Reisen 20080909 PDF

A Structured Approach to Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit Design
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. ir. J.T. Fokkema,
voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op
dinsdag 9 september 2008
om 12.30 uur
door
Jozef Lambertus Benjamin VAN REISEN
scheikundig ingenieur
geboren te Vlaardingen
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:
Prof. ir. J. Grievink
Copromotor:
Dr. ir. P.J.T. Verheijen
Samenstelling promotiecommissie:
Rector Magnificus, voorzitter,

Prof. ir. J. Grievink, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor,
Dr. ir. P.J.T. Verheijen, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor,
Prof. dr. H.L.M. Bakker, Technische Universiteit Delft,
Prof. dr. ir. H. van den Berg, Universiteit Twente,
Prof. ir. M.W.M. Boesten, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,
Prof. dr. T. Gundersen, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Norway,
Prof. dr. G.T. Polley, Universidad de Gaunajuato, Mexico.
Published by J.L.B. van Reisen, Vlaardingen
An electronic version of this thesis is available from http://www.library.tudelft.nl

E-mail author : J.L.B.vanReisen@TUDelft.nl
ISBN 978-90-8891-0555
Keywords: heat exchanger, heat exchanger network, heat exchanger types, conceptual design,
retrofit, energy saving, methodology, targeting.
© 2008 by J.L.B. van Reisen

All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilised in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying , recording or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author.
Printed by BOX Press, Oisterwijk, The Netherlands

Voor mijn dochters
Laat elke plek waar je mag verblijven

wat beter achter dan je het vond.
v
Summary
Energy saving is an important issue for both society and industries due to the increasing energy costs
and the environmental concerns of climate change that require a substantial reduction of the global
carbon dioxide emissions. Reduction of the energy consumption on short term requires the adaptation
of existing installations (retrofit) to maintain their present value, in terms of money invested and
energy captured. This thesis addresses energy saving retrofit, a specific retrofit class that aims for a
reduction of the energy costs while maintaining the existing plant functionality. The work focusses on
the retrofit design of heat exchanger networks (HEN), the main heat processing systems of chemical
plants.
Retrofit design has to combine an efficient reuse of the existing equipment and optimal addition of
new equipment to get an affordable performance improvement. Advances in retrofit design methods
and in new heat exchanger types, published in the past decennia, may improve the network retrofit
potential, but are actually only applied occasionally. This thesis aims for a HEN retrofit design
approach suitable for practical cases and work processes, including a systematic exploration of the
potential of different heat exchanger types. The focus is on steady state, continuous processes with one
operation mode. It involves the following research objectives:
• define a general reference for the systematic definition of specific HEN design problems from a
structured review of the general design problem;
• get an appraisal of the network analysis and design methods available in literature;
• establish a structured practical conceptual analysis and design method with exchanger type
selection included.
Heat exchanger network retrofit design is complex. It involves many case-specific details and
constraints related to the existing equipment and operating practice. Additionally, the objective of
retrofit design is generally only defined as a direction for improvement and may result in design
alternatives ranging from operational improvement to essential network replacement. Determination of
the optimum level of integration is part of retrofit design. This complexity is hardly recognized in
current design methods that are mainly based on greatly simplified design problems.
An extended problem analysis is given that shows the scope, the variables and the criteria for design.
Additionally, their dependencies are discussed in the most extended form, based on a combination of
heat transfer fundamentals, design standards and experiences. This description is a reference for a
systematic definition of case-specific design problems and the selection of essential design variables
and criteria, to make the design problems manageable and to select adequate design methods,
depending on the designer’s background and work environment.
A new general HEN retrofit design framework is proposed that takes into account the specific
complexity of retrofit design. The approach is based on the generic design cycle and the general
stage-wise process design framework of Siirola (1996). It guides the designer to master the design
problem and control the design process. The design framework contains eight design phases starting
with need identification and ending with the production and maintenance plan for the facility. Each
design phase is divided in four stages: target, preliminary design, refined design and final design with
increasing scope and detail. This thesis focuses on the third phase, the conceptual network design,
vi
which includes the main conceptual design activities that are generally regarded as the core network
design. The four stages of this phase cover:
• Target stage: Find the ultimate energy saving scope using grassroots targeting
methods;
• Preliminary Design stage Estimate the real scope, alternative saving options and the related
main changes of the network using retrofit targeting methods;
• Refined Design stage: Initial conceptual network design, a complete design in outlines;
• Final Design stage: Final conceptual network design: the refined design verified and
finalized with all necessary detail.
An extensive structured literature review has been done to find the analysis and design methods that
can be used in the given four design stages. They have been divided in three application groups:
• Network Performance Analysis to determine the effectivity of designs, used in all four stages,
• Targeting to support the design task of both the target and preliminary design stages with
grassroots and retrofit targeting methods respectively, and
• Network Design used in the refined design stage to create conceptual network designs.
The available methods are outlined, classified and compared with available alternatives. Tables are
provided to select adequate methods based on the relevant variables and criteria selected for a specific
case, using the above-mentioned new HEN design problem analysis.
The available performance analysis and grassroots targeting methods are adequate for conceptual
network design. The retrofit targeting methods include the main design variables, but lack accuracy
and the ability to include network structure and multiply utility levels. The network design methods
are satisfactory, except for the limited focus on exchanger location, type and configuration details.
Two new methods are proposed to overcome some limitations in the existing methods: Structural
Targeting for retrofit targeting and the Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure for network design.
Structural Targeting is a retrofit method that determines targets for utility use, number of units,
exchanger area and topology based on saving, investment and complexity trade offs. The approach
uses integrity zones based on the existing network to trade off saving potential and the need to
integrate originally independent network parts. New methods are proposed to do area and saving-on-
investment targeting for cases with multiple utility levels.
The Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure is a network design method that creates opportunities for the
application of more efficient, advanced (multi-stream) heat exchangers. The method guides the
adaptation of the heat transfer task of the existing exchangers to concentrate the required new area,
generally at the locations with the lowest temperature differences. It gives guidelines for exchanger
shifting, the minimisation of the number of tie-ins and for stream splitting.
The new methods were effectively applied to two example cases, a simplified crude preheat train and
an aromatics plant network. The entire new design approach for the conceptual network design phase,
including the new analysis and design methods, was demonstrated with an industrial C2 C3 C4 -
separation section case study. The new design methods were found effective to identify an optimum
saving scope and various independent simple retrofit options.
The results of the research meet most of the aforementioned three research objectives. The review of
the general HEN design problem is found to be a useful reference to determine a case specific problem
vii
definition with relevant design variables and criteria. The combination of this design problem review
and the newly developed design framework gives a solid basis for the appraisal of the available
literature on analysis and design methods. The new structured practical conceptual analysis and design
method has proven suitable for general use, given its effectivity for a number of typical case studies.
viii
Contents ix
Contents
Summary v
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Energy Conservation Incentives 2
1.2 Systematic Design Methods 4
1.3 Advances in Heat Exchanger Design and Equipment 11
1.4 Scientific Challenges 13
1.5 Research Objectives 14
1.6 Thesis Content and Set-up 16
2 The Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit Design Problem 21

2.1 Introduction 22
2.2 The Heat Exchanger Network Design Problem 22
2.3 Heat Transfer Fundamentals 26
2.4 Design Variables and Dependencies 31
2.5 Retrofit Design 40
2.6 Design Criteria 47
2.7 Applied Problem Definition 52
3 New Framework for Basic Retrofit Design 55

3.1 Introduction 56
3.2 Existing Design Approaches 57
3.3 New Retrofit Design Framework 61
3.4 Detailed Scope Definition of the Conceptual Network Design Phase in Retrofit 66
4 Network Performance Analysis 73

4.1 Introduction 75
4.2 Structure Visualisations 76
4.3 Composite and Driving Force Plots 78
4.4 Economic and Ecological Performance 86
4.5 Efficiency Numbers 91
4.6 Method Evaluation 97
5 Targeting Method Review 101

5.1 Introduction 102
5.2 Overview of Existing Methods 104
5.3 Basic Grassroots Targeting Methods 110
5.4 Retrofit Targeting Methods 118
5.5 Target Optimisation 120
5.6 Evaluation 122
x Contents
6 Retrofit Targeting with Integrity Zones and Multiple Utilities 131

6.2 Retrofit Structural Targeting 133
6.3 Retrofit Targeting with Multiple Utilities 146
6.4 Case Study: Aromatics Case 153
7 Conceptual Retrofit Design Method Review 159

7.2 Existing Methods Overview 161
7.3 Grassroots-based Retrofit Design Methods 166
7.4 Design Methods Based on Retrofit Targets 166
7.5 Evolutionary Network Screening Methods 168
7.6 Mathematical Optimisation Methods 170
7.7 Evaluation of the Existing Design Methods 173
8 Retrofit Design with Alternative Exchanger Types 181

8.2 Example Problem 183
8.3 Network Design Guidelines 185
8.4 Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure for Refined Network Design 197
8.5 Example Case: Simplified Crude Preheating Train 201
9 Case Study 215

9.2 Design Basis 216
9.3 Target Stage 218
9.4 Preliminary Design Stage 221
9.5 Refined Network Design Stage 227
9.6 Evaluation 232
10 Evaluation: Results and Prospects 235

10.1 Evaluation Based on Research Questions 236
10.2 New Method Evaluation 242
10.3 Evaluation Research Work Approach 244
10.4 Conclusion 247
10.5 Further Research 249
11 Literature 253
12 Nomenclature 271
Contents xi
Appendix A Summary of Assumptions and Limitations 277
Appendix B Glossary 281
Appendix C Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves 287
Appendix D Cross-reference Design and Review Variables 291
Appendix E Saving on Investment Relation 293
Appendix F Effect of Thermal Shifting and Splitting on FT 303
Appendix G PHITS Targeting and Analysis Software 309
Appendix H Case Details 317
Samenvatting 333
Dankwoord (Acknowledgement) 337
Curriculum Vitae 339

xii
Introduction 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
This introductory chapter gives the context of the research in this thesis.
It first describes the main trends in society and industries to reduce the
use of energy resources. Next, it gives a brief overview of the main
developments in process synthesis in general and heat exchanger
network synthesis in particular. Additionally, it outlines the advances in
the heat exchanger equipment available. Finally, it gives the relevance,
the research objectives and the set-up for this thesis.
2 Chapter 1
1.1 Energy Conservation Incentives
Energy conservation has been an important topic for the society as a whole and for industries in par-
ticular since the early seventies. The first incentive was the availability and cost of energy resources
both on the short and on the long term. Currently, the high energy costs are again an important driver,
but additionally energy conservation is pushed by the demand for a reduction of carbon dioxide
emissions. These emissions are mainly due to the use of fossil energy sources. There is growing
evidence that an increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere causes enhanced global warming
(International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), 2007). To mitigate this global warming, carbon
dioxide emissions have to be reduced substantially, which requires a reduction of the use of fossil
energy resources. Alternatively, special techniques can be applied, like carbon dioxide capturing, that
will further boost the energy costs. The alarming scientific reports of the potential consequences
(IPCC, 2007) and campaigns to change the public opinion by personalities like Gore (2006), supported
by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize 2007 to both the IPCC and Gore, have recently pushed the
worldwide political willingness to invest in this emission reduction. Many governments, including the
Dutch and the European Union, have set ambitious commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
They will force their citizens and home industries in near future to increase their efforts and
investments to meet these commitments.
Process industries, that are traditionally very energy

demanding, will have to contribute substantially to
such a demand for emission reduction. In the past
the Dutch government have agreed covenants with ECONOMY
& ECOLOGY
industries to reduce their emissions and save on use CHANGES
of fossil energy resources. New covenants,
encouraging measures and controlling laws will be
ES IGN & C
necessary to meet the European Union commitment ,D
IS
O
S
NT
to reduce the carbon dioxide emission by 20% in

ANA LY
RO L
2020 compared to 1990 (Council of the European PLANT
Union, 2007). It will require substantial investments

to apply state-of-the art technology where possible. PROCESS EQUIPMENT
ADVANCES ADVANCES
Additionally, further research is necessary to find
and develop new ways to increase the energy
efficiency of processes. These include enhanced
analysis, design and control techniques, new process
Figure 1 Drivers for plant performance
routes and enhanced equipment, Figure 1. improvement
Obviously, industries will continue their business and aim at maximum profitability with the lowest
total cost of ownership. Any investment has to pay off and should not undermine the competitiveness.
Increased energy efficiency reduces the operating costs but often at the expense of additional capital
costs. The willingness to invest in energy efficiency will increase with higher energy costs, increased
energy taxes, less secure energy availability and client or public opinion demand. Investments that will
reduce the cost per unit product can generally be justified. Investments that give no or little reduction
of cost per unit product are only viable when the less efficient alternative is abandoned by
governmental restrictions or when energy efficiency coincides with other product improvements.
Introduction 3
Anyway, it is necessary to find the most efficient investments to get the desired reduced energy
consumption, to meet the requirements both for individual companies and for the long term future of
society as a whole.
Opportunities to reduce the energy demand of an industrial plant exist throughout the lifetime of such
plant (Grant, 2005, Bakker, 2004). Most cost-effective is energy efficiency enhancement during the
grassroots design of the plant. The sooner energy efficiency is addressed during the initial design the
lower the associated costs. Unfortunately, resource, knowledge, schedule and cost constraints together
with design conservatism and conflicting requirements, generally limit the actual energy efficiency of
the new plant. Once built, plant experience, changed markets and regulations and new technologies
drive plant improvements and open opportunities to reduce the energy demand or at least the demand
per unit product. There are three alternatives to get a better energy efficiency: improve plant operation,
adapt the plant (retrofit) or replace it by a new plant, Figure 2.
New Plant
Retrofit New
Processing
Unit
Site Integration
Saving
(Utilities, Heat & Power)
Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit

Equipment Items Retrofit or Replacement
Operation
Improved
Improved Control
Energy Management
Investment
Figure 2 Schematic overview of the relative saving scope and relative investment for various plant
improvement options
The first option, improved operation, relates to good energy management and adequate plant control.
Energy management is the systematic monitoring and control of energy flows in the plant. It is
essentially a combination of attention to the issue, insight in the process and proper information for
and training of the operators. Adequate plant control requires good control algorithms and tuning
together with adequate measurements and controllers. For both good energy management and
adequate control, the required investments are low but the revenues can be large in some cases. The
second option, retrofit of the plant, allows a further reduction of the energy consumption by changing
the hardware of the plant. This can range from local equipment changes to full replacement of a
processing unit. The cost of such adaptations are, generally, considerably high. Apart from the
purchase of new equipment and the construction, also the loss of production to incorporate the plant
modification contributes substantially to the cost of plant retrofit. The revenues must justify these
expenses and thus the projects must carefully be selected. The third option, a new plant, is the most
radical one. It has the advantage of allowing all opportunities that exist in grassroots design, but makes
the existing investments worthless. On the other hand, production loss is generally limited with this
option. Generally, plant or processing unit replacement is not economically feasible with the energy
4 Chapter 1
conservation incentive only, but it may be a feasible option in case of a capacity increase or a product
quality improvement.
Both in new and retrofit design, progress is made in finding less energy demanding alternatives due to
new design methods and the availability of new equipment. New design methods allow a more
systematic generation and evaluation of alternatives. Much work on design methods is reported as
part of Process Systems Engineering or Process Synthesis (Grossmann and Westerberg, 2000,
Westerberg, 2004), but especially literature about energy efficiency is also labelled as Process
Integration or Heat Integration (Dunn and El-Halwagi, 2003). Impressive progress in design methods
for more energy efficient processes has been made especially in the last two decades of the twentieth
century, as can be seen in the overview in the next section. Most methods deal, however, with
grassroots design. The progress in retrofit design is also significant, but the scientific interest for this
topic is limited compared to its industrial relevance, as many projects in industries are retrofit projects
(Westerberg, 2004). Despite all progress, the application of systematic design methods in everyday’s
engineering practice is limited (Barnicki and Siirola, 2004). The complexity of many design problems
and most design methods require expertise and development time, that is often not available
(Butterworth, 2004). Instead of inventing a new design, engineers tend to select the best-fit-of-the-
shelf solution. For retrofit this practice is less applicable and engineers are forced to elaborate a tailor-
made solution. Simple systematic retrofit design methods still need to be developed to facilitate this
labourious task.
New equipment can make new operations technically or economically feasible. The next section also
shows some trends in the development of heat exchanging equipment, like compact and compact
multi-stream heat exchangers. Most enhanced equipment is designed for special purposes, but in the
past decade wider application and new designs have been investigated especially in the research area
of Process Intensification (Stankiewicz and Moulijn, 2004). Process design methods have two roles in
the introduction of new equipment (after Bakker, 2004). Initially, fundamental process design methods
may identify some desired features of new equipment that is still to be designed. It can show the
(economical) scope of the availability of a specific operation. New equipment can be developed for
that operation, if this scope is sufficiently attractive. Secondly, process design methods can identify
new opportunities for available (new) equipment in specific process design problems.
1.2 Systematic Design Methods
1.2.1 General Process Design Methods

Research on systematic process design or process synthesis investigates new process design methods
to integrate processing units and processing tasks and their applications. Since its foundation in the
1960s (eg. Rudd and Watson, 1968), it has become an important area in process engineering. Reviews
of the total field of process synthesis have been published by, among others, Nishida et al. (1981),
Gundersen (1991) and Westerberg (2004). The fundamentals are well described in text books by
Douglas (1988), Biegler, Grossmann and Westerberg (1997), Turton et al. (2003), Seider et al. (2004)
and Smith (2005).
Process Synthesis literature describes five main topics as shown in Table 1 (after Nishida et al., 1981
and Westerberg, 2004) or combinations thereof. Each topic is briefly described below.
Introduction 5
Table 1 Main topics of Process Synthesis

PROCESS SYNTHESIS
Object Class Model Synthesis Method Evaluation Method Work Process
• reactor paths • object • evolutionary • criteria • mental design

• separation representation • heuristic • objective process
systems • design space / • hierarchical / (see design space • information
• heat exchanger variables decomposition under Model) representation
networks - efficiency • mathematical • alternative • project
• heat & power - economy optimisation selection methods execution
systems (utility - safety • artificial • inter-discipline
systems) - flexibility intelligence work
• complete - controllability • target based
flowsheets - operability
• mass exchanger - reliability
networks - availability
• batch processes - maintenance
• control systems - uncertainty
• processing tasks - retrofit
• superstructures
• abstractions
• design space
representations
The Object Classes are the main objects that can be subject to process synthesis. These include all
main parts and functions of a processing plant. In recent literature, there is increasing focus on proc-
essing tasks to represent plant functions, defined in terms of thermodynamic and transport processes,
rather than on traditional unit operations. This allows the invention of new processing units.
Additionally, the focus shifts to smaller entities on micro (including micro-organisms) and nano scale,
also entering the area of Process Intensification (Stankiewicz and Moulijn, 2004, Bakker, 2004).
The used Model of the object is the used definition and demarcation of the design space, including the
specification of the relevant design aspects and variables considered for the object. Much work is done
to enhance process modelling and to make models more accessible (Barnicki and Siirola, 2004). Many
models have become equation-based instead of unit-based and dynamic modelling has become more
state-of-the-art with tools like Aspen HYSYS Dynamics (2007) and gPROMS (2007). Optimisation
based synthesis methods require the definition in advance of the set of all possible options, captured in
a superstructure. The definition of adequate superstructures is the key to finding good solutions
(Westerberg, 2004) and efforts are ongoing to define better ones in terms of captured solutions,
captured details and easiness to solve. On the other hand, there are efforts to capture the key aspects of
the design problem in understandable abstractions and (graphical) representations, that facilitate the
designer to understand and explore the design space. These include the construction of attainable
regions in reaction path analysis (Feinberg, 2002) and residue curve maps in separation analysis
(Siirola, 1996).
The Synthesis Method is the third topic of Process Synthesis (Table 1). It is the actual method to
generate design alternatives systematically. The synthesis methods can be divided in six classes (after
Nishida et al. 1981 and Gundersen, 1990):
6 Chapter 1
• Evolutionary methods: a step-wise modification of a previously synthesised design leading to an

improved design.
• Heuristic methods: generate new alternatives using rules from common sense and experience.
• Decomposition or hierarchical methods: decomposition of the design into subproblems which
are simpler to solve.
• Mathematical optimisation or algorithmic methods: extract the optimal alternative from a
superstructure that includes all relevant alternatives by mathematical optimisation techniques.
This class also includes structural parameter optimisation methods, tree-search and bounding
methods and simulated annealing methods.
• Artificial intelligence methods: use knowledge that can be retrieved systematically from an
experts database.
• Target-based methods: generate designs from targets and ideal designs obtained from the
analysis and optimisation of simplifications of the design problem..
Two classes of the above-mentioned synthesis methods have especially developed during the past
decades. The target-based methods have developed from an algorithmic / evolutionary method for heat
exchanger networks, known as pinch technology, to a complete design approach (Smith, 2005). After
heuristics, this method class has become the most generally applied in industries. Mathematical
optimisation methods have developed along with the development of computing power and of more
efficient problem formulations and optimisation algorithms (Biegler et al. 1997, Biegler and
Grossmann, 2004, Westerberg, 2004). Currently, many real-size design problems can be solved on
common PC’s.
Much work is done on the interface of the synthesis method classes. Decomposition and targeting are
used to create manageable mathematical optimisation problems (Westerberg, 2004) and mathematical
optimisation is used to calculate complex targets (Briones and Kokossis, 1999a,b,c, Asante and Zhu,
1997) and to optimise parts of the design.
The Evaluation Methods, the next main topic in Process Synthesis literature, cover the specification of
criteria and objectives, the analyses to evaluate these criteria and objectives and the methods to
evaluate and select the best alternatives. For many of the design aspects and variables mentioned under
the topic Model, performance indicators have been defined to allow evaluation, both numerically and
graphically (Westerberg, 2004). Analysis and evaluation approaches have been developed to include
uncertainty, multiple base cases and multiple objectives. Additionally, there is a trend to identify
(pareto) sets of solutions rather than a single optimum.
The literature on Work Processes, the last topic mentioned in Table 1, investigates the improvement of
the design process itself taking into account the needs of the designer to perform his task (data, tools),
limited resources, project requirements, changing environments and information flow (Siirola, 1996,
Biegler et al., 1997, Westerberg, 2004, Marquardt and Nagl, 2004). Developments in this area are
generally the most visible for the average designer - the author has experienced that himself during his
work within an engineering and contracting company in the past ten years -, as these are the basis for
the developments in software available for the design of process units. Companies like Aspen Tech
(Tipton et al., 2007) and Invensys SimSci-Esscor nowadays have application suites with an integrated
environment to do process synthesis, simulation, detailed equipment design, Piping and
Instrumentation Diagram development and information and document control. Information standards
Introduction 7
like Cape Open allow applications to share information and models. Graphical interfaces try to guide
the designer through the overwhelming number of possibilities. IT developments enable to easily
share information with colleagues and other disciplines in-house and at the other side of the world.
Meanwhile, the designer can access from his desk more information than ever before.
1.2.2 Retrofit Design Methods

The previous section mentions retrofit design as a special class of process design. Actually, retrofit
design, the redesign of existing installations to incorporate new technology or equipment to meet
revised performance requirements as opposed to new or grassroots design, is a very important class.
The major part of the design work in Western Europe and Northern America is related to plant retrofit
(Barnicki and Siirola, 2004). Retrofit is a special design class with specific options (Figure 2) and
numerous constraints. Grossmann et al. (1987) and Gundersen (1990) published general reviews on
retrofit process design, including clear description of the retrofit design problem.
The mentioned reviews list a number of reasons to retrofit a plant:

• Increase throughput (debottlenecking);
• Process a new feedstock or make a new product;
• Improve product quality;
• Reduce the energy consumption (energy saving retrofit);
• Implement a new technology;
• Improve process safety or reduce environmental impact;
• Improve process operability, controllability, flexibility or maintenance.
Both reviews stress the differences between retrofit and grassroots design:
• Grassroots design can much easier be divided in conceptual phase and detailed phase. In the
conceptual phase equipment details generally can be ignored. In retrofit design it is often very
hard to make this decomposition as the existing equipment must be taken into account in any
stage of design.
• In grassroots design, many design alternatives generally exist near an optimal design that have
similar economics. In retrofit, this is often not the case, as the existing equipment must be
reused as much as possible and structural modification tend to raise the costs very rapidly.
• Detailed rating models are required in retrofit to test the performance of the existing equipment,
especially when the new operating conditions of that equipment will be rather different.
• Retrofit design generally has to take into account specific constraints such as space limitations
within the plant that does not allow new equipment to be installed.
It is remarkable that after the mentioned two reviews no new review on general retrofit design is pub-
lished. Recent general reviews on process synthesis (Westerberg, 2004, Barnicki and Siirola, 2004)
just mention the importance of retrofit, as many projects are retrofit, but fail to give a review of devel-
opments. General text books on process systems design treat retrofit in a similar way, if mentioned at
all. There is a significant imbalance between the importance of the topic and the research reported.
A quick exploration of the recent work in the field, shows that the core of publications on retrofit
design report case studies and no generally applicable methods. The literature on heat exchanger
networks does include some retrofit design methods. These are discussed in the next section.
8 Chapter 1
1.2.3 Methods for Heat Exchanger Network Design

Heat exchanger network design is a major class within process synthesis. It is one of the shells of the
onion model of process design used by Smith (2005) and Linnhoff et al. (1994), see Figure 3. The heat
exchanger network balances the heat deficits
(sinks) and surpluses (sources) within the
process with the efficient use of utilities as
external heating and cooling resources. Prior to
heat exchanger network design the heat and
Reactor mass balances of the process need to be fixed.
This requires determination of the reaction
units, the separations and the recycles. It is
Separation and
Recycle System mainly executed before the design of the
utilities systems, but there is a strong
Heat Recovery System dependency with these systems. Quite often the
design of the heat exchanger network and the
Heating and Cooling related utility systems is combined. The basics
Utility System
of heat exchanger network design is well
Water and Effluent described in a number of text books, including
Treatment System Smith (2005), Kemp (2007) and Shenoy (1995).
A very complete description is also available
Figure 3 Onion diagram for process design
decomposition from Smith (2005)
from Gundersen (2000).
The literature on heat exchanger networks is massive. An annotated bibliography by Furman and
Sahinidis (2002), covering the literature of the 20th century, contains 461 references. From 2000 to
2006 the Web of Science reports about 240 more references. The mentioned review gives some
classification of the publications, but lacks a thorough review of the state-of-the-art. For such a review
we have to go back to the reviews by Gundersen and Naess (1988) and by Jezowski (1994a,b).
Heat exchanger network methods are mainly target-based or use mathematical optimisation.
The target-based design methods use the concepts of (grand) composite curves and heat recovery
pinch points as introduced by Hohmann (1971), Umeda et al. (1979) and Linnhoff and coworkers
(Linnhoff and Flower, 1978a). Their simplification of the second law of thermodynamics analysis and
the related graphical presentations pushed systematic heat exchanger network design into industrial
practice (Dunn and El-Halwagi, 2003). The initially used minimum utility and minimum number of
units targets have been extended with targets for minimum transfer area and total network cost
(Ahmad and Linnhoff, 1984). These targets enabled trading off network cost and operating (utility)
cost prior to heat exchanger network design, referred to as supertargeting.
The first mathematical formulation of the heat exchanger network design problem for mathematical
optimisation was given by Masso and Rudd (1969). Since this publication numerous more extended
nd more efficient models have been published. Key contributions are from Cerda et al. (1983), Cerda
and Westerberg (1983), Papoulias and Grossmann (1983) for the optimisation of utilities and number
of heat transfer units and from Floudas et al. (1986), Floudas and Ciric (1989), Ciric and Floudas
(1991), Yee and Grossmann (1990) and Yee et al. (1990) for full heat exchanger network synthesis.
Introduction 9
Table 2 Selected references for special issues in grassroots heat exchanger network design with focus
on the literature after 2000. See Furman and Sahinidis (2002) for a complete bibliography of the
literature on various topics until the year 2000.
Special Issue References
Reactors Kravanja and Glavic, 1989
Distillation Columns Linnhoff et al. 1983, Smith and Linnhoff, 1988
Furnaces Hall and Linnhoff, 1994, Jegla et al. 2000
Heat Engines, Heat Pumps Kravanja and Glavic, 1989, Linnhoff and Dhole, 1992a,b, Fonyo and
and Refrigeration Systems Benko, 1996, Gomes and Wolf Maciel, 1996, Kimura and Zhu, 2000
Evaporator Systems Urbaniec et al., 2000
Process Changes Linnhoff et al., 1988
Optimal Operation Glemmestad et al., 1999
Operational Flexibility Kotjabasakis and Linnhoff 1986, 1988, Cerda et al. 1990, Cerda and
Galli, 1990, and Galli and Cerda, 1991, Papelexandri and
Pistikopoulos, 1993a,b, 1994a,b,c, Tantimuratha and Kokossis, 2004,
Verheyen and Zhang, 2006, Picón-Núñez and Polley, 1995,
Bochenek and Jezowski, 1999
Controllability or Saboo et al. 1986a,b, Colberg and Morari, 1988, Yan et al, 2001
Resilience
Detailed Exchanger Design Polley and Linnhoff, 1988, Polley and Panjeh Shahi 1991 and 1996,
Mizutani et al., 2003a,b, Ravagnani et al., 2003
Different Exchanger Types Ahmad et al, 1990, Hall et al. 1990, Polley and Haslego, 2002a,b,
Pua and Zhu, 2002, Sorsak and Kravanja, 2002a,b, 2004, Stehlik and
Wadekar, 2002, Wang and Sunden, 2000
Multi-Stream Heat Yee et al. 1990, Wang and Sunden, 2001, Picón-Núñez et al. 2002
Exchangers and 2006
Pressure Drop Constraints Panjeh Shahi, 1992, Panjeh Shahi and Khoshgard, 2006, Nie and
Zhu, 1999, Frausto-Hernandez et al. 2002, Picón-Núñez et al. 2006
Heat Transfer Polley et al. 1992, 1994, Nie and Zhu, 1999, Zhu et al. 2000,
Enhancement Zimparov, 2002
Heat Exchanger Fouling Fryer et al. 1987, Kotjabasakis and Linnhoff, 1987, Wilson et al.
2002, Polley et al., 2005, Yeap et al, 2004, 2005
Generic Constraints Ahmad and Hui, 1991
(Safety, Operation, Etc.)
10 Chapter 1
Since the foundation of the basic approaches in both method groups, much work is published on more
extended design objects, other design objectives and special design considerations similar to the ones
mentioned for general process synthesis given in Table 1. The main developments with selected
references are given in Table 2.
The retrofit of heat exchanger networks has been subject of publications since the work of Tjoe and
Linnhoff (1984 and 1986), who provided retrofit design targets, network analysis tools and a
modification strategy for energy saving retrofits. Ahmad and Polley (1990) extended this work to the
debottlenecking (capacity increase) case and Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1990) and Polley et al. (1990)
to take into account pressure drop constraints. Asante and Zhu (1996 and 1997) introduced the concept
of network pinch and a linear programming approach to find options to modify the network structure
to increase the heat recovery potential. Since then, a number of extensions and applications of this
method have been reported.
The first mathematical formulation of the heat exchanger network retrofit problem is published by Yee
and Grossmann (1987 and 1991) and Ciric and Floudas (1990a,b). These formulations have been
extended and revised, in a similar way the grassroots formulations have developed, to include special
issues like special exchanger types, heat transfer enhancements and the retrofit of multi-stream
exchangers (Bulatov, 2005). The number of publications is however much more limited than for
grassroots design. A complete overview of the retrofit design methods for heat exchanger networks is
given in Chapter 7, whereas targeting methods that support retrofit design are reviewed in Chapter 5.
Exergy is an important concept in thermodynamics to qualify the usefulness of heat and is also used to
improve process design, often referred to as second-law analysis, thermo-economics (El Said, 2003
and Valery et al. 2006) or exergo-economics (Sciubba, 2005). The pinch based analyses mentioned
above are essentially simplifications of the exergy concept, that covers the principal quality
component (temperature) for heat exchanger networks. Exergy has been used for the design of heat
exchanger networks (Sama, 1995a,b and 1996, Sciubba et al. 1999), but these applications seem rather
academic, as there is hardly any added value compared to the much easier pinch-based methods. Most
literature on thermo- or exergo-economics covers the design of entire processes including the heat
exchanger network. Especially reported is the design of the heat exchanger network in relation to
separation system design (eg. Taprap and Ishida, 1996) and heat and power system design (eg. Feng
and Zhu, 1997, and Kimura and Zhu, 2000). For the latter a pinch-like approach is also available that
uses the Carnot factor instead of temperature in (grand) composite curve plots (eg. Dhole and
Linnhoff, 1993b and Staine and Favrat, 1996).
Introduction 11
1.3 Advances in Heat Exchanger Design and Equipment
1.3.1 Heat Exchanger Design

The advent of still growing personal computer power has dramatically changed the heat exchanger
design process (Butterworth, 2004). The main software packages in the field from HTRI, HTFS and
BJac give easy access to generally accepted models for shell-and-tube heat exchangers that can be
used for design and optimisation. More special features for common exchangers and more exchanger
types have come available in these tools. Additionally, some vendors of special heat exchange
equipment, like Alfa Laval, have made available their models for heat exchanger design through
special software, to allow independent designers to explore the possibilities of these exchangers. The
interface between the heat exchanger design packages and process simulation software is also
significantly improved and even allow to include the exchanger design and rating models seamlessly
in any process simulation. If the above-mentioned generic design packages are insufficient, designs
can be checked and optimised using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis. Besides, better
models to estimate fouling have come available, that allow - though still to a limited extent - a
reduction of the generally applied design margins on transfer area.
As a consequence, heat exchanger design can be better fit for purpose nowadays and the performance
of existing equipment and designs can be estimated more accurately. General applicable design
margins can (partly) be replaced by specific performance checks for all relevant design cases.
Generally, this will make the equipment cheaper and the design more reliable.
1.3.2 Heat Exchange Equipment

The shell-and-tube exchanger is by far the most applied exchanger type in the process industry.
Despite the many alternatives, this type is still the most selected one for new equipment (Reay, 1994,
Butterworth, 2004). The design of shell-and-tube exchangers is well described in general text books
like Kakaç and Liu (2002).
New features have come available for shell-and-tube exchangers in the past decades, mainly to
enhance the heat transfer capacity and to reduce the fouling tendency. These new features include the
helical baffles, marketed as Helixchangers (Master et al. 2006), tube enhancements like Twisted Tubes
(Zimparov, 2002) and the application of tube inserts like HiTran (Polley, 1993 and Zimparov and
Penchev, 2006).
There are many advanced types of exchangers as alternatives to shell-and-tube exchangers. Most of
these types are initially developed for special applications, but their applicability is steadily extended.
Table 3 shows the main, more generally applicable exchanger types with available specialties, the
maximum allowable operating conditions and some size characteristics, based on Hewitt (1992), Reay
(1994), Shah and Mueller (2000), Wadekar (2000), Hesselgreaves (2001) and Thonon and Tochon
(2004). Note that exchangers for special applications like air coolers and fired heaters are excluded.
In literature, there is special interest for compact heat exchangers, a special exchanger class that
includes all exchangers with an area density above 700 m2/m3 (Reay, 1994). Reay (1994) summarized
the main advantages and limitations of these compact heat exchangers, see Table 4. The high area
Table 3 Overview of the main available exchanger types for general application in process industries
Type Description Specialties Operating Condition Size Characteristic
shell-and-tube commonly applied may be enhanced with finned tubes and special <1000 bar <100 m2/m3
baffles or tube can be equipped with tube <800°C
inserts; varieties for all kind of applications
available
tube-fin tubes with in- and/or external fins common for clean two-phase application not reported <3300 m2/m3
plate-and-frame pack of corrugated metal plates hold easy to clean < 25 bar < 2500 m2
together by a frame and sealed by easy to extend -25 to 175C 100 - 800 m2/m3
gaskets. The plates have holes for the only mild conditions
in- and output of the exchanging limited multi-stream ability
streams
welded plate like plate-and-frame are assembled by wider range of operating condition than plate- < 300 bar > 1000 m2
welding and-frame -200C to 900C 100 - 800 m2/m3
many different types available also not possible to disassemble for cleaning
partially welded and plate-in-shell configuration if fixed (not extendable)
plate-fin crimped or corrugated finned plates low ǻT possible < 100 bar; -273 to 150C (Al) < 9 m3
sandwiched between flat metal multi-stream ability < 200 bar;-273 to 650C (stainless < 5900 m2/m3
separator plates high heat-transfer surface density steel)
< 4 bar, <1300 °C (ceramic)
matrix stacked perforated plates, diffusion like plate-fin but easier to make in stainless < 1000 bar like plate-fin
bonded steel < 800°C
micro-channel/ assembled plates in which flow- high heat-transfer surface densities < 1000 bar < 1000 m2
printed-circuit channels are chemically etched extreme conditions possible -200C to 900C 1000-5000 m2/m3
hard to clean (stainless steel)
spiral-plate plates wrapped to form concentric low fouling but cleaning may be difficult < 30 bar < 500 m2
spiral passages; fluids flow from and < 400C
towards the centre to give a counter-
current flow; different types are used
for condensers and evaporators.
Introduction 13
density compared to normal shell-and-tube exchangers (< 100 m2/m3), the large amount of area that
can be in a single unit (up to 10,000 m2, compared to generally much less than 1000 m2 for shell-and-
tube exchangers) and the ability to integrate more than two streams allow a different way of heat
exchanger and process design, that fits within the process intensification research area (Thonon and
Tochon, 2004). The resulting advantages make compact heat exchangers an interesting alternative,
especially in case of retrofit, where space and weight limitations can be an issue.
Table 4 Advantages and limitations of compact heat exchangers after Reay (1994)
Advantages
smaller volume lower weight and cost and less space requirements
multi-stream and multi-pass possible less space requirements, less piping and lower pressure drops
improved effectiveness lower approach temperature allowed
tighter temperature control better quality control for temperature dependent flows
less hold-up improved safety, less product loss, lower chemicals use in case of
chemical cleaning
Limitations
limited choice/application range often restricted to special applications
not too well-proven conservative industries use proven solutions
fouling concern apply to clean fluids only or take special precautions/designs
1.4 Scientific Challenges
The developments in society and science outlined in the previous sections show the increasing
importance of energy saving to reduce operating costs and fight the worldwide threat of climate
change. The recently set target savings are high and require exploration of all available options and
development of new techniques. In the developed countries much of these savings must be realised in
existing installations. Saving options that were economically unattractive before, like most energy
saving retrofits, will also become more relevant.
Retrofit design, including heat exchanger network retrofit design, will thus become more important
and design methods must be extended to exploit systematically the potential of technological advances
like the ones in heat exchanger design.
Essential for proper systematic design is a clear description of the design problem. Ignorance of
relevant aspects is a clear handicap for design (Westerberg, 2004). No clear description of the heat
exchanger network retrofit design problem is available in literature. Various important aspects have
been mentioned, distributed over many publications, that had been ignored before. It is difficult to get
a clear picture of the design problem from these publications. Both scientific and practical design work
will gain transparency, if derived from a general all-inclusive problem definition. For research, it will
be easier to demarcate the design space and to set the limitations. For practical design, there will be
less risk of overlooking important design variables, constraints and opportunities.
14 Chapter 1
There is a large number of analysis and design methods in literature that can be applied to heat
exchanger network retrofit. There is, however, no independent overview of these methods and the way
they relate to each other. Consequently, it is difficult to determine what methods are applicable for
specific heat exchanger network retrofit tasks and which one will be the most appropriate to use. A
good overview can facilitate this method selection and additionally may identify potential need for
new methods.
Heat exchanger network retrofit with different exchanger types, including advanced heat exchangers,
has been subject of a few publications in the past decades. An overview will be given later in this
thesis. All publications present a mathematical model that can be optimised to get the highest saving
or the best economy. The retrofit of multi-stream heat exchangers is described in one publication
(Bulatov, 2005). This is also a mathematical model, which allows the determination of the most
optimal extension of an existing multi-stream heat exchanger. These methods are useful as they allow
exploration of the potential of different heat exchanger types and make the methods more generally
applicable. They fail, however, to give insight in the way the advantages of various exchanger types
are best exploited and how this would affect the heat exchanger network design. Bulatov (2005) does
not address the use of new multi-stream heat exchangers in retrofit. No other publications are known
that address this topic.
The methods for heat exchanger network retrofit with equal exchanger type for all heat exchangers
have significantly been improved and extended since the start of the research of this thesis. It is
remarkable that all recent methods rely to some extent on the optimisation of a mathematical network
model. Unfortunately, even the simplest approach, that uses a set of linear (LP) models developed by
Zhu and coworkers (Asante and Zhu, 1996 and 1997) are sometimes cumbersome to use as reported
by Phipps and Hoadley (2003) and as experienced during the research of this thesis. Design methods
with more complex models are likely to be more cumbersome to use, especially when applied to
industrial design problems. As mentioned in Section 1.2.2, industrial retrofit design problems
generally have to meet specific constraints and the original designs generally contain specific
particularities that must be taken into account as well. Retrofit design methods must be sufficiently
flexible to accommodate the requirements of specific cases. Existing methods apparently provide
insufficient flexibility or their adaptation requires too much expertise and access to customizable tools,
that are not available.
1.5 Research Objectives
The previous section shows a need for additional research on the energy saving retrofit of heat
exchanger networks to make it easier to execute such a retrofit for a process engineer in a common
working environment with limited resources and expertise. Besides, additional research is necessary to
understand and exploit the opportunities provided by currently available advanced, compact and multi-
stream heat exchangers to increase the energy saving. Based on these needs three main objectives have
been defined for this thesis:
Introduction 15
Objective 1
Get a clear definition of the design space of the energy saving retrofit design problem, i.e. a
definition of all relevant design issues and design variables and their relations, based on a
structured analysis.
The related research questions are:

Question 1a: What design variables and criteria are useful to represent relevant design issues?
Question 1b: What level of detail is necessary in conceptual network retrofit design to include all
design issues and design variables that are relevant in this design stage?
Question 1c: Can we use the definition of the design space as a useful basis to clearly define
actual heat exchanger network retrofit design problems?
Objective 2
Get a structured overview of the available analysis and design methods for the retrofit of heat
exchanger networks.

