical and linear programming area targets for predicting
the energycapital tradeoff. The optimum value of AT,,,i, is hardly changed between the two methods.
3. The arguments above need not only apply at If heat transfer coefficients differ by more than one
small and large values of AT,, for the com order of magnitude, then the simple area target
posite curve setting, but also in regions of small should be compared with the lineqr programming
and large temperature difference for a given target to quantify the incentive fok exploiting the
setting of the composite curves. differing coefficients in design. If there is a large
incentive then design should use ATshifting of
In summary, the greater the room for selective
streams at the pinch and other regions of small
crisscrossing, the less the incentive for area reduc
temperature difference. The ATshifts according to
tion, and vice versa. The net result is that the possible
equation (3) have been shown in this section to be
reduction in area changes little over the range of
particularly useful for design purposes. They provide
AT,,. Hence the difference in capital cost between
a good approximation from which to rapidly and
the two models changes little and the slopes of these
interactively develop practical networks with near
two cost profiles turn out to be similar.
minimum area. This can be done using the design
The observation that both area target models lead
procedures of Part 1, but now with the ATshifted
to similar values of optimum AT,,,, can now be
stream data. A further useful heuristic at the design
usefully exploited. The total cost target profile can be
stage is to match together streams with low hvalues
quickly found using the vertical model and, at the
in order to isolate area deterioration.
energy recovery for optimum AT,,, the linear pro
For predicting the energycapital tradeoff using the
gramming area target should also be evaluated.
vertical and linear programming area targets, it is
Thereafter, a comparison between the two area
found that both methods return essentially the same
targets establishes which route to follow in the design
value of optimum AT,,. Hence the optimum design
procedure of Fig. 2.
initialization is more quickly found using the vertical
SummaryThe following appraisal of area targeting model. Thereafter, the linear programming area
is based on the results of Parts 1 and 2 of this target is also evaluated at the optimum AT,, to
paper. decide in the procedure of Fig. 2 whether design
When heat transfer coefficients differ by less than should follow the vertical model or ATshifts.
one order of magnitude, the minimum area of practi
cd designs is often closely represented by the predic
3. NONLINEAR EXCHANGER COST LAWS
tion of the simple area formula. Although the simple
formula slightly overpredicts the true minimum area In Part 1 a simple linear cost law for individual
in such cases, practical designs will usually not exchangers is used:
achieve true minimum area for reasons of number of
units, network complexity, etc. CC,=a+bA,. (5)
Cost optimum heat exchanger networks2 159
CCccwork
=
Ul,,i..
MER
T CCk=aU+,E,+b
Gli.~MER
T 4
I
= aUminMER+ b&t,. (6)
As a result the network capital cost prediction does
not depend on the distribution of area between
exchangers. Figure 8a illustrates this for the case of
a network with only two exchangers. More often, the
cost law for individual exchangers takes the form:
CC,,=a+bA; (7)
CCe,work
= c CC, = c (a + bA;). (8)
k k
The consequence of equation (8) is that we now not Fig. 9. Correct initialization for design depends more on the
only need to predict the number of matches U,, MER slope of the capital cost profile rather than the absolute
but also the individual exchanger area for each match value of capital cost targets.
At. Figure 8b demonstrates this graphically for the
case of a network with two exchangers. The capital law in targeting we must make some assumption
cost of the network now depends on how the network regarding this distribution. The simplest assumption
area A,, is distributed between the two exchangers. is that the areas of individual units are all identical:
At the targeting stage, before design, the distribu
tion of network area amongst the units in the network Ami*
A,=. (9)
is not known. Hence, if we are to use a nonlinear cost ~mm MER
This leads to the network capital cost given by:
LLSX
However, because the exponenent c in equation
____ (CC{ O.I 5 bAi (7) is usually between 0.7 and 1, there is only a
_ small change in slope. Also, the variation in
ICC, a
ICC, a  exchanger size in a network around the mean
I size is usually not large. Thus the exchangers are
l
I typically distributed over a moderate range on
Ak
a graph which only has a small overall change
A, A2 (4+&J in slope. Consequently, equation (10) turns out
_I in practice to give a surprisingly good estimate
Fig. 8. Installed capital cost law for heat exchangers: (a) for the rate of change of network cost with
linear; and (b) nonlinear. area.