Question 2a: Can we define a unified framework to fit in the analysis and design methods for
heat exchanger network retrofit?
Question 2b: What blank areas exist in current analysis and design methods?
Question 2c: Can we define a recommended practice for the use of heat exchanger network
retrofit analysis and design methods?
Objective 3
Develop a practical conceptual analysis and design method to do energy saving retrofit of heat
exchanger networks and to allow exploitation of the properties of different exchanger types.
‘A practical method’ we define as a method that allows a process engineer to handle in a controlled
way design problems with practical size and practical complexity, as identified in the structured
analysis of the design problem (Objective 1), and that takes into account the common working
environment of a process engineer with limited access to data and limited resources.

Question 3a: Can we systematically define and effectively incorporate all relevant design issues
(refer to Objective 1 and Question 1a)?
Question 3b: Is it possible to set up a practical method that is sufficiently controllable, flexible
and simple also for common industrial problems?
Question 3c: Can we define general application rules for various exchanger types in retrofit to
make best use of the advantages of each type?
Question 3d: Can we effectively adapt the network retrofit design to exploit the advantages of
advanced (compact) two- and multi-stream heat exchangers?
16 Chapter 1
1.6 Thesis Content and Set-up
1.6.1 Overview of Research Activities

Part of the research questions, posed in the previous section have been subject of some early design
studies (van Reisen, 1994, van Reisen and Verheijen, 1996). The main focus of this study was the
application of compact multi-stream heat exchangers in the energy saving retrofit design of heat
exchanger networks. This study was initiated and supported by the Netherlands Advanced Heat
Exchanger knowledge network (NLAHX) and the Dutch Society for Energy and Environment
(NOVEM, currently known as SenterNovem) and also executed at the Delft University of Technology.
After this study the focus of the research has been changed to energy saving retrofit of heat exchanger
networks in general and especially to the application of different types of heat exchangers including
compact two- and multi-stream exchangers. During additional case studies, partially reported in van
Reisen and Verheijen (1996), some extensive literature surveys and 10 years work as process engineer
in an engineering and contracting company, the knowledge and experience was gained to get answers
to the posed research questions.
The work on the first two objectives described in the previous section is mainly based on an extensive
literature survey. For this survey there have been three main sources: the Chemical Abstract
(SciFinder) and the Compendex databases and the Web of Science. The literature until March 2007
that was available from the library of the Delft University of Technology has been included in this
work. Part of it has been reviewed in this chapter. Other relevant parts will be reviewed in the
subsequent chapters, as outlined in the thesis set-up description below. The literature survey has
focussed on pinch-based and mathematical optimisation methods, as they are well-established for the
analysis and design of heat exchanger networks. An overview of other limitations set on the research
and this thesis is given in Appendix A.
Apart from the literature survey, the research is mainly based on a number of simple literature cases
and three industrial cases, two of them extracted from running plants. One of these industrial cases is
included in this thesis. The other case from a running plant was only useful as a learning case for this
thesis, as the significant savings were only possible by process modifications, which have been
excluded from the final scope of this thesis. For the third industrial case only limited data was
available and therefore this case was also used as a learning case only.
A heat exchanger network analysis computer program has been developed to support the research and
the case studies. This program, called PHITS, has been written in Object Pascal as available initially in
Borland Pascal and later in Borland Delphi and Turbo Delphi, see Appendix G. Besides, the various
versions of the heat exchanger analysis and design software from AspenTech have been available for
the research. The latest version used is AspenPinch Version 10.2.
1.6.2 Set-up of Thesis

Overall Set-up
The research work for this thesis started with the elaboration of case studies and the exploration of the
possible advantages of advanced heat exchangers. This resulted in a new retrofit design method . Later
this evolved to a survey of the available analysis and design methods. Finally, the research focussed on
Introduction 17
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Context, Objectives, Research Questions
CHAPTER 2
Design Problem
Exploration and Definition
New concise description
Definition of Objects CHAPTER 4
Variables Network Performance
Relations Analysis
Criteria Method Review
Method Selection
New Method: Section 4.3.6
CHAPTER 3
Design Approach
New Retrofit Design
Approach
Conceptual Design Stages:
- Target
- Preliminary
- Refined
- Final
CHAPTER 5
Targeting Methods
Grassroots and Retrofit CHAPTER 7
Method Review
Method Selection Refined Design Methods
Method Review
CHAPTER 6 Method Selection
New Targeting Method CHAPTER 8
Background
Description New Design Method
Illustrating Case Background
Description
Illustrating Case
CHAPTER 9
Case Study
CHAPTER 10
Evaluation and Conclusion
Evaluate Reviews, New Developments, Research Questions, Objectives
Preferred Methods and Alternatives
Conclusions and Recommendations
New methodological development from thesis research

Main flow Further reading Uses information from
Figure 4 Schematic setup of the thesis with new methodological developments marked shaded.
18 Chapter 1
the elaboration of the extended definition of the heat exchanger network retrofit design problem and
the set-up of a general design framework. This thesis is structured in the reverse order, to get the set-
up of a design guide. It starts with the problem definition and subsequently elaborates the design
methodology from a high-level approach to a number of detailed design methods, Figure 4.
The research resulted in new methodological developments throughout the design process. These new
developments are presented as part of the overall design approach and they are therefore distributed
over the entire work. Figure 4 shows how different parts of the thesis are related and how the reviews
of existing methods and the new methods are organised. The heavy arrows show the route map for
reading recommended for less experienced designers and researchers, who need a guide for heat ex-
changer network retrofit design. Experts may prefer to concentrate on the new developments, shaded
in Figure 4. These parts may be read largely independently. A proper understanding of the overall
structure of the design approach will, however, be helpful to understand the set-up of the thesis and the
individual parts. Therefore, it is recommended to study Chapter 3 prior to the chapters thereafter.
Set-up per Chapter

Chapter 2 gives an extensive description of the core conceptual network design problem. It is a
systematic compilation of information from literature and own experiences combined with a new
systematic analysis and definition of the network design problem. This essentially covers Objective 1.
Chapter 2 gives the definitions of the relevant objects, design variables, their relations and the design
criteria. These are essential input for the reviews of existing methods and the development of new
methods in the subsequent chapters.
Chapter 3 is the backbone of this thesis. It gives the new basic design approach for heat exchanger
network retrofit design as a special case of a plant retrofit project. The conceptual network design
phase, which is part of that basic design approach, is elaborated in detail to get four well defined
design stages. The first two stages require targeting methods, which are subject of Chapter 5 and 6.
The third stage requires network design methods, which are subject of Chapter 7 and 8, in which these
network design methods are referred to as ‘refined’ design methods.
Chapter 3 gives a significant contribution to all three objectives. It extends the structured analysis of
the design problem with a clear split in stages (Objective 1), it gives the main structure to organise the
method reviews (Objective 2) and the high level design approach that integrates the more detailed
methods elaborated in the subsequent chapters.
Chapter 4 gives an overview of the relevant network performance analysis tools that are available in
literature (Objective 2). Additionally, it gives an introduction to the main concepts in heat exchanger
network design. These tools are used in all stages of conceptual network design. Tables and method
summaries are provided to guide method selection by a designer. Some performance analysis tools
need the results from targeting as reference values. This way Chapter 4 links to Chapter 5. One new
network performance analysis tool, developed during the research of thesis, is included in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 and 6 give the targeting methods mainly used in the first two stages of conceptual network
design. The existing methods are reviewed in Chapter 5 (Objective 2), whereas a new retrofit targeting
method is presented in Chapter 6 (Objective 3). Chapter 5 includes some method overview and
method assessment tables to guide method selection.
Introduction 19
Chapter 6 presents a new retrofit targeting method. It gives a number of guidelines that are subseq-
uently elaborated to a new targeting method. This method is illustrated by a case study from literature.
Chapter 7 and 8 give the network design methods used in the third, refined design stage of conceptual
network design. These include the methods that are commonly referred to as network design methods,
which specify conceptually the matches between streams. Chapter 7 reviews the existing methods
(Objective 2), whereas Chapter 8 presents a new design method (Objective 3). The set-up of Chapter 7
is the same as of Chapter 5, with similar overview tables.
Chapter 8 presents a new retrofit design method for refined network design. It presents a number of
design guidelines, which are subsequently captured in a design procedure. Also this method is
illustrated by a case study from literature.
In Chapter 9 the entire new design approach, based on the new developments, is applied to an indus-
trial case study. Chapter 10, finally, gives a discussion of the results of the research, including an
attempt to answer the research questions posed in the previous sections of this chapter, an evaluation
of the new developments, an overview of the main conclusions and recommendations for further
research.
20 Chapter 1
The Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit Design Problem 21
Chapter 2
The Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit
Design Problem
A well-defined problem is the key to successful design. This chapter
elaborates the four essential elements to get a well-defined problem
- goal, starting point, design space description and design test method -
for heat exchanger network design. It covers both the generic grassroots
and generic energy saving retrofit heat exchanger network design
problems and gives the differences between these two types of design.
The elaboration and comparison are given in a qualitative, descriptive
format. The design space is described in terms of objects and arguments
and their relations at macro (network), meso (unit) and micro (surface)
level. This results in a number of design aspects and design variables.
For the test method the possible evaluation criteria are summarised. The
generic problem defined this way is complex and requires trade offs and
evaluations of many design aspects at different detail level. Specific
cases require specific problem definitions with focus on the main issues
for that case to keep the actual design problem manageable. This chapter
gives some guidelines to get a case specific problem definition from the
generic definition. Finally, this chapter gives the specific definition of the
energy saving retrofit design problem of heat exchanger networks used
in this thesis.
22 Chapter 2
2.1 Introduction
Design cannot succeed without a clear problem definition. This definition clarifies the task(s) and
restrictions a design has to meet and allows evaluation of any proposed solution. Even a well-defined
design problem generally has numerous solutions. Also most designs can serve numerous objectives,
depending on the use of these designs. Consequently, we can only determine whether a design process
has succeeded, if we test the design with predefined test methods to predefined objectives and criteria.
Biegler et al. (1997) give four elements that are required to get a well-posed design problem:
• the design goal;
• the starting point for the design;
• a description of the design space.
• a test method to determine if the design meets the goal;
In this chapter we will elaborate these four elements for the heat exchanger network design problem.
First we will elaborate the general heat exchanger network design problem and some heat transfer
fundamentals. Next, we will elaborate the retrofit design problem, showing the differences with the
general grassroots design problem, followed by the design criteria that are required to test the design
and some guidelines to use the general problem description to setup the design problem definition for
a specific case. Finally, we will define the heat exchanger network retrofit design problem that we will
use in this thesis.
2.2 The Heat Exchanger Network Design Problem
In Chapter 1 we showed the place of heat exchanger network design in the overall process design
using the Onion Diagram, Figure 3, that gives a decomposition strategy for the entire conceptual
process design. This decomposition gives a rough demarcation of the scope of the heat exchanger
network design problem with interfaces with the core process design and the utility system. If we look
at the main specialisms that generally contribute to heat exchanger network design, Figure 5, we get a
rough demarcation of the detail of the design. Heat exchanger network design has its place between
process design and the thermal design specialisms. The process design specialism takes care of the
setup of the main elements on the process flow sheet and performs the process simulations. Often,
there is client involvement at this level. Thermal or heat exchanger design determines all details of a
heat exchanger that influence the thermal performance. The thermal design often requires involvement
of heat transfer equipment vendors, especially in case advanced heat exchangers are applied. Figure 5
shows the relation and the main information flows between the above mentioned specialisms.
We can define the goal of heat exchanger network design, based on its place in the design process
using the definition of heat exchanger network given in Section 1.2.3:
Heat exchanger network design is the conceptual design of a process system consisting of heat
exchangers to balance the heat deficits (sinks) and surplus (sources) within a process with the
efficient use of utilities as external heating and cooling resources.
Need CLIENT Solution
PROCESS
ENGINEERING
Goals
Utility Requirements
Models
Improvement Options
Stream & Utility Data
Network
System Constraints
HEAT
EXCHANGER
NETWORK
DESIGN
Exchanger Types
Type Constraints Design Basis for
Exchanger Details Heat Exchangers
Exchanger Performance
THERMAL DESIGN
VENDOR
Figure 5 Heat exchanger network design and related specialisms
Table 5 Generic grassroots heat exchanger network design problem definition

Goal: heat balance specified heat sinks and sources at minimum yearly cost
Criteria sum of yearly utility cost and annualised investment cost

heat balance
feasible heat transfer
safe and operable design
Starting Point set of hot and cold streams with

fixed source and target temperature, massflow and composition;
physical properties and heat transfer characteristics as function of temperature;
maximum pressure drop per stream.
Design Space variables and model: refer to Table 6

case specific constraints
The tables 5 and 6 give a more comprehensive elaboration of the generic heat exchanger network
design problem with the essential elements discussed in Section 2.1 above. The test method is
summarised by the criteria to be used for evaluation. Obviously, we need to specify an adequate test
for the mentioned criteria prior to design to avoid ambiguity in the design. The design space is
represented by the relevant objects and main attributes of these objects, given in Table 6. The relations
between these objects and attributes is discussed in the subsequent sections. Note, Table 5 gives the
generic design problem definition for a steady state case with a single operating case, in line with the
scope of this thesis (Appendix A). Actual cases require information about the variability of the input
and possible different operating modes including startup and shutdown as part of the starting point
24 Chapter 2
Table 6 Main objects and attributes for conceptual grassroots heat exchanger network design
Object Contains Attributes (type) Input Output
(parent) objects
Stream feed feed, product Ts , Tt , max ǻp duty

product Ts , Tt (cont), ǻp (cont) massflow ǻp
duty (cont) properties
massflow (cont) heattr. charac.
properties (cont)
heattr. charac. (disc)
Utility feed feed, product Ts , Tt , max ǻp duty

(Stream) product Ts , Tt (cont), ǻp (cont) massflow ǻp
duty (cont) properties massflow
massflow (cont) heattr. charac. annual oper cost
properties (cont)
cost (cont)
Feed/Prod location location
Match set of streams type (disc) allowable types stream included

set of utilities EMAT (cont) EMAT - Ts, Tt, massflow,
streams included (disc) duty, ǻp
utilities included (disc) utilities included
up&downstr units (disc) - Ts, Tt, massflow,
FT (cont) duty, ǻp
htc (cont) up- & downstream units
size (cont) annual oper. cost
material (disc) type
cost (cont) htc, FT , size
no. shells in series (disc) material
location (cont) investment
no. shells series
Stream split stream (disc) stream

up&downstr units (disc) up- & downstream units
split fractions (cont) split fractions
Stream stream (disc) stream

mixers up&downstr units (disc) up- & downstream units
Network set of streams see match see match see match

(Match) set of utilities topology
set of stream- stream splits/mixers
splits / mixers included
set of matches matches included
heattr. charac. = heat transfer characteristics; EMAT = Exchanger Minimum Approach Temperature;
Ts ,Tt = source , target temperature; ǻp = pressure drop; htc=heat transfer coefficient;
FT=non counter-current correction factor; disc = discrete; cont = continuous
definition. Additionally, the goal, criteria and design space definition should be adapted to include the
time dependency.
Table 6 gives the relevant objects in the first column. If appropriate a parent object is given in
brackets, eg. a utility is a stream. An object has all the attributes of its parent, thus a utility has all the
attributes specified for the stream object. The second column of the table gives the object (sets) that
are part of the object and that need to be specified to get a complete specification of the holding object,
eg. the specification of the streams and utilities that are part of a match are also part of the
specification of that match. The third column gives the attributes of the object that are relevant for
design. For each attribute the type (disc = discrete, cont = continuous) is given in brackets. In the last
two columns the input and output data for the object are given. If the attribute value is an internal
value or the output is an estimate, the item is printed italic.
A similar representation of the design space of the thermal engineer is given in Table 7. It shows how
thermal design fills in the details of the heat exchangers and what is used as input, which must be
provided by the heat exchanger network design. Note, that some estimates used in heat exchanger
network design are not used for thermal design and consistency is thus not guaranteed.
Table 7 Thermal and hydraulic design of heat exchangers

(parent) objects
Stream Ts , Tt (cont), ǻp (cont) Ts , Tt , max ǻp duty

duty (cont) massflow ǻp actual
massflow (cont) properties
properties (cont) fouling coefficient
fouling coefficient
Heat set of streams type (disc) streams included type

exchanger surface streams included (disc) - Ts , T t , material
size (cont) massflow, duty, number of shells
material (disc) max ǻp number of passes
number of shells (disc) constraints surface details
number of passes (disc) flow path details
surfaces (various) fluid side / flow path
flow paths (various) per stream
in/outlet (various) htc clean / fouled
pressure drops
area
FT , effective ǻT
sizes
investment
installation
requirements
construction details
Surface materials of surface extensions streams included wall thickness

construction (various) - properties surface extensions
- conditions
26 Chapter 2
Table 6 and 7 refer to similar objects but intentionally three different phrases are used for specific
objects: heat exchanger, match and shell. A heat exchanger is defined in this thesis as a physical piece
of equipment that contains heat transfer area and has dedicated piping to connect the heat exchanging
streams. Generally, there is a limitation on the size and the amount of heat transfer area it can have. A
match is a thermal link between a number of hot and cold streams to transfer an amount of duty. The
match size is unconstrained and results from the thermal duty requirement. A match may consist of
one or more generally identical shells. These shells are the actual heat exchangers. A match may be
split for two reasons. The required amount of transfer area may exceed the maximum allowable heat
exchanger size. Besides, multiple shells in series are required for a match with multi-pass heat
exchangers, to get a significant outlet temperature cross, i.e. a hot outlet temperature below the cold
outlet temperature. In the latter case the shells have to be installed in series.
2.3 Heat Transfer Fundamentals
In this section we review the heat transfer fundamentals that are the basis for the heat exchanger and
heat exchanger network design requirements. It is a summary of information that is generally available
in heat transfer text books like Bird et al. (2002), Sinnott (1993) and Kakaç and Liu (2002).
The relations for the heat transfer phenomena, that are relevant for the micro and meso level of the
design space, can be derived from the macroscopic energy balances known as the Bernouilli equation
(Bird et al., 2002). For the steady state heat transfer from one single phase hot stream to one single
phase cold stream with negligible contribution of radiation 1, static (gravity) and momentum changes
and without heat losses to the environment, the balances for a slab with perimeter w and length dz can
be written as follows:
dQ h = dH h (1a)
dQc = dH c (1b)
dH h = (ϕm c p (T) dT) h (2a)
dH c = (ϕm c p (T) dT)c (2b)
dQ = dQ h = dQc = h ov w ( Th − Tc ) dz (3)
in which H the stream enthalpy flow [W];
Q the duty [W];
Qm the massflow of the fluid [kg/s];
cp(T) the mass based specific heat of the fluid as a function of the temperature
[J/(kg°C)];
T the fluid temperature [°C];
h, c refer to the fluids at the hot and cold sides of the heat transfer surface;
hov the overall heat transfer coefficient for the passage through the wall [W/(m2°C)];
w the perimeter of the interface between the hot and cold streams [m];
z coordinate perpendicular to the used interface between hot and cold streams [m].
1
Radiation and static and momentum energy contributions are ignored throughout this thesis
Integration of Equation 3 over the full length of a strictly counter-current exchanger, assuming
constant specific heat and heat transfer coefficient (htot), gives the basic equation commonly used in
heat exchange calculations :
Q = h ov A ∆Tln (4)
with ǻTln the logarithmic mean temperature difference [°C] defined as
( T − Tco ) − ( T ho − Tci )
∆Tln = hi
§ ( T − Tco ) · (5)
ln ¨ hi
¨ ( T − T ) ¸¸
© ho ci ¹
Thi , Tho hot inlet and outlet temperatures [°C];
Tci , Tco cold inlet and outlet temperatures [°C];
Q transferred duty [W];
hov the overall heat transfer coefficient for the passage through the wall [W/(m2°C)];
A area of the heat transferring surface [m2].
The basic heat transfer equation (Equation 4) shows that the desired task, represented by Q and ǻTln,
must be weighted against the size of the transfer area (A) and the heat transfer coefficient (hov) that
can be realised . For new exchangers Q and ǻTln are fixed based on process requirements. The
exchanger design fixes the heat transfer coefficient and the resulting transfer area. Obviously, the size
of the transfer area is limited both from a practical point of view and when taking into account the
cost. For existing exchangers the area and generally also the heat transfer coefficients are fixed by the
existing equipment and the specified service, i.e. the connected streams and inlet temperatures. The
duty and related outlet temperatures are resulting in that case.
As explained above, the overall heat transfer coefficient, htot, is a key variable in heat exchanger
design. It represents the heat transfer capacity between two fluids that are separated by a wall. The
inverse of the heat transfer coefficient is the resistance for heat transfer that results from five
individual contributions. For an infinite plane it can be described as:
1 1 d 1
= + Fof1 + w + + Fof 2 (6).
h ov h f1 λw hf 2
The variables hf1 and hf2 are heat transfer coefficients [W/(m2°C)] that quantify the heat transfer from
the bulk of each of the fluids to the mutual surfaces of the wall. Again the inverse of the heat transfer
coefficients, shown in the equation, are the related thermal resistances. Each side of the wall has its
own fluid-to-wall coefficient, that will be referred to as the single-side heat transfer coefficient or as
the film heat transfer coefficient. The variables Fof1 and Fof2 are the fouling factors [m2°C/W] for
each side of the wall that quantify the additional resistance due to fouling that may be present between
the wall and each of the two fluids. The quotient dwȜw is the resistance of the wall itself, having a
thickness dw [m] and a heat conductivity Ȝw [W/(m°C)].
The single-side heat transfer coefficient depends on both the heat transfer properties and the flow char-
acteristics of the fluid. Their dependency is frequently described in literature and often has a form like
Nu = f (Pr, Re, µ∗ ,configuration) (7a)
which is equivalent to
28 Chapter 2
hD § c p µ ρ vD µ ·
= f ¨¨ , , ,configuration ¸¸ (7b)
λ © λ µ µw ¹
The heat transfer coefficient is represented by the dimensionless Nusselt number, Nu, and is a function
of the Prandtl number, Pr, the Reynolds number, Re, the dimensionless dynamic viscosity ratio, ȝ*,
and the surface and channel configuration. The dimensionless numbers are built from the channel
diameter D [m] and the heat conductivity Ȝ [W/(m°C)], the heat capacity cp [W/(m2°C)], the density
ȡ [kg/m3], the bulk fluid viscosity ȝ and the viscosity near the wall ȝw [Pas] of the fluid. The fluid
properties cause, for example, a much lower heat transfer coefficient for gases than for liquids. The
Reynolds number mainly determines the flow regime in single phase flow. High Reynolds numbers
give turbulent flow which gives a better heat transfer. This is, however, also affected by the nature (eg.
roughness) of the wall surface and the geometries of the flow channel and sometimes by the direction
of the flow with respect to the gravity.
For two-phase heat transfer with condensation or evaporation similar relations exist but generally
some additional properties and configuration parameters are important. For condensation and
evaporation the densities of vapour and liquid phases, the orientation towards gravity and the two-
phase flow regime are important. For evaporation also the actual temperature difference (on micro
scale) between the hot and cold streams are important as this determines the nature of the evaporation
process: nucleate boiling at high transfer coefficient for low temperature differences and film boiling
at low transfer coefficient for high temperature differences.
The Reynolds number gives a link between heat transfer and pressure drop, especially in single phase
flow. This relation is especially clear if we use the Colburn factor, j, instead of Nu (Shah and Mueller,
2000). This factor is an equivalent in heat transfer of the Fanning friction factor, f, in momentum
transfer and pressure drop relations. The Colburn factor is defined as:
2
j = St ⋅ Pr 3 (8)
h
with St the dimensionless Stanton number St =
cp ρ v
and the remaining symbols as above 2.
The relation with the Reynolds number is similar for both the Colburn factor, j, and the Fanning
friction factor, ƒ :
f = a f ⋅ Re bf (9)
bj
j = a j ⋅ Re (10)
in which aj, bj, aƒ, bƒ are constants for a range of Re and for a specific configuration of the flow
channel. Both j and ƒ decrease with Reynolds, but often in a different rate. This shows that there is a
link between the pressure drop allowed for heat transfer and the achievable heat transfer coefficient
and thus the required amount of transfer area.
The fouling factors in Equation 6 represent the additional heat transfer resistances due to fouling of the
wall. An industrial fluid is often contaminated with substances that may stick to the wall. Moreover,
some of the components of the clean fluid may be converted to such a fouling substance due to the
2
Note that Nu = St Pr Re
heat transfer process itself. The fouling layer that results from the deposition of these substances
causes an additional resistance for heat transfer. This is given by the fouling factor. The fouling layer
builds up with time and as a result the fouling factor is time-dependent. In many cases the layer
stabilises at some level and thus the fouling factor becomes a simple constant.
Apart from the single-side heat transfer coefficient, the overall heat transfer depends on the resistance
of the wall. This is determined by the thickness of the wall and the heat conductivity of the wall
material. Often the heat transfer through the wall is not a limiting factor. It may be an issue though for
some materials with a low heat conductivity, including stainless steel (Sinnott, 1993).
In practice, heat exchangers are less ideal than strict counter-current. The hot and cold streams may
face each other in many ways, causing a reduction of the effective temperature difference for heat
transfer. We define the effective temperature difference similar to the log mean temperature difference
for strict counter-current heat exchangers, Equation 4:
Q
∆Teff = (11)
A ⋅ h ov
The deviation from the log mean temperature difference is captured in the correction factor FT:
∆Teff = FT ⋅ ∆Tln (12)
in which FT the dimensionless temperature correction factor which is between 0 and 1.
FT is a function of the in- and outlet temperatures and the exchanger configuration. Analytical
solutions for a number of standard configurations are available. They are generally plotted as a
function of two dimensionless numbers that represent the heat exchange task:
CPm,c Thi − Tho
R= = (13)
CPm,h Tco − Tci
with CPm,h the heat capacity flowrate of the combined hot streams [W/°C];
CPm,c the heat capacity flowrate of the combined cold streams [W/°C];
Thi , Tho hot inlet and outlet temperatures [°C];
Tci , Tco cold inlet and outlet temperatures [°C];
and
T − Tci
P = co (14)
Thi − Tci
An example for the case with one shell pass and two tube passes is in Figure 6. In general, the curves
with FT related to R and P show that
FT → 1 for P → 0 if R = const
(15)
or R → 0 if P = const
As FT is a function of the exchanger in- and outlet temperatures, the calculation of the duty from a
given area and inlet temperatures requires iteration. There are some alternative forms of the basic heat
transfer relation, Equation 4, that give an explicit relation if both streams have constant properties and
heat transfer coefficients. The main alternative is the J - NTU method (Kakaç and Liu, 2002, Shah and
Mueller, 2000). In this calculation method Equation 4 is rewritten to
30 Chapter 2
1
Thi
Tco
0.9
Tci
Tho
0.8
FT
0.7
R=10.0
R=5.0
0.6
R=1.0
R=3.0
R=1.2
R=0.1
R=1.6
R=2.0
R=0.5
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
P
Figure 6 FT factor for exchangers with 1 shell and 2 tube passes as function of R and P after
Sinnott (1993)
Q = ε CPm,min ( Thi − Tci ) (16)

in which J the heat transfer effectiveness [-], the dimensionless fraction of the maximum heat
transfer possible for the given hot and cold stream inlet temperatures Thi and Tci
CPm,min the minimum of the hot and cold heat capacity flow rate [W/°C]
Additionally, two dimensionless numbers are used:

h tot A
the number of heat transfer units, NTU, defined as NTU = (17)
CPm,min
CPm,min
the heat capacity flow rate ratio, C*, defined as C* = (18)
CPm,max
J is similar to FT discussed above. It is a function of NTU, C* and the exchanger configuration.