760 S. Axxw et al.
Table 2 Table 3
Heat Installed shell/tuba heat exchanger cost law
Temperature (C) capacity Cost (S) = 30,800 + 750As.s (A < 550 m)
_ flowrate hvalue where A = shell/tube exchanger area (m)
Stream SUPPlY Target (kW Cl) (kW m* C) Plant life = 6 yr. capital interest = 10% per ~mua
I hot 120 65 25 0.50
2 hot 80 50 150 0.25 Utility cost data
3 hot 135 110 145 0.30 Cost of hot utility = I IO (S LW yr)
4 hot 220 95 IO 0.18 Cost of cold utility = IO($ kW yr)
5 hot 135 105 130 0.25
6 cold 65 90 75 0.27
7 cold 75 200 70 0.25 for 200 m2 < A < 500 m2, which comfortably accom
8 cold 30 210 50 0.15
9 cold 60 140 25 0.45 modates the mean area of exchangers in networks
steam 250 249  0.35 that can be developed for this problem.
Cooling water I5 I6  0.20
The predictions for total annual cost and optimum
design location are compared for the linear and
2. The equal area assumption overestimates capi nonlinear cost laws in Fig. 10. There is less than 1%
tal cost for a given network area. However, the difference in total cost between the two profiles over
area target for the network will tend to be an a wide range of AT,,,,, values (535C) and both
underprediction to the final design. Thus some predict an optimum design location at AT,, = 10C.
cancellation of errors will occur. A network designed at AT,, = 10C is shown in Fig.
11, using the design methods for minimum energy
The following example demonstrates these points and and nearminimum capital from Part 1 of this paper.
the quality of the assumptions made above.
The targets at AT,, = 10C agree well with the design
Example 2 as shown in Table 4.
SummaryThe assumption of equal area per ex
The stream and utility data in Table 2 will be used
changer for capital targeting with a nonlinear cost
to evaluate capital cost targets and optimum design law is often remarkably reliable for predicting the
location. The cost data are given in Table 3. In
network cost and locating nearoptimum designs.
addition to exploring the errors involved in the
However, the use of an appropriately linearized
capital cost target given by equation (lo), we can also
capital cost law is usually just as reliable.
see how close to linear the cost law is by actually
comparing against its linearized form. This is impor
tant for emphasizing point (1) above.
4. NONCOUNTERCURRENT EXCHANGERS
A reasonable linearization of the cost law in Table
3 is obtained by fitting the exchanger cost at 200 and A single match in a heat exchanger network can in
500m*. The resulting linear cost law is: practice require more than one shell for two main
cost(%) = 45,400 + 201 A (m2) reasons:
which is accurate to within +5% of the nonlinear (i ) restriction on the maximum size of the shell;
cost law for 100 m* < A < 550 m2. Also, its slope is (ii) use of noncountercurrent exchangers such as
within + 10% of the slope of the nonlinear cost law the l2 design (1 shell pass2 tube passes).
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
t
0415 9225 9975 10475 11200 11925 12650 EnergyfkWl
I I I I I
1000000 '
5 IO 15 20 25 30 35
' PTmin I'CI
Fig. 10. Example Zcomparison of total cost predictions based on a nonlinear and linearized exchanger
capital cost law.