Analytically derived relations are available (Shah and Mueller, 2000) for common exchanger types,
like for strict counter-current flow:
1 − exp(−(1 − C* )NTU)
ε= for C* ≠ 1
* *
1 − C exp(−(1 − C )NTU) (19)
NTU *
ε= for C = 1
1 + NTU
The effective temperature difference or its equivalence heat transfer effectiveness is very important to
determine the feasibility of the specified duty and area of an exchanger for any other than strict
counter-current exchanger. The fall of FT (or the equivalent J) shown in Figure 6 is typical for all non-
counter-current exchangers. Consequently, the actual possible duty can be significantly below the
thermodynamic limit, i.e. J << 1 for such exchangers even with infinite transfer area.
Especially in shell-and-tube exchangers with multiple tube passes through a shell, the correction factor
decreases dramatically if the difference between the hot and cold temperatures is small or if the tube-
side outlet temperature is in between the shell-side in- and outlet temperature (Smith, 2005) . It is thus
very well possible that a thermodynamically feasible heat transfer with an apparently feasible
minimum temperature difference (ǻT > 0 °C) cannot be handled with conventional shell-and-tube heat
exchangers.
2.4 Design Variables and Dependencies
Apart from the relations between the fundamental heat transfer variables discussed in the previous
section, there are numerous design aspects that are hard to describe in general applicable mathematical
relations between design variables. Below, we describe the relevant variables of heat exchanger
network design in general and the main dependencies between them to be taken into account by the
designer. This discussion is also the basis for the design evaluation criteria that will be discussed in
Section 2.6.
Generally, (process) design starts with high-level conceptual design and details are elaborated in
subsequent design steps. Therefore, we will discuss the design aspects in the following order:
• the network topology and performance, referred to as the macro level;
• the options for and performance of individual pieces of equipment, referred to as the meso level;
• the fundamental transport processes near the heat transfer surface, referred to as the micro level.
Heat exchanger network design mainly covers the design at macro level. The meso and micro level
design is merely the task of the thermal heat exchanger designer. Exchanger details are, however,
often important to consider to challenge targets and estimates used in the network design, especially in
retrofit design (see Section 2.5). Therefore we will cover all three levels in the description below.
Table 8 gives an overview of the design problem at each level, showing the design task, the variables
involved and the interfaces with related objects. These objects are divided in objects that have a wider
context in which the reference object is embedded (i.e. is part of) or objects that have more detail and
are embedded in (are part of) the reference object. The table also gives the main design issues for each
interfacing object. The next sections describe the design problem at each level in more detail.
2.4.1 Macro Level Design

The macro level mainly deals with the question what to match and to what extent. The main task for
this level design is the establishment of a complete overall heat balance of the manufacturing process
with an economical use of utilities. The main design variables are the utility selection, the topology
(matches between streams), duty assignments for each match and the lay out, traded off against the
required investment. The design must take into account design issues from entities in which it will be
embedded, the manufacturing process, the utility system and the site, and the entities it encapsulates,
the heat exchangers.
32 Chapter 2
Table 8 Overview of the heat exchanger network design problem at various scope levels
macro level (network)
task design variables
establish complete heat balance for the subject • utility selection and use
manufacturing process with an economical use • stream connections (topology, match
of utilities integration)
• exchanged duties and in- and outlet
temperatures of heat exchangers
pressure drop distribution
• equipment location
• total investment
interfaces interface issues
embedded in • manufacturing process • basic design data
• process changes
• ǻp constraints
• operational requirement
• heat loss to environment
• utility system • utility selection
• site • site / process area integration
• economy
• safety / environment / legislation
encapsulates • heat exchanging equipment • type options
meso level (heat exchanging equipment)
establish required heat transfer between • exchanger type
matched streams • fluid side / flow path per stream
• temperature differences
• velocities and pressure drops
• exchanger size / geometries
(length and perimeter of flow channel)
• exchanger orientation
embedded in • network • allowed exchanger type and approach temp.
• piping/civil construction • space, layout and supports requirements
encapsulates • surface • type selection
• mechanical construction • exchanger design requirements / limits
• operational features / constraints
micro level (surface)
establish effective heat transfer interface • construction material
• wall thickness
• heat transfer surface and surface extensions
embedded in • heat exchanger unit • surface selected as part of meso design
encapsulates • materials of construction • allowed surface production methods
Variables
The utilities must be adequate to heat balance the network. These utilities are often only available at
specific conditions and sometimes even at limited amounts. The economical use of utilities is further
determined by the cost of the required equipment. Often more expensive utilities allow higher
temperature differences for heat transfer which give smaller and thus cheaper exchangers for a specific
utility duty that is required for a specific process stream. On the other hand equipment may become
more expensive to withstand the more extreme utility conditions. The utility selection must properly
balance these cost consequences.
The topology of the network determines what streams are matched, i.e. linked to each other, and in
what order. Primarily, the topology must allow the heat balance of a manufacturing process with a
minimum use of utilities. The main constraint is the second law of thermodynamics, thus establish-
ment of a complete heat balance with a temperature difference above the thermodynamic minimum
(ǻT > 0°C) and above a practical minimum, that depends on the type of heat exchanger that can be
selected. This practical minimum can vary from 1°C for nearly ideal heat exchangers to more than
30°C for gas-to-gas heat exchangers. Meanwhile, network investment cost must be minimized, which
requires a minimum number of matches in the network. For many cases these design requirements
make heat exchanger network design a challenging job.
Within the topology, streams may be split to allow more exchangers in parallel to heat or cool the
stream or to introduce an additional control variable.
The topology only assigns specific streams to a match. A complete match duty specification also
requires the determination of the total transfer duty, the in- and outlet temperatures and the allowed
pressure drop for each connected stream. The duty and the temperatures are directly related to each
other (Equation 4). Both the duty and the maximum pressure drop relate to the requirements for
individual streams and the duties and pressure drops of other matches. Redistribution of duty and
pressure drop is generally an effective way to improve the network.
The last main design variable at macro level is the (physical) match location. This is part of the setup
of the process layout. The match location should be chosen to allow efficient connections to the
related process units and the other exchangers up- and downstream the match. Other issues that have
impact on the layout are discussed below as part of the interface discussion.
Interfaces
The macro heat exchanger network design is embedded in three higher level entities:
• the manufacturing process the heat exchanger network is designed for,
• the utility system that provides the necessary utilities and
• the site on which the heat exchanger network will be built.
Additionally, the heat exchanger network has interactions with the heat exchanging equipment it
contains.
The interface with the manufacturing process for which the heat exchanger network is designed is
obvious. Initially, the manufacturing process provides the data of the process streams for which the
heat exchanger network must be designed. The preliminary process flow diagrams and simulations
from this process contain the streams and stream properties that are the core information for the heat
34 Chapter 2
exchanger network design. The definition of these data is a special activity in heat exchanger network
design, generally referred to as data-extraction. After an initial analysis and design with the extracted
data, there can be feed back from the heat exchanger network design to the process design to
investigate ways to improve the heat integration by changing the process.
The manufacturing process, generally, sets limitations to the pressure drop between processing units,
based on an estimate of the processing units and pipe routings that will be present. This includes
assumptions of the pressure drop for heat exchange. These assumptions will be specified as a
limitation for the heat exchanger design and will have impact on the final result. In some cases a
higher pressure drop has little impact on the process and thus can be used to improve the heat
exchanger design. In other cases, eg. when low pressure vapours are involved, a higher pressure drop
is not acceptable or too costly.
The manufacturing process may have various design cases to get operational flexibility. The heat
exchanger network must be able to accommodate this flexibility and occasional variations in source
and target temperatures of the process streams, variations in the utilities (see below) and variations in
the environmental conditions.
The manufacturing process gives also requirements for operability, reliability, availability and
maintenance, safety and quality. These requirements are discussed separately in Section 2.6.2.
The utility system provides the external heating and cooling duty for the heat exchanger network.
Generally, utilities have a predefined operating range with minimum and maximum supply temperat-
ures and pressures. For a guaranteed performance, the heat exchanger network must be designed for
the worst utility conditions, i.e. the lowest heat supply temperatures for hot utilities and the highest
heat release temperature for cold utilities. This limits the application of the utility and gives overdesign
in the utility heat exchangers. If the extreme conditions are rare, we may consider alternative design
conditions and accept another (eg. turndown) operation for the extreme utility conditions.
Simple processes have utilities at the hot and cold extremes to provide the necessary heating and
cooling. For many processes it is much more attractive to apply more than one hot or cold utility to
reduce the operating cost, allow application of less expensive materials and avoid heat transfer
problems due to too high temperature differences.
Within a network design the utility selection is a trade-off between operating cost and investment with
allowances for operational flexibility. If a heat source is available in the process at a sufficiently high
temperature, a utility can be generated to be used elsewhere in the plant or on the site. Something
similar can be done with sufficiently cold heat sinks. In this way we can use the utility system to
integrate parts of a process or separate process plants that we want to keep independent or between
which we want to avoid transport of process streams. In new complex processes and production sites
we can select the utility levels to optimize the integration possibilities.
Some utilities require special attention as transport of this utility is difficult or expensive. This is the
case, for example, with the flue gas of fired heaters or with low pressure vapour refrigerants. Such
systems should therefore be designed together with the manufacturing process they are serving.
The interface with the site on which the heat exchanger network will be built, relates to lay out,
existing facilities and issues like safety, protection of the environmental and legislation. The impact of
these issues is very case specific. It may give restrictions on the matching and routing of streams and
the location of exchangers. The applied types of heat exchangers will also have impact on the required
installation an maintenance space.
The interface with the heat exchanging equipment is primarily the awareness in heat exchanger
network design of the possibilities and limitations of the heat exchanger equipment. Network design
may be simplified using this awareness and infeasible specifications can be avoided. This may avoid
rework in a later stage. The opportunities and limitations are mainly related to the exchanger type. In
network design the exchanger type determines the allowable minimum temperature difference
between the hot and cold streams and the relation between exchanger cost and exchanger area.
2.4.2 Meso Level Design

The meso level design reviews the type, the configuration and the size of a heat exchanger that is
assigned for a specific duty. In more detailed design, this also includes the thermal and hydraulic
design (Table 7) and specification of the mechanical details of the equipment. The specification of
type and configuration requires knowledge of the allowable surface types and materials. These are
design variables of the micro level design, Section 2.4.3, but we will discuss the main selection issues
for type selection below. The configuration determines the overall flow characteristics in the
exchanger. This also affects the heat transfer coefficient at the micro level. Additionally, it determines
the effective temperature difference of the exchanger.
Variables
The main design decision for the exchanger design is the selection of the exchanger type. Shah and
Mueller (2000) give a number of variables that determine this type. They recognize
• historical preference;
• design conditions (temperature , pressure);
• fluid characteristics (material requirements, toxicity, flammability, phase condition, physical
properties (eg. viscosity), fouling);
• expected size;
• temperature difference and approach temperature;
• pressure drop per stream (low / high, critical).
We add to that:
• flow path and exchanger orientation.
Historical preference and application standards are often key arguments to select an exchanger type
for a specific service. The reliability of the design asks for proven applications. There must be clear
arguments to deviate from the standards.
The design conditions and fluid characteristics must be used to explore the design at micro level and
determine the required materials of construction and possible surface types, as described in Section
2.4.3. Often, the design conditions, the flow regime and the fouling properties significantly restrict the
number of options. When we have identified the options at micro level, we can check the requirements
at meso level.
36 Chapter 2
The design conditions are also relevant at meso level as it gives the requirements for the mechanical
construction. As shown in Table 3 in Chapter 1, the application range of many exchanger types is
limited by the design conditions. An estimate of these design conditions is already possible when the
stream data for the heat exchanger network design is determined. A first selection of applicable types
is thus also possible at an early stage in network design. If the match duty is specified at the macro
level, the design conditions for the exchanger are more or less fixed and a final selection can be done.
Also the fluid characteristics are relevant for the exchanger type selection at meso level . The presence
of toxic or flammable materials give generally requirements for the tightness of equipment.
Exchangers with gaskets, like plate-and-frame exchangers, are less suitable or even not allowed in
these services. Compact welded or brazed exchangers may be advantageous in such services as their
compactness will reduce the inventory of hazardous material in the equipment. For gasketted
exchanger types, the fluid properties also determine the applicable materials for the gaskets. This
further limits the application range of this type of exchangers. The phase of the fluid and especially
the presence or absence of a phase transition is an important factor for the selection of the more
detailed configuration of the exchanger. Basically, all exchanger types are applicable for all vapour
and liquid phase streams or streams with a vapour/liquid phase transition. Specific characteristics, like
fluid volume changes, phase separation and flow characteristic of the liquid and vapour phases, will
make specific exchanger types more suitable for specific applications. The physical properties of the
fluid have similar impact. They determine the thermal and hydraulic behaviour of the fluid, which
determines primarily the surface selection at micro level, but also the overall exchanger performance
at meso level. Exchangers with channels with a small hydraulic diameter may get laminar flow for
fluids with a higher viscosity. Initially, this may give a lower pressure drop over the exchanger, as
friction reduces in the transition from turbulent to laminar flow, especially for flow through rough
pipes (Perry, 1984). Finally, the pressure drop and the size of the heat exchanger may increase
dramatically for flow at very low Re in case of high-viscous liquids, especially when they are cooled.
The fouling characteristics of the media determine the cleaning requirements for each fluid flow path.
We can recognize three types of fouling material. Fouling material can be present in the fluid as
relatively big particles. Such material can block the small channels that are generally present in
compact exchangers and will make this type of exchanger less suitable. There are only two valid
alternative exchanger types for such services, including specific shell-and-tube exchanger types and
spiral wound exchangers. The types must allow mechanical cleaning at the side of the fouling fluid,
especially at the entrance. Alternatively, fouling can be present as small particles which can stick to
the wall or the fouling material is generated at the wall (see below). The flow path is not easily
blocked in this case, but the fouling material will limit the heat transfer. At certain time intervals, the
surface must be cleaned either with chemicals or mechanically. If mechanical cleaning is required, an
exchanger type must be selected that can be opened to get access to all fouled exchanger area. Only a
few types of compact area, including plate-and-frame exchangers, allow this mechanical cleaning and
thus the application of compact area in fouling service is limited. Compact area can, however, also be
advantageous in fouling services. The flow path can be designed to get high velocities and shear
without dead zones. Consequently, the actual fouling can be significantly less than in shell-and-tube
exchangers, which may prevent the need for cleaning and also allows smaller exchangers, as less
transfer area is required to compensate fouling.
The exchanger size is mainly determined by the effectivity of the surface type that can be used in the
exchanger type. More efficient area and a higher area density, like in compact heat exchangers, gives
smaller and lighter exchangers, which will save on plot area and supporting structures. Additionally,
each exchanger type has a limit on the amount of transfer area that fits in one exchanger shell or block.
For large match duties different exchanger types may give a different number of shells or blocks
required. This will have significant impact on the cost, the required plot space and the complexity of
installation of the match. Compact heat exchangers are especially advantageous in cases in which they
can save on the number of shells. This includes applications in which more than two streams can be
matched within one unit. Compact plate-fin units can hold up to 12 streams in one unit. Plate-and-
frame exchangers may hold up to four streams (Van Reisen et al., 1995b, Haslego and Polley, 2002).
The temperature difference between the hot and cold streams is fixed during network design at macro
level. The design at meso level only affects the effective temperature difference and thus the temper-
ature correction factor, FT (Equation 12). The effective temperature depends both on the exchanger
type and on the more detailed configuration of the exchanger. Generally, the effective temperature
difference is better (larger) in compact heat exchangers than in shell-and-tube exchangers. Compact
exchangers may even approach strict counter-current flow. It is possible to design the flow pattern of
the fluids relative to each other, like the transfer surfaces can be designed. As a result the temperature
correction factor will be closer to unity and the required areas will be smaller. Alternatively, we can
decrease the temperature differences between the fluids to improve the heat integration potential. The
minimum temperature difference can be as low as 1 °C in compact exchangers, whereas shell-and-tube
exchangers can hardly handle temperature differences lower than 10 °C (Sinnott, 1993). Also compact
exchangers have, however, some inefficiencies, especially due to the required flow distribution to the
many channels.
The temperature difference between the streams is especially important for exchangers with a boiling
liquid or a heat sensitive fluid. As discussed in Section 2.3, there are different regimes for heat transfer
to a boiling liquid. The actual regime depends on the temperature difference from the wall to the
boiling liquid. The exchanger can be designed for any regime, but a (local) change in regime may give
unstable performance. Consequently, we should avoid the presence of very different local effective
temperature differences throughout the exchanger by adequate design of the exchanger and the
network. Heat sensitive fluids degrade if they are exposed to too high temperatures for too long a
period. This can cause product quality issues and exchanger fouling. If this is an issue, we carefully
match such fluids and limit the temperature difference between the hot and cold fluids or the fluid
residence time. Additionally, we should check the temperature control requirements. On micro level,
we should check the wall temperature as this is always higher than the bulk fluid temperature.
The fluid pressure drop is generally specified at macro level as a maximum for each stream. The
exchanger design will try to exploit the available pressure drop for all matched streams as much as
possible to maximise the heat transfer coefficients and thus minimise the exchanger size. For shell-
and-tube exchangers we can select the shell diameter, the tube diameter, the number of tubes, the
number of passes, the number of baffles and tube layout details to optimise the heat transfer. Often, we
have to limit the pressure drop on the shell side to limit inefficiencies due to internal leakages. For
other types of exchangers, we can generally better exploit the pressure drops for all streams by a
proper selection of surface type and channel dimension and channel count.
38 Chapter 2
Together with the pressure drops, we also set the fluid velocities in the channels. Together with the
pressure drop also the velocity at the shell side of shell-and-tube exchangers is generally limited. Also
the velocity variations within the shell will be relatively large and thus the risk of dead zones. The
velocity on the shell side may even have to be reduced to avoid acoustic and vibration problems.
For fouling fluids the velocity has to be sufficiently high to avoid settling of the fouling material.
Obviously, this will preferentially settle in dead zones where the velocities are lowest. Fouling fluids
are thus less preferred at the shell side of shell-and-tube exchangers side, unless with special shell side
design like a helical baffle design. These helical baffles improve the flow profile at the shell side to
reduce fouling and enhance the heat transfer. Compact exchangers can generally be designed without
significant dead zones for all fluids.
Selection of the fluid side or flow path for the streams in an exchanger is an issue when the alternative
flow paths in the exchanger are very different, like in shell-and-tube exchangers. There are general
guidelines for the selection of fluid side based on the fouling properties, fluid phase and design
conditions (Kakaç and Liu, 2002, CB&I Lummus, 2008). If the fluids are similar, the fluid side can be
used to optimise the heat transfer coefficient or the pressure drop over the exchanger.
For exchangers with a fluid with phase change it is also relevant to specify the orientation of the
exchanger. Horizontal and vertical boiling and condensation is all possible, but it will significantly
affect the design and performance of the exchanger.
Interfaces
The meso heat exchanger network design is embedded in two higher level entities: the heat exchanger
network and the piping/civil construction. Additionally, the heat exchanger network has interactions
with the surface and the mechanical construction it contains.
The major part of the interface with the heat exchanger network is already discussed in the macro
level interface with the heat exchanging equipment and in the discussion of the heat exchanger design
variables above. The possible exchanger types and minimum temperature differences are important to
know prior to the heat exchanger network design. Additionally, the match duty specification from the
network design has to be validated during heat exchanger design. As a result, it may be necessary to
revise the network design.
An exchanger is always part of a piping lay out of the exchanger feed and products and has to fit in a
civil structure. In many cases there are fluid flow requirements that set the elevation of the exchanger
or its position relative to other process equipment. Generally, these requirements are set during process
or exchanger hydraulic design. For example, thermosiphon exchangers are generally designed for and
together with the feed and discharge piping from and to the separation column or vessel. Obviously,
such a design should take into account the constraints and preferences for the detailed piping and civil
structure design.
The heat exchanging surface is selected as part of the heat exchanger type. Above, we already
discussed the need to explore the surface type selection to do the heat exchanger type selection. Once
we have made the final match duty specification, we should validate and if possible optimise the
surface selection and the related material selection. We must fix the surface selection before we can
finalize the heat exchanger design.
Each heat exchanger has a mechanical construction to fit in and connect the heat transfer surface, the
feed and product connections, provide the physical isolation of the flow paths and the environment
and to add construction details like supports and maintenance provisions. This mechanical
construction is generally subject to a number of design and production standards, which will give a
number of design requirements and constraints. These construction limitations also limit the freedom
in thermal and hydraulic design. There are for example standard tube diameters and lengths, spacings
and layouts. The production method and applied materials may put restrictions on the allowed
operation. For example, brazed aluminum exchangers can only withstand limited temperature and
pressure variation gradients, due to the thermal stress that is associated with such variations. If
exceeded, these exchangers can fail and may need to be replaced.
2.4.3 Micro Level Design

The micro level design covers the design of an effective heat transfer interface between the heat
exchanging fluids. It specifies the construction material, the wall thickness and the type of heat
exchanging surface and surface extensions.
Variables
The construction material selection is, generally, a matter of cost, operating conditions and resistance
to corrosion. Apart from the material itself sometimes additional production requirements are defined
to allow the application of the selected material. The material selection also determines the thermal
conductivity of the wall, which in turn affects the overall heat transfer coefficient through the wall
from fluid to fluid. Additionally, the construction material selection sets the allowed production and
construction methods and thus may limit the possible exchanger types.
The wall thickness depends on the selected construction material, the necessary corrosion allowance to
get the required equipment life time and the design pressure and temperatures of the facing fluids. The
wall thickness is generally minimized within construction standards such as TEMA (2001), to reduce
the required amount of construction materials and thus reduce the equipment cost.
The surface of the wall between the heat exchanging fluids determines the microscopic heat transfer
processes between the fluid and the wall. The simplest and most commonly applied surface type is a
plain surface, which is robust and cheap. To enhance heat transfer we can apply special surfaces or
surface extensions at one or both sides of the wall. The effect of these surface modifications is two-
fold: it enhances the heat transfer itself and creates more contact area between the fluid and the wall.
The surface can be designed to optimise the heat transfer with the available pressure drop, physical
properties of the fluid and temperature difference over the wall, by variations of the fin geometry,
height, thickness, length and spacing. Obviously, we need to adapt the fluid side with the highest heat
transfer resistance first, especially when this resistance is substantially higher than the other contrib-
utions to the overall resistance (Equation 6). If the resistances differ significantly, like in liquid-to-gas
exchangers, modification of the low resistance side will hardly change the overall resistance.
In shell-and-tube exchangers we can also apply tubes with special surfaces or surface extensions in- or
outside the tube. Inside the tube we can install a tube insert (Zimparov and Penchev, 2006, Dewan et
al., 2004, Zimparov, 2002) to enhance the heat transfer. We regard this as a special type of surface
extension but it only enhances the heat transfer coefficient in tubes and does not provide additional
contact area.
40 Chapter 2
Apart from the heat transfer coefficient, the surface selection must also take into account fouling, heat
exchanger production constraints and cost. Surface extensions that are fixed to the wall are generally
difficult to clean. Consequently, we should only apply them to relatively clean fluids. Some special
surface types are easy to clean, depending on the construction of the heat exchanger. We can therefore
apply these types of surfaces in fouling services. They may even be a recommended type to mitigate
the formation of fouling at the wall, especially when we can apply them in an exchanger type that
allows mechanical cleaning, like plate-and-frame exchangers.
During surface selection we must recognize production limitations due to the selected construction
material and applicable standards. Also cost is an issue. Special surfaces and surface extensions are
more expensive than plain area. However, if well applied, the exchanger will be significantly smaller
and less expensive than an equivalent exchanger with plain area.
Interfaces
The micro surface design is embedded in one higher level entity, the heat exchanger unit, and has
interactions with the materials of construction it contains.
The interface with the heat exchanger unit is very close. The main issues have been discussed in the
meso level description of the heat exchanger. If the heat exchanger design at meso level is finalized,
we must validate the surface design and assumed performance throughout the exchanger. Different
heat exchange regimes may require the application of more than one surface type.
The interface with the materials of construction has already been mentioned above. The selection is
done prior to the final surface selection. Some interaction with the materials selection may be
necessary to match the preferred surface type or heat exchanger unit requirements with the material
properties and production constraints. Validation of the materials selection should be done after the
completion of the heat exchanger unit design, especially when the material is sensitive for the actual
conditions at micro scale.
2.5 Retrofit Design
Retrofit design is very different from grassroots design. In Chapter 1 we explained the main special
issues in retrofit design (after Grossmann et al. 1987 and Gundersen, 1990). In summary:
A wide range of unequivalent options must be explored;
Many options will finally be found infeasible;
The existing equipment must be reused efficiently;
More equipment details to be taken into account earlier in design;
Many practical limitations to be taken into account earlier in design.
One cause of the first issue is that the goal of retrofit design is generally only defined as a direction,
occasionally with some minimum demand. Consequently, also the actual scope of the retrofit design is
a design variable. Obviously, this design freedom allows designs ranging from a minimum change
with minor improvement to complete renovation with maximum improvement.
2.5.1 The Energy Saving Retrofit Design Problem

The generic energy saving retrofit heat exchanger network design problem is elaborated in Table 9 and
Table 10. For explanation of the tables see Section 2.2 in which a similar elaboration is given for the
generic grassroots heat exchanger network design problem.
Table 9 Generic energy saving heat exchanger network retrofit design problem definition
Goal: reduce annual utility cost of a network by effective modification of the hardware
Criteria annual saving versus annualised investment cost

heat balance
modification risks
Starting Point existing heat exchanger network

single operating point with stream and exchanger performance data consistent with used
design model
set of hot and cold streams with

constraints
2.5.2 Retrofit Design Variables and Dependencies

Comparison of the Tables 6 and 10 shows that all the grassroots objects and attributes are also present
in retrofit. Most relations between the objects and related design aspects are the same. The discussion
of the variables and dependencies in Section 2.4 is also valid for retrofit design. There are, however,
also some distinct differences between grassroots and retrofit design. Table 10 defines two more
object types in retrofit, the existing match, that represents the existing heat exchanger network and the
tie-in, that defines the boundary between an existing unmodified heat exchanger network part and a
new or modified part. We will discuss the main differences at macro, meso and micro level below.
Macro Level Design

The presence of existing matches gives a number of new dependencies and constraints, that we must
recognize in retrofit design. Prior to retrofit design we have to clearly define the existing situation.
Based on plant schemes, datasheets and operating data, we have to define the topology and perfor-
mance of individual exchangers and represent this by the models we will use in heat exchanger
network design. Inconsistencies are unavoidable when we use real plant data and simplified plant and
unit models (Kemp, 1991). These inconsistencies become more pronounced when we use simplified
models as in the initial design stages.
In heat exchanger network retrofit, data inconsistencies and model shortcomings become visible when
we compare the actual heat transfer coefficients with the estimated values. We can estimate the heat
transfer coefficient of an existing heat exchanger from the assumed duty, the installed area and a heat
exchanger model. The estimated values may deviate significantly from common standard values for
similar services or from other estimated values that result from other heat exchangers handling the
Table 10 Energy saving heat exchanger network retrofit design objects and attributes
Object Contains objects Attributes (type) Input Output
(parent)
Stream feed feed, product Ts , Tt , max ǻp duty
product Ts , Tt (cont), ǻp (cont) massflow ǻp
duty (cont) properties
massflow (cont) heattr. charac.
properties (cont)
Utility feed feed, product Ts , Tt , max ǻp duty
(Stream) product Ts , Tt (cont), ǻp (cont) massflow ǻp
duty (cont), properties massflow
massflow (cont) heattr. charac. annual oper cost
properties (cont)
cost (cont)
Feed/Prod location location
Match set of streams type (disc) allowable types stream included
set of utilities EMAT (cont) EMAT - Ts, Tt, massflow
streams included (disc) duty, ǻp
utilities included (disc) utilities included
up&downstr. units (disc) - Ts, Tt, massflow
FT (cont), htc (cont) duty, ǻp
size (cont) up&downstream units
material (disc) annual oper cost
cost (cont) type, no. shells series
no. shells in series (disc) htc, FT, size
location (cont) material, investment
Existing set of streams see Match existing streams, existing streams,
match set of utilities utilities and up- utilities and up-
(Match) &downstream units &downstream units
type, material, size equipment revisions
shells series/paral.
equip. condition
split up&downstr. units (disc) up&downstream units
mixers up&downstr. units (disc) up&downstream units
Tie-in stream (disc) stream
up&downstr. units (disc) up&downstream units
Network set of streams see Match see Match see Match

(Match) set of utilities lay out lay out tie-in locations
set of stream-
splits / mixers
set of matches
set of existing
matches
set of tie-ins
Refer to Table 6 on Page 24 for explanation of the abbreviations
same stream. The differences can result from actual differences in performance, but a number of error
sources should also be taken into account:
• The used models for the heat exchangers and the network may be too simple and thus show a
different behaviour than the one that can be measured.
• Process models of the plant, if available, are often inaccurate especially with respect to the heat
balances.
• Incomplete or inaccurate/failing measurement of flows, temperatures and pressures.
• Incorrect physical properties due to an incorrect estimation of the composition of the streams.
• Plant dynamics.
Large inconsistencies are very inconvenient in (retrofit) design. It decreases the reliability of the base
case and thus of many analyses and design decisions. Obviously, we would like to account for these
errors and deficiencies as much as possible. Methods to do this are widely available in (steady-state)
data-reconciliation literature. An in-depth description of steady state data-reconciliation can be found
in Mah (1990). Special discussions of the data-reconciliation of heat exchanger networks include those
of Kemp (1991), Gomolka (1982), Muraki and Toyohiko (1989) and Sigal (1996). In addition, Hall
and Morgan (1994) concentrate on the availability and generation of heat transfer coefficient and
exchanger cost data.
Reconciliation finally has to provide an acceptable and consistent representation of the existing
network. This representation is the actual starting point for heat exchanger retrofit design defined in
Table 9. Unless stated differently, the phrase ‘existing network’ in this thesis refers to the reconciled
representation mentioned above.
The existing network is heat balanced with a known amount of utilities. We can maintain this heat
balance and the related design for any part or even the whole heat exchanger network. To achieve the
desired annual savings, we must change the utility use at specific locations and correct the network to
reestablish the heat balance. Cost saving can result from a reduction of the amount of utility used or a
shift to a cheaper utility.
Also the existing topology of the heat exchanger network is an input to retrofit design. The existing
topology also represents the existing installation with existing exchangers and piping and an existing
lay-out. A change in topology means a change of the piping and possibly of the lay-out as well. Such a
change can be more complex and expensive than a change in an existing exchanger or the supply of a
new one. To recognize such potentially complex and expensive points in the network, we define any
breakpoint between an existing unmodified (part of the) network and a modified or new part as a
tie-in.
There are a number of modification options in retrofit design. Gundersen (1990) suggests three groups
of options to modify a manufacturing process in general. These are, in increasing order of impact
according to the author:
• rearrange the existing equipment without the installation of new ones;
• modify the existing equipment by enhancing individual units;
• add new equipment.
44 Chapter 2
Table 11 Possible network modifications

Type Options
Size modifications addition of area to existing equipment between streams that are already matched
in the original situation using:
heat transfer augmentation (shell and/or tube side);
replacement of tube bundle;
area addition (plate and frame exchangers)
additional shells.
Topology modifications rearrangement of existing equipment on the originally matched streams using
repiping to resequence exchangers in series or in parallel and, occasionally,
by introducing one or more splits or by rerouting fluid to alternative flow
channel (eg. swap shell and tube sides) ;
installation of new equipment between streams that have not been matched
before using traditional or advanced exchangers;
relocation of existing equipment to match other streams than originally
matched;
demolition of equipment.
The given grouping and order focusses especially on equipment changes. Connectivity changes are,
however, at least equally important in retrofit and their impact often exceeds the impact of the equip-
ment changes. Therefore, we will use a different grouping of the retrofit options. We recognize: size
modifications, that affect individual units only, and topology modifications, that affect the unit
structure. Table 11 shows the options for each of the modification types based on the overview of
Gundersen .
The manufacturing process is not changed in energy saving retrofit. If such changes are allowed or
required the heat exchanger network design problem may change dramatically. See the references on
debottlenecking and process modifications in Chapter 1. The general demands from the manufacturing
process on the heat exchanger network are similar in retrofit as in grassroots design. Pressure drop
limitations will generally be more difficult to meet in retrofit as pumps and compressors are also
existing and thus have limited capacity. The issues of flexibility, operability, reliability, availability,
maintenance, safety and quality are similar in retrofit as in grassroots, but there may be special points
of attention from the current operation. See Section 2.6.2.
Obviously, the site with its existing installation and lay-out is a major constraint for retrofit. We must
somehow fit the modifications and additions of equipment and piping in the existing structures. We
have to find space for new equipment and piping and a way to install this new hardware with a
minimum of plant downtime. The latter may be an issue for equipment modifications. Installation of
new equipment may therefore be more reliable and even cheaper. Apart from limitations on space,
there may also be limitations on the loading in the structure, which may restrict the weight that we can
add. Both in case of space and weight constraints, there is clearly an advantage of the application of
compact heat transfer equipment. These exchangers can thus enable network modifications that are
impossible with conventional exchangers. This makes compact heat exchangers a valuable option
especially for retrofit.
The interface with the heat exchange equipment is more intense in retrofit than in grassroots heat
exchanger network design. In grassroots design we can complete the network design before the
thermal and hydraulic heat exchanger design of any of the included heat exchangers is started. The
heat exchanger design can be adapted to meet the requirements of the network. In retrofit this only
applies to any new equipment that is added. Existing equipment that has a changed operation, i.e.
different inlet temperatures, flows or connected streams, must be carefully evaluated with an adequate
exchanger model that takes into account all relevant exchanger design and construction details. This
evaluation, referred to as exchanger rating, must confirm the proposed new task of the exchanger.
Detailed exchanger design knowledge must thus be available early in retrofit design to identify options
and constraints and validate (parts of) the design.
In some cases awareness of exchanger details during conceptual network design can already prevent
infeasible modifications. For example, (utility) exchangers, like fired heaters and aircoolers, that are
superfluous due to intensified heat integration can only be reused in a similar service and are not
applicable for other utilities or process-to-process heat exchange. This is obvious, but easily
overlooked on paper.
Meso and Micro Level Design

The exchanger and surface selection and design at meso and micro level for new equipment in retrofit
is similar to the grassroots design described in Section 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. For existing exchangers it is
not useful to recognize meso and micro design as we cannot select and design them independently.
Therefore we discuss them together below.
The macro level retrofit design section above already discussed the need for exchanger rating to
determine the performance of existing exchangers with a changed service. It also listed the options to
modify the heat transfer capacity of existing exchangers, referred to as size modifications.
The exchanger type largely determines the possibility and impact of a size modification. Plate-and-
frame exchangers with gaskets are generally built to allow extension with additional plates. Addition
of area to such exchangers is thus easy and cheap as long as it fits in the existing frame. More area
requires addition or replacement of the frame. Shell-and-tube exchangers can be extended by
replacement of the tube bundle. This saves on installation costs compared to a new exchanger, but the
existing transfer area is not reused. The option is therefore rather costly. Fully welded or brazed type
exchangers cannot be modified, thus size modification is not an option for these exchangers.
Even if we cannot change the internals, it may be useful to connect the fluids that exchange heat to
another flow channel. For shell-and-tube exchangers this mean a swap of shell-and-tube side.
Obviously, this is only relevant if the available flow paths have different hydraulic and heat transfer
characteristics. It may be used to improve the effective temperature or to optimise the available
pressure drop.
The enhancement of the heat transfer from and to the wall is only possible if we can access the sur-
face. If we change the bundle of a shell-and-tube exchanger, we can add any heat transfer enhance-
ments that are also available for grassroots design. If we keep the existing bundle, heat transfer enhan-
cement may be installed inside the tubes as tube inserts (Zimparov 2002, Barletta, 1998, Polley, 1993).
Table 12 Evaluation criteria for heat exchanger network designs
micro meso macro

Fundamental Used models have relevant detail Used models have relevant detail Utility use reduction equals generation reduction
assumptions htc assumed versus htc rated proper estimation of ǻTeff Aimed saving has intended cost reduction
Used models have relevant detail
Efficacy Htc sufficient Heat balanced units Heat balanced network and network parts
ǻT>0 for all heat transfer (no internal temperature Heat loss to environment compensated
cross-overs) ǻT>0 for all heat transfer
Heat transfer capacity (htot A) sufficient
Constraints Safety: applicable materials and Safety: within mechanical limits (p, T) Safety: no potential hazardous stream matches
conditions Construction size limits Lay-out / civil
Acceptable ǻp and velocities sufficient plot area for new, modified and relocated
Applicable exchanger type(s) units
Reused equipment can handle the new service sufficient capacity of supporting construction
new fluids, nominal and exceptional conditions Requested vs. available ǻp (pumps / compressors)
(p, T, v), vibrations, location Investment
Standards
Operability Flexibility Flexibility Controllability
physical properties variations temperatures, flows, fouling risk of inadvertent operation (design logic)
fouling Special Operations splits / by-passes
Special Operations: maintenance tolerances for exceptional variations Flexibility
fouling control fouling control economy, throughput, changed feeds&products
cleaning possibilities cleaning possibilities changed unit and equipment performance
Special Operations
startup / shutdown / emergencies / maintenance
Effectivity Effective use of driving forces Existing vs. new performance (existing units) Existing vs. new situation
ǻT Effective use of driving forces Effective use of driving forces
ǻP versus htc ǻT and ǻp properly used (ǻTeff versus ǻTlm ) ǻT and ǻp properly used
Total htc versus actual versus ideal energy efficiency
htc single side and htc wall Complexity
topology follows process/lay-out logic
piping
constructability
Economy & Ecology
htc = heat transfer coefficient

2.6 Design Criteria
2.6.1 Evaluation Criteria for Heat Exchanger Networks

The second essential element for proper definition of a design problem according to Biegler et al.
(1997) is the specification of a test method to determine if the design meets the goal. A test is only
possible if the design goal is adequately translated in relevant criteria with a predefined qualification
of what is acceptable to classify a design as feasible and preferred to get a more optimal design. From
the problem definition in this chapter we can derive a number of criteria for heat exchanger network
design. These criteria will be discussed below. An overview of possible methods to evaluate these
criteria in conceptual design, the actual test methods, will be given in Chapter 4.
Table 12 gives an overview of the criteria that may be relevant at micro, meso and macro level design.
It gives a division in five groups: fundamental assumptions, efficacy, constraints, operability and
effectivity.
The first group of criteria relate to the fundamental assumptions for the design and the design
methods. These include assumptions with respect to the objectives of the design and the models that
have been used. Generally, some fundamental objectives serve as the basis of a design. If these
objectives have not been selected properly, the resulting design may not have the initially intended
function. It is possible, that we recognize this only after completion of the design. Besides, the models
that we use in the design are always simplifications and include only part of the potentially relevant
aspects. The validity of the used models must therefore be checked afterwards.
The second group of criteria addresses the efficacy of the design. This includes the main criteria to
determine whether a design meets the design goal (Tables 5 and 9) and thus is a feasible design. An
engineer may replace these criteria by his or her main concern: ‘Does it work?’. Obviously, this is
closely related to the criteria of the third and fourth group, which contain the general constraints that
are put on the design and the operability of the design.
The general constraints that form the third group of criteria are manifold, as demonstrated in the given
list of criteria. Generally, constraints are taken as hard limits but in some cases the boundaries may not
be that sharp. In case such constraints are binding, we should consider some relaxation of these
constraints.
The operability criteria assess the sensitivity of the design for known and unknown deviations from
the nominal conditions throughout the process. These include various operational modes, such as
startup and shutdown, slowly changing conditions in time due to fouling and unplanned deviations
during emergencies.
The fifth and last group of criteria evaluate the quality of the design. They show the costs and merits
of the design and the progress towards some ideal situation. The effectivity criteria are the most
suitable to compare alternative designs. Additionally, such a comparison may be based on the criteria
of the third and fourth group, the constraints and the operability, in case these are qualitative and not
too sharp. Quantitative sharp constraints determine only the principal feasibility of a design and do not
identify the better designs. Obviously, it makes no sense to evaluate an infeasible design or to compare
a feasible design with an infeasible alternative.
48 Chapter 2
The fundamental assumptions, efficacy and constraints criteria can easily be linked to the problem
definition elaborated in the previous sections of this chapter. In the subsequent sections we will
discuss the operational and effectivity criteria in more detail.
2.6.2 Operational Performance

The operational performance is a major issue in any process design as the intended functionality of a
design has to result from an adequate installation that is operated in the way it was designed for. The
operation determines the availability and profitability of the built installation from day to day. It is
possible that the plant is operated differently than was envisioned originally. This may be due to a too
complex design or the presence of badly performing units. As a result expensive equipment may be
out of order and does not contribute to the profitability of the plant, which of course should be
avoided. We can recognize three levels of operational performance:
• controllability to get a stable operation at a desired operating point;
• flexibility to operate at a different operating point;
• special operations: startup, shutdown, emergency and maintenance.
Controllability is the ability to compensate for disturbances within the network to maintain a stable
operation at a given desired operating point. Conceptual network design generally does not include
network dynamics and control, unless special design techniques are used . Refer to the literature on
controllability or resilience given in Chapter 1. There are, however, some general guidelines that we
can check to avoid control problems or inadvertent (manual) operation.
The more complex the heat exchanger networks are, the more they may give rise to inefficient
operation. There are several ways this may emerge. First, such networks may join streams from all
over the plant. Changes in one section of the plant thus may affect other sections as well. In case either
the installed controls or the operators respond to such a side effect, it is possible that the stability of the
plant is affected. The more complex the interactions are, the more difficult it is to keep sufficient
stability. This is a problem especially during start-up and may result in inoperable plants. In case no
controls respond to the side effect, as in most cooling water systems, the change may remain unnoticed
by the operators for a long time. As a consequence the plant(section) may run less efficient or
inappropriate. To prevent such operational problems, the design should be sufficiently transparent.
Connections between more or less independent sections should be avoided as much as possible.
Stream splits are a second source of inefficiencies during operation. We recognize stream splits to
allow parallel heat exchanger installation and exchanger by-passes. A design with parallel matches
may reduce the required heat transfer area or allow more heat recovery. The design split ratio is
sometimes difficult to achieve, especially in reboiler streams. Additionally, the stream split may have
a manual rather than an automatic control to save investment. Changing conditions generally require a
different split ratio, but a manual control will only occasionally be updated. The operators will have
little motivation to set the proper ratio, if they have an alternative to heat and cool the serviced streams
or in case the target temperatures are less critical. During design we should thus carefully consider
how the objectives of any modifications will be met in practice. Exchanger by-passes reduce the heat
integration possibilities and increase the required heat transfer area. They may however be
indispensable for process control. We must thus check the possibilities to control the heat exchanger
network design and the related process and add adequate design margins.
The flexibility is the ability to operate at different operating points to compensate for variations in the
capacity, available feeds and required products, the environment and equipment performance.
Flexibility is a key property to optimise the economical performance of a plant. There are many
uncertainties in the basis used for design and the actual performance of the equipment. In retrofit we
must also take into account the uncertainties in the representation of the existing network. It is
essential to recognize these uncertainties in any stage of design. Generally, it is not sufficient to
evaluate just one case. Either we have to include the expected variance of the data explicitly or we
have to evaluate a number of characteristic cases to get a better representation of the normal operating
window and thus a more solid basis for the design. Both methods will introduce more flexibility into
the design and give a better guarantee of meeting the plant requirements. In the evaluation of
alternatives one has to compare the differences of the designs with the possible errors in the data. For
the same reason, extensive optimisation is often not very relevant. It may even be contra productive, if
the constraints for the optimisation restrict too much the operating window (i.e. the range in which the
operating variables of a plant are allowed to vary).
Flexibility problems should get special attention if we intend to use multi-stream heat exchangers. The
rigid construction and the fixed internal flow distribution allow little control. A variation of one of the
streams will disturb all other streams as well. On the other hand the presence of more than two streams
will reduce the sensitivity for each individual stream. We should thus select the streams that are
included in a multi-stream exchanger with care. The most appropriate ones seem those with some clear
relationship or that have less critical outlet temperatures.
Special operations is a collection of operating conditions outside the normal operating window in
which the network can exist and for which special provisions may be necessary. Common conditions
are startup, shutdown, emergencies and maintenance.
Startup and shutdown often requires special connections to heat up and cool down and to handle off-
spec materials. Highly integrated networks may require special heaters and coolers to provide or
release heat from or to utilities, while the heat source or sink that is used during normal operation is
not available or insufficient.
Emergencies can expose the network to exceptional conditions and variations. Generally, this is taken
into account by the specification of the mechanical design condition. Rigid constructions, as present in
many compact exchangers, often not only have limits on the maximum or minimum conditions but
also on the rate of change, due to the thermal stress that is associated with these changes. For a
complex heat integration, like in multi-stream heat exchangers, rate restrictions may be a complex
constraint that requires detailed dynamic failure and emergency shutdown analysis.
Maintenance may be necessary on-line or off-line. Most large continuous processes have a (planned)
full stop only every one to four years. During such a stop all equipment can be cleaned, inspected and
repaired where necessary. The exchanger design must allow inspection of all critical and sensitive
parts. Exchangers may need maintenance more regularly than the full plant stop interval. This is often
the case with fouling services. Special provisions are necessary in those cases to allow on-line
cleaning, by injection of chemicals or special cleaning devices, or to isolate the exchanger to allow the
required maintenance. Sometimes, a special operating mode is necessary to clean or regenerate a plant
section, like steam-air decoke or reactor regeneration. Also such operating modes must be possible
50 Chapter 2
with the designed heat exchanger network. Obviously, the options to clean and inspect are different for
each exchanger type. During exchanger type selection these aspects must be taken into account. The
heat exchanger network must provide the flexibility to allow the required maintenance either by
sparing of exchangers or a special operating mode.
2.6.3 Effectivity Aspects

Unlike the criteria discussed above, effectivity aspects are generally more nice-to-have qualities than
mandatory properties. The effectivity criteria evaluate the quality of the design in terms of the extend
it exploits the available driving forces, the (relative) performance improvement of equipment and
network (parts), the complexity and the economical and ecological performance.
The driving forces, temperature and pressure differences, are constraints for both network on macro
and exchanger design on meso level design. Designs will generally be more effective if they fully
exploit the available temperature differences and pressure drops. Higher temperature differences and
heat transfer coefficients that relate to higher pressure drops will both reduce the required heat transfer
area. There may, however, be other constraints that limit the actual use of the available temperature
differences and pressure drops. Data of the effective use of driving forces is easily available during
design (see Chapter 4). We can thus quickly discover possible inefficiencies in the design and correct
if possible. Finally, efficient use of driving forces will translate in better economy and ecology, which
will be used as more fundamental evaluation criteria of completely elaborated designs.
In retrofit design we can use the existing design as reference for evaluation. Comparing performance
numbers of the new design and existing situation shows the improvement that is possible with the new
design. The absolute improvement will be the driver for the economics of the retrofit project. The
relative improvement, the improvement related to the existing performance, is especially useful to
evaluate and balance the scope of the required modifications and possible improvements.
The complexity of a design and the required modifications is a qualification of how difficult it is to
design and construct the new and revised installation and how difficult it will be to understand and
manage the new installation once built. The complexity of design and construction represents the part
of the cost of the modifications, the time required to design and erect and the risks in cost and
construction. Especially in retrofit, apparent simple changes, both to the network or to individual
pieces of equipment, may be hard or impossible to implement. A thorough evaluation should therefore
include a detailed analysis of the physical space, layout and structure requirements and equipment
construction.
The complexity of the finally built installation relates to the operability issues discussed in the
previous section. Obviously, it is not preferred to have a spaghetti of connections matching streams
from all over the process, not recognizing the logic of the process and the physical layout, but if the
improvements are substantial we will allow more complex solutions. Still, we must recognize that a
more complex design is more likely to operate away from the optimal operation point and in practice
may not give the improvement it was designed for.
The economy of a retrofit project is the balance of achieved improvements and required investments.
In energy saving retrofit the improvements are the operating cost savings. These are primarily the
savings on the use of utilities, but may also include savings on maintenance cost when fouling is
mitigated.
The investments include the cost of new exchangers and exchanger revisions, the cost of exchanger
installation and additional cost on piping and controls etcetera. Additionally, substantial costs are
associated in retrofit to the (additional) down time of the plant during construction and the related loss
of production. To reduce the production loss costs, the retrofit of large continuous plants is generally
only possible during the periodic shutdown every one to four years. The modifications that are
possible in this time are limited and should fit in the many other activities that are required in this time
or we have to make allowances to extend the stop period.
The cost of new heat exchanger equipment depends on the exchanger type, size, material and design
conditions. The costs may vary considerably with time depending on demand and supply require-
ments. Advanced heat exchangers have special surfaces and extensions that are more expensive than
plain surface, both because of construction complexity and because they have to be obtained from
special vendors that have higher margins and license fees on there products. For proper applications
these higher costs are balanced by the reduction of the exchanger size, which make the overall unit
costs lower. The costs of compact exchangers reduce relative to the cost of conventional if
• more expensive materials must be applied, as compact exchangers contain less material;
• the exchanger size is too large for conventional exchangers to fit in one shell, while the compact
exchanger can contain much more area per shell.
The installation cost of an exchanger relates to the size and weight of this exchanger and the
associated piping. Compact exchangers are smaller and have less weight and consequently require less
installation cost. Compact exchangers also allow heat exchange between more than two streams. This
will increase the exchanger cost but may save considerably on the installation cost and the cost of
piping. Compact plate-fin units can hold up to 12 streams in one unit. Plate-and-frame exchangers may
hold up to four streams (Van Reisen et al., 1995b, Haslego and Polley 2002).
The ecology criteria review the impact of the design on the environment. For energy saving retrofit,
energy saving is the key ecological driver. This saving reduces primarily the carbon dioxide emis-
sions, but as most heat originates from some kind of fuel firing it generally also reduces the sulphur or
sulphur oxides (SOx) , nitrogen oxides (NOx) , hydrocarbons and dust emissions.
Energy saving requires the investment in network and equipment modifications and the addition of
new equipment. From an ecological point of view, existing area must be reused as much as possible.
Equipment revision is preferred over the installation of new equipment. If new equipment is required,
compact exchangers are probably preferred as they contain less raw materials both to construct and to
install. The ecological differences between various types of exchangers will also depend on the used
production method and the associated environmental impact that must be compared.
The selected exchanger design also determines the fouling properties and the maintenance require-
ments. Mitigation of fouling is preferred from an ecological point of view. If cleaning is required, the
options of mechanical cleaning and chemical cleaning with various substances must be compared.
Mechanical cleaning seems to have the least environmental impact, but exchangers that allow
mechanical cleaning will require gaskets that regularly have to be replaced. Detailed evaluation is
required to determine the most ecologically responsible option.
52 Chapter 2
2.7 Applied Problem Definition
2.7.1 General Guidelines

The general design problem definitions given in this chapter are very extended and show how complex
heat exchanger network design may be. It is hardly possible nor practical to take into account every
detail described in each stage of design. Moreover, each design case is different with specific
opportunities, difficulties, constraints and wishes, which makes design issues more or less important.
The case specific issues should be incorporated in the problem definition to get a more effective
design basis. Therefore, we will facilitate the design of specific cases if we prepare a dedicated
problem definition prior to design, that highlights the essential design issues.
The general problem definition is a good basis for a dedicated problem definition. Irrelevant issues can
be taken out and case specific ones added. Non-essential issues can be included as a design evaluation
criterion only, which ensures a check of the final result but avoids an overload of issues and details
during the preparation of the design.
For the preparation of a case specific design problem definition for heat exchanger network design, we
suggest the following approach:
• Start with Table 5 and 6 for grassroots design and with Table 9 and 10 for retrofit design;
• Specify main issues;
• Specify variables related to main issues;
• Specify models for relation between specified variables;
• Specify criteria for main issues;
• Specify secondary issues;
• Specify criteria for secondary issues;
• List assumptions for selection of main, secondary and ignored issues;
• Verify during evaluation of design that assumptions are valid.
The approach is just a guidance to get a case specific problem definition in a systematic way.
2.7.2 Energy Saving Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit: a Practical Definition for Thesis
This thesis focusses on energy saving retrofit as defined in general terms in Section 2.5.1. We will use
an adapted problem definition to highlight the essential design issues we want to investigate and to
allow a practical approach to incorporate into the design inherent dependencies of network elements
and network complexity. The adapted problem definition is in Table 13 and 14.
The main issues are the same in the adapted and general energy saving retrofit problem definitions.
Table 13 is therefore the same as Table 9, except for the specification of the economical criterion.
The major difference in Table14 compared to Table 10 is the introduction of zones as additional
object. Zones are similar to the areas of integrity introduced by Ahmad and Hui (1991) and defined as
follows:
zones are logically identifiable areas specified in terms of streams and matches, in which a process
plant can often be divided associated with specific processing tasks or with practical aspects like
safety and layout.
Table 13 Energy saving heat exchanger network retrofit design problem definition applicable in thesis
Goal: reduce annual utility cost of a network by effective modification of the hardware
Criteria payback period of investment by annual saving

heat balance
modification risks
Starting Point existing heat exchanger network

single operating point with stream and exchanger performance data consistent with used
design model
set of hot and cold streams with

constraints
We will elaborate the zone concept in Chapter 6 and show how it can be used to represent all kind of
dependencies between streams and matches as described in the previous sections of this chapter.
Appendix A lists the main assumptions that are applicable in this thesis. For the problem definition we
highlight the main assumptions below.
• In the adapted problem definition we have assumed that pressure drop is not constrained. Any
references to pressure drop constraints are therefore removed from Table 14. The enthalpy of a
heat stream is only a function of the temperature.
• All new and existing exchangers can adequately be modelled with one of the following models
• counter-current : strictly counter-current flow, Equation 4 applies (FT = 1);
• multi-pass : 1 shell - 2 tube passes model with FT given by Figure 6.
• Three exchanger types are available both as new exchanger and to model existing exchangers
• multi-pass shell-and-tube : multi-pass model, minimum approach temperature based on
equal outlet temperatures;
• strictly counter-current shell-and-tube : counter-current model, approach temperature >
10°C;
• strictly counter-current advanced : counter-current model, approach temperature > 1°C.
54 Chapter 2
Table 14 Energy saving heat exchanger network retrofit design objects and attributes used in thesis
(parent) objects
Stream source, destination source, destination duty
Ts , Tt (cont), duty (cont) Ts , Tt
massflow (cont) massflow
properties (cont) properties
single side htc (cont) single side htc
fouling factor (cont) fouling factor
Utility source, destination Ts , Tt , properties duty
(Stream) Ts , Tt (cont), duty (cont) single side htc massflow
massflow (cont) fouling factor annual oper cost
properties (cont) unit cost
single side htc (cont)
fouling factor (cont)
cost
Match set of streams type (disc) allowable types streams included
set of utilities EMAT (cont) EMAT - Ts Tt , massflow
streams included (disc) utilities included
utilities included (disc) - Ts , Tt, massflow
up- & downstr.units(disc) up- & downstr. units
FT (cont), htc (cont) annual oper cost
size (cont) type, no. shells series
cost (cont) htc, FT, size
no. shells in series (disc) investment
Existing set of streams see Match existing streams, existing streams,
match set of utilities utilities and up- utilities and up- &
(Match) &downstream units downstream units
type, existing size equipment revisions
shells series/parallel
equipment condition
split up- & downstr.units(disc) up- & downstr. units
mixers up- & downstr.units(disc) up- & downstr. units
Tie-in stream (disc) stream
up- & downstr.units(disc) up- & downstr. units
Zone set of streams depend on zoning basis existing sets set modifications
set of stream-
splits / mixers
set of matches
Network set of streams see Match see Match see Match
(Match) set of utilities lay out lay out tie-in locations
set of stream-
splits / mixers
set of matches
set of existing
matches
set of tie-ins
Basic Retrofit Design Framework 55
Chapter 3
New Framework for Basic Retrofit Design
Practical heat exchanger network retrofit design problems are generally

rather difficult to manage and time demanding, due to their complexity
and the large amount of data involved. A structured design approach is
essential to smoothen the design process and avoid errors and poor
designs. The existing design approaches and procedures for heat
exchanger network retrofit design available in literature are briefly
reviewed. The available approaches have limited scope and are rather
recipe-like procedures to create a revised network from a fully
determined existing network. This chapter gives a new general heat
exchanger network retrofit design framework, based on a generic design
cycle and the general stage-wise process design framework of Siirola
(1996). Common network design is embedded in this framework as
conceptual network design. This phase of network design is further
elaborated at the end of this chapter. It is split in four stages with
increasing level of detail: Target, Preliminary, Refined and Final Design.
A clear demarcation is given for each stage.
56 Chapter 3
3.1 Introduction
Practical heat exchanger network retrofit design problems are generally complex. This is due to the
many variables, the many and often rather different revision options, the wide range of relevant
criteria and the poor availability and inconsistency of data as discussed in Chapter 2. The number of
design variables increases rapidly with the number of process and utility streams and the number of
existing matches. Meanwhile, the number of design alternatives increases as well. In retrofit the design
alternatives can be very different as discussed in Section 2.5 and Chapter 1 (Figure 2). Retrofit design
can range from minimum impact to complete renovation, which are difficult to compare. This
difference will generally become larger with the extent of the network.
The screening of the existing network and evaluation of any designed alternative requires a large
amount of data which makes it very time demanding. Thorough evaluation of any network (existing or
new) requires assessment of more than 20 criteria (Table 12), defined in general terms. Each criterion
requires a number of specific evaluations also depending on the size of the network. The more details
are evaluated the more design and performance data of the network are required. Collection and
verification / reconciliation of this data is generally very labourious in retrofit design. Data of the
current installation and operation is generally incomplete and inconsistent. Besides, the models used
for design may give an estimated performance that deviates from the actual performance. Evaluation
of detailed criteria requires elaboration of the proposed design to get the detailed data and often the
calculation of the design performance in alternative cases. A structured design approach is necessary
to concentrate our efforts on relevant data-collection, design analysis and evaluation activities.
Many heat exchanger network design methods and tools are available in literature. The methods differ
in the starting point of the design, the detail of the created design, the variables taken into account and
the design steps described. The available tools are applicable for different detail levels of design. It is
difficult to compare these methods and tools and determine whether they are alternatives or
complementary to each other. No general framework is available in literature, in which all available
design approaches fit. Such a framework is essential to get a structured overview of these methods.
In this chapter we will elaborate a new generic heat exchanger network retrofit design framework that
• structures the design process including the problem definition;
• takes into account practical limitations on resources (time) and information;
• allows screening and demarcation of the desired revision scope;
• systematically addresses the main issues and relevant details;
• identifies and evaluates alternatives;
• is sufficiently generic to cover current heat exchanger network design approaches;
• balances design efforts against prospects for improvements.
Below, first the available heat exchanger network design approaches are briefly reviewed. Next, some
generic design methods from literature are described. They are the basis for the new heat exchanger
retrofit design framework that is described thereafter. The last section of this chapter gives a detailed
elaboration of the conceptual network design phase, which contains the actual network generation and
which is the most relevant phase for basic engineering in the new retrofit design framework.
Target-based Design Approach Mathematical Programming Design Approach

define the problem; define the problem
find targets for the main characteristic generate a representation of as many options
variables; as possible (superstructure);
synthesise a feasible solution reaching at optimise the superstructure (equivalent to the
least one of the targets and synthesis of the optimal solution);
evolve the initial design to approach the evaluate the result.
Figure 7 Outline of heat exchanger network design approaches for a) target-based design approaches
and b) mathematical programming design approaches.
3.2 Existing Design Approaches
3.2.1 Heat Exchanger Network Design Approaches

Most heat exchanger network design methods in literature are either target-based or use mathematical
programming. Refer also to Section 1.2.3. Figure 7 outlines the main steps of both methods presented
in a similar format.
The target-based methods try to get insight in the design problem, before they try to solve it. This is
very valuable as the designer can explain most of the results found this way and he or she can easier
judge the available options. There are design rules for the synthesis stage (Kemp, 2007), but these do
not address a number of practical aspects that are essential for the feasibility of a network. It requires
substantial design experience to get to an acceptable solution in this stage. The evolution stage is
hardly structured at all. It may aim for various objectives, but it is very difficult to make a proper
trade-off among the available options, while few guidelines are available. Consequently, an optimal
design cannot be guaranteed. For retrofit, Tjoe (Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1986, Tjoe, 1986) developed a
target-based method in line with the structure of Figure 7a. Evolution is, however, difficult in retrofit
and therefore replaced by some kind of stage-wise design development in more recent methods (Van
Reisen et al. 1995a, Gulyani and Mohanty, 2000).
Mathematical programming is basically a straightforward method. Nevertheless, the implementation

requires adequate mathematical knowledge and experience. It is essential to generate an adequate
superstructure based on a specific design problem definition to get relevant solutions. However, even
the most extended mathematical models have limited accuracy and validity due to model
simplifications and common variations in the input data. Consequently, the heat exchanger network
optimisation problem typically has a range of equivalent (near) optimal solutions. Most methods,
however, only aim for just one optimal solution and thus may fail to make the designer aware of the
alternatives and potentially more beneficial opportunities. The lack of an exploration step of the design
space, similar to targeting, to gain insight in the design problem, increases the risk of the selection of a
poor alternative. A clear advantage is that a mathematical solver may also return very unconventional
designs, that will not easily be discovered by a human designer. In other cases, however, it may give
clearly impossible designs that do not take into account some obvious practical aspects that have not
sufficiently been included in the model.
Various alternative heat exchanger network design methods have been proposed in literature that are
variations and blends of the two approaches described above to get the benefits of both approaches
58 Chapter 3
(Tantimuratha et al., 2000). Individual steps of the target-based approach are defined and solved as a
mathematical problem. The first application that allows all steps handled this way is reported by Saboo
et al. (1986a). Similar methods are published by Trivedi at al. (1989 and 1990) and Zhu (Zhu, 1995
and Zhu et al. 1995b). These methods tend to mathematical programming with user interaction as
proposed by Briones and Kokossis (1996). For the retrofit of heat exchanger networks Asante and Zhu
(1996, 1997, Zhu and Asante, 1999) have developed a similar method with user-driven mathematical
optimisation. Mathematical programming approaches have adopted elements from the target-based
approach as well. Various more advanced mathematical programming methods use physical insight
similar to target-based methods (Marechal and Kalitventzeff, 1989, Gundersen and Grossmann, 1990)
or approximating models and feasibility targets (Daichendt and Grossmann 1994a,1994b and 1994c)
to bound and initialise the mathematical optimisation problem. A similar approach has been published
by Yee and Grossmann (1991) for retrofit. They added a screening step comparable with targeting to
their solution strategy for the retrofit design problem, to identify the scope for improvements.
The interface to design activities other than heat exchanger network design and to objects outside the
heat exchanger network is only occasionally described. Singh and Castillo (2002) describe the
importance of consistent modelling and design in various retrofit design phases from data-extraction to
detailed exchanger design. Unfortunately, they mainly stress the capabilities of the used software (HX-
NET) and give no systematic design approach. Section 1.2.3 gives references to the literature on the
integration of special process elements, like reactors and distillation columns, the initiation of process
changes and the incorporation of heat exchanger details in heat exchanger network design. The design
that addresses this extended scope is often referred to as process integration. The target-based methods
for these problems, generally introduce a loop between targeting and the problem definition showing
the interaction between process and heat exchanger network design. Methods that incorporate
exchanger details, recognize the possible mismatch between conceptual and detailed design. These
methods provide tools to reduce the risk of mismatch but give no guidance when to apply such
refinements in the context of the process and available equipment.
There are some general studies available for the retrofit design of total processes that go beyond the
specific retrofit design methods for heat exchanger networks. Remarkably, only one systematic
method is given in these studies. The basic method was proposed by Fisher et al. (1987) and later
extended by Nelson and Douglas (1990) and Rapoport et al. (1994). This method includes the steps of
the target-based design approach: target, synthesise and evolve or in retrofit terms: target, modify and
refine. Each of these steps is worked out in more detail by the authors, especially in Rapoport et al.
(1994). An important addition of the method compared to other target-based methods is the explicit
evaluation of a new design to determine the incentives for plant replacement instead of plant revision.
3.2.2 A Generic Design Framework

There are some well-defined and most fundamental schemes in literature that represent the general
design process. Such schemes serve two main objectives, that are both important for this thesis.
Firstly, they structure and clarify the design process, especially for novice designers, but it may be an
eye-opener for experienced designers as well. Secondly, such basic schemes are a valid basis to
develop more specific design approaches. Approaches that are derived from general principles tend to
be wider applicable than approaches that come from generalisations of specific design methods. Basic
design schemes have been presented by, among others, Roozenburg and Eekels (1991), by Siirola
(1996) and by Biegler et al. (1997). The known schemes are all very similar. The most fundamental
one is given by both Siirola (1996) and Roozenburg and Eekels (1991) and is shown in Figure 8. This
scheme, which we will refer to as the basic design cycle, includes the essential steps for any functional
design, no matter how simple or complex it is. We will discuss the scheme in more detail below. The
design scheme of Biegler et al. (1997) is slightly different and better suited for design methods that are
based on mathematic programming. It is, however, harder to fit other approaches within this scheme.
Therefore, the given basic design cycle will be used as the basis for the generic framework for heat
exchanger network retrofit design.
The basic design cycle, Figure 8, starts with the

identification of a specific function for which a need
exists. Generally, just an ill-defined function is given
by the problem owner or the client. A detailed assess-
ment and clear definition of this function is the first
step of a design. It translates the function in a set of
design goals, constraints and specifications with clear
feasibility and optimality criteria, known as the basis
of design. The designer must clarify the actual needs,
that may differ from the initially specified needs, the
constraints, the opportunities and the desires that are
captured in the original demand, to be able to find
acceptable solutions. The initial assessment of the
problem area will give a better idea of the specific
goals and essential elements for the design. It will
show a number of constraints that must be taken into
account, to satisfy both the problem owner and his or
her environment. An exploration of the potential
solutions will show the feasible options and physical
limits. It demarcates the design space for any poten-
tial solutions. Such an exploration may be a design
itself at a more abstract level. This should then be
solved, recursively, with the given design cycle.
Finally, some optimisation criteria may be identified Figure 8 Basic design cycle after Siirola
that allow a selection of the best alternative from the (1996) and Roozenburg and Eekels
many feasible solutions that are nearly always (1991)
present.
Synthesis is the creative step that generates one or more possible solutions using the information from
the definition. Roozenburg and Eekels (1991) define synthesis as ‘the composition of a new entity
from (partial) known components.’ The word ‘composition’ has been used in a broad sense, that
includes both the selection of the structure and of their individual characteristics. Roozenburg and
Eekels (1991) stress the importance of an integral approach to create a genuine entity and not a set of
partial solutions. Although a structured approach has advantages, they also mention that synthesis is a
creative process which may be hard to direct.
After the synthesis, the analysis of the proposed design must test the properties and performance of the
design(s). The most rigorous test is the construction of a prototype (physical model) of the design, but
60 Chapter 3
in conceptual process design only very simplified prototypes may be built. Instead, simplified models
must be used to forecast the actual properties and performance. These models will be mathematical
models in most cases, often implemented in a simulation engine or in a spreadsheet. For some special
applications graphical two- or three-dimensional computer models are useful. An alternative for these
computer models are simplified physical models like scale models or pilot plants. Obviously, the
requirements of the used models depend on the aspects of the design that have to be simulated, the
desired accuracy of the result, etc. Refer to general text books on process modelling like Hangos and
Cameron (2001).
The next step is the evaluation of the proposed design(s). For each individual design criterion the
expected properties and performance of the proposed design(s) are compared with predefined
requirements. It is hardly possible to take into account all criteria in the synthesis and analysis, despite
the definition of the criteria prior to design. A design is often too complex to do this. Also, some of the
criteria may be hard to recognize in the used representation of the design and in the results from the
analysis. In these cases the data must first be processed before an evaluation is possible. The efforts
that we need for the evaluation may be dosed by a stage-wise approach as will be described in
Section 3.3.2.
The last step in the basic design cycle is the final judgement, referred to as control. In this step we
must decide either to accept (one of) the proposed design(s) or to continue with the design process,
based on the overall performance of the design, which is compiled from the evaluation results for the
individual criteria taken from the evaluation step. The control block indicates three alternatives:
• The proposed design is not accepted, either because it is infeasible or better solutions seem to be
possible, and the design process returns to the synthesis step to create an alternative design
based on the same criteria.
• The proposed design is not accepted as in the first alternative, but it was concluded that the
original problem definition was infeasible with inappropriate design criteria and design must
return to the definition step to redefine the design problem.
• The proposed design is accepted and the design cycle is abandoned.
Generally, a new design stage with its own design cycle is entered hereafter.
The given design cycle is used many times in a practical design, not only to generate alternative
designs but also to complete the large number of stages that are between the initial idea and the
construction and operation of the installation. The stages may either be part of a stepwise refinement
and progressing state of completion or of a stepwise change of the scope of the design. We will refer
to the refinements as design stages and to the scopes of design as design phases. Siirola (1996)
defined four design stages. The target stage reviews the requirements and goals of the current design
phase and it explores the feasible design space. The preliminary3 design stage generates a tentative
design, with little detail. The refined design stage includes more detail as it is based on more
information from other stages. The last design stage is the final design which can only be completed if
all relevant information for this phase is available. Additionally, Siirola (1996) specified a large
number of phases for the scope of the design. He summarised the two ways of staging in process
3
Siirola used conceptual design instead of preliminary design, but conceptual design is used in this thesis
to refer to the design phase that produces complete heat and mass balances, process flow diagrams and the
main specifications of the unit operations.
design using a two-dimensional matrix, given in an abridged form in Figure 9. The refinement
develops from target to final, whereas the scope goes from need identification to production and
maintenance plan. Aspects from subsequent phases may have impact on the design of a specific phase.
Therefore, Siirola stresses that a design phase should not be refined before the subsequent phases have
been addressed to some extent. The proposed path is indicated with arrows in Figure 9.
The approach described above allows a much

better integration of the design phases. It is
similar to what currently is known as concurrent
engineering (Herder, 1999). Essential in the latter
design approach is the flow of information,
roughly shown by the arrows in the framework.
At each stage, we must handle all the information
and the insight that is available. Meanwhile, we
have to generate sufficient information for the
subsequent stages that are part of other phases and
use the available information in an optimal way to
prevent unnecessary recycles in the future design
process. The arrows suggest that only a forward
view is required, but this is only valid in the ideal
case in which no aspects are overlooked in any of
the phases. In practice, it is of equal importance to
recall and reevaluate the background of any of the
actual goals and demands prior to the design in
each phase. Often a designer gets a design task
Figure 9 Phases of scope with various detail
that covers only a small number of phases and stages in design after Siirola (1996)
only part of the system. For example, a designer
will use a given flowsheet and corresponding balances to do the conceptual design of a heat exchanger
network, whereas a thermal engineer will use a specific duty datasheet to do the heat exchanger
design. The designers may not have been involved with the preceding design of any of the related
systems and thus will lack a lot of background information. For a proper design problem definition, it
may be necessary for the designer to collect more information and review or even redo some of the
previous stages and phases of the design, thus creating a recycle in the work flow. The work flow
indicated in Figure 9 is thus only indicative.
3.3 New Retrofit Design Framework
3.3.1 Method Requirements

The present heat exchanger network design methods are recipe-like procedures, that apply to well-
defined design problems, often of a restricted class. No attempts are known to define a design strategy
to approach the ill-defined network design problem that we encounter in practice, especially in a
retrofit design. Each retrofit design problem has specific points of attention with its own relative
importance of specific design aspects and evaluation criteria. It is generally difficult to obtain a
complete and consistent set of basic design data that can be the starting point for network design. This
limitation should be taken into account by the design method: it should first address the main issues
62 Chapter 3
and exploit the easiest available data to supply essential information for the work of other disciplines
and satisfy and direct the original problem owners. These requirements are not included in the existing
approaches.
The two main approaches for conceptual network design, Figures 7a and 7b in Section 3.2.1, are
useful for some classes of well-defined problems only. They are insufficient for most practical
problems. Both main approaches are generalisations of a number of similar methods that solve a
specific class of problems. They lack the more fundamental basis of the generic design approaches like
the ones discussed in the previous section. Consequently, both main approaches fail to cover the many
alternative methods developed for alternative design problems.
3.3.2 Generic Framework for the Retrofit Design of Heat Exchanger Networks
As outlined above we would like to have design framework that covers heat exchanger network
retrofit design in a wide context and allows practical design steps. We especially would like to address
the problem definition and the evaluation of alternatives effectively. This has been the basis for the
set-up of a new generic design framework for the retrofit of heat exchanger networks. Below, we will
present two schemes. The first will address the stages that are relevant for heat exchanger network
retrofit design. The second scheme is an extension of the basic design cycle with more emphasis on
the problem definition and the alternative evaluation.
The scheme of Siirola, Figure 9, is a typical set-up for the phases in grassroots process design. The
retrofit design of heat exchanger networks differs from this scheme in a number of ways. Firstly, any
retrofit design must take into account the existing installation. We need to describe this in a base case
with sufficient detail. It is possible to work out this base case within similar design stages as used by
Siirola: target, preliminary, refined and final. The second difference is that in retrofit design detailed
engineering is much closer to basic engineering than
in grassroots design. We need to take into account
many details in very early stages (refer to Chapter 2).
As a result it is difficult to keep separate phases for
the specification and basic engineering of tasks and
unit operations. The third and last main difference is
a general difference between process and heat
exchanger network design. For heat exchanger
network design the chemistry is not an issue and thus
we can skip the corresponding phase.
Figure 10 shows a new scheme for the retrofit design

of heat exchanger networks that results from the
previous discussion. A base case definition phase has
been introduced following the need identification
phase. This need identification phase is still required
in retrofit to specify the retrofit objectives and scope.
The subsequent conceptual network design phase
includes all main design decisions to get to a revised
network. It produces all the heat and mass balances,
Figure 10 Design stages for the retrofit of the process flow diagrams and the main
heat exchanger networks
specifications of the unit operations. This way this phase covers both the (heat transfer) task identif-
ication and part of the unit operation phase from the original scheme of Siirola. The conceptual
network design phase is the main subject of this thesis and will be discussed in more detail in Section
3.4. A separate unit operation phase has been omitted. The basic engineering phase is executed after
the conceptual network design phase and includes all the detailed process design activities, that result
in complete piping and instrumentation diagrams. This phase addresses the requirements for control,
instrumentation and piping. The detailed engineering phase continues with the piping and instrument
diagrams to get detailed drawings and specifications for construction. Next, we need a plan to
manufacture and revise any new and existing equipment and to construct the revised installation on
site. Finally, we must update the commissioning and operating procedures and the production and
maintenance plan.
Like in the original scheme of Siirola, each bullet in Figure 10 is a design to which the basic design
cycle applies. The original basic design cycle given in Figure 8 is, however, a little too ideal for most
heat exchanger network retrofit designs and probably for most practical process designs as well.
Following the original schemes of the Figures 8 and 9 we always start at the very beginning of the
design process and proceed until the last design step of the final stage of the operation and
maintenance phase. In practice, the major part of the initiated design processes die at one of the early
phases, due to bad prospects or changed interests. It is also possible that we need to go back to any of
the preceding stages, as discussed at the end of Section 3.2.2, to generate more information or to
reevaluate or redo any previous work. This is quite
common when we take over design work.
Figure 11 shows an extension of the basic design

cycle that shows the option of the intermediate
termination of the design process and the return to
previous stages. The scheme suggests returning to a
previous stage, when we have too little information
available. There is, intentionally, no fixed return point
given. The most reasonable location to return to is the
evaluation step in the previous design cycle for the
most final design so far. This way we need no new
design efforts, unless we find the present design not
acceptable. Alternatively, we may return to either the
definition or the analysis step.
Apart from the definition block, also the control block

has been revised. This is to show the options to exit
the design cycle. The revised cycle shows four ways
to proceed after the evaluation. We may either accept
a found alternative and continue with the next design
stage, try to improve the found alternative by
optimisation, reformulate the design problem, or
terminate the design. This is a complex trade-off, that
depends very much on the quality of the available
criteria and the way they can be evaluated.
Figure 11 Revised basic design cycle
64 Chapter 3
3.3.3 Evaluation and Selection of Design Alternatives

Heat exchanger network design may be subject to a large number of criteria, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Generally, the design criteria are diverse, partly qualitative and often competing. We cannot address
all criteria simultaneously during design and evaluation will be very labourious when too many
criteria must be taken into account for all design alternatives. As a consequence designs are evaluated
on the main criteria only. Generally, designers keep some other criteria in mind and use them
deliberately to arrive at the alternative that they intuitively feel the best (Herder, 1999). Obviously,
such practice should be avoided. It is therefore useful to define a systematic approach to incorporate
criteria effectively and honestly in the evaluation and control steps. Such approach requires evaluation
time, while it enhances objectivity.
We should apply all feasibility criteria, including the demands from other design stages according to
Figure 10 as a minimum. This will give a set of feasible design alternatives. Next, we can add
optimality criteria until we have identified the best alternative(s).
Figure 12 shows a way to include the important decision aspects for the evaluation and control steps in
a systematic way. The scheme tries to answer systematically the most important questions for heat
exchanger network design:
• Is the current network representation or design feasible?
• How does the new alternative compare with the available alternatives, if any?
• Is it possible to find other alternatives that have approximately the same or a better value?
• Is it justifiable to do further optimisation or to create further alternatives?
• If more than one alternative is available, which one should we select?
Figure 12 is an elaboration of the evaluation and control blocks in the revised basic design cycle in
Figure 11. The scheme starts with the input from the basic design cycle, i.e. the proposed network
design or representation (both called the proposed design in the remaining) and the criteria. We must
link evaluation methods to the criteria to allow the evaluation. The application of the evaluation
methods to the proposed design gives a characterisation of the performance that we can evaluate.
Initially, we must check the feasibility of the design, that is based on well-defined ‘hard’ criteria only.
A rejection of the design in this stage means that we will ignore that design during any further
evaluation. If we have found a feasible design, we must compare it to all previously generated and
still acceptable alternatives. To save time and much repetition, we can concentrate at this stage on the
main optimisation criteria only. Three situations may occur:
1) The proposed design is clearly worse for all the main criteria compared to the present acceptable
alternatives and should not be included in the set of acceptable alternatives in this case.
2) The proposed design is clearly better for all main criteria compared to the present acceptable
alternatives or there are no alternatives available. In these cases the proposed design should
replace the set of acceptable alternatives. The resulting set of acceptable alternatives now
contains only one item.
3) The proposed design is comparable to the present acceptable alternatives. It should then be
added to the acceptable alternative set.
Figure 12Decision scheme for design evaluation. The actions (rectangles) and decisions (diamonds)
for a specific set (an ellipse) are stacked as columns below the related sets. A dashed line
means ‘uses’.
66 Chapter 3
The approach proceeds with an assessment of the potential for improvement of the design, irrespective
of the feasibility or the acceptability of the proposed design found so far. In this step we must first
determine the expected scope for improvement based on the present acceptable alternatives, the
criteria, any physical limits, targets (see next chapter), mathematical optimality conditions and
experience. Next, we must decide if the expected scope justifies the additional effort of generating a
new alternative. In case the additional work is justified, we should also consider the sufficiency of the
criteria. We may need additional or stricter criteria, if the number of acceptable alternatives expands
too much. In case we decide to do so, we should reevaluate all acceptable and unacceptable
alternatives with respect to the new criteria, as the new criteria may result in a different set of
acceptable alternatives.
We may decide that the scope is too small to generate new alternatives. Next, we have to evaluate the
found set with acceptable alternatives. If there is no acceptable alternative, we must either consider to
relax the feasibility criteria and start over or accept that the design problem cannot be solved. If there
is more than one acceptable alternative, we must select the best one using all criteria that have been
specified. Below we will discuss a few strategies to do this. Finally, we will have the best identified,
feasible design or representation.
At two locations in the previously described scheme we need to select between design alternatives.
This selection is, generally, a multi-criteria evaluation with a number of discrete or binary variables. In
this thesis such multi-criteria evaluations will be handled with a simple merit function that is the sum
of the weighted contribution of each criterion. Refer to Section 9.4 and Appendix H for more details.
The used evaluation method can be replaced by a more advanced method, which may result in a
different, more optimal solution. Such advanced methods are described in textbooks like Eekels and
Roozenburg (1991), and Rustem (1998). Basically, the methods can be ordinative or quantitative,
aiming for respectively a relative ranking and a more absolute value. Further, the methods fall apart
by the type of criteria they can handle. These include:
• criteria represented by continuous variables only or by discrete and binary variables as well;
• criteria without or with uncertainty.
Obviously, the more aspects the methods can handle, the more complex the required evaluations and
calculations. The mentioned simple merit function method is sufficient for this thesis in which it is
more important to outline and demonstrate a design method than to present the most optimal solution.
3.4 Detailed Scope Definition of the Conceptual Network Design Phase in