Cost optimum heat exchanger networks2 761
h sham CPSKY/Y
Sham hv&n, KW&C
3.50
0.25
0.30
0.18
0.25
0.27 75
0.25 70
0.15 SO
0.45 25
The first case is normally straightforward to deal lead to poor designs if not used with caution
with in design and will be discussed later. The second (Taborek, 1979). If a design is to be insensitive to
case, however, is more involved and requires further uncertainties in design data we should take account
consideration in networks. of the slope of the Fr line for a given value of R. We
The flow arrangement of 12 exchangers is such should therefore avoid those parts of the FT chart
that the effective temperature difference for heat where slopes are steep, irrespective of FT 2 0.75.
exchange is reduced compared with a pure counter Ahmad et al. (1988) have introduced a simple
current device. This is accounted for in design by the method to account for design sensitivity. This is
introduction of the FT factor into basic heat ex based upon the fact that for any value of R there is
changer design equation (Bowman et al., 1940); a maximum asymptotic value for P, say P_, which
is given as FT tends to 00, and is evaluated by:
Q = UA AT,,F,. (11)
The use of such noncountercurrent exchangers can
P mar=2/(R + 1 +,/RT). (13)
thus both increase the number of exchangers and the Practical designs will be limited by some fraction of
heat transfer area. Both effects increase the network P mairthat is:
capital cost.
P=XpP_, OtX,< 1, (14)
The FT correction factor is usually correlated in
terms of two dimensionaless ratios, the thermal effec where X, is a constant defined by the designer.
tiveness of the exchanger (P) and the ratio of the two A line of constant X,. is compared with a line of
heatcapacity flowrates (R): constant FT in Fig. 12. It can be seen that the line of
constant X, avoids the regions of steep slope. X, is
FT
Target at AT,,,, = 10C
chosen to satisfy the minimum allowable FT (for Smith, 1989). This can he done using the Driving
example, for FT 3 0.75, X, = 0.9 is used). The appli Force Plot described in Part 1. Furthermore, this
cation of X, is valid under the same assumptions as design method is consistent with approaching mini
those of FT. mum network area and minimum energy.
A simple argorithm can be developed (Ahmad and Other work on l2 shell requirements in heat
Smith, 1989) which predicts the target for the total exchanger networks has been presented by Liu et al.
real (noninteger) number of shells for a stream set (1985) and Trivedi et al. (1987). The technique of
from the composite curves. The resulting number of Ahmad and Smith (1989), however, obtains both the
shells is: number of shells target and corresponding area target
intervds closer to the achievable minimum than any method
N shells= F Ni(Si  I), (1% previously published.
Example 3
where
N, = real (noninteger) number of shells resulting The example data shown earlier in Tables 2 and 3
from the temperatures of enthalpy interval i, is now reconsidered assuming exchangers to be l2
S, = number of streams in enthalpy interval i. shellandtube rather than pure countercurrent. The
shells target is shown at AT,,,,, = 10C in Fig. 13. The
It can be further shown that: problem is divided into its enthalpy intervals and the
real number of shells, Ni, is calculated in each interval
(l6a) with X, = 0.9 (that is, FT > 0.75) using the equations
from Ahmad et al. (1988). Each value of Ni is based
where on the temperatures defining each interval i. The
number of streams in each interval is also shown in
N(j) = f Ni, (I6b) Fig. 13. The shells target at AT,,,i,= 10C is then
iz, obtained as follows:
a, is the interval where stream j starts and /Ij is the iatcrvals
ebowpinch
interval where stream j ends. (Nsi,e,,s)abovepinch= 1 Ni(Si  1) = 15.54 shells.
Equation (16) shows that each individual stream j
makes an identifiable contribution N(j) to the Above the pinch, stream has N(j) = 0.49, so this is
number of shells target. Based on this observation, reset to 1. WMA~~ pinch now becomes 16.05 shells,
Ahmad and Smith (1989) point out that it is possible or 17 shells to the next largest integer.
in some cases for a stream to have a shells contribu inteN*
Mowpinch
tion N(j) < 1, whereas in practice the stream must c Ni(Si  1) = 4.11 shells.