Retrofit
The design framework described in the previous section covers retrofit network design from initial
screening to operation and maintenance of the revised network. The remaining of this thesis concen-
trates on one phase of this framework, conceptual network design. This section gives a detailed
definition of the four design stages in this conceptual network design phase in retrofit. Additionally, it
describes the relation to essential stages of other design phases.
The conceptual network design phase includes all main decisions for the retrofit network design. It
identifies both the scope for improvement and the principal required modifications. The conceptual
network design is, together with the base case definition, the most important phase in the design
process from a process engineer’s point of view. We will elaborate below the conceptual network
design phase to define the work process in more detail and to illustrate the use and meaning of the
design framework.
There are many ways to define the design stages of each phase. We should take into account the
efforts required to complete the task, the data that are available and the data and deliverables required
for subsequent phases and stages. In this thesis we will use a division that balances the efforts with the
likelihood of a viable project. The saving potential is first explored with simple analysis and design
methods. When this gives sufficient scope, we continue with more detailed work.
Most of the existing design methods and tools concentrate on either the exploration of the more
detailed design. Based on the available methods, we defined the design stages of the conceptual
network design phase in retrofit as follows:
• Target stage: Use grassroots targeting techniques to find the ideal scope for energy
saving;
• Preliminary design stage: Use retrofit targeting techniques to determine the real scope,
alternative saving options and, if possible, the related main changes to
the network;
• Refined design stage: Initial conceptual network design, a complete design in outlines;
• Final design stage: Final conceptual network design: similar to the refined design stage,
but taking into account all relevant implementation aspects.
The targeting stage of the conceptual network design phase is the ideal scope identification, which is
defined in the Tables 15 and 16. In this stage only little information is available. In the completed
design stages of the preceding design phases (Figure 10), we have been able to find out what we
would like to improve and what data is accessible. We assume that the main mass and heat balances
are available, but it is not likely that we have all detailed balances and a complete overview of the ex-
changers. The principal heat balances allow us to identify the maximal savings that we may realise for
each utility and the impact of specific constraints. Additionally, they may show process modifications
that facilitate any utility saving and any potential for total-site or heat-and-power integration. Refer to
the literature on these topics given in Chapter 1. As part of the problem assessment, we can use the
network performance evaluation techniques (Chapter 4) to gain insight from the base case. Obviously,
we can only use those techniques for which the required data is available. In the synthesis we
determine the maximum saving for each utility, using grassroots targeting techniques.
Following the work flow of Figure 10, we will return after the targeting stage of conceptual network
design to the base case evaluation, but this time focussed on the relation to the targets found. More
information is now available about the maximum savings possible. The increased insight in the
problem allows us to gather more specific data, necessary to refine the balances. It also allows us to set
more rationalised and quantified objectives in the need identification phase. We may also decide to
stop our design efforts, if the identified scope is too small.
It may be possible to synthesize complete conceptual network designs from the available data, but we
restrict ourselves in this stage to a more simplified identification and screening of the available
options. We refer to this simplified identification and screening as retrofit targeting. This targeting
allows us to review more options than we can handle with more detailed designs and thus we have a
68 Chapter 3
Table 15 Target stage of conceptual network design: ideal scope identification

Design Step Specification and Actions
Assessment
Goal Generate ideal reference design for the main design variables
Variables Refer to Table 16
Criteria Macro design level criteria from Table 12
Operational cost reduction / saving on primary fuel
Keep desired (integrity) zones
Starting Point Current process streams
Current utilities and quantities
Stream dependencies, in terms of (integrity) zones
Constraints Second law of thermodynamics (ǻT>0)
Exchanger type (minimum ǻT)
Required (integrity) zones
Synthesis Select allowed exchanger type(s).
Determine load limits for each utility and set the load of each utility.
Specify effective (integrity) zones.
Use (grassroots) targeting techniques (Chapter 5).
Analysis (model) 1 Targeting model (i.e. composite curves)
Model of utility system
Evaluation Determine whether used specifications are within constraints
Determine whether prospects are sufficiently good.
1
Note: In this thesis the analysis is equivalent to model set-up and generation of simulation output. The
evaluation compares results of simulations using the built model with the criteria. In practical design this will
be done in parallel.
Table 16 Objects and attributes for the target stage of conceptual network design (see Chapter 2 for
explanation of table)
(parent) objects
Stream source, destination, source, destination duty
Ts , Tt (cont), duty (cont) Ts , Tt ,
heat capacity (cont) heat capacity
Utility source, destination, Ts , Tt , duty
(Stream) Ts , Tt (cont), duty (cont) heat capacity massflow
massflow (cont) unit cost annual oper cost
heat capacity (cont)
cost
Network set of streams approach temperature minimum ǻT streams included
set of utilities (cont) utilities included
better chance to identify the best options. Besides, we spill less effort in case we are not able to
identify any projects with acceptable prospects. We can do targeting in a number of ways with varying
complexity. The more details we include in the targeting, the more reliable the results will be and the
less the risk of recycles from subsequent stages due to incorrect assumptions. On the other hand, we
must restrict the efforts of the targeting to keep the advantage over more detailed design. This trade-
off has been the origin of a large number of retrofit targeting methods in literature. The Chapters 5 and
6 show the available alternatives. Like in the first stage, the proposed options can be evaluated using
the network performance analysis techniques reviewed in Chapter 4.
After the preliminary design stage, when we have identified the available options and the main
modifications required, we can gather more details to refine the base case especially for the relevant
network parts. See the workflow in Figure 10. We can finalise the need identification phase that sets
the retrofit objectives, as we have sufficiently accurate information about the opportunities and we can
add specific requirements for any of the given options. We should now have sufficient focus to
explore the limitations and opportunities in more detail in the subsequent stages and finally select the
best option or options to proceed with.
The second stage, the preliminary design stage, which is defined in Table 17 and 18, identifies the
main saving options, including the main requirements to realise these savings. At the beginning of this
stage, we know both the refined heat and mass balances and the approximate performance of the
Table 17 Preliminary design stage of conceptual network design: principal options identification
Assessment
Goal Generate retrofit design with lumped network model.
Variables Refer to Table 18
Criteria Macro criteria (Table 12, Chapter 2)
Fundamental assumptions
Efficacy
Constraints
Starting Point Current process streams
Current utilities and quantities
Existing network topology
Existing exchanger areas
Constraints The existing network
Allowed exchanger type(s) (allowed minimum ǻT)
Investment and payback or equivalent economic criteria
Synthesis Fix variables.
Determine acceptable limits of variables, if possible.
Use grassroots and retrofit targeting techniques (Chapter 5).
Analysis (model) Targeting models suitable for retrofit design

Model of utility system
Heat exchanger model
Evaluation Determine whether design is within constraints.

Determine whether design meets criteria sufficiently.
Compare and rank options
70 Chapter 3
current heat exchangers. We may have identified a number of inefficiencies in the existing units or in
parts of the network when we worked on the set-up of the base case and when we did a more detailed
inspection of the network, according to the path in Figure 10. The inefficiencies show potential for
local improvements. Also, we may have identified some constraints that we have to recognize during
retrofit design.
The third stage, the refined design stage, see Table 19, generates the first complete conceptual retrofit
design of the network. In the intermediate stages of the other design phases (Figure 10), we have foc-
ussed on the parts of the network that we found the most relevant with the best retrofit opportunities.
Table 18 Objects and attributes for the preliminary design stage of conceptual network design (see Section 2.2
for explanation of the table)
(parent) objects
Stream source, destination source, destination duty

Ts , Tt (cont), duty (cont) Ts , Tt
properties (cont) properties
single side htc (cont) single side htc fouling
fouling factor (cont) factor
Utility source, destination Ts , Tt, properties duty

(Stream) Ts , Tt (cont), duty (cont) single side htc massflow
massflow (cont) fouling factor annual oper cost
properties (cont) unit cost
single side htc (cont)
fouling factor (cont)
cost
Match set of streams type (disc) allowable types NO OUTPUT for

set of utilities EMAT (cont) EMAT individual matches
streams included (disc)
utilities included (disc)
up- & downstr.units(disc)
size (cont)
cost (cont)
Existing set of streams see Match existing streams, NO OUTPUT for

match set of utilities utilities and up- individual matches
(Match) &downstream units
type, size
set of stream-
splits / mixers
set of matches
1
Network set of streams see Match see Match
(Match) set of utilities streams included
set of matches utilities included
set of existing matches included
matches annual operating cost
investment
size
1
only output for network being a ‘lumped match’
Table 19 Refined design stage of Conceptual Network Design

Assessment
Goal Generate a complete conceptual design, according to the problem definition of
Section 2.7 (Table 13).
Variables Refer to Table 14 in Chapter 2
Criteria Criteria from Table 12, that require no detail heat exchanger design:
Macro: all criteria
Meso: all but fundamental assumptions
Micro: constraints
Starting Point Selected design alternative from preliminary design stage
Complete and consistent model of existing heat exchanger network
Constraints As in preliminary design stage (Table 17)
Comments from other stages (piping, structures)
Synthesis Specify variables
Use a conceptual network design method (Chapter 7)
Present in grid diagram and process flow diagrams
Analysis (model) Network model based on simple heat exchanger models

Compare and rank alternative and complementary designs
We have gathered additional unit and network information for these network parts. We have also
determined both the scope of the improvement, we want to achieve in these parts, and any additional
design requirements. Further, we have identified the opportunities and limitations from detailed and
basic engineering, that include piping design, structures and equipment aspects.
The synthesis step of the refined design stage must specify the actual changes of the network and the
equipment. We must address most of the design variables for conceptual network design, as
summarised in Table 14. Heat exchanger details are generally ignored in this stage. We assume an
exchanger type for each match and take into account the limitations of this type during network design
to avoid infeasible specifications. In the subsequent stages we must check the validity of the
assumptions that we used in this stage. We can correct any inconsistencies in the final conceptual
network design stage.
Most of the relevant design variables can be presented in the commonly used design tools for heat
exchanger network design: the grid diagram and the process flow diagram. These tools are also
discussed in Chapter 4. If available, we can also use the plot plan to review the physical location of
matches and streams. We can make use of a large number of design methods that have been presented
in literature. Each method concentrates on specific aspects and we can select a suitable method
depending on the relevance of these aspects. Chapter 7 reviews the available options. We can analyse
the synthesized designs using the methods of Chapter 4 and next evaluate the alternatives based on the
relevant constraints and criteria given in Table 12 and specified in Table 19.
After completion of this stage, we have an overview of the changes in the network. The workflow in
Figure 10 now suggest the collection of more specific data, to allow rating of the existing equipment
72 Chapter 3
and to do detailed design of new equipment. This completes the base case definition phase. Next, we
can initiate the selection of vendors as part of the manufacturing and construction planning phase and
begin the required preliminary detailed engineering.
The fourth and final stage of the conceptual network design phase, Table 20, generates the complete
and final conceptual retrofit design of the network. It is comparable with the refined design stage, but
we now have to assure the feasibility of the specifications of each exchanger and of the required
network changes. In the intermediate stages between this and the refined conceptual network design
stage we have studied the projected modifications. We have looked at the consequences and possible
solutions at the detailed and basic engineering phase and reviewed the ability of vendors to revise the
existing equipment and to construct the new units. The synthesis is in this stage only a review and
adaptation of the available design from the refined design stage. The analysis and evaluation are
performed in a similar way as the described refined design stage.
At the end of this stage we must decide how to proceed, as we finalise the conceptual design with this
step. From the identified options we have to determine the ones that we are actually going to apply.
The subsequent stages will continue to work out the selected design to a complete detailed design, that
is ready for construction.
The network design activities in the final stage are generally very similar to the design activities in the
refined design stage. The performance analysis will be more extended in the final design stage and
will require a lot of additional detailed information about the process, the heat exchanger designs, the
present situation and the future use of the plant. As these details are generally very case-specific and
not easily available, we will skip the final design stage in the remaining of this thesis.
Table 20 Final design stage of conceptual network design
Assessment
Goal Generate complete conceptual design as in refined design stage, but based on
detailed equipment and construction information
Variables Refer to Table 14 in Chapter 2
Criteria All criteria from Table 12
Starting Point Selected design from refined design stage
Vendor information
Rated heat exchanger performance (existing exchangers)
Detailed heat exchanger design (new exchangers)
Constraints As in refined design stage (Table 19)
Synthesis Specify variables
Use a conceptual retrofit network design methods (Chapter 7) to adapt refined
design
Present in grid diagram, process flow diagrams and plotplan.
Analysis (model) Network model based on improved/validated simple heat exchanger model based
on detailed (HTRI) rating

Compare alternative and complementary designs and select best ones.
Network Performance Analysis 73
Chapter 4
Network Performance Analysis
Graphical presentations and numerical characterisations of heat

exchanger networks and parts thereof give insight in the quality of a
design, generally compared to ideal references or design alternatives.
They are necessary in each design step from problem definition to design
evaluation.
This chapter reviews the tools available in literature to analyse the
performance, mainly the effectivity, of heat exchanger networks and
individual matches. The discussed tools analyse structure, driving forces,
economy and ecology and a collection of efficiency numbers. One new
tool, the auxiliary heat flow curves, is included in the review. All tools
are described, classified and compared with available alternatives. The
review shows that the available tools are adequate to analyse the
effectivity criteria defined in Chapter 2.
Table 21 Application overview of network analysis methods. The terms are explained in the text.
Structure Composite &Driv. Force Plots Economy/Ecology Efficiency Numbers
Driving Force Plot

Retrofit Invest. Eval. Plot
Auxil. Heat Flow Curves

Goodness factor
Fanning Factor
Plotplan
Composite Curves
E-A plot
Heat transfer coefficient
Network Design Diagram

Grand Comp. Curves
Retrofit Composite Curves
Temper. Field Plot
Process Flow Diagram

Cross Pinch Table
FT Factor
Economic Performance
Ecology Performance
Energy Efficiency
Match Efficiency
Colburn factor
Area Efficiency
Ideal match ǻp
Units Efficiency
macro
Exist. vs. new situation q q q q q q q q q q q q q
Effective use of driving forces
ǻT effectively used q q q q q q q q q
ǻp effectively used q q q
Complexity
process/layout logic q q q
piping q q q q
constructability q q q
Economy q q q q
Ecology q
meso
Exist. vs. new situation q q q q q
ǻT effectively used q q q q
ǻp effectively used q q
micro
ǻT effectively used q q q q
ǻp effectively used q q q
4.1 Introduction
The performance of heat exchanger networks need to be evaluated in many stages of design, starting
with the need identification and base case definition of the existing network and proceeding up to the
final detailed network design. The analyses that support these evaluations show the adequacy of the
network or the designs and possible inefficiencies that may be improved, but also the efficient parts
that we should retain. The analyses are essentially the test method for the check of the design criteria,
defined by Biegler et al. (1997) as one of the essential elements of a well-defined design problem.
Chapter 2 presents a large number of design criteria divided in five groups: fundamental assumptions,
efficacy, constraints, operability and effectivity. The former three groups can be evaluated with
relatively simple calculations and checks and only require a proper representation of the network or
network design. Such a network representation is also required for evaluation of the operability and
effectivity criteria, as they depend on the network structure. Additionally, the operability and
effectivity criteria require more complex analyses. The analysis of the operability must check
sensitivities and the impact of all kind of operating scenarios. As this thesis focusses on cases with a
single, well-defined steady-state, operability is generally ignored. For operability analysis methods
refer to the literature given in Chapter 1 on operation, flexibility, controllability and resilience and heat
exchanger fouling. The evaluation of the network effectivity is essential to assess the many design
alternatives, including the existing design, that we can identify during the conceptual network design
phase. Many tools are available to analyse different aspects of effectivity.
This chapter reviews the tools available in literature and identified during the research of this thesis to
visualise the structure and match specifications of the network (design) and to present the effectivity
of the network design and parts thereof, including the effectivity of individual matches. All tools are
presented and used in this thesis as network analysis tools, though some of them are presented in
literature as network synthesis tools. We have defined in Chapter 3 synthesis as the creative step to
generate one or more designs. The tools presented in this chapter may all guide synthesis, but they are
also useful in any other design step to analyse and present design information. Therefore, we review
these methods in this chapter as network performance analysis methods. Each analysis method is
briefly described and summarized in a uniform scheme, that shows the objective, the required input
data and the obtained output. They are divided in structure visualisations, composite and driving force
plots, economy and ecology analysis methods and efficiency numbers. Table 21 shows which analysis
methods are available for what group of evaluation criteria. Alternative tools are compared at the end
of this chapter in Section 4.6. Additionally, we will indicate for which stage of conceptual network
design the analysis method is applicable, based on the defined scope, the stage and the data available.
The review of performance analysis tools is part of the overview of available heat exchanger network
retrofit literature, we want to obtain. It includes concepts and representations commonly used in heat
exchanger network analysis and design. This review is therefore not only a guide to the available
performance analysis methods, but also a quick introduction to essential concepts. Any further
explanation of terminology is in the Glossary in Appendix B.
During the research of this thesis one new analysis tool has been developed that is included in this
chapter. This is the auxiliary heat flow curves plot, which is an alternative to the driving force plot and
76 Chapter 4
the match efficiency. The method evaluation at the end of this chapter will pay special attention to this
new method and its alternatives.
The performance of a network is, generally, related to some reference state(s) or process(es). These are
either the ones that reflect the most ideal or the worst case scenarios or the one(s) that result from a
realistic estimation of the relevant parameters. Often design targets are used as reference states or
processes. In heat integration literature, many approaches are available to determine these targets
(Chapter 5). Such reference targets exist, among others, for energy and utility use, for the required
transfer area, number of units, investment and various costs. This chapter will assume that target
values are available. We will refer to the available targets by using the subscript ‘tar’. In case it is a
worst case maximum we will use the subscript tar,max, in case of an ideal minimum case tar,min.
4.2 Structure Visualisations
4.2.1 Network Design Diagrams
The most commonly used network design diagram is

the grid diagram, introduced by Linnhoff and Flower Grid Diagram
(1978a). It represents the heat exchanger network Objective
structure and much of the relevant data for network Representation of heat exchanger network.
analysis and design. An example of such a diagram is Input
in Figure 13. It contains the hot and cold streams, the For all heat transferring streams:
specified matches by means of connections between • source and target temperature
streams and the in- and outlet temperatures. It may For all heat exchangers
• connected streams
also contain the match duties and areas and the • inlet and outlet temperatures
stream heat capacity flowrates. Generally, the grid For system
diagram also shows the pinch (Section 4.3.1 and • pinch and near pinch temperatures
Appendix B) and relevant near pinches. Special line Output
and fill styles may be used to flag the condition of Overview of connectivity
streams and matches to show for example pinch viol- Matches with pinch violations
Overview of additional information by special
ations, new and existing matches and the complete-
marks and plotted data
ness of specifications. Refer to the legend in Chapter
12 for the marks that we will use in this thesis.
An alternative grid is used especially in older

work on network design. In this grid the hot
streams are drawn from left to right and the cold
streams from top to bottom or the other way
around. More complex routings are also possible.
A dot is drawn on the cross-section of hot and
cold stream lines to represent a match between
the streams.
Other alternative network design presentations

are proposed by Lakshmanan and Bañares-
Figure 13 Typical grid diagram
Alcántara (1996) and Fraga et al. (2001). Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara (1996) suggested a
revised grid diagram in which the horizontal location of the begin and end points of the streams is
made proportional to the source and target temperatures of the streams. Additionally, they set the line
width proportional to the heat capacity flowrates of the streams. As a result, the stream lines are
merely horizontal bars. The area of each stream bar is proportional to the duty that the stream provides
or requires. Matches between streams are displayed as fractions of the stream bars equivalent to the
exchanged heat duty. The authors show that this representation facilitates the design of more efficient
networks. They also show that it may identify badly placed exchangers in retrofit, just like the driving
force plots. A drawback of this representation is that the diagram becomes confusing, even for
moderate problems, whereas it is cumbersome to include streams with a phase transfer (i.e. a very
large heat capacity flowrate) and stream splits. Also, it is hardly usable without special software. A
similar diagram but rotated 90° was used by Gulyani and Mohanty (2000).
Fraga et al. (2001) plot hot and cold streams with a process relation, for example the condenser and
reboiler of a distillation column, together in a temperature versus duty diagram (T-Q diagram). The
relative position of the heat exchanger in horizontal (duty) direction is not fixed and may be shifted to
represent a match between a hot and a cold stream. The plot is used together with an ordinary grid
diagram and may also be classified as a driving force plot (Section 4.3.4). The plot makes it easier to
recognize the underlying process design during heat exchanger network design, but seems especially
designed for processes with simple distillation columns with only relations between one hot and one
cold stream. Application to more extended relations may be possible, though not mentioned, but may
easily trouble the views. Also for this network design representation special software must be
available.
All three grid presentations show the interactions between the streams that exist in a network. Streams
that are connected depend on each other and changes in one exchanger will affect all exchangers that
are somehow connected to this exchanger. Using the grid, it is relatively easy to recognize well or less
desired interactions. Additionally, the number and order of the exchangers in the grid (the topology)
give an impression of the complexity of the network and point to ways to simplify the structure. These
are just qualitative characterisations, but still useful to get insight in the network.
4.2.2 Process Flow Diagram

A process flow diagram shows the process that Process Flow Diagram
surrounds the heat exchanger network and the way Objective
the network is embedded in the process. From this Display the logical arrangement of process
we can get some qualitative insight in the interac- that holds the network
tions between exchanger units that result from the Input
process. It also shows the additional interactions Process description
between process units that result from heat Connections between process units
integration and thus the way the heat exchanger Output
network affects the process. A process flow Overview of connectivity and interactions
diagram gives an impression of the complexity of between process units due to the heat
exchanger network
the piping that evolves from the arrangement. It Feasibility of heat exchange between specific
shows connections between different logical process streams
process units, the presence of recycles and any Complexity of the network and its impact on
the complexity of the resulting process
complex routings of streams through the process.
78 Chapter 4
4.2.3 Plotplan Plot plan

The plotplan shows the physical location of
processing units. When the connections that Objective
Display the physical arrangement of process that
result from the proposed or actual heat exchanger holds the network
network are plotted in the plotplan, we will be
able to review the logic of the routing of streams Input
Process description
through physical locations. This gives a good Connections between process units
picture of the complexity of the network and Physical location of process units
potential construction problems and will allow a
Output
more realistic estimate of the related piping cost. Overview of connectivity and interactions
For retrofit the plotplan is useful to find oppor- between process units due to the heat
tunities to match streams that are close together, exchanger network
Feasibility of heat exchange between specific
while sufficient plot space is available to install
process streams
any new units or to extend existing ones. Addit- Complexity of the network and its impact on the
ionally, the plotplan may show safety zones and complexity of the resulting process
thus prevent unnecessary hazardous connections.
4.3 Composite and Driving Force Plots
4.3.1 Composite Curves

The composite curves, Hohmann (1971), Huang Composite Curves
and Elshout (1976) 4, provide a visual overview of
the heat supply and demand of any manufacturing Objective
Review heat supplies and demands of system and
process. As such, it is one of the most basic tools the potential to exchange heat between process
for the analysis of heat exchanging systems. The streams
composite curves are two temperature - enthalpy
Input
curves, the hot and cold composite curves. The For all heat transferring streams:
hot curve shows the temperature below which a • source and target temperature
specific amount of heat must be released. The • heat capacity flowrate: CPm(T) = cp(T) ĳm
cold curve shows the temperature above which a Minimum ǻT or utility duties
specific amount of heat must be supplied. In the Output
ideal case supply and demand can be matched, Minimum ǻT (from utility duties)
Heat shortage/excess (from minimum ǻT)
but, according to the second law of
Minimum heat input and release
thermodynamics, only if the supplied heat has a Ease/difficulty of heat exchange in the system,
higher temperature than the required heat. The related to utility use
two composite curves can be constructed in the Scope for process modifications to improve
energy efficiency
same plot, see Figure 14, to visualise this
potential for heat exchange within the system
under review. The overlap between the two curves projected on the enthalpy axis shows the potential
for heat transfer within the system, marked as process-to-process heat transfer in Figure 14. The
remaining part of the hot curve shows the required external cooling capacity and the maximum
4
Various researchers presented similar curves that later have become known as the ‘composite curves’.
Cerda et al. 1983a refer to Hohmann (1971), who introduced super heating and cooling curves. Gundersen
and Naess (1988) refer to Huang and Elshout (1976) and to Umeda et al. (1978).
Figure 14 Composite curves Figure 15 Typical composite curves shapes
temperature of this external sink. Similarly, the remaining part of the cold curve shows the required
external heating capacity and minimum temperature. Refer to general textbooks such as Smith (2005)
and Kemp (2007) for a more detailed description of the construction of the composite curves.
The maximum overlap of the curves depends on the minimum temperature difference that is required
for heat transfer. A larger temperature difference makes it easier to transfer heat, but it restricts the
amount of heat from the available heat sources in the process that we can match with the available
sinks. The composite curves visualise these effects by showing on the one side an increase of the
vertical distance between the hot and cold composite and on the other side a decrease of the maximum
overlap . The curves also show that the amount of required external heating and cooling increases
correspondingly. The reverse holds for a decrease of the minimum temperature difference, provided
that the temperature difference must be a positive number. The next chapter discusses a quantitative
approach to explore this relationship, known as energy targeting. The qualitative visual examination is
still important to select a proper minimum temperature difference and for retrofit to determine the
relative scope for improvement.
The composite curves not only show the potential of heat exchange, but also, qualitatively, the ease of
this heat exchange. The vertical distances between the curves relate to the mean temperature
differences that are available for certain portions of heat to be transferred. For example, the heat
exchange in Figure 15a is obviously much easier than the one in Figure 15b. Even within Figure 15b
the transfer within zone B will be easier than the transfer in zone A.
For design it is useful to check and understand the entire shape of the composite curves and not only
focus on the pinch point(s), as often described in literature. Understanding of the curves and the
underlying process may guide process changes to ease and enhance heat integration (Linnhoff and
Parker, 1984 and Kemp, 2007).
80 Chapter 4
Alternative Forms of the Composite Curves

Apart from the basic form of the composite curves as shown in Figure 14, two other useful forms are
used in literature. The balanced composite curves (Linnhoff, 1993) are composite curves with the
balancing utilities added to that. In the ordinary composite curves only the process streams are
included. We can add utility streams in a similar way, when we fix their duties. We get the balanced
composite curves if we combine the process streams and the utility streams with the duties fixed at
such an amount that the hot and cold composites curves become heat balanced. The hot and cold
composites curves must have equal enthalpy range and the hot curve must be entirely above the cold
curve. The addition of utilities in the composite curves is especially useful when we have a mix of
several hot or several cold utilities. In these cases the shape of the balanced composite curves may be
very different from the unbalanced composite curves. Additional limitations may arise due to the
applied utilities. We can identify the most obvious limitations very quickly from the balanced
composite curves. If such limitations exist, we can either overcome this by changing the utility duties
or we have to deal with them in the network design.
The second alternative form of the composite curves are the exergy composite curves (Linnhoff and
Dhole 1990 and 1992b). These curves have the Carnot factor (1 - T0/T) on the y-axis instead of the
temperature. The composite curves are now curved lines instead of straight lines as in the original
composite curves. In this form the area between the hot and cold composite is proportional to the
exergy loss due to heat transfer. The authors use these composite curves to analyse heat and power
integration, especially for refrigeration processes. Unfortunately, the curved lines make it also more
difficult to estimate the area between the curves. The original composite curves often show similar
critical points. In this thesis we will therefore not use these exergy based composite curves.
4.3.2 Grand Composite Curve

The grand composite curve, Figure 16, shows the temperature-dependent, net cumulative heat surplus
and deficit of a system. It is a temperature vs. enthalpy plot, but with a special (shifted) temperature
scale that compensates for the selected minimum temperature difference for heat transfer in such a
way that heat transfer with a shifted temperature difference higher than or equal to zero is practically
feasible.5 Its construction is easy, when the composite curves or the heat cascade table (Smith, 2005)
are available. The curve has H=0 W at the pinch temperature(s) if it is drawn for the minimal external
heat input and output at the selected ǻTmin. Near pinches will have an enthalpy that is close to zero.
The grand composite curve shows above the pinch temperature 6 how much heat may be provided by
external sources at what (lowest possible) temperature. Below the pinch, it shows how much heat may
be released at what (highest) temperature. This way we can determine the most efficient mix of the
available utilities and other external sources and sinks that can be applied. In retrofit we can draw the
current mix in the curve and compare it to the ideal mix. This shows qualitatively the scope of
5
Shifted temperatures can be defined in different ways. In this thesis we use the shift of the temperature of
the available heat only, according to
T* = Treal - ǻTmin for the available heat
T* = Treal for the required heat.
6
Note that the pinch temperature is unambiguous on a shifted temperature scale, whereas it is different for
the hot and the cold side on the real temperature scale, used in the composite curves
Grand Composite Curves
Objective
Review the net heat supplies and demands of the
system and the potential to exchange heat with
external sources and sinks, including utilities.
Input
For all heat transferring streams:
• source and target temperature
• heat capacity flowrate: CPm(T) = cp(T) ĳm
Minimum allowed temperature difference
Output
Utility requirements (T-levels and duties)
Used vs. minimal utility levels
Used vs. minimal combination of utilities
Pinches, utility pinches and near pinches
Scope for reduction of utility duties and utility
qualities
Scope for heat and power integration
Figure 16 Typical grand composite curve
with balanced utilities
improvement for the retrofit. If the current total heat input exceeds the minimum total heat input for
the selected ǻTmin, the curve need to be shifted to the right until the enthalpy at the pinch equals the
excess total heat input. This way we can identify the scope for reduction of the total heat input while
optimizing the utility mix.
The above mentioned optimisation of the utility mix is not limited to the optimisation of the duties of
given utilities, but may also include the optimisation and addition of utility levels. This may advance
to the identification of opportunities for heat engines and heat pumps that will improve the energy
efficiency of the process, if more complex utility systems can be applied.
Apart from the use of utilities, the grand composite curve also shows how we can use available heat
from process streams at higher temperature levels to balance shortages a lower levels. The curve
shows this as closed pockets as indicated in Figure 16. The shown potential for heat exchange is
additional to the assumed heat transfer within a temperature interval. The latter is not visible in the
grand composite curve.
There are some alternative forms of the grand composite curve, similar to the alternatives of the
composite curves. The balanced grand composite curve (Linnhoff, 1993) has the utilities integrated in
the curve as process streams. This gives a clear picture of the pinches and near pinches with the
specified utilities, but we cannot use the plot for utility placement anymore, as the duties of the
utilities are fixed and the individual utility lines can no longer be identified easily. The extra
information is thus limited compared to the original grand composite curve.
The exergy based grand composite curve ( Linnhoff and Dhole 1990 and 1992b) has the Carnot factor
(1 -T0 /T) on the y-axis, to make the area between the hot and cold curves proportional to the exergy
loss. In the exergy based grand composite curve the exchange between process streams and utilities is
shown. Further, we can add heat an power integration to the plot. Especially in the latter application,
an exergy based plot is useful to set the utility level in such a way that we minimise the exergy losses.
82 Chapter 4
The third alternative form is the extended grand composite curve as introduced by Glaviç and Novak,
(1993). This plot includes also all kind of heat and power demanding process units and is especially
useful for an energy analysis of complete process, with many different forms of energy available.
4.3.3 Retrofit Composite Curves

Nordman (Nordman and Berntsson, 2001, Nordman, 2005) proposed an alternative form of the grand
composite curves that shows the actual and theoretical driving force of the utility exchangers in
retrofit. He presented the plot as ‘advanced composite curves for retrofit’. Here, we will refer to them
as the ‘retrofit composite curves’.
In a temperature versus enthalpy plot with real temperatures, Figure 17, four curves are plotted for the
hot utilities and four for the cold utilities. For the hot utilities these curves are:
• Hot Utility Curve (HUC): a composite curve of the hot utilities currently applied;
• Actual Heat Load Curve (AHLC): a composite of all cold process streams or process stream
segments that are matched to a hot utility in the current situation; only the stream segments that
are actually heated by hot utility are included in this composite;
• Theoretical Heat Load Curve (THLC): a temperature versus enthalpy curve that shows the
theoretically lowest temperatures at which hot utility is required to heat balance the system;
there are two ways to construct these curves (Nordman, 2005) depending on the selected
reference point for the most ideal situation;
• Extreme Heat Load Curve (EHLC): a composite of the cold process streams that ideally should
be matched with hot utility to get minimal heat transfer area; the selected process streams have
the highest temperatures possible while all utility heat is supplied from the hottest utility level.
Similar curves are constructed for the cold utilities and hot process streams below the pinch.
The authors show how the relative position and shape of both sets of four curves can be used to
identify energy saving retrofit opportunities. The easiest and lowest cost retrofit is to be expected if the
AHLC is close to the THLC. In this case there would be more criss-crossing (see Appendix B) in the
existing network than in case the AHLC is close to the EHLC. In the latter case the existing network is
better designed according to the pinch design method, having heat transfer better vertically aligned
and the utilities applied at the extremes. This will leave less opportunities for energy saving retrofits.
Retrofit Composite Curves
Objective
Review actual versus ideal application of utilities
and determine opportunities for energy saving
retrofit.
Input
For all heat transferring streams:
Minimum allowed temperature difference
Existing utilities and utility duties
Output
Actual versus ideal utility application
Figure 17 Typical retrofit composite curves for Qualitative indication of ease of retrofit
hot utilities.
4.3.4 Driving Force Plot

The driving force plot (Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1986; Panjeh Shahi, 1992), Figure 18, shows the hot and
cold temperatures that should face each other anywhere in the network to get an often optimal use of
the temperature driving forces. The plot is derived from the composite curves or balanced composite
curves at a specific ǻTmin, plotting the cold temperature at a certain enthalpy against the hot
temperature at the same enthalpy. As a result the plot shows the temperature profile that is required for
vertical alignment. This gives the lowest heat transfer area for a given service if the heat transfer
coefficients are equal or close for all streams. In most other cases the driving force plot still gives a
good approximation of the ideal profile.
Driving Force Plot
Objective
Analyse the used and ideal temperature differences
for heat transfer.
Input
For all heat transferring streams (incl. utilities and
other external sources and sinks):
For each (planned) heat exchanger
• in- and outlet temperatures
Output
Actual vs. ideal temperature profile in heat
exchangers
Properly /poorly placed heat exchanging units
Poorly CPm,hot/CPm,cold ratio in heat exchangers
Figure 18 The driving force plot
Matches between hot and cold streams can also easily be plotted using the applicable in- and outlet
temperatures. The less the heat exchanger line deviates from the ideal line according to the composite
curves, the better the exchanger is placed. An offset from the ideal profile means that inappropriate
temperatures are matched. A deviation of the slopes is due to a less ideal ratio of the hot and cold heat
capacity flowrates. The driving force plot does not take into account the heat loads of the matches. It
will guide the designer to the matches with the biggest deviations from the ideal line, even if their size
is irrelevant.
The driving force plot in Figure 18 shows the hot and cold stream temperatures. Alternatively, we can
plot the temperature difference versus the hot or cold stream temperature (Ahmad and Smith, 1989) or
draw matches as a block or line in the composite curves (Asante and Zhu, 1997).
84 Chapter 4
Thermal field
v3 v Temperature Field Plot
v2 Objective
Analyse surface temperatures and exchanger
v1 pressure drops to identify and mitigate
E3 exchanger fouling risks.
Thot[°C]
P
E2 Input
For all exchangers:
E1 • matched hot and cold temperatures
• pressure drop (clean and/or fouled)
E3 • cold side velocity
E2 Data for fouling threshold loci
Hydraulic field
E1 Output
Fouling risk per exchanger
Tcold [°C] Scope for fouling mitigation
Figure 19 Typical temperature field plot for three
exchangers in series, E1, E2 and E3
4.3.5 Temperature Field Plot

The temperature field plot (Yeap et al. 2004, 2005) is an adaptation and extension of the driving force
plot that shows the risks of fouling and guides optimum fouling mitigation, especially intended for
crude preheat trains. It shows for each exchanger the hot and cold temperatures that are matched,
similar as in the driving force plot. It further shows fouling threshold loci for various cold side fluid
velocities and surface types, that indicate, for the given velocity and type, in what region of hot and
cold temperature combinations the expected fouling is negligible. Additionally, the pressure drop of
the cold side of each exchanger is presented in the plot, which is accumulated to the total pressure
drop of the cold stream. Finally, the cold side velocity is added for each exchanger.
The compilation of information in the plot allows quick identification of options to mitigate fouling in
the network. We can allow higher hot and cold temperatures at the exchanger surface, if we select a
more suitable surface type or if we assign more pressure drop which allows higher velocities. This
way, we can select the best combinations of stream match, pressure drop and surface type for the
entire preheat train and thus minimise the fouling problems.
4.3.6 Cross Pinch Analysis Cross Pinch Analysis

Cross-pinch analysis (Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1986)
searches and evaluates matches in the design that Objective
Identify the heat exchangers that are especially
transfer heat across the pinch or a near-pinch. This critical for heat balance with minimum utility.
should show the matches that prevent further heat
recovery as they violate one of the basic rules of Input
For system:
pinch technology (Linnhoff and Hindmarsh, • pinch and near pinch hot/cold temperatures
1983), i.e. no heat may be transferred through the For each (planned) exchanger:
pinch. The method is quick and simple, but relies • in- and outlet temperatures
too much on a very strict approach to the pinch. Output
Other methods like the driving force plot, the The amount of heat transferred between critical
auxiliary heat flow curves and the match temperature levels
efficiencies give a more reliable review and a Heat exchangers involved with this transfer
better insight into the problematic matches.
4.3.7 Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves

The plot of the auxiliary heat flow curves is a special form of the grand composite curve, developed
during the research of this thesis. It has not been published before. A detailed description of their
construction and interpretation is in Appendix C. The auxiliary heat flow curve of the total system
shows the driving force for heat transfer, that is available in the manufacturing process. The available
driving force is proportional to the heat flow through - i.e. from just above to just below - a temp-
erature level that is allowed for heat exchange at some fixed chosen utility duties. Each match uses
auxiliary heat flow if it exchanges heat with a temperature difference above the selected Exchanger
Minimum Approach Temperature (EMAT). When we compare this use to what is available in the total
system in a specific temperature range, we get a picture of the effectivity of the match.
Virtually any exchanger will have at least part Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves
of its heat transfer at a temperature difference
above the EMAT, which is set to be the lowest Objective
Analyse duty based driving forces.
difference that is feasible in a practical heat
exchanger. This larger temperature difference Input
reduces the required transfer area and eases the For all heat transferring streams (incl. utilities and
exchanger design. The sum of excess driving • source and target temperature
force is, however, finite and set by the • heat capacity flowrate: CPm(T) = cp(T) ĳm
specified duties and levels of the utilities. The For each (planned) heat exchanger
balanced grand composite curve (Section • in- and outlet temperatures
• duty or actual heat curves
4.3.2) with ǻTmin = EMAT shows the total
amount of excess driving force that is Output
Review the available and the actual used net heat
available in the manufacturing process at each
cascade per temperature level
(shifted) temperature. It shows the total duty Heat recovery constraining matches
that is allowed to flow through heat exchan- Exergy loss related visualisation of heat exchange
gers from Th = T* to Tc = T* - EMAT (i.e.
through T*) for the specified utilities. We will
refer to this heat flow as the available auxiliary heat flow and the plot as the available auxiliary heat
flow curve. We can create a grand composite curve for each heat exchanger as well. This curve
contains the streams or those parts of these streams actually handled by the heat exchanger. It is
always a closed curve, with origin and end at the y-axis, as a heat exchanger is always in heat balance.
When we use ǻTmin = EMAT, like in the available auxiliary heat flow curve, for the exchanger grand
composite curve, it shows the excess driving force or the auxiliary heat flow taken by the heat
exchanger. Similarly, we can construct the auxiliary heat flow curve for any set of heat exchangers.
The combination of the curves for the available and used auxiliary heat flows in one plot enables the
analysis of the exchanger performance. Primarily, we can easily identify the exchangers that obstruct
on their own the completion of the network design with the specified utilities. These infeasible
matches use at some temperature more auxiliary heat flow than there is available. An example is
exchanger A in Figure 20. Any set of matches that are feasible on their own, may turn out to be
infeasible, when they are combined. This is the case, if the sum of auxiliary heat flows for these
matches exceeds at some temperature the available auxiliary heat flow. The exchangers B and C in the
figure are such an infeasible combination.
86 Chapter 4
Apart from the feasibility of any (set of) matches, the

curves also show the relative performance of each
match, though only in a qualitative way. For an ideal
match we should find a heat exchanger auxiliary heat
flow curve relative to the available auxiliary heat
flow curve that is proportional to the heat exchanger
duty relative to the total transferred duty at the
temperatures that are present in the heat exchanger.
In practice, it is often less important to get locally an
ideal situation. Instead, it is more important to be
aware of the available margins and the limitations
put thereon by specific decisions. The auxiliary heat
flow curves plot shows the performance of individual
matches, measured by the limitations it puts on other
matches. Its interpretation requires good insight in
the problem. The graphical presentation helps an
engineering judgement of any match in combination
with other matches and the remaining problem. As
long as the sum of auxiliary heat flows for all fixed
Figure 20 Auxiliary heat flow curve with exchangers is within the maximal available heat flow
typical bottlenecks envelope, the completion of the network is
theoretically possible. If part of the problem is not
yet specified while the sum of heat flows equals the available heat flow, then all remaining matches
should be made with exactly the EMAT. Meanwhile, the sum of auxiliary heat flows will always be
equal to the available auxiliary heat flow as long as the specified utilities are included. One need not to
be too conservative in using the available auxiliary heat flows to prevent either the use of less utility
than planned with the economic optimisation or ending up with some relatively uneconomical
matches.
In retrofit the use of the auxiliary heat flow curves is especially useful. For retrofit cases we have a
base case for which we can construct the completely filled auxiliary heat flow curves. We can easily
review from these curves the relative contribution of each match and determine what options are
available to reduce the total auxiliary heat flow and thus reduce the utility use. The curves give some
qualitative insight in the relation between saving and the required modifications. Note that the shape
of the available auxiliary heat flow curve is essentially fixed. It may be stretched only at the
temperatures at which utilities are present. More utility duty expands the envelope and shifts the
process parts of the curve horizontally to the right. A reduction of the utility duty has the reverse
effect. The match auxiliary heat flow curves are independent of the utility duties.
4.4 Economic and Ecological Performance
Economic and ecological performance numbers give a value to existing installations and proposed
changes (new design or retrofit) for a company and the society. These numbers allow comparison of
human activities to guide plans for the future. Also, we can determine the impact of changes in the
company and the society on the value of an installation and its use. For heat exchanger networks the
economic performance is determined by the cost of hardware (installed exchangers) and operation cost
or cost savings (utility used). For the ecological performance we must determine the environmental
impact of the manufacturing of equipment and the use of this equipment. The section below describes
some economic and ecological performance numbers and some related tools.
4.4.1 Economic Performance Numbers Economic Performance Numbers

The economic performance of new heat exchanger
network designs is, generally, expressed in terms of total Objective
Determine economic value.
(annual) costs, which is the sum of investment and
operating costs. These total costs are minimised to Input
optimise the profit of the associated process. For the For each exchanger
• area/volume
retrofit of heat exchanger networks, we generally evaluate • cost data
the operating cost savings and the required investments For each utility
independently, rather than the total costs. We then aim for • duty
the most optimal balance of savings and investments. The • cost data
operating costs are primarily the utility costs. For more Output
detailed analysis, we can add other contributions like Investment (cost)
labour and maintenance. In this thesis we will set the Utility costs / saving
Total costs / savings
operating costs equal to the utility costs.
Generally, the utility costs are given as a fixed sum per unit energy. The total utility cost result from
multiplication of the required duties and the given cost per unit energy. Different cost per unit energy
apply for different utility types and levels. In practice, cost figures per unit energy may also exist, but
it may be necessary to derive some of these cost figures from the cost of the primary fuel and the
efficiencies of the transitions to the required utilities. This requires a study of the available utility
system including furnaces/boilers, turbines and compressors (for refrigerants). Refer to Marechal and
Kalitventzeff (1996) and Lygeros et al. (1996) for more details. Some ways to forecast energy prices
that are the basis for the utility costs are discussed by Taal et al. (2003).
In heat exchanger network literature the investment depends just on the number of units and the unit
areas. For a single exchanger the required investment, Ihx [¼], is related to the exchanger area, Ahx
[m2], often by a relation of the form
c
§A ·
Ihx = a + b ¨ hx ¸ (20)
© A ref ¹
in which a [¼], b [¼], c [-] and Aref[m2] are constants that depend on the exchanger type, the selected
material and the required mechanical design pressures and temperatures. The constant c is generally
between 0.5 and 1.0. If little cost data is available for a specific exchanger type, the constants cannot
properly be determined. We still can make an estimation of the investment based on the estimated
weight of the exchanger and the cost per unit mass of the required material (Ramananda Rao et al.,
1990 and Polley, 1991).
I hx = Fcon ⋅ Cm ⋅ ρm ⋅ Vm,hx (21)
in which Fcon construction cost multiplication factor, typically = 3 [-];
Cm the cost per unit mass of the raw construction material m [¼/kg];
ȡm the density of the material m [kg/m3];
Vm,hx the volume of the material m required to construct the exchanger [m3].
88 Chapter 4
Hewitt (1992) provided cost data for a large number of types of heat exchangers. He presented the cost
data as a function of the heat transfer capacity, i.e. the cost per (Watt per °C) and provided data in
tables for each kind of exchanger at different ranges of the logarithmic mean temperature and for
different natures of the handled media. The set-up of these tables requires some interpolation, but it is
not necessary to specify heat transfer coefficients to estimate the exchanger cost. The method takes
into account the high transfer rates that are possible in various types of exchangers and allows a quick
analysis of different types of exchangers for a specific service. Taal et al. (2003) describe and compare
some other methods to estimate the investment.
The calculation of the total costs requires conversion of the total investment to annual investment cost.
There are several methods to do this conversion, each with its own economic relevance. A brief
overview is, for example, in Sinnott (1993). The simplest method is the linear depreciation method,
which calculates the annual investment costs by dividing the investment and the life time of the
equipment in years. The total costs are the sum of the annual operating and investment costs:
C tot = Coper + Cinv
§ ·
= ¦ Cu,i ⋅ Q u,i + annualise ¨ I0 + ¦ Finst,k ⋅ I hx,k ¸ (22)
¨ ¸
i ∈all utils © k ∈all hx ¹
with Ctot the annual total costs [¼/yr]
Coper the annual operational costs [¼/yr]
Cinv the annual investment costs [¼/yr]
Cu,i the utility cost per duty per annum [¼/W/yr]
Qu,i utility duty [W]
I0 the investment in a network independent of specific exchangers [¼]
Ihx,k the investment for heat exchanger k [¼]
Fins,k the installation factor for heat exchanger k [¼]
The installation factor accounts for the cost to install the exchanger in the plant, which includes among
others civil and piping works, erection, insulation and instrumentation (Suaysompol and Wood, 1993
and Webci-Wubo, 2003). This factor is normally between 3 and 4.
In retrofit, we are more interested in the annual saving compared to the existing situation than in the
total cost. These savings are easily derived from Equation 22 :
§ ·
Stot = ¦ C (
u,i ⋅ Q u,i,exist − Q )
u,i,new − annualise ¨ I + ¦ F ⋅ I ¸
¨ 0 k ∈all hx inst,k hx,k ¸
(23)
i ∈all utils © ¹
with Stot the annual total savings [¼/yr]
Qu,i,exist utility duty in the existing situation [W]
Qu,i,new utility duty in the new situation [W]
Ihx,k the investment or revision costs associated with heat exchanger k [¼]
Note, that Ihx,k equals to zero when the exchanger k is not modified. For new exchangers the
Equations 20 and 21 apply. The cost for exchanger modification is more difficult to estimate and
depends on the extent of the modification. As a rough approximation, we will use Equation 20 and 21
with the added area as exchanger area. See also Appendix H for details.
4.4.2 Ecology Performance Numbers

An adequate evaluation of the ecological perfor- Ecology Performance Numbers
mance requires an analysis of the environmental Objective
impact of the heat exchanger network prior to and Determine environmental impact of the total life
during construction and installation of the cycle (construction and operation) of an
installation.
equipment and the operation and maintenance of
the installation during its life time. This is Input
generally referred to as Life Cycle Assessment Depending on method; generally:
• network design data, exchanger designs,
(LCA). A complete life cycle assessment is very material requirements, utility usage
labourious and requires information about • impact data for raw materials, construction,
production of materials and energy resources, the utility use
manufacturing and installation of equipment and Output
the operation of the plant. International standards Environmental impact assessment, generally
(ISO 14040, ISO 14044) and special methods and related to alternatives
tools, like the EIOLCA method (from Wen and
Shonnard, 2003) are available to support the work. Refer for example to the site of the European
Platform on Life Cycle Assessment (2007) for more information .
Wen and Shonnard (2003) published a practical LCA method for heat exchanger networks. They
calculate a so-called normalized process composite environmental index for each heat exchanger
network, that summarizes the total environmental impact in a single number. This number is a
weighted average of a number of relevant emission indices, that are all based on the emissions
associated with the network of specific groups of components related to the total emissions of these
component for some physical area (state, country). The releases associated with the network are the
sum of the pre-manufacturing releases to built the network and the manufacturing releases to operate
the network. The pre-manufacturing releases are calculated from the equipment and required raw
material costs, based on the assumption that there is a linear relationship between these costs and the
pre-manufacturing emissions. The manufacturing emissions are based on the emissions to obtain and
use the required utilities. This strategy allows a quick and straightforward calculation of normalized
process composition environmental index for any network.
4.4.3 Energy - Area Plot

For processes with one hot and one cold utility, the utility costs are proportional to the hot utility duty.
If the transfer area in all exchangers throughout the network is equivalent, the investment is directly
related to the total exchanger area installed. For these cases the energy-area plot (Tjoe and Linnhoff,
1986) gives insight in the available options for retrofit. The energy-area plot displays the area targets -
the estimated minimum heat exchanger area requirement - as a function of the required hot energy
input from external sources, shown as the optimal line in Figure 21. The curves show approximately
how much area is necessary to decrease the required hot energy input. Often the curve has a vertical
asymptote at the thermodynamic minimum of hot energy input.
The targets drawn in the plot provide a useful reference for the performance of the existing situation,
i.e. the existing hot energy input and the existing installed area. Tjoe (1986) defined with the help of
this plot, his general philosophy for heat exchanger network retrofit: add area to save energy.
90 Chapter 4
Energy - Area Plot
Objective
Review the ideal and actual energy use of an
existing network in relation to the installed and
target areas.
Input
Target areas for various amounts of energy use
from range energy an area targeting
Actual energy use and installed area of the
network
Output
Ideal energy - area trend
Figure 21 Energy - Area Plot Scope for energy saving retrofit
Figure 21 also shows the feasible regions for retrofit according to this philosophy. Additionally, the
different saving scenarios can be added to the plot.
In case of more than two utilities or incompatible heat transfer areas within the network, the energy-
area plot is too simple and analysis plots based on the actual investment and utility cost must be used.
4.4.4 Retrofit Investment Analysis Plots

For the retrofit of heat exchanger networks, we need to balance the required investments with the
achieved cost savings. There are different ways to plot the relation between saving and investments.
The most commonly used form is the saving on investment plot (Tjoe, 1986). A typical example of
this plot is in Figure 22. The saving on investment plot shows the total investment on the x-axis and
the annual savings on the y-axis. We can add some supporting lines to the plot to allow a proper
economic analysis of the possible retrofits. Straight lines that start in the origin represent investments
with a fixed payback period. The steeper the line, the shorter the payback period. The maximum
saving and investment at a given payback period is easily found at the intersection of the limiting
payback line and the target curve. In this way, we can use the saving on investment plot to determine
maximum saving within specific economic constraints.
Retrofit Investment Analysis Plots
Objective
Analyse investments related to savings.
Input
Retrofit target areas for a range of utility use
quantities
Actual energy use and installed area of the
network
Cost data
• utility cost
• cost of new exchanger area in new and
existing units
Output
Optimal economic saving and investment
Consequences of different scenarios
Figure 22 Typical saving on investment plot
As an alternative, we can plot the payback period - calculated by dividing the investment and the
related annual saving - against the annual savings. This puts the two main economic evaluation
criteria, saving and payback period, in one plot. If we want to select among investments in different
networks, the saving on payback period plot gives a better overview of the options at different
economic scenarios than the saving on investment plot.
4.5 Efficiency Numbers
Efficiency numbers relate actual applied Efficiency Numbers

resources to that what is at least required.
Generally, the efficiencies are between 0 and 1. Objective
Relate actual used energy, area or number of
The achievable range depends on the selected units to their ideal values.
reference state. We must carefully select this
reference value and be aware of possible Input
For energy efficiency
inaccuracy of this value, as we generally use just • used energy from utility balances
an estimation and not a physical limit. • min. required energy/energy target
Consequently, the most optimal value may For (pressure drop based) area efficiency
exceed 1, which may be confusing and cause • used area from specification of installed and
calculated exchangers
misinterpretation of the results. • min. required area/area target
For units efficiency
For heat exchanger networks three efficiencies • used number of heat exchanging units
• min. required units/units target
are commonly used, which are reviewed below.
Efficiencies can be determined for the total Output
network, but also for any fraction thereof. This Dimensionless numerical characteristics for the
assessed network
may be useful to analyse local efficiencies of
Relative scope for improvement
part of the network that are small compared to Basis for evaluation of alternatives
the total network.
4.5.1 Network Efficiency Numbers
Energy Efficiency
The energy efficiency, ȘE, of a network relates the energy used from external sources, Eused, to the
estimated minimum use:
§ E tar,min ·
ηE = ¨ ¸ ≤1 (24)
© E used ¹
The estimated minimum is generally referred to as the minimum energy target, Etar,min. In most cases
it is based on the energy input through the hot utilities. In case there are various hot utilities, we can
base the efficiency on each separate hot utility or each combination. For cryogenic or threshold (see
Appendix B) processes the efficiency may be more useful when based on one of the cold utilities. The
efficiency may even become undefined for threshold processes when both Etar, min and Eused are zero.
Several methods are available to calculate the energy target of a network. These methods are reviewed
in Chapter 5. The most fundamental target is based on the second law of thermodynamics with
ǻTmin= 0°C. Efficiencies related to this target show the absolute maximum scope for improvement
92 Chapter 4
and are always below one. Other methods estimate the impact of practical limits to give an estimate of
the practical scope for improvement. In these cases efficiencies above one are possible.
Area Efficiency and Pressure Drop based Area Efficiency

The area efficiency, Į, relates the used heat transfer area to the estimated minimum required area for a
network with a given energy input:
§ A tar,min ·
α=¨ ¸ (25)
© A used ¹E
The minimum required area, generally referred to as the area target, Atar,min, must be calculated at the
same utility use as in the network that has the used heat transfer area, Aused. A large number of
methods to estimate the area targets are reviewed in Chapter 5. The area efficiencies are generally
below one, but if the area targets are overestimates, area efficiencies above one are possible. If values
above 1 are common, the chosen targeting method is less adequate and we may consider an alternative
targeting method.
Conventional area targets are based on roughly estimated single side heat transfer coefficients. These
coefficients are fixed for a stream or stream segment and assumed independent of the used exchangers.
As described in Chapter 2, the exchanger characteristics and the allowed pressure drop have major
impact on the resulting heat transfer. Polley et al. (1990) introduced a pressure drop based area
targeting procedure that takes this dependency into account. We can use the pressure drop based area
targets in Equation 25 as well. The found area efficiency is the pressure drop based area efficiency for
a specific utility use, ĮǻP, which shows how effectively the network uses both the available
temperature differences and the availability of pressure drop. The difference between Į and ĮǻP relates
to the importance of the available pressure drop.
Units Efficiency
The units efficiency, Șn, relates used number of heat exchanging units, nused, to the target for the
minimum number of units, ntar,min, for a network with a given energy input:
§ n tar,min ·
ηn = ¨ ¸ (26)
© n used ¹E
Similar to the area efficiency, the units target in Equation 26 must be calculated at the same utility use
as in the network with nused. Estimation methods for the units target are reviewed in Chapter 5. The
units target is always an estimation of the minimum that is necessary to get a heat balanced network.
In practice the unit efficiency will be very close to unity, as the number of units is a very dominant
factor in the network cost. A designer will, generally, adapt the network until he or she has achieved
the estimated minimum number of units.
4.5.2 Match Performance Numbers

Match Efficiency
The match efficiency, Įm , (Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1986; Panjeh Shahi, 1992) analyses the consequences
of a specific match on the area requirement for the entire network. It uses remaining problem analysis
(Linnhoff, 1993 and Panjeh Shahi, 1992)] to find the target area that is necessary to complete a
network, after the related match has been fixed. The match efficiency is then calculated as follows:
A tar,min,tot
α m,i = (27)
Ai + A tar,min,RP
where Įm,k match efficiency for the (set of) specified matches k [-],
Atar,min, tot is the grassroots area target of the total network [m2],
Ak is the (sum of) area(s) of the specified match(es) only [m2] and
Atar,min,RP is the grassroots area target of the remaining problem, i.e. network without the
specified match(es) [m2].
In the remaining problem all streams or any parts of the streams are included, which are not covered
by the match for which the efficiency is determined. The remaining problem is a network itself and all
target algorithms for heat exchanger networks apply to the remaining problem as well. For
consistency, we must use the same grassroots area targeting method to calculate the area targets of
both the total network and the remaining problem and keep the same utility use for the total network,
including the analysed match.
The match efficiency allows analysing the quality of a match. It may take into account the temperature
differences, the duties, the heat transfer coefficients and the allowed pressure drops of the streams and
other heat transfer related aspects that we can include in area targeting. Refer to Chapter 5 for an
overview. Moreover, we can also calculate the area efficiency for any set of matches as a whole, to
analyse the efficiency of a match in combination with another.
The wide range of aspects included in the match efficiency provides a more complete characterisation,
but it also makes it more difficult to interpret. Sometimes, it is difficult to determine the cause of a
specific value for the match efficiency. For example, a low value may be the result of a match that has
a large area but covers relatively little duty in the entire network or of a match that has a small area but
complicates heat balancing of the streams in the remaining network. In the former case the match uses
too little driving force, in the latter it uses too much. Another difficulty may be, that matches (with a
small duty) that are significantly smaller than the largest matches in the network, always have a match
efficiency close to one, even if they have a far from ideal driving force. Their impact on the total
amount of transfer area is small and often there is no need for improvement of these exchangers. In
those cases a match efficiency close to one is correct. In many retrofit cases, however, we must focus
on the modification of the smaller matches as the modification of the large matches is often not a
feasible option. In these cases, we get more relevant match efficiencies, if we exclude the large fixed
matches from the reference network. Besides, we can use the match efficiency in combination with
other tools like the driving force plot and the auxiliary heat flow curves, to prevent misinterpretation.
Ideal Match Pressure Drop

Panjeh Shahi (1992) introduced the ideal match pressure drop as part of his pressure drop related
targeting and design strategy. The basic principle for the ideal pressure drop is that equal velocities are
used throughout the contacted stream, irrespective of the exchangers it passes. This requires that we
distribute the available pressure drop proportionally with the contact area of each of the passed stream
matches:
94 Chapter 4
§ A · Ideal match pressure drop

∆Pm,id,k = ∆Pi ¨ k ¸ (28)
¨ A tar,i ¸
© ¹ Objective
Analyse the pressure drop of a match relative
where to the total available pressure drop of a stream.
ǻPm,id,k the ideal match pressure drop for match
Input
k [bar];
For each stream
ǻPI the maximal allowed pressure drop of • max. allowed pressure drop
stream I [bar]; • target contact area
Ak the actual or target area of match m For each exchanger
• exchanger area or target area
[m2];
• actual exchanger pressure drop
Atar,i target contact area of stream I [m2].
Output
Ideal pressure drops for each side of the
The contact area is the total amount of transfer area exchanger
that can be assigned to a stream. The target is based
on the expected ideal temperature differences and
vertical alignment as in ordinary area targets (refer to Chapter 5), but it takes into account only the
heat transfer coefficient of the contacted stream. The heat transfer coefficient of the opposing stream is
ignored, as these have very little impact on the ideal pressure drop (Goodooga, 1990).
Each value of the ideal pressure drop refers to just one of the streams of an exchanger. An ordinary
two-stream exchanger thus has two ideal pressure drops. A multi-stream heat exchanger has as many
ideal pressure drops as it handles streams.
4.5.3 Exchanger Performance Numbers

The exchanger performance numbers characterise the efficiency of the heat transfer within an
exchanger, when the requirements of that exchanger are fixed. In other words, how capable is an
exchanger to handle given streams, duties, flows and in- and outlet temperatures. Below, the first
performance number reviews the efficiency on the equipment (meso) level. The subsequent factors
review the transport phenomena at the micro scale.
FT-Factor
The FT-factor is a correction factor that relates the effective and the logarithmic mean temperature
differences, refer to the Equation 12 in Chapter 2:
∆Teff = FT ⋅ ∆Tln where FT ≤ 1 (12)
The more Teff deviates from Tln and thus the lower FT, the less efficient the heat exchanger uses the
available temperature differences. In general, the FT -factor depends on the flow profiles in the
exchanger, on the stream flows and heat capacities and on the in- and outlet temperatures of the heat
exchanger. For some types of exchangers, analytical expressions are available for the FT-factor (Kern,
1950). For many others the results are available as plots in reference books like Sinnott (1993).
The FT-factor is always at or below one. It is recommended (Ahmad and Smith, 1989) to keep its
value above 0.75 or 0.8, to prevent too inefficient exchangers. This may require the installation of
multiple shells in series for a single match or the selection of a more appropriate exchanger type. In
retrofit, we can also check the FT-factor to evaluate the applicability of an existing match for a specific
duty. The lower limit on the FT-factor is not necessarily the same in retrofit as in grassroots.
Nevertheless, we will use the grassroots limit of FT Factor

0.8 as a guideline for retrofit in this thesis, as a
typical retrofit value is not available. Objective
Characterise the heat transfer efficiency of an
exchanger due to the flow pattern compared to
In the thermal design and rating of shell-and-tube pure counter-current flow.
exchangers some additional criteria are often used
Input
to evaluate the flow profile. These criteria Exchanger type or thermal design
especially refer to some of the internal by-pass For both streams
streams that are present in these exchangers and to • massflow
the risk of tube vibration. These aspects are • heat capacity
• inlet and outlet temperature
discussed in detail in reports and software manuals
from the large heat transfer research institutes, Output
Efficiency factor
Heat Transfer Research, Inc. (HTRI, 2007) and
Effect of other operating conditions
HTFS (2007).
Heat Transfer Coefficients Heat Transfer Coefficient

The single side or film heat transfer coefficients
show the ability of any stream to transfer heat. Objective
Characterise the heat transfer capability through
They may be derived from clearly defined micro a resistance layer.
processes or they may represent a lump of
phenomena. The latter way is better applicable in Input
Characterisation of
engineering problems. Still, we will pay some • medium (fluid or wall) through which heat
attention to the meaning of the heat transfer flows
coefficient in micro scale processes in the next • transfer process or regime
section. For an existing exchanger
• current performance (temperatures , duty)
• size of transfer area
Both the absolute and relative values of the
coefficients are relevant in the retrofit performance Output
Relative transfer capabilities
analysis. The order of magnitude of the absolute Scope for improvement
values for a single side heat transfer coefficient From performance data existing exchanger
indicates what kind of medium is present. In • transfer regime
• data errors
grassroots we can only use the typical values that
are available in literature (eg. Sinnott, 1993) for
different kinds of heat transfer, based on the exchanger type, the handled fluids, their phase and
occasional phase transition. In retrofit the values are often retrieved from the performance in the
existing situation. The coefficients result from a fit of the installed area and the measured or derived
duty. Neither the grassroots nor the retrofit estimates are very accurate, but major differences between
the retrofit and the expected grassroots values may point to errors in the plant data or to an exchanger
that operates in a different regime than we would expect.
The relative values of the single side heat transfer coefficient within one exchanger show their relative
contribution to the total resistance for heat transfer. The smaller the coefficient is, the larger its relative
contribution to the thermal resistance, which is the inverse of the total heat transfer coefficient.
Equation 6 (Chapter 2) shows the five contributions to the thermal resistance. They include the inverse
single side heat transfer coefficients and the fouling factors for each fluid and the thermal resistance of
96 Chapter 4
the wall. The insight in the relative resistances often helps to identify possible improvements of the
heat transfer, that will be most effective if the highest resistance is reduced.
Micro Scale Transport Characterisation

An analysis of the microscopic processes shows how flow and heat transfer are related. It also shows
the scope for improvement of the heat transfer when alternative transfer surfaces are applied. A
number of dimensionless numbers characterise the flow and heat transfer at micro scale. The Prandtl
number relates the momentum and thermal diffusivities of a fluid (Weast et al. 1986). It depends on
the physical properties of the fluid only. The Reynolds number relates the inertia and viscous forces in
a fluid that flows through a channel. This especially determines the flow regime of the fluid. The
Nusselt number gives the ratio of the convective and conductive heat transfer between a fluid and a
wall. Finally, the Stanton number is the ratio of the transferred heat to a fluid and its thermal capacity.
We may use the Stanton number as an alternative for the Nusselt number. The absolute values of the
numbers themselves are relevant, when we can compare them with typical values from literature. This
shows what heat transfer phenomena we have to take into account.
Apart from this insight, we can use the many Micro Scale Transport Characterisation
relations between these numbers that are present
in literature. They exist for all kinds of Objective
Show the relation between flow characteristics,
configurations, such as different types of transfer pressure drop (momentum transfer) and heat
surfaces (eg. Bird et al., 2002). A thorough transfer.
analysis of the available configurations allows the
Input
selection of the most suitable ones for the studied Physical properties and state of fluids
transfer problem, at least at micro scale. Pressure Physical properties of transfer surface
drop and heat transfer are the main aspects in this Channel geometries
analysis. We often want to enhance the heat Output
transfer but not at the cost of too much pressure Characterisation of flow friction and heat
drop. Both aspects can be written in similar transfer resistance
(Relative) Efficiency of transfer surface
dimensionless factors: the Colburn factor, j, for
heat transfer and the Fanning friction factor, ƒ,
for momentum transfer, see Chapter 2,
Equation 9 and 10. Both factors depend on the Reynolds number only and thus allow easy comparison
of alternative surfaces (Polley et al., 1992).
The ratio of the Colburn and Fanning factors is defined as the goodness factor (Shah and Webb,1983):
j
Goodness factor = (30)
ƒ
The higher the goodness factor, the more the heat transfer capacity will benefit from additional
pressure drop. Additionally, surfaces with higher goodness factors allow higher velocities and thus
lower cross-sectional flow area, which reduces the exchanger volume. The goodness factor depends on
the geometry of the channels through which the fluids flow. Generally, it also depends on the
Reynolds number. For example, for turbulent flow in a smooth circular duct the following relation
applies: jƒ = 0.342 ·Re0.05 .7 In some, especially laminar flow cases the goodness factor is a constant.
For example, for laminar flow in a circular duct with a constant wall temperature and Pr = 0.7:
j
ƒ = 0.258. 8
4.6 Method Evaluation
Table 21 shows that there are nearly always various methods that review a design aspect. We may use
them simultaneously to get alternative views, but often we can just focus on the most appropriate
one(s). The main reasons to select the appropriate method or methods are:
• the design variables that are included in the method to represent the design aspect and the
criteria that may be evaluated;
• the way of presentation of the results (graphical or numerical);
• the data required for the analysis;
• the required efforts to process the data;
• the necessity and availability of special software.
Table 22 reviews the critical characteristics for each method to support method selection.
Additionally, it mentions the available alternatives for each method group.
The method type in Table 22 shows whether the method has a graphical or a numerical result. The
effort characterisation shows the relative effort for the method to get the results. The more plus-signs
are given the more efforts are required. A single plus means that the data for the method is easy
accessible and the data processing is rather simple. Two plus-signs apply for the methods that use easy
accessible data but need more complex data processing, like composite curve construction and energy
targeting. Methods with three plus-signs require the calculation of various targets to get the variables
that are finally evaluated. The methods with four plus-signs are the most complex and require rather
sophisticated calculations or constructions. They will generally only be used, if accessible through
adequate software.
Table 22 also shows in which conceptual network design stage, as defined in Section 3.4, the method
is applicable, based on the defined scope and the data that is available in that stage. Some methods
have a -sign for the target stage (I). These methods require a reliable figure for the amount of heat
transfer area that is installed in the existing network. This figure may be available in the first targeting
stage, but is not required for that stage. Consequently, the methods that require the total installed area
figure are not always applicable. Alternatives methods are shown in the last column. Only those
methods are given that are really equivalent and address more or less the same evaluation criteria and
design variables.
For the analysis of the network structure and interactions we can use both the network design
diagrams and the process flow diagram. The network design diagrams provide basic information about
7
Combining the Blasius equation, 4ƒ = 0.316Re-0.25 and the Colburn equation Nu = 0.027Re0.8Pr1/3 or
j = 0.023Re-0.2
8
For Hagen-Poiseulle flow ƒ = 16/Re and Nu = 3.66.
98 Chapter 4
heat exchange only. It gives a structured overview of the heat exchange requirements and the heat
exchanger network and is very suitable to create and analyse heat exchanger network designs as a
separate system. The extended T-Q diagram of Fraga et al. (2001) shows some process interactions,
but for a complete overview of these interactions the process flow diagram is essential. For very
simple networks the process flow diagram may even fully replace the network design diagrams. The
plotplan is generally not suitable to analyse the structure and interactions. The alternative form of the
grid diagram proposed by Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara (1996) is more complex and less
suitable to handle stream splits and more extended networks. It contains additional information
compared to the original grid diagram that is useful for design, but we can also get this information
from the driving force plot and its alternatives. This diagram is thus only a suitable alternative for
small networks without splits, if the software is available to generate the diagrams.
The energy efficiency can be reviewed, both numerically by its efficiency number and graphically
using the grand composite curve or the balanced composite curves. The energy efficiency number is
rarely used on its own. The graphs are nearly as easy to obtain and show much additional useful
information. The two composite curve types can also easily be converted to each other. The grand
composite curve gives the most suitable view on the required and used utilities. It is especially useful
when the Tmin is fixed and when we have an utility mix, i.e. more than two utilities. The balanced
composite curves give a better view on the relation between the energy efficiency and the ease of heat
transfer. Consequently, they are often the best option if the Tmin is a variable that is subject to an
economic optimisation. The graph may become too complex, however, when there are many utilities.
The efficiency of the utility placement in retrofit can also be reviewed by the retrofit composite
curves. They will provide better information than the grand composite curves about the existing
situation and the potential to improve this. These curves may be a graphical alternative to the area
efficiency number for the existing network, showing locations in the network with good and poor
vertical alignment in heat transfer. The general applicability of the conclusions that can be drawn from
the retrofit composite curves, need to be investigated.
There are four alternatives to analyse the thermal efficiency of matches. The match efficiency and the
cross-pinch analysis are numerical methods, the driving force plot and the auxiliary heat flow curves
graphical methods. The cross-pinch analysis is very limited and therefore not shown as a true
alternative for the other three methods. The method is quick and simple, but relies too much on a very
strict approach to the pinch. The other three methods give a more reliable review and a better insight
into the problematic matches.
The driving force plot is easy to construct and generally available in commercial network design soft-
ware. It quickly shows deviations from the ideal driving force profile and ways to reduce these deviat-
ions. The impact on the total design of specific matches is not shown in this plot. The auxiliary heat
flow curve is especially designed to show the impact on the total design, plotting together the total
available driving force and consumed driving force of each match. It immediately shows infeasible
matches or combinations of matches during design. It is, however, less easy to determine the ideal
profile for individual matches from the auxiliary heat flow curves. Both plots are thus complementary.
Table 22 Evaluation summary of the network analysis methods. See text for more details.
Method Method Effort 2 Soft- Applicable in Alternative
Type 1 ware design stage 4
3
I II III/IV
Structure Visualisation
Network Design Diagrams: G + o q q Process Flow Diagram
Grid Diagram G + o q q
Extended Grid Diagram G ++ r q q
Extended T-Q Diagram G ++ r q q
Process Flow Diagram G + o q q Network Design Diagram
Plotplan G + o q q
Composite Curves and Driving Force Plots
Composite Curves G ++ o q q q Grand Composite Curves
Energy Efficiency
Grand Composite Curves G ++ o q q q Composite Curves
Energy Efficiency
Retrofit Composite Curves G +++ r q q Grand Composite Curves
Area Efficiency
Driving Force Plot G +++ o q Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves
Match Efficiency
Temperature Field Plot G +++ o q
Cross-Pinch Analysis N ++ q Driving Force Plot
Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves
Match Efficiency
Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves G +++ r q Driving Force Plot
Match Efficiency
Economic and Ecological Performance
Economic Performance Number N ++ q q q
Ecology Performance Numbers N ++++ r q
E-A Plot G +++ o q q Retrofit Invest. Eval. Plot
Retrofit Investment Analysis Plot G +++ o q q E-A Plot
Efficiency Numbers
Energy Efficiency N ++ q q q (Grand) Composite Curves
Area Efficiency N +++ q q Retrofit Composite Curves
Units Efficiency N + q
Match Efficiency N ++++ r q Driving Force Plot
Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves
Ideal match ǻp N ++++ r q
FT - Factor N ++ q
Heat transfer coefficient N ++ q
Fanning Factor N ++ q
Colburn factor N ++ q
Goodness factor N ++ q
1 G = Graphical method; N = Numerical method.
2 Effort relative to other methods: + = relatively easy; ++++ = relatively labourious.
3 r = software required; o = software useful
4 Stages defined in Section 3.4: I = target, II = preliminary, III/IV = refined/final
= applicable if sufficient data is available; q = applicable.
100 Chapter 4
The match efficiency is the only proper quantitative method. It takes into account both the temperature
differences and the duties of the streams that are handled in the match. Additionally, it takes into
account the heat transfer coefficients and, if desired, the allowed pressure drop and other heat transfer
related aspects that can be included in area targeting. It is also possible to calculate the efficiency of a
set of matches. Infeasible (combinations) of matches are easily identified as the calculation of the
match efficiency will fail for such matches. The match efficiency is the most complicated method to
analyse matches and requires special software for practical use. Its interpretation may be somewhat
complicated as discussed in Section 4.5.2. As a result, we will generally use either the driving force
plot or the auxiliary heat flow curves as well to prevent incorrect conclusions.
The economic performance can be analysed with several performance numbers and some trend plots.
The E-A plot is only applicable in specific cases and is more useful to explain the retrofit principles
than as a practical performance analysis tool. The different shapes of the retrofit investment analysis
plot can all be useful, depending on the economic criteria to be used. Often, the profitability is more
important in retrofit than the investment itself. Consequently, the saving on payback period plot gives
a better overview of the options at different economic scenarios. Instead of the payback period we can
use another profitability criterion, like the internal rate of return.
Targeting Method Review 101
Chapter 5
Targeting Method Review
Targeting is a preliminary design stage to explore the main design

variables and to set targets for subsequent design stages. Targets for heat
exchanger network design are used in the first two stages of the
conceptual network design phase and as reference points for network
performance analysis throughout this design phase. This chapter gives a
structured review of the targeting methods for heat exchanger network
design available in literature. It reviews input requirements, scope, in
terms of included design variables, and qualities of the methods.
Additionally, it describes the basic principles of the main targeting types
and outlines specific methods. This way, this chapter serves both as an
introduction to targeting and as a reference for targeting method selec-
tion, that facilitates the stage-wise heat exchanger network design
described in Chapter 3. The review shows that most design variables,
that are relevant for energy saving heat exchanger network design as
identified in this thesis, are covered in the current grassroots targeting
methods. For retrofit the available targeting methods are more limited.
102 Chapter 5
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Context and Objective

Targeting is an early stage in design that allows the identification, exploration and demarcation of the
main variables in the design space, based on limited input data. It gives limits and sometimes an
optimised starting point for a subsequent, more detailed stage of design. In Section 3.3, we described
the many stages we can recognize in design. At the beginning of each design phase, we defined a
target stage to stress the importance of targeting in any phase of design. Besides, targeting can still be
useful in any other stage of design to refine and extend the demarcation and initialisation based on
more data and design variables. High and low limits, as identified by targeting, are also often used in
any design stage to express the efficiencies of specific designs.
The conceptual heat exchanger network retrofit design stages have been defined in Section 3.4. The
first two stages, target and preliminary design, rely on targeting only. For the last two stages,
evaluation of the effectivity of proposed designs is important, which often also requires targeting to
define the required reference states. Chapter 4 describes how targets are used for this evaluation in
network performance evaluation.
Since the definition of the first targets for heat exchanger network design by Hohmann (1971), many
targeting methods have been published with different scope and complexity. Many methods are
described in general text books (Kemp, 2007, Smith, 2005, Shenoy ,1995). Additionally, there are a
number of method reviews by Gundersen and Naess (1988), Linnhoff (1993), Jezowski (1994a,
1994b), Gundersen (2000) and Furman and Sahinidis (2002). Additionally, there are some reviews of
specific targeting types by Jezowski et al. (2003) on area targeting and by Furman and Sahinidis
(2004) on units targeting. Although these books and reviews give a good general reference to the
available methods, at least until the year 2000, they lack the specific details that are necessary to
evaluate the available methods in the context of the elaborated problem analysis of the network design
in Chapter 2 and the new design framework, presented in Chapter 3.
This chapter gives an updated and extended overview of the published targeting methods for heat
exchanger network design. It is intended to give a guide to targeting method selection and to identify
limitations of the available targeting methods. Meanwhile, it gives an introduction to the fundamental
models and methods for various types of targeting. The review is set up using the design problem
definition given in Chapter 2 to show how the available methods fit in and identify occasional blank
areas, for which no adequate methods are available.
The next section first gives an extended definition of targeting and relevant targeting method
characteristics. Next, there is an overview of the design variables incorporated in each method and the
required input data. The subsequent sections describe the fundamentals of each main type of targeting
method and the essential details of individual methods. First, we describe the basic grassroots methods
for energy, number of units and area targeting. Next, we describe the available retrofit methods for the
same basic targets. In the subsequent section, we describe the available structure-related targeting
methods both for grassroots and retrofit. In Section 5.5, we describe cost targeting and the related
target optimisation, also referred to as supertargeting. The last section of this chapter evaluates the
available methods and identifies less-developed areas in targeting.
5.1.2 The Concept of Targeting

In heat exchanger network literature targeting has developed from the relatively easy determination of
the minimum energy input and required number of units in heat exchanger networks (Hohmann, 1971)
to the more complex economic trade-offs between the most important design variables in energy
systems. Meanwhile, targeting was also introduced in other common systems in process design, like
conversion and separation units as described in Chapter 1.
Siirola (1996) introduced the generic use of targeting in process design. According to Siirola targeting
is a way of tentative design that is part of any design phase (Chapter 3). It shows the valid range and
some tentative values of the main design variables of the related phase. Targeting focuses the design to
the main aspects and often reviews characteristic (lumped) design variables, eg. total heat input, rather
than the actual design variables, like the heat duty of each hot utility exchanger. It thereby ignores
details that seem to have little impact on the main aspects and can be elaborated in subsequent design
stages. This results in a better insight in the design problem, while it limits the input data and the effort
required to explore the design space and find a good starting point for design. Based on the gained
insight, we can identify design opportunities and limits that can be used in subsequent design stages
(Daichendt and Grossmann, 1998). We may also identify infeasibilities in the given design task, that
will initiate redefinition of the task or termination of the design process.
For many design problems it is not immediately clear what the main aspects are. For those cases,
targeting allows a relatively quick evaluation of the impact of individual aspects. The main aspects
will result from some ‘what-if’-analyses or the application of different targeting methods. In a similar
way we can explore the valid ranges of the relevant variables. We can identify the most ideal and
worst cases by targeting that in turn give the lower and upper limits of the related variables.
Based on the preceding discussion we will use in this thesis the following definition of targeting:
Targeting is a preliminary design approach that explores the design space of a design problem to
identify, demarcate and initialise the main design variables and get insight and direction for a
consecutive design step, using simplified models and often lumped characteristic design variables.
The definition contains the three main applications of targeting:

• the identification and demarcation of the design space;
• the creation of an initial sketch of the design by a rough characterisation of the main (lumped)
variables, often used as a target for subsequent designs;
• the identification of the main aspects and an exploration of the dependencies between them.
Figure 23 gives a schematic explanation of the various target types and their use. The shaded area is a
projection of the original multi-variable design problem that gives a range of objective values for the
selected design variable. Different target models may exist that give either
• the maximum target, the highest value of the objective possible in the feasible design space;
• the minimum target, the lowest value of the objective possible in the feasible design space;
• a dependency target between the selected variable and the objective that is a simplification of
the original relation. Figure 23 shows a one-dimensional estimate of the maximum objective
value related to one selected variable only.
104 Chapter 5
Figure 23 Value of objective related to key design variable to show different possible target types:
maximum, minimum and dependency. Shaded area is projection of original multi-variable
relation on single variable plot, see text.
Figure 23 also shows how the targets are used to explore and demarcate the design space and how to
determine a target optimum.
A systematic evaluation of targeting methods is hardly done in literature. As a result there are no clear
evaluation criteria known. The criteria we will use are based on the insights gained from reviewing the
methods from literature. The available targeting methods are all based on some abstractions of the
design space. The design aspects that we can review by using them vary considerably and so does the
complexity of the models and methods. This gives a trade-off in the selection of a proper targeting
method. On the one hand the results from targeting are only useful if the method assesses all relevant
aspects for the case. On the other hand a method becomes less convenient to use if it takes into
account too many aspects and becomes too complex or labourious. We will use four criteria for the
assessment of targeting methods:
• simplicity: allow quick and easy accessible calculations and sensitivity or ‘what-if’ studies;
• transparency: give as much insight as possible;
• adequacy: sufficiently describe all relevant aspects ;
• consistency: have the same basic assumptions in targeting as will be valid in the successive
design step.
5.2 Overview of Existing Methods
This section gives an inventory of the targeting methods for conceptual network design available in
literature. The data of the grassroots targeting methods are in the tables 23 and 24 and for the retrofit
targeting methods in the tables 23 and 25. The order of the methods in Table 23 (left to right) is the
order of appearance of the method description in subsequent sections. The same order is used in Table
24 and Table 25.
Table 23 shows the targeting methods that apply for each design variable. The relevance of these
design variables for specific stages of conceptual network design, based on the definitions in Section
3.4, is also indicated in Table 23. The overview shows whether the variable is the subject of targeting
and optimisation and, if so, what type of targeting applies - minimise (‘l’), maximise (‘h’), optimise
(‘b’) or initialise (‘g’) -, or whether it can be fixed as a constraint (‘c’) based on specific input data for
the method. Each method has a short description as identifier that refers to the same identifier in either
Table 24 or 25, which give the full references.
The variables given in Table 23 are derived from the ones in Table 14 in Chapter 2, but there are some
differences. Targeting often uses lumped characteristic variables, like total transfer area, which are no
real design variables in the final stage of conceptual network design. Besides, some variables are
omitted in the overview, as they are handled in the same way by all methods. Appendix D shows how
the variables in Table 23 relate to the ones in Table 14.
Table 24 gives the references for all grassroots targeting methods and specifies the required and
optional input data. Table 25 is a similar table, but for the retrofit targeting methods. Table 26 gives an
overview of all input data relevant for conceptual network design. The data in this table is presented in
logical groups and has a reference label which is used in Table 24 and Table 25 to summarise the
required and optional input data.
Input Data Requirements

For input data we recognize external data and existing values of design variables. The external data
includes all data that is necessary for the design, but will not change during that design. The common
groups of external data are in Table 26. The existing values for design variables give the starting point
for design, but, obviously, modification of these variables during design is possible. Such initialisation
values for design variables are common in retrofit design, as the physical realisation of a design
already exists. For both the external data and the design variables, it is possible that we require input
that is not available, as for some reason a previous stage of design was incomplete. In such cases we
can either return to a previous design stage to get the required input (refer to the design framework in
Chapter 3) or use available general standards and estimates based on own experience as input data.
Generally, the targeting results will be less reliable, if such standards or estimates are used.
The Tables 23, 24 and 25 summarise the required data for each targeting method. Table 24 gives the
external data for the grassroots methods using the data groups given in Table 26. Data that is useful
but not essential for the method is given in a separate column. Any requirements for input values for
initialisation of design variables are marked in Table 23 as constraint (‘c’). The optional input is given
in an italic and underlined font in this table. The retrofit methods in Table 25 generally specify the
target values as deviations from the existing situation. This is only possible when the existing values
are known. Consequently, they need input of the existing values for all included design variables, also
for the variables that are optimised and marked by either ‘b’, ‘l’, ‘h’ or ‘g’.
Table 23 Design variables taken into account by the available targeting methods
Grassroots Methods
Description Applicable
design
stage 1)
I II III/
IV
ext. vert. aligned area (Bath)

unequal htc (1\n streams)
unequal htc correction (gen.)
composite model
Euler with pinch decomp.
refined htc correction
fixed pressure drop
problem table
transhipment model
transh.out-of-kilter mod.
constrained problem table
transportation model
residual heat flows
neighbouring units model
lowest cost utility mix
hybrid probl.tab./transp.mod.
minimum flux
grand composite curve

furnace placement
cheapest utility principle
Euler's rule
near independent subnets
extended transhipment
aggregated models
min.units approximation
shells targeting
vertical aligned area
diverse pinch for area
area type weighted cost
match type weighted cost
simpl. match type weight cost
macro utility duties/operating cost l l l l l l l b l\b b l\b b l l c l b lhb c c c c c c c c c c c c

match\shell count l l l l l l l l b lhb l l g l
tot. transfer area b l c c l l l l l l l g g g l
network topology c c c c c cg gc b b lhb g
hx Tin\ Tout \ hx duty b g\c g\c g\c g\c g b b g\c
hx massflow g
ǻP distribution c
hx locations 2) 2) 2) 2) 2)
investment\profit g b b lhb g g g
reuse equipment
meso unit type (incl. surface) c c c c c
hx ǻTmin (EMAT) c 3) c c c c 3) c 3) c 3) c 3) c c 3) c c c c c c c
hx size (area\weight)
FT l\g l\g
hx max ǻP h
hx detail design (aspects) c 4)
micro heat transfer coefficients c c c c c c c c c c c c c c g
fouling factor c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
materials c c c c
l = lower limit; h = higher limit; b = optimal (best) target; g = initial guess; c = as constraint\external data; \ = or; optional items are underlined;
For table notes refer the next page.
Table 23 continued
grassroots methods (continued) retrofit methods 5)
description Notes for Table 23
applicable
1) applicable in stage I (target),
design
II (preliminary), III (refined)
stage 1)
or IV (final) of the conceptual
network design phase, refer to
Chapter 3.
I II III/ 2) possible but not mentioned by
IV
author.
3) equals Tmin.
4) main variables of detailed
diverse pinch fixed ǻP

supertargeting 6)
continuous targeting 6)
structural targeting (this work)
E-A and sav on inv. plots 6)
areas of integrity
fixed pressure drop
area matrix
extend. transh. multi-pass area

transportation for area
utility system
zonal problem table
hypertargets
transportation with costs
environmental impact
number of shells
constant area efficiency
incr. area efficiency
heat transfer enhancements
network pinch, topol. targets
assignment transhipment
retrofit screening
retrofit hypertargets
design included.
macro utility duties/operating cost c b c c\b b b b b b b b c c c c c b b b l b b
5) retrofit methods require
match\shell count l b l\b l\b l\b lb g g b b l l l g g g g g l g lb
existing values for all
network topology l c l cg cg cg cg 6) 6) c c c c cg cg c cg cg
included design variables as
tot. transfer area l c l\b l\b l\b b b b b c l l l l b b b b b
input also those marked with
hx Tin\ Tout \ hx duty g g g\c g b, l, h or g.
hx massflow g g g 6) method that use any other
ǻP distribution c 6) 6) c 6) 6)
(energy, utility, area or units)
hx locations 2) 2) 2) c c c 2) 2) c 2) targeting method to optimise
investment\profit b b b b b b b b b b 7) b b b g b b economy and thus may
reuse equipment cg cg cg cg cg cg c cg cg cg cg include indirectly all variables
meso unit type (incl. surface) c c c c c c 6) 6) c c b 8) 6) 6) c that can be taken into account
hx ǻTmin (EMAT) c c c c c 6) 6) c c c c by the linked methods.
hx size (area\weight) b 7) minimizes environmental
Ft l\g l\g 6) 6) l\g 6) 6) l/g impact
hx max ǻP h 6) 6) h h b 6) 6) 8) selects type of heat transfer
hx detail design (aspects) c 4) 6) 6) c 4) c c 8) 6) 6) enhancement
micro heat transfer coefficients g c c c c c c c c c c c g c c/b c\g c c\g c
fouling factor c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c\g c c c
materials c c c c 6) 6) c c c c
l = lower limit; h = higher limit; b = optimal (best) target; g = initial guess; c = as constraint\external data; \ = or; optional items are underlined.
Table 24 Required external input data for the available grassroots targeting methods.
Description Reference Additional external data 1)
required optional
composite model Hohmann (1971), Huang and Elshout (1979) ace l
problem table Linnhoff and Flower (1978a), Salama (2005) ace l
transhipment model Papoulias and Grossmann (1983) ace hkl
transh.out-of-kilter mod. Viswanathan and Evans (1987) ace hkl
constrained problem table O'Young et al. (1988) ace lh
transportation model Cerda et al. (1983) ace hkl
residual heat flows Trivedi et al. (1988) ace l
neighbouring units model Galli and Cerda (1998a,b,c,d) ace hkl
grand composite curve Raghavan (1977) ace kl
lowest cost utility mix Parker (1989), Castier (2007) acek l
furnace placement Hall and Linnhoff (1994) ace l
cheapest utility principle Shenoy et al. (1998) acek l
hybrid probl.tab./transp.mod. Jezowski and Friedler (1992) ace kl
minimum flux Fraser (1989) ace
Euler's rule Hohmann (1971), Linnhoff (1983) a
Euler with pinch decomp. Linnhoff et al. (1979) ace l
near independent subnets Shethna and Jezowski (2006) ace hkl
extended transhipment Colberg and Morari (1990) abcek hjl
aggregated models Daichendt & Grossmann (1994b,c) abcek hjl
min.units approximation Furman and Sahinidis (2004) ace l
shells targeting Ahmad and Smith (1989) abce
vertical aligned area Nishida et al. (1971, 1981) abce l
ext. vert. aligned area (Bath) Townsend and Linnhoff (1984) abce l
unequal htc (1\n streams) Nishimura (1980) abce l
unequal htc correction (gen.) Ahmad et al. (1990) abce l
refined htc correction Saboo et al. (1986b) abce l
diverse pinch for area Rev and Fonyo (1991), Zhu et al. (1995a), Serna abce l
and Jimenez (2004)
area type weighted cost Hall et al. (1990) abcelk dj
match type weighted cost Jedege and Polley (1992) abcelk dhj
simpl. match type weight cost Kravanja and Glaviþ (1997) abcelk dhj
fixed pressure drop Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) abcdefl g
diverse pinch fixed ǻP Panjeh Shahi and Khoshgard (2006) abcdefl gk
extended transh. multipass area Santos and Zemp (2000) abcek hjl
transportation for area Jezowski et al. (2003) abce hjkl
areas of integrity Ahmad and Hui (1991) ,Hui and Ahmad (1994a) abcehk jl
utility system Hui and Ahmad (1994b) abcehk jl
zonal problem table Amidpour and Polley (1997) aceh l
hypertargets Briones and Kokossis (1999a,c) abcek hjl
supertargeting Ahmad and Linnhoff (1984, 1989), Linnhoff and abcek dhjl
Ahmad (1989, 1990)
continuous targeting Shenoy (1995) abcek dhjl
transportation with costs Shethna et al. (1999, 2000) abcek hjl
environmental impact Wen and Shonnard (2003) acekm hl
1) Refer to Table 26 and the text for explanation of the data codes
Table 25 Required external input data for the available retrofit targeting methods.
description reference additional external data 1)
required optional
number of shells Tjoe (1986) abce l
constant area efficiency Tjoe (1986), Tjoe and Linnhoff (1984, 1986, 1987) abce l
incr. area efficiency Ahmad and Polley (1990) abce l
fixed pressure drop Panjeh Shahi (1992) abcdefl g
area matrix Shokoya (1992), Silva and Zemp (1999, 2000) abce fhl
heat transfer enhancement Zhu et al. (2000) abce dk
structural targeting (this work) Van Reisen et al. (1995a,1998) abcek hjl
network pinch, topol.targets Asante and Zhu (1996, 1997), abcek hjl
Zhu and Asante (1999)
E-A and sav on inv. plots Tjoe (1986) abcek dhjl
assignment transhipment Yee and Grossmann (1987) ace hkl
retrofit screening Yee and Grossmann (1991) abcek hjl
retrofit hypertargets Briones and Kokossis (1999b,c) abcek hjl
1) Refer to Table 26 and the text for explanation of the data codes
Table 26 External data for targeting. See Table 24 and

25 for requirements individual methods.
Data Group Description
a streams for heat exchange
for each stream
b phase
c Ts(ource), Tt(arget)
d Pin, Pout or ǻP
e one of:
1) duty = Ht - Hs
2) T-H from Ts to Tt
3) cp(T) , massflow
f density / viscosity / conductivity
g capacities of pumps and compressors
h compatibility data:
hazardous properties
source and target location
parent process unit
i quality/stability properties
j corrosion properties
k economic and cost data
l potential new units, data per type
options for units adaptation , data per type
(eg. EMAT allowed)
m environmental impact data
110 Chapter 5
5.3 Basic Grassroots Targeting Methods
Targeting for conceptual grassroots heat exchanger network design is generally based on three key
characteristic variables in order of relevance:
• use of energy resources, that relates to the required utility duties and utility costs;
• number of units to transfer heat, that relates to network complexity and required investment;
• transfer area, that relates to the size of the heat exchanging equipment and the required
investment.
For retrofit, it is essential to include some structure-related variables in targeting, as we will describe
in Section 5.4.4. We therefore add structure as the fourth key characteristic to be included in targeting.
Below, we will describe the available methods for each of the four key characteristic variables. The
relation to network cost, that is also often included in targeting, is not defined as a key characteristic.
Cost is a derived quantity, used for optimisation, which will be described in Section 5.5.
5.3.1 Energy Targeting

The simplest form of energy targeting is the calculation of the minimum required total duty that must
be supplied and released from the process by the heat exchanger network. Additionally, it gives the
minimum temperature for energy supply and the maximum for release and often allows the
determination of the optimum use of the available utilities, in case more than one hot utility (for
supply) or cold utility (for release) is available.
Essentially, there are two types of models used for energy targeting. The most applied model lumps all
hot streams and all cold streams to one hot and one cold composite stream. The energy targets are
based on an analysis of the heat exchange that is possible between these composite streams. The
alternative model is based on a virtual network with heat transfers between actual streams. The virtual
network can be built in different ways to incorporate different constraints. We will describe the energy
targeting methods based on the composite streams first.
Hohmann (1971) and Huang and Elshout (1979) introduced the concept of composite curves and
showed how to determine from them the minimum heating and cooling requirements. Linnhoff and his
co-workers extended this work and made it more general applicable (Smith, 2005, Kemp, 2007). The
composite curves, see also Section 4.3.1, essentially show the available or required heat below a given
temperature. The hot composite curve shows the heat available, the cold composite the heat required.
We can obtain the hot (cold) composite by the integration of the heat available (required) from the
lowest temperature at which the supplying (demanding) streams exist. To simplify the graphical and
numerical analysis, we can approximate the integral by a summation, when we define temperature
intervals in which we can assume the heat capacity and the flowrate as constants. Kemp (2007) gives
guidelines for the linearisation to ensure the resulting error is limited and conservative, i.e. results in
an overestimation of the minimum energy targets. This is based on an underestimation of the
temperatures of the available heat and an overestimation of the temperatures of the required heat.
Castier and Queiroz (2002) showed that deviations can be very significant, if linearisation is done
inadequately. With this linearisation a composite curve is described by the following function for the
available or required enthalpy as a function of the temperature:
int erval(T)
H comp ( T ) = ¦
k =1
¦
j∈Scomp (k)
( ( )
cpk, j ⋅ ϕm k, j min T,TH,k − TL,k ) (31)
with Hcomp(T) the composite curve temperature - enthalpy function [W];

k counter for the temperature interval starting at the lowest temperatures;
T the temperature [°C];
interval(T) the temperature interval in which T is;
j counter for stream from set Scomp ;
Scomp(k) the set of streams that are composed and that are present 9 in temperature interval k;
TH,k maximum temperature of temperature interval k [°C];
TL,k minimum temperature of temperature interval k [°C];
cpk, j the heat capacity of stream j in temperature interval k [J/(kg°·C)];
ϕm k, j the flowrate of stream j in temperature interval k [kg/s].
The interval temperatures are the source and target temperatures of the composed streams and addit-
ional temperature breakpoints for the linearisation of the heat capacity. In case of vaporisation or con-
densation, the heat of vaporisation is included as a large heat capacity in a small temperature interval.
Based on the second law of thermodynamics, the required minimum energy supply and release can be
determined from the composite curves. This can be done graphically (Hohmann, 1971), when we plot
the hot and cold composite in one figure. For the thermodynamic minimum heat supply and release,
the minimum temperature difference between the hot and cold temperature is zero. Alternatively,
Linnhoff and coworkers (Kemp, 2007) suggested the use of a practical minimum temperature
difference between the hot and cold composite curves, to get a practical minimum , instead of the
thermodynamic minimum. They showed that a higher minimum temperature difference increases both
the minimum energy supply and the minimum heat release with an equal amount.
The required minimum energy supply and release for a given minimum approach temperature can also
be determined numerically. Linnhoff and Flower (1978a) introduced the problem table to do these
calculations . They defined the shifted temperatures to handle problems with a practical minimum
approach temperature above zero in the same way they handle problems based on the second law of
thermodynamics. For the shifted temperatures any heat transfer with shifted temperature difference
equal to or above zero is practically feasible. In the problem table they make heat balances for each
(shifted) temperature interval based on the available and required heat. Next, they cascade any heat
surplus or deficit in an interval to the interval below, starting at the highest temperature. A deficit is
cascaded as a negative heat flow. They repeat this at each lower interval, taking into account the
positive and negative heat flows cascaded from all higher intervals. This yields a series of heat cascade
flows from high to low temperatures. All these cascade flows must be above or equal to zero to get a
feasible heat transfer. Any negative number must be compensated by heat supply at or above the
related temperature interval. The total additional heat supply is the required minimum energy input.
The heat flow from the lowest temperature interval, after addition of the required minimum energy
input, is the minimum required energy release.
9
A stream is present in an interval if the interval temperatures are at or between the source and target
temperatures of the stream.
112 Chapter 5
Various alternatives to the problem table are published. Salama (2005) published a more efficient
algorithm to construct and calculate the problem table. Papoulias and Grossmann (1983) presented a
transhipment model, a mathematical formulation of the problem that allows calculation of the
minimum required energy supply and release by linear programming. Forbidden matches, i.e.
limitations on what streams may exchange heat, can be handled with this model, but Viswanathan and
Evans (1987) reported better results for these cases with their revised model with a dual stream
approach. O’Young et al. (1988) published a constrained problem table, to evaluate the impact of
forbidden matches, which is more alike the original problem table.
The first virtual network approach was published by Cerda et al. (1983). They defined a transportation
model with real stream-to-stream transfers at different temperatures intervals. This was further elabor-
ated by Trivedi et al. (1988) with their residual heat flows model and Galli and Cerda (1998a,c,d) who
allowed more structure-related constraints (see also Section 5.3.4). A significant advantage of these
transportation models is that they can easily incorporate stream dependent constraints, as these streams
can be recognized in the model. Solution of the model is however more complicated.
Energy targeting becomes utility targeting, when more than one hot and one cold utility is available or
when a so-called non-point utility is included. Such a non-point utility has a relatively wide difference
between the in- to outlet temperature, like cooling air or flue gas, and complicates targeting if its
temperature range overlaps with the temperatures of the process streams. Additional utilities give
additional degrees of freedom, i.e. the duty of each utility and we must find the optimal mix of them.
Raghavan (1977) introduced the Heat Availability Function, now known as the grand composite
curve, that shows the cumulative heat demand and excess of the process. This allows a graphical
specification of the preferred utility mix, see also Chapter 4. Parker (1989) used the grand composite
curve and its numerical representation to optimise the utility mix to the lowest cost. Castier (2007)
described the use of the problem table for determination of the optimum application of utilities. Hall
and Linnhoff (1994) used the grand composite curve to do the integration of furnaces, which can be
regarded as a special utility. Shenoy et al. (1998) introduced the Cheapest Utility Principle and the
Optimal Load Distribution Plot to review the optimum utility mix for a range of minimum approach
temperatures. This allows a more transparent selection of minimum approach temperature and
corresponding utilities. The mathematical optimisation of systems with non-point utilities based on the
transhipment (composite stream) model has been described by Viswanathan and Evans (1987) and
Jezowski and Friedler (1992). Cerda et al. (1983) allowed for non-point utilities in the initial
formulation of the transportation model.
The numerical methods for energy targeting can be adapted to incorporate more constraints and
stream-dependent corrections. In some cases it is useful to use stream-dependent minimum approach
temperatures to account for the different natures of heat transfer, eg. in gaseous media or in liquids.
This can be included in the problem table (AspenPinch, 1999) or in the minimum flux method of
Fraser (1989), which is based on the transhipment model, by a correction on the temperature shifts.
The transportation model of Cerda et al. (1983) is more versatile and accurate in these cases. It allows
stream-match dependent temperature differences, but also other match dependent corrections, such as
the impact of the number of transfer units, see below.
5.3.2 Units Targeting

The number of units that must be installed is a measure of the network complexity and an important
factor for the estimation of the required investment for the network. Simple networks are preferred
both from a cost and an operational point of view. Networks with more units tend to be more
expensive than networks with a small number of units, even if the total transfer area is similar.
Consequently, the number of units is an important characteristic variable for targeting. The simplest
model used is a simple set of sources and sinks that must be balanced based on the first law of
thermodynamics. Alternatively, some mathematical formulations exist, similar to the ones used for
energy targeting.
Hohmann (1971, from Sama, 1996) suggested some simple rules to estimate the minimum number of
heat exchanging units from the basic stream data. The most general relation gives the actual number of
heat transferring matches in an independent network:
n = n s,hot + n s,cold + n s,util + n loops − n subnets (32)
with n the number of heat exchangers [-];
ns,hot the number of hot streams [-];
ns,cold the number of cold streams [-];
ns,util the number of utility types [-];
nloops the number of independent loops in a system [-];
nsubsets the total number of independent subnetworks in the network [-] (nsubsets 1).
Linnhoff (1983) recognized that Equation 32 is equivalent to Euler's general network theorem from
graph theory. It is based on the simple source-sink model and does not recognize possible constraints
due to the second law of thermodynamics. The Loops in this relation are paths within a network that
go through streams and stream connections and return at their starting point. To minimise the number
of units, we must minimise the number of loops in a network. Generally, we can avoid loops in
network design and thus for the minimum number of units target, nloops , becomes zero. The number
of subsets is difficult to forecast. Hohmann suggested a conservative estimate for the minimum
number of units and set the number of subsets to zero. This results in Hohmann’s relation for the quasi
minimum of heat exchangers, nmin, for an independent network:
n min = n s,hot + n s,cold + n s,util − 1 ≤ n (33)
Linnhoff et al. (1979) assumed that for a maximum energy recovery network no heat may be
transferred from above to below the pinch and vise versa. As a result the networks above and below
the pinch are independent and therefore they applied Equation 33 to each side of the pinch. They used
the sum of the two results as target for the total minimum number of units. As the pinch location
varies with the used minimum temperature difference between the hot and cold composites as
described in the previous section, also the minimum number of units depends on the selected
minimum approach temperature.
Alternative methods to determine the minimum number of units rely on mathematical programming
models. These models are similar to the ones used for energy targeting. Both the transhipment
(Papoulias and Grossmann, 1983) and the transportation models (Cerda et al. 1983) can be rewritten to
allow the minimisation of the number of units for a given balance with fixed utilities. Binary variables
must be added to represent the presence of a match between any pair of streams. This results in a
mixed integer linear programming (MILP) problem that in some cases can be simplified to a linear
114 Chapter 5
programming problem (Cerda et al. 1983). Shethna and Jezowski (2006) revised the transhipment
model to maximise the number of independent subnetworks, allowing small variations in the source
and target temperatures of the hot and cold streams, and thus further minimize the number of units.
Viswawathan and Evans (1987) revised the transhipment model to get the minimum number of units
more effectively in case of forbidden matches. Colberg and Morari (1990) also give a variation of the
transhipment model to determine the relation between minimum number of units and the target
minimum amount of transfer area. Daichendt and Grossmann (1994b,c) proposed a very aggressive
target for the minimum number of units using an aggregate units model, which was intended to get a
conservative low limit to bound more detailed optimisations. Furman and Sahinidis (2004) tested a
number of approximations for the transportation model for the minimum number of units target
including Hohmann’s relation given above. They showed that it is sometimes not possible to solve the
original transportation model. Meanwhile, they proved that none of the approximations will give a
guaranteed minimum as well, but their proposed approximations are better than the ones currently
used .
Ahmad and Smith (1989) recognized that heat transfer matches may consist of multiple shells,
especially if multi-pass exchangers are applied. Such multiple shell matches are more expensive than
single shell matches. To account for this difference, they proposed a shells targeting algorithm, based
on the composite curve model and the FT -correction factor for non-countercurrent flow.
The other methods that determine the minimum number of units for grassroots cases, according to
Table 23 either rely on the Euler rule or they estimate the number of shells from the area target and a
fixed maximum area content per shell.
5.3.3 Area Targeting

Area targeting estimates the minimum total amount of area required to transfer heat from a set of hot
streams to a set of cold streams that are in heat balance. It builds on energy targeting to get a heat
balanced set of streams. Additionally, it uses models that are derived from the models used for energy
targeting: the composite streams and the virtual networks.
The composite stream model is the most transparent and is the most suitable to explain the concepts.
We treat the hot and cold composite streams as ordinary streams but with a complex enthalpy -
temperature relation, and take the heat exchanger network as a special two-stream exchanger. In
Chapter 2, we summarised the main relations that are applicable for such exchangers. The transfer area
can be calculated from the transferred duty, the effective temperature difference and the heat transfer
coefficients of the streams. To minimise the transfer area, we must maximise the effective temperature
difference, thus make the effective temperature difference equal to the logarithmic mean temperature
difference. This requires a strict counter-current heat exchanger, which matches hot and cold
temperatures that are vertically aligned. Vertical alignment (Ahmad and Linnhoff, 1984) refers to heat
transfer between hot and cold streams with opposing temperatures in the heat-balanced composite
curves, see also Figure 24.
Nishida et al. (1971) showed, that we can use a similar approach to calculate the minimum transfer
area for a heat balanced system from its composite curves. They proved, based on an extended
integration of the basic heat transfer rate equation (Equation 3), that vertical alignment (a phrase
introduced by Ahmad and Linnhoff, 1984) gives the minimum transfer area for cases with either one
hot and many cold streams or one cold and many hot streams. Also, the heat transfer coefficient must
be equal for all hot and cold streams. Later, Nishida et al. (1981) extended this prove to any number of
streams with equal heat transfer coefficients. For cases with unequal heat transfer coefficients, vertical
alignment is only an approximation. It is the basis for all area targeting methods that use the composite
streams model.
Townsend and Linnhoff (1984) extended the

approach from Nishida et al. (1971) to any
number of hot and cold streams with unequal heat
transfer coefficient. They used a pragmatic
approach, often referred to as the ‘Bath formula’.
Due to the linearisation, we can define enthalpy
intervals, Figure 24, in which the heat capacity
flowrate (the slope of the composite curve) and
the heat transfer coefficients for all available
streams are constant. For such enthalpy interval,
we can apply the basic heat transfer relation for
counter-current exchangers (Equation 4, Chap- Figure 24 Composite curves with enthalpy
ter 2) to get the minimum transfer area for that intervals and vertical alignment
interval. The duty and log mean temperature indication
difference for each interval are easily determined from the plot or found by some simple calculations.
The authors approximated the heat transfer coefficient of each composite stream by a weighted mean
of the heat transfer coefficients of the individual streams based on their relative duties in the enthalpy
interval. The total minimum heat transfer area is the sum of all interval transfer areas. This results in
the following equation for estimated minimum transfer area, Amin [m2] :
Qq 1 Q j,q
A min = ¦ A cc,q = ¦ = ¦ ¦ (34)
all q all q ∆Tln,q h ov,q all q ∆Tln,q j∈J(q) h j,q
with Acc,q the transfer area of enthalpy interval q for counter-current flow [m2];
q enthalpy interval counter [-];
Qq the duty of enthalpy interval q [W];
hov,q the overall heat transfer coefficient for enthalpy interval q [W/(m2 ·C)];
ǻTln,q the log mean temperature difference in enthalpy interval q [C];
Qj,q the duty of stream j in enthalpy interval q [W];
hj,q the heat transfer coefficient of stream j in enthalpy interval q [W/(m2 ·C)];
J(q) the set of all (hot and cold) streams that are in enthalpy interval q.
The vertical alignment area target is only a true minimum for problems having equal heat transfer
coefficients for all hot streams and one for all cold streams. When the heat transfer coefficients differ
Equation 34 gives only an approximation. Many researchers tried to improve the area target
estimations for this case. This includes the work of Fraser (1989), Nishimura (1980), Ahmad et al.
(1990), Saboo et al. (1986b) and diverse pinch method by Rev and Fonyo (1991), and refined by Zhu
et al. (1995b) and Serna and Jimenez (2004). These methods all offer some kind of correction of the
effective temperature difference used to calculate the stream contribution to the total transfer area, for
the specified heat transfer coefficient for that stream.
116 Chapter 5
Heat transfer area targets are generally used to calculate network cost. The exchanger cost however
not only depend on the required heat transfer area but also on specific stream and match requirements,
like the materials of construction and the equipment pressure ratings. The minimum network cost may
require a different matching of streams than the minimum heat transfer area. Hall et al. (1990), Jedege
and Polley (1992) and Kravanja and Glaviþ (1997) proposed corrections to the area target calculations
to aim at minimum cost instead of minimum transfer area. These corrections are comparable to the
corrections for unequal heat transfer coefficients described above.
Ahmad and Smith (1989) changed the Bath formula (Equation 34) to estimate the area target in case
shell-and-tube exchangers with two tube passes are used. They introduced the correction factor, FT, for
each enthalpy interval and added an estimation approach for the number of shells in series required.
Panjeh Shahi (1992) defined the phrase ‘stream contact area’ as the amount of transfer area that can be
associated to a specific stream. They calculated it from a reordering of the Bath formula (Equation 34)
combined with an estimate of the average heat transfer coefficient of the opposing streams in each
enthalpy interval. The sum of all stream contact areas is twice the target minimum transfer area, as all
area is counted as hot stream and as cold stream area as well. Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) used
these stream contact areas to estimate heat transfer coefficients based on fixed maximum stream
pressure drops. Later, Panjeh Shahi and Khoshgard (2006) combined this fixed pressure drop targeting
with the diverse pinch method of Rev and Fonyo (1991) to improve the area targets. They also
presented an extension to incorporate multi-pass heat exchangers in their targeting approach.
Colberg and Morari (1990), Daichendt and Grossmann (1994b,c), Galli and Cerda (1998a,b,c,d) and
Briones and Kokossis (1999a) made the area targets part of an extended mathematical screening model
that allows the estimation of the minimum required area using (non-)linear programming that can take
into account a lot of constraints. Santos and Zemp (2000) extended the method of Colberg and Morari
(1990) to include multi-pass exchangers. To avoid convergence difficulties they turned it into a two-
stage approach. Jezowski et al. (2003) modified the transportation model of Briones and Kokossis
(1999a) to a linear programming optimisation problem to determine the area target, which is much
easier to solve.
5.3.4 Structure-related Targeting