(Nsms )he,awpint,,=
have at least one integer shell. To allow for this in the
target, it is suggested that each stream having Below the pinch, cooling water has N(j) = 0.17,
N(j) c 1 should have N(j) reset to 1. stream 6 has N(j) = 0.4 and stream 9 has N(j) = 0.67,
In practice, the integer number of shells target is so all these are reset to 1. (Nshclls)be,,,w
pinchnow becomes
evaluated from equation (16) for stream sections each 5.87 shells, or 6 shells to the next largest integer:
side of the pinch. This maintains consistency with
achieving maximum energy recovery and the corre =.N shella  17 + 6 = 23 shells.
lDLBl
sponding minimum number of units target U,,,,, MBR. The number of shells target is similarly calculated
The FT correction factor for each enthalpy interval over a range of AT,, values as shown in Fig. 14a.
will depend both on the assumed value of X, and the This is compared against the number of units target
temperatures of each interval on the composite on the same diagram. There are significant differences
curves. It is possible to modify the simple area target between the two targets.
formula to obtain the resulting increased overall area These results can be used with the exchanger cost
Amin.,_*for a network of l2 exchangers (Ahmad and law in Table 3 to predict capital cost targets [equation
Smith, 1989). Furthermore, the average area per shell (lo)]. It should be noted that the constant a = 30,800
(A,i,. ,_2/Nshd,) can also he considered at the targeting in the exchanger cost law reflects the mobilization
stage. If this is greater than the maximum allowable cost of a new exchanger and is applied to each unit
area per shell ashell.MAX,then the shells target will need and not each shell. The capital cost target for an
to be increased to the next largest integer above overall area Atin, ,_*, number of units Unun.MER.and
Amin.,_>/a,,,,, MAX.Again, this can be applied to each integer number of shells Nshelais therefore evaluated
side of the pinch. as:
The above method for obtaining a minimum num Anun.I2 c
ber of shells target relies on satisfying the vertical CC&V,,, = a&m. MER+ bNshe,,s N (lo)
temperature differences between the composite ( shells
>
curves. The shells target can thus be approached if a Total cost predictions based on the number of units
design follows the composite curve driving forces in method [equation (lo)] and number of shells method
nearminimum number of matches (Ahmad and [equation (lo)] are compared in Fig. 14b. The units
Cost optimum heat exchanger networks2 763
Fig. 13. Example 3 at AT,, = IOC: for each enthalpy interval i, the number of streams S, and real number
of shells N, are evaluated.
Fig. 15 Example 3design for optimum AT,, = 17C. This network achieves the energy target and
approaches closely the area target in nearminimum number of matches.
Delaby O., Minimum area in heat exchanger networks. exchange systems. J. Optimization Theory Applic. 30,
M.Sc. Thesis, University of Manchester Institute of 423450 (1980).
Science and Technology, U.K. (1989). Saboo A. K., M. Morari and R. D. Colberg, RESHEXan
Hall S. G., S. Ahmad and R. Smith, Capital cost targets for interactive software package for the synthesis and analysis
heat exchanger networks comprising mixed materials of resilient heat exchanger networksII. Discussion of
of construction, pressure ratings, and exchanger types. area targeting and network synthesis algorithms. Comput.
Comput. them. Engng 14, 319335 (1989). &em. Engng IO, 591599 (1986).
Linnhoff B. and S. Ahmad. Cost ontimum heat exchanger Taborek J.. Evolution of heat exchanger desian teehniaues.
networksl. Minimum energy and capital using simile Heat T&t&r Engng 1, I5 (1979).  *
models for capital cost. Comput. them. Engng. 14, Townsend D. W., Surface area and capital cost targets for
7299750 (1990) heat exchanger networks. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Linnhoff B. and E. Hindmarsh. The oinch de&n method Manchester Institute of Science and Technoloev. ._.d, U.K.
for heat exchanger networks. Chim. Engni Sri. 38, (1989).
745763 (1983). Townsend D. W. and B. Linnhoff, Surface area targets for
Liu Y. A.. F. A. Pehler and D. R. Cahela. Studies in heat exchanger networks. IChemE. 11th Annual Res.
chemical process design and synthesis. Part VII: system Meeting, Bag, U.K. (1984).
atic synthesis of multipass heat exchanger networks. Trivedi K. K., J. R. Roach and B. K. GNeill, Shell targeting
AIChE Jf 31, 487491 (1985). in heat exchanger networks, AIChE JI 33, 20872090
Nishimura H., A theory for the optimum synthesis of heat (1987).