Structure-related targeting aims for identification of essential matches to include in a network design.
This may be essential to heat balance the system or to take into account some relation between streams
with respect to, among others, physical location, safety, process logic and operability. In many cases,
it is important to include such structure-related design aspects in targeting, as they may have
significant impact on other targets. Targeting allows a quick screening of the impact of structure-
related constraints, compared to the unconstrained design or occasional alternative constraints and
allows a designer to set priorities.
Many mathematical targeting methods allow specification of forbidden and required matches as
constraints. Refer to the row network topology in Table 23. With these methods, we can calculate
adapted energy, number of units and area targets and evaluate the impact of structure constraints.
These methods lack, however, a systematic approach to use this ability.
Ahmad and Hui (1991) and Hui and Ahmad (1994a) published such a systematic approach to include
structure-related aspects in targeting and to set topology targets, i.e. identify preferred and undesired
matches. They grouped closely related streams into integrity zones 10, to recognize these stream
dependencies during targeting. Ahmad and Hui stated that these integrity zones should be as self-
contained as possible, assuming that matches within these integrity zones are easier to make than
matches between different integrity zones. They introduced the number and location of the
interconnections between integrity zones as design variables to review the complexity of the network
structure. They showed (Ahmad and Hui, 1991, Hui and Ahmad, 1994a) how to use these integrity
zone interconnections to get the required matches between streams. Additionally, they showed how
intermediate utilities can facilitate the heat transfer between zones.
In their first article Ahmad and Hui (1991) evaluated energy targets only. They identified the essential
interconnections between the integrity zones to avoid energy penalties, using the unconstrained
problem as a reference. These essential interconnections and their size followed from a rigorous
analysis of the energy penalties that would result, if any of the interconnections would not have been
allowed. The authors calculated the energy penalties using one of the energy targeting methods that
allow match constraints. For the calculation of each penalty, they disabled all heat transfers between
the hot streams of one integrity zone and the cold streams of another and calculated the constrained
energy target. They defined the energy penalty as the difference between the constrained and the
unconstrained targets. If the energy penalty for the absence of a connection between two integrity
zones is zero, they recommended to avoid any heat integration between these integrity zones.
Hui and Ahmad (1994a) extended their energy-based method to a cost based-method. A cost
contribution was assigned to each interconnection. Next, they evaluate the cost efficiency of each
connection using one of the cost targeting methods that allow match constraints. Constraints are
successively added for each connection between integrity zones, starting with those that have smallest
energy penalty and proceeding until the target cost of the network starts to increase substantially by
adding new constraints. They also showed (Hui and Ahmad, 1994b), how to optimise the utility
system for optimal integration of the integrity zones.
Amidpour and Polley (1997) presented a similar approach for energy-based targeting with integrity
zones, but used a modified form of the problem table to find targets for the heat flow between integrity
zones. The heat cascades are set up in a single table for both the total system and for each integrity
zone independently, using the same globally defined intervals. They postpone the use of any utility in
the integrity zones and correct, if possible, any negative values in the cascade table by heat transfers
between integrity zones within the same temperature interval. They minimise the number of transfers
between integrity zones to minimise the number of units required in design. Next, they adapted the
utility levels and their distribution to complete the heat balance for each interval in an efficient way.
The procedure allowed the authors to identify the required heat flows between integrity zones, the
utility distribution, and the temperatures at which the heat flows between integrity zones must be.
They also presented some rules to get the best streams to transfer the heat between integrity zones and
to include total cost targeting in the target procedure.
Briones and Kokossis (1999a) presented a method to optimise targets (see Section 5.5) more
accurately, taking into account network structure. They defined a mathematical model and solution
10
Ahmad and Hui (1991) used the phrase ‘areas of integrity’. We will use in this thesis the phrase ‘integrity
zone’ instead to avoid confusion with the transfer areas of exchangers.
118 Chapter 5
strategy to calculate targets based on solution streams (i.e. sets of actual solutions from the
mathematical model) of real network structures. This also allows the designer to set preferred,
excluded or undesired connections, limit stream splits and set minimum or maximum loads of
matches. A similar mathematical approach has been presented by Galli and Cerda (1998a,c,d). They
used a mathematical model with special variables for the routing of streams between units, that gives
control on the neighbouring units. As splitters and mixers are included as special units, they claim that
their model is especially effective for controlling series and parallel connections.
5.4 Retrofit Targeting Methods
Retrofit targeting methods have to take into account the existing installation. The key difference with
grassroots targeting methods is that retrofit targeting methods need to estimate the way and extent the
existing installation can be reused.
5.4.1 Energy Targeting

The existing installation has no impact on the targets for minimum energy supply and release, that
depend only on the allowed minimum approach temperature. The energy targeting methods are
therefore the same in retrofit as in grassroots (Section 5.3.1), though the targets are generally
translated to energy savings compared to the existing situation.
5.4.2 Units Targeting

Units targets are difficult to obtain for retrofit cases. Nevertheless, we need an estimate of both the
number of new units and the number of existing units we have to modify to quantify the extent of the
retrofit design and the associated cost. Tjoe (1986) uses a simple approach based on the added amount
of area. He assumed that the average amount of area per shell would be the same in the old and new
situation. In that case the number of new shells equals the added amount of area divided by the ratio of
the existing amount of area and the existing number of shells. Alternatively, we can obtain units
targets from retrofit structure-related targeting, see Section 5.4.4.
5.4.3 Area Targeting

The reuse of the existing installation also makes area targeting more complicated and less reliable.
Tjoe and Linnhoff (Tjoe 1986, and Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1984, 1986 and 1987) presented the first and
rather simple methods for retrofit area targeting. They proposed two concepts to apply the existing
equipment:
• Existing equipment should not be spoiled, thus all available area should be reused;
• New area should only be added with an equal or higher efficiency than the efficiency of the
existing area in the original network.
They introduced the area efficiency, defined as the ratio of target minimum amount of area and the
installed amount of area (Equation 25 in Section 4.5.1), to evaluate the efficiency of the existing and
the new network. According to their second concept, they stated that the area efficiency of the entire
network after retrofit should be at least equal to or higher than the area efficiency of the existing
network. They translated this demand to a conservative target for the amount of area to be added in
retrofit derived from the grassroots area target for a specific target energy use:
A (E )
A tar,add ( E tar ) = tar tar − A ex (35)
αex
with Etar the target energy use [W];

Atar,add the target for the area to be added to the network at Etar [m2];
Atar the grassroots area target at Etar [m2];
Aex the transfer area available in the existing network [m2];
Įex the area efficiency of the existing network = Atar(Eex) / Aex with Eex [W] is the
energy use in the existing network [-].
They called this the constant area efficiency target. Note, that this approach includes only one variable
for energy use and does not take into account utility mixes. Ahmad and Polley (1990) found that the
constant efficiency method was too conservative. They proposed two separate area efficiencies, one
for the existing area, Įex [-], taken from the existing network, and another, generally higher efficiency
for the area to be added, Įnew [-]. This results in:
A ( E ) − α ex ⋅ A ex
A tar,add ( E tar ) = tar tar (36)
α new
Panjeh Shahi (1992) applied the relations between pressure drop and heat transfer coefficients
introduced by Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) to the retrofit case as well. He fixed the pressure drops
of the streams to the maximum allowed pressure drops in the existing situation. The addition of new
area then causes the heat transfer coefficients to decrease. This approach should avoid the unexpected
installation of new pumps or compressors.
Shokoya (1992) accounted for the possible changes in the distribution of exchanger area over the
streams. She evaluated the heat exchange between each pair of streams independently using an area
matrix rather than a single area target. She determined this area matrix, containing the area
contribution between each pair of hot and cold streams, from the enthalpy-interval-based spaghetti
network concept of Linnhoff and Ahmad (1990). The sum of all contributions is the grassroots area
target. For retrofit Shokoya subtracted the existing area distribution over the stream pairs from the
target distribution in the matrix. She used the sum of all resulting positive elements as the retrofit area
target. She also showed how to use the area matrix for targeting with multiple utilities and for match-
dependent cost. A complication for this method is that the target area distribution is not unique. It
needs to be optimised to fit the area distribution in the existing network as good as possible. Shokoya
suggested some penalty accountability factors to do this optimisation and minimise the required
additional area, but the use of these factors remains unclear. Silva and Zemp (1999) extended the area
matrix approach to include the pressure drop dependency of the heat transfer coefficients from Panjeh
Shahi (see above). This resulted in a Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming (MINLP) problem that
they solved with the General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS). No other retrofit specific area
targeting methods based on mathematical programming are known.
Instead of targeting for additional area, Zhu et al. (2000) presented a method to maximise the use of
heat transfer enhancement to reduce the additional area requirement. They described a stepwise
approach to select and optimise heat transfer enhancement in existing exchangers based on the existing
heat transfer coefficients and the available pressure drops.
5.4.4 Structure-related Targeting

The presence of an existing installation makes structure-related aspects, like topology and layout, key
characteristics for retrofit design (Fraser and Gillespie, 1992). Structure modifications of the network
120 Chapter 5
tend to have more design and cost impact, than size modifications of individual units (Section 2.5.2).
As a result, a number of methods have been published that determine the impact of structure on the
targets and additionally target on specific structure modifications as well. Grassroots structure-related
targets may also be useful in retrofit, especially to determine the impact of the structure on the targets.
Refer to Section 5.3.4.
Fraser and Gillespie (1992) first described the usage of integrity zones (‘units’ in their nomenclature,
refer to Ahmad and Hui (1991) and Section 5.3.4 for the grassroots equivalent) in retrofit. They divi-
ded the refinery, that was subject of their case study, in a number of logical units. Next, they analysed
the saving potential within each unit and the potential of integrating these units using grassroots
energy, area and cost targeting methods. They selected the most attractive adaptations of the existing
network and the utility system based on this insight. The authors also mentioned some critical points
for the integration of refineries. A similar, more extended and systematic approach has been developed
during the research for this thesis (van Reisen et al. 1995a, 1998) that will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Bagajewicz (1998) and Bagajewicz and Soto (2003) proposed a retrofit target approach that used a
grassroots mathematical programming model with constraints to make a reference (target) network for
retrofit. They adapt the constraints to get a better match with the existing structure and make the target
network more realistic.
Asante and Zhu (1996, 1997 and Zhu and Asante, 1999) presented a method to find detailed targets for
the modification of the topology of an existing heat exchanger network. They determined the
modifications at the level of individual streams, which makes it difficult to separate targeting and
design in their method (refer to Chapter 7). All potential topology changes of the network are
evaluated by a series of mathematical models that are solved sequentially. These topology changes
include exchanger relocations, stream splits and the addition of new matches. The most important
concept they include is the notion of the network pinch, being the bottleneck in the network structure
that restricts the possible energy saving. The presence of this bottleneck was already known (Linnhoff
and Hindmarsh, 1983 and Saboo et al. 1986b), but Zhu and coworkers used it as a key concept to
determine and optimise retrofit energy saving targets. Additionally, they introduced several heuristic
rules especially for the identification of the required splits. With these heuristic rules they could reduce
the topology optimisation problem to the solution of three rather simple models (one LP and two
MILP). The scheme of their procedure (the models are not included) shows a sequential search for the
topology modification that results in the highest increase of the maximum heat recovery that is
possible with the new topology. An additional modification is only evaluated after the previous
modifications are accepted. This gives a stage-wise approach with user-interaction. Area and cost
evaluations are optimised after the optimal topology has been determined.
5.5 Target Optimisation
As mentioned frequently in the previous sections, targets often depend on each other. It is therefore
useful to investigate these dependencies and identify an optimum set of targets as a first design char-
acterisation. A number of performance evaluations, reviewed in Chapter 4, can already be applied to
this target design. In literature, network cost is generally used as the main design evaluation and op-
timisation criterion. Environmental impact can be used instead. Both approaches are discussed below.
5.5.1 Cost Targeting

Ahmad and Linnhoff (1984, 1989) and Linnhoff and Ahmad (1989, 1990) were the first who
described the structured trade-off between individual targets based on total costs. They suggested a
step-wise analysis of an independent variable, generally the ǻTmin. They calculated the relevant targets
for a number of values of this variable at equal intervals within a range. The results were plotted either
to review the trends or to find a minimum or maximum target. The latter can also be done numerically.
The authors called this approach ‘supertargeting’, as it is like a shell over other targeting methods. The
concept of supertargeting was demonstrated with the problem table, the Euler rule and the Bath
formula for area to calculate the respective targets, but it can be used with any other set of targeting
methods. Shenoy (1995) proposed an alternative supertargeting approach for grassroots cases. He
suggested a more intelligent way to determine the intervals for the independent variable. Tjoe (1986)
applied the approach to retrofit targeting as well. Initially, he only used energy and area targets and
plotted these in the E-A plot (Figure 21, Section 4.4.3) or the related saving on investment plot (Figure
22, Section 4.4.4). Later, Tjoe and Linnhoff (1986) extended this with a target for the number of
exchanger shells to be added.
Various mathematical optimisation methods generate targets for costs related to utilities, area and the
number of units. These methods tend to network design and are reviewed in Chapter 7. The first retro-
fit design approach using mathematical programming (Yee and Grossmann, 1987) used simplifica-
tions such significant, that it generated target solutions rather than optimised designs. A few more
recent mathematical programming methods have their main focus on targeting. They generally use
these targets to initialise a more complex (MINLP) mathematical model that is used to synthesise an
optimum network design. Yee and Grossmann (1991) presented a number of approximation models
for their full MINLP retrofit network mathematical model. They used these approximations to estimate
the cost of utility use, additional area and structural modifications, which they summarized in a
prescreening cost plot, to determine the optimum energy recovery level after retrofit. Shethna et al.
(1999, 2000) presented a MILP-model to find the cost optimal combination of utility use, area and
number of units with the necessary stream matches, similar as in the transportation model. They claim
applicability for retrofit targeting but did not demonstrate this. Briones and Kokossis (1999a)
presented a similar MILP-model but based on the transhipment model. They extend targeting with
superstructure optimisation (Floudas et al., 1986) for a number of approach temperatures to get what
they called hypertargets: a solution stream of feasible network designs with different total costs as a
function of the approach temperature. Hypertargets may deviate significantly from other more global
targets as they are based on actual feasible networks.
5.5.2 Environmental Impact Targeting

Wen and Shonnard (2003) presented the only elaborated method for environmental impact targeting to
date. They perform a kind of supertargeting, using energy and units targeting, from which they
calculate an environmental impact index number (see Section 4.4.2) that is based on a simplified life
cycle assessment of the virtual network. This index number is minimised to get the optimum set of
targets that will give a network with the least environmental impact. The method is rather
straightforward, while it uses the basic version of the transhipment model of Papoulias and Grossmann
(1983) and ignores transfer area for the optimisation.
122 Chapter 5
5.6 Evaluation
Method Assessment
Few critical overviews of the available targeting methods are known in literature to date. The existing
reviews contain descriptions of the methods rather than critical evaluations. There are many introduc-
tions of new methods that are preceded by an overview of the limitations of the existing ones.
Generally, this information is limited and rather biassed. The evaluation below is a combination of the
distributed information from literature and the assessment of the individual methods based on the
original publications. It aims for a more complete evaluation and comparison of the available targeting
methods.
Table 27 gives an overview of the evaluated targeting methods. It contains the methods that are
summarised in the Tables 23, 24 and 25 and are described in the previous paragraphs. For each
method it gives a number of classifications and the typical features and limitations. The quality
assessment of the methods is based on the criteria discussed in Section 5.1.2. The columns with the
applications show the stages of the conceptual network design phases in which we can apply the
method. Additionally, it shows the design variables for which it gives reference values to use in the
performance evaluation (Chapter 4). The method type shows the nature of the required calculations to
determine the targets with the used model. This is either a graphical construction (gr.con.) , a simple
equation (eq.), a calculation algorithm (algor.) or a mathematical model. The latter is denoted by the
commonly used abbreviations for linear programming (LP), non-linear programming (NLP), mixed
integer linear programming (MILP) and mixed integer non-linear programming (MINLP). The
classification of the simplicity and the transparency is based on a qualitative comparison of the
available methods. For simplicity the highest marks (****) are given to the methods that can be done
by hand. The next class (***) contains the methods that may be done by hand in case of small
problems. Special software makes them more accessible for large problems as well. The class with **
always requires special software but it is still rather straightforward, while the class with * contains the
methods that are the most complicated. The transparency of the method is a combination of the
transparency of the method to determine the targets and the ease of the interpretation of the found
results. The methods with the highest score (****) have a logical and traceable set-up of the algorithm,
generally allowing some user-interference, and provide the targets in a manageable way. The methods
with a lower score either produce targets that are less easy to interpret or they produce even improved
targets but in a less transparent (generally mathematical) way. The column features and limitations
shows the specialities of the method compared to the methods that handle the similar design variables.
The table also shows the Structural Targeting method, the new retrofit targeting method that will be
elaborated in Chapter 6. This work is excluded from the method evaluation and conclusion below.
The Tables 23, 24, 25 and 27 clearly show the variety of targeting methods that are available. With
time many extensions of the original methods emerged. These extensions added more features and
improved the accuracy for specific cases, but also made targeting more complicated and less transpar-
ent. The use of these extended methods asks for more specialized knowledge. Additionally, it often
requires special tools, at least for practical use. It is not likely that we will have sufficient knowledge
and the right tools for all methods. Consequently, we must take into account for the selection of
suitable targeting methods not only the handled design variables and the intended accuracy, but also
Table 27 Evaluation overview of the available targeting methods. Refer to Table 24 for corresponding references. Table notes are on Page 125.
Description Application 1) Method Tools Simplicity Transparency Accuracy Features and limitations
I II ref. value type 2) 3)
Grassroots
composite model EǻT gr.con. graph **** **** + no constraints allowed
problem table E algor. softw. *** ** + no constraints allowed
transhipment model EnǻT LP/MILP solv. ***/** 4) * + forbidden matches
transh.out-of-kilter mod. EnǻT LP solv ***/** 5) * + multi/non-point utilities dual stream approach
constrained problem table E algor. softw. * ** + forbidden matches
transportation model En LP solv. ** ** + forbidden matches; stream-dependent ǻT, multi/non-point utilities
residual heat flows EǻT MILP softw. ** *** + forbidden matches; residual heat flows, modified transhipment
neighbouring units model EnǻT MILP solv. ** * +/- separate models for splits/no splits; extended structure constraints
grand composite curve EǻT gr.con. graph **** **** + multi/non-point utilities
lowest cost utility mix E algor. softw. ** *** +/-
furnace placement EǻT gr.con. graph *** *** +/- rules to integrate furnace
cheapest utility principle EǻT algor. softw. *** *** + optimum load distribution plot, also area based
hybrid probl.tab./transp.mod. EǻT MILP solv. *** * + multi/non-point utilities
minimum flux EA algor. softw. ** ** 6) no standards for minimum flux; stream-dependent ǻT
Euler's rule n eq. - **** **** +/- 2nd law ignored
Euler with pinch decomp. n eq. - **** **** +/-
near independent subnets ETnǻT MILP solv ** * + maximise number of independent subnetworks
extended transhipment EnACǻT NLP solv. ** ** + only point utilities; all kind of constraints possible
aggregated models EnACǻT LP/NLP solv. * *** + identifies feasible region
minimum units approximation n MILP solv. ** ** + mathematically sound solution, some approximations less
adequate
shells targeting nA algor. softw. ** ** - correction for shell&tube hx with 1 tube and 2 shell passes
vertical aligned area A algor. softw. *** *** + only for equal htc's
ext. vert. aligned area (Bath) A algor. softw. *** *** - non-uniform htc's but in same order of magnitude
unequal htc (1\n streams) A algor. softw. *** *** + rigorous model; only one hot or one cold stream
unequal htc correction (gen.) A LP solv. ** ** +/- unequal htc’s
refinded htc correction A LP solv. ** ** + unequal htc’s

diverse pinch for area A algor. softw. ** ** +/- unequal htc’s
area type weighted cost AC algor. softw. ** ** 6) stream-dependent exchanger area cost
match type weighted cost nAC algor. softw. ** ** 6) match-dependent exchanger area cost
simpl. match type weight cost AC algor. softw. *** ** 6) match-dependent exchanger area cost
fixed pressure drop nAǻP algor. softw. * ** + max allowed ǻp per stream
diverse pinch fixed ǻP nAǻP algor. softw. ** ** +/- maximum ǻP, unequal htc’s
extended transh. multi-pass nA NLP solv. * ** +/- solved in two stages, refer to extended transhipment
area
transportation for area A LP solv. ** ** + unequal htc’s, multi-pass area
areas of integrity ET(nACǻT) (N)LP solv. ** ** + zones
utility system ET(nAC) algor. softw. *** ** +/- uses zones
zonal problem table ET(nAC) algor. softw. ** *** + zones, interzonal heat flows per T-level;
(-/+ cost) cost targets limited
hypertargets ETnACǻT MILP solv. ** ** + area targets for fixed no. units, network complexity number,
solution stream
supertargeting EnACǻT algor. softw. *** ** - cost optimisation
continuous targeting EnACǻT algor. softw. ** ** +/- trace discontinuities in trend of targets
transportation with costs EnACǻT MILP solv. ** ** + area distribution; multiple utilities; match-dep. area cost
environmental impact En LP/MILP solv. ** ** - environmental impact targeting, no size (area) optimisation.
Retrofit
number of shells n algor. softw. **** **** - based on existing average shell size, topology ignored
constant area efficiency nAĮ algor. softw. *** ** -/+
incr. area efficiency nAĮ algor. softw. *** ** +/- separate Įexist, Įnew
fixed pressure drop nAĮǻP algor. softw. ** ** +/- max allowed ǻp per stream
area matrix nAĮǻT algor./LP softw. * * +/- area distribution; mult. utilities correction; match-dep. area cost 7)
7)
heat transfer enhancement AǻP algor. graph ** *** + heat transfer enhancement optimisation
structural targeting (this work) () ETnACĮǻPǻT algor. softw. ** *** +/- incl. multi-utility targeting
network pinch, topology targets () ETnACĮǻT LP/MILP solv. ** ** + no area targets, isothermal utilities.
gradual extend of topology changes
E-A and sav on inv. plots EnAĮCǻPǻT algor. graph *** ** +/-
assignment transhipment EnCǻT MILP solv. ** ** +/- forbidden matches
retrofit screening ETnAC LP/MINLP solv. ** ** + prescreening cost plot
retrofit hypertargets ETnACĮǻT MILP solv. ** ** + solution streams
1 I (II)= applicable in stage I (II) of the conceptual network design phase; ref. value = applicable as reference for performance evaluation for the mentioned variables.
As ref. value: E=total energy requirement; E = utility targets; A = area; n=number of units; C= cost; T=topology; Į = area efficiency; ǻP=optimum exchanger pressure drops, ǻT=temp.
profile.
2 algor.=algorithm; gr.con.=graphical construction; LP=linear programming; NLP=non-linear programming; MILP=mixed integer linear programming; MINLP=mixed integer non-linear
programming
3 graph=graphical method; solv.=mathematical solver; softw.=special software
4 ** in case of forbidden matches
5 ** in case of dual stream approach
6 too little information available to determine accuracy.
7 Extension with pressure drop dependent heat transfer coefficient requires MINLP and proper solver.
126 Chapter 5
the required knowledge and tools. This makes it difficult to specify the best method for a specific case,
but we can make some general statements on the applicability of comparable methods.
Some methods have been replaced by improved or generalised ones, while others have been rarely
used anyway. The composite curves are still very useful to get insight in the integration problem, but
the determination of the pinch and the minimum energy supply and release is easier with a numerical
tool, like one of the problem table algorithms. The formally correct area targeting approaches of
Nishimura (1980, unequal htc, 1\n streams) and Nishida et al. (1981, vertical aligned area) are
captured and generalised by the Bath formula of Townsend and Linnhoff (1984). The constrained
problem table of O’Young et al. (1988) is rather cumbersome. Energy targeting with constraints is
easier by one of the mathematical programming models, such as the transportation and the tranship-
ment models. The concepts of the residual heat flows (Trivedi et al., 1988) and the minimum flux
(Fraser, 1989) are rarely described in literature. As a result it is difficult to get familiar with these
methods, while there seems little advantages compared to the use of a fixed pinch temperature
difference.
The determination of the target use of utilities is best visualised by the grand composite curves. When
we want to understand how to use the various utilities, the graphical way is the most suitable. For
more complicated problems, we can additionally use the methods of Parker (1989) and Shenoy et al.
(1998) for the determination of the lowest cost utility mix and of Hall and Linnhoff (1994) for the
placement of furnaces. If we want to have a clearly defined optimum utility mix, the mathematical
alternatives are probably faster and more rigorous, especially if constraints must be taken into
account.. On the other hand the optimum load distribution plot (Shenoy et al., 1998) gives a clearer
picture of the various options.
For the minimum number of transfer units target the Euler relation with or without pinch decom-
position (Hohmann, 1971 and Linnhoff et al., 1979) is obviously the easiest to use. Mathematical
models give generally more accurate results, but may be difficult to solve or still fail to give the actual
minimum (Furman and Sahinidis, 2004). They allow the use of exchanger minimum approach
temperature (EMAT), which allows to take credit for advantages of more advanced heat exchangers.
Mathematical models are also better applicable for cases with match constraints, as with structure-
related targeting (see below). The shells targeting algorithm (Ahmad and Smith, 1989) is very
inaccurate for the number of shells, but gives an order of magnitude estimate of the impact of the
limitations of multi-pass exchangers. The finally selected method will depend on the envisioned type
of exchangers and the tools available. Often we can just use the Euler relation and accept occasional
poor accuracy, to reduce the effort for targeting,.
For area targeting the Bath formula (Townsend and Linnhoff, 1984) and for multi-pass exchangers the
shells targeting approach (Ahmad and Smith, 1989) are more or less standard. These area targets can
be refined in many ways, but the use of these refined methods is rarely reported in literature apart from
the original publication. The available methods all require special calculations, which are not easily
available in standard heat integration software. Additionally, the offered improvements are often less
relevant.
The areas of integrity method of Ahmad and Hui (1991) is the only systematic approach to include
structure in grassroots targeting. For the actual energy, unit and area targets, it relies on one of the
methods that allow match constraints in targeting, as discussed above.
For retrofit energy and units targeting, nearly the same methods exist as in grassroots targeting,
discussed above. Units targeting with the approach of Tjoe (1986) is only an order of magnitude
estimate. Mathematical methods like the retrofit hypertargets from Briones and Kokossis (1999b,c)
pretend to be more accurate, but may also be difficult to solve and interpret, even when proper tools
are available.
Most retrofit area targets are based on grassroots area targets. The translation to retrofit area targets
using area efficiencies is generally rather inaccurate. Consequently, it is not useful to use complex
refined grassroots area calculation methods in combination with the area efficiency methods of Tjoe
(1986) and Ahmad and Polley (1990). The area efficiency methods are still the easiest to use, but they
have received a lot of criticism in literature. Shokoya (1992), Carlsson et al. (1993), Lakshmanan and
Bañares-Alcántara (1996), and Asante and Zhu (1997) reported overestimations of the targets from
their final solution that went up to 85% for constant area efficiency and up to 50% for incremental
area efficiency. Shokoya (1992) tried to identify better estimations of the area efficiency. She added
some new insights that improved the accuracy of the calculated targets and limited the found deviation
between -10% and +25% . She also addressed retrofit targeting with more than one hot or more than
one cold utility. Unfortunately, the method is rather complex and still requires the optimisation of a
large number of non-linear problems. The extension of this method by Silva and Zemp (1999) to
account for pressure drop constraints is even more complex. It is questionable whether we can justify a
MINLP-model for targeting only. Mathematical methods for area targeting like Colberg and Morari
(1990), Yee and Grossmann (1991), Daichendt and Grossmann (1998), Galli and Cerda (1998a,c,d)
and Shethna et al. (1999, 2000) allow constraints to make them applicable to retrofit, but this has
hardly been demonstrated. Only Briones and Kokossis (1999a,b,c) have extended their hypertargeting
method especially to retrofit. Their method is more labourious than area efficiency based methods, but
the analysis of actual solution streams will generally be more accurate, while it will also give more
insight in the variety of solutions. It may therefore be a useful alternative if the proper tools are
available.
Hypertargets are also one of the few alternatives for retrofit structure-related targeting, but it only
shows the impact of structure constraints, including the existing network. Targets for structure mod-
ifications can only be obtained by either the retrofit equivalent of the integrity zones, as mentioned by
Fraser and Gillespie (1992) and elaborated as part of this thesis (van Reisen et al. 1995a, 1998 and
Chapter 6) or by the network pinch based LP method published by Asante and Zhu (1997). The two
methods are rather different. The integrity zone method investigates the essential structure elements to
achieve specific energy, unit and area targets in the final retrofit design. Asante and Zhu (1997)
calculate targets for a single structure modification from the current structure. They combine this with
a kind of step-wise conceptual design. This method does not allow a quick evaluation of the total
scope for improvement, prior to design, as offered by the other retrofit targeting methods.
Literature hardly reports the use of alternative targeting methods, simultaneously, for the same design
variables. Generally, only one calculation method is reported, whereas several others may be
applicable as well. The supertargeting approach of Ahmad and Linnhoff (1984) may be used with all
128 Chapter 5
energy, area, unit and cost targeting methods that have either ǻTmin (Heat Recovery Approach
Temperature) or the utility duties as input variable. This is also the case for the continuous targeting
approach of Shenoy (1995), the retrofit targeting approaches with the constant and incremental area
efficiencies and the structural targeting approach, that is presented in this thesis. The method of
Ahmad and Hui (1991 and Hui and Ahmad 1994a), based on areas of integrity, can also use alternative
targeting methods as long as they are capable of handling heat transfer constraints. Obviously, the
advantage of such supertargeting-like methods is that they can be made applicable to a wide range of
problems and additionally can benefit from future developments in methods for individual targets.
Environmental impact targeting, as described by Wen and Shonnard (2003), is in essence also a kind
of supertargeting. If desired alternative methods based on different energy, units and area targeting
methods should be easy to setup.
Some authors argued that numerical optimisation of targets must be done carefully as the optimum is
generally very flat compared to the inaccuracy of the targets that is the result of uncertainties in the
input and the quality of the estimates. Kemp (1991) and Sagli et al. (1990) showed some problems that
may arise if targeting methods are used to determine a single optimum, which, in turn, is used too
rigidly. Both authors showed that the selection of incorrect targets may result in fairly suboptimal
networks, due to topology traps. Kemp (1991) suggested to use only simple targets to explore the
limits and to identify significant discontinuities in the targets. Several designs should be made, one for
each continuous region, of which the best must be selected. Daichendt and Grossmann (1994b,c) are
the only ones who explicitly explore only the limits of all main design variables, without the selection
of the optimal values. Though their method is rather complex, such an overview of the design space
seems useful to explore the possibilities. Unfortunately, there is neither an extension to retrofit
targeting available nor a known application outside the field of mathematical optimisation.
Conclusion
If we evaluate the tables 23, 24, 25 and 27 for the available targeting methods, we find numerous
grassroots targeting methods for all main macro level targeting variables: energy , units, area and cost.
Other macro variables are addressed in at least one grassroots targeting method, whereas the meso and
micro design variables generally can be taken into account by using constraints in some methods.
There is a variety of algorithmic and mathematical methods, which gives sufficient options to select an
adequate method in most cases. The only concern is the reliability and accuracy of the targets as most
practical problems do not allow application of the most reliable fundamental targeting approaches.
For retrofit targeting the choice of methods is much more limited. The early developed retrofit
methods are easy but inaccurate as they do not recognize the existing network structure and network
constraints sufficiently. For (common) problems with more than hot or cold utility there is only the
complex area matrix approach of Shokoya (1992). The more recent retrofit targeting methods are all
based on mathematical programming. The hypertargets of Briones and Kokossis (1999b/c) are
versatile but rather complex, whereas the network pinch based method of Asante and Zhu (1997) lacks
targets for the final retrofitted network. Additionally, also these methods pay little attention to the
multi-utility design problem. A retrofit targeting method that relates network structure requirements to
overall targets for problems with any number of utilities is not available.
The preceding discussion shows the following limitations of the available targeting methods, which
should be taken into account during method selection and may be subject for further research:
Retrofit Targeting with Integrity Zones and Multiple Utilities 129
• grassroots targets may be less accurate and reliable for practical cases with significant matching
constraints and various types of streams and heat exchangers;
• target optimisation generally gives an optimum range rather than a single optimum point, which
gives freedom to a designer but may complicate design initialisation whereas it may be
necessary to elaborate several alternatives;
• advanced targeting methods require special software that is often not available;
• retrofit targets often have a poor accuracy, especially of area and installation cost targets, due to
the large number of constraints that it must take into account;
• retrofit targeting can hardly take into account network structure and network topology
constraints;
• retrofit targeting with more than one hot or more than one cold utility is hardly possible with
current methods.
We will address some of these issues in the next chapter.
130 Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Retrofit Targeting with Integrity Zones and
Multiple Utilities
This chapter elaborates and demonstrates a new retrofit targeting

approach to determine targets for utility use, number of units, exchanger
area and topology based on saving, investment and complexity trade
offs. The approach includes new methods to calculate targets for retrofit
problems with more than one hot or cold utility. The approach is an
alternative for the retrofit targeting methods, discussed in Chapter 5, that
are necessary for the preliminary design stage of conceptual network
design. The major part of this chapter was published before in Van
Reisen et al. (1995a and 1998).
The new targeting approach is based on seven generic design guidelines,
derived from literature and experiences from case studies performed. The
approach, called Structural Targeting, essentially splits the existing
network into independent integrity zones. Next, it investigates the impact
of the integration of specific sets of integrity zones on the saving
potential, the required investment and expected network complexity,
using a combination of existing and new targeting methods.
It uses a new approximation function to represent the saving on
investment relation and compare different integration alternatives. This
approximation function also allows the application to cases with more
than one hot or cold utility. A new calculation method is proposed for
area targeting for such multi-utility design problems, based on area
contributions per stream and area type corrections. The targeting
approach is illustrated with an aromatics plant case study.
132 Chapter 6
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Context
The previous chapter reviewed the methods available in literature for the targeting and preliminary
design stage of the conceptual network design phase for heat exchanger network retrofit design as
defined in Section 3.4. This review shows that the number of retrofit targeting methods in literature is
limited and that all present methods have significant limitations.
Early published methods (Tjoe, 1986, Ahmad and Polley, 1990, Panjeh Shahi, 1992) are easy to apply,
but too inaccurate as they fail to include the existing network structure sufficiently. Targets based on
the optimisation of mathematical formulations of the retrofit design problem (Shokoya, 1992, Silva
and Zemp 1999, 2000, Yee and Grossmann, 1987, 1991 and Briones and Kokossis, 1999b,c) can be
more accurate, if the existing structure and match constraints are effectively incorporated. Some of
these mathematical methods also allow the calculation of targets for networks with more than one hot
or one cold utility, which is not possible with the early methods. The use of such mathematical
targeting methods requires, however, an adequate tool and experience and knowledge of mathematical
optimisation. Meanwhile, they provide little insight in the necessity of changes and possible
alternatives. Consequently, these methods are more suitable to fine tune the ultimate targets, than to
explore the design problem. Only the mathematical approach of Briones and Kokossis (1999b,c), that
is based on solution streams rather than on a single optimum, may provide more insight in the
necessity of structure changes. This approach is rather complex. The targets of Asante and Zhu (1996,
1997) and Zhu and Asante (1999) are easier to apply, but they are restricted to single structure changes
and a limited class of design problems. This targeting method is therefore not suitable for exploration
and demarcation of the design problem as required in the targeting stage of the conceptual network
design phase.
In summary, the extract of the method evaluation of Section 5.6 given above shows scope for an
alternative targeting method that:
• takes into account the existing network structure and topology constraints;
• identifies essential structure changes to save on utility cost with minimum investment;
• allows targeting for networks with more than one hot or more than one cold utility;
• is accessible and useable for average process designers without specialist knowledge and tools.
The availability of applicable advanced heat exchangers is also relevant for the preliminary design
stage, to set realistic minimum approach temperatures and relevant match constraints. Many advanced
heat exchanger types have a limited application range (see Section 1.3). Therefore, we should
somehow use a stream dependent heat recovery approach temperature or a match dependent exchanger
minimum approach temperature to exploit the advantages of the advanced heat exchangers at the parts
of the network in which these exchangers are applicable. This way we can concentrate area in matches
that are relatively cheap and easy to extend and locally enhance heat recovery in those parts of the
network. Meanwhile, we can relax the heat recovery requirements in other parts of the network that
are more difficult or expensive to integrate. Currently, only the mathematical retrofit target methods of
Yee and Grossmann (1991) and Briones and Kokossis (1999b,c) allow variation of the heat recovery
level within a heat exchanger network design problem, using match dependent values of the exchanger
minimum approach temperature.
For the application of multi-stream advanced heat exchangers, not only the exchanger minimum ap-
proach temperature but also the physical location of the streams is an important attribute, especially in
retrofit. A systematic screening of options for multi-stream heat exchangers is unknown in literature.
6.1.2 Objective
In this chapter we will elaborate a new retrofit targeting approach that is sufficiently flexible to allow
incorporation of all specific issues mentioned above. The new approach will be able to
• address all three objectives of targeting: demarcate, initialise and explore (Chapter 5), it will
especially concentrate on the demarcation and exploration of the design problem as initialisation
of the design is very well possible with existing mathematical targeting methods;
• take into account the existing plant and network structure in suitable detail;
• recognize the essential plant layout and process constraints in a transparent way;
• allow the exploration of the applicability and advantage of advanced (multi-stream) heat
exchangers.
• fit within the general design approach of Chapter 3.
• take into account the essential aspects for practical cases: layout; existing equipment and
network, various types of utilities and economic trade-offs including utility use, heat transfer
area and the number of units.
The new method described in this chapter has been published before in Van Reisen et al. (1995a,
1998).
6.1.3 Method Criteria

Primarily, the new targeting method, developed in this chapter, should meet the given objectives. The
evaluation and thus method design criteria for the new method are similar to the ones that we used in
the previous chapter to evaluate the existing methods. Section 5.1.2 gives four criteria: simplicity,
transparency, adequacy and consistency. Generally, these criteria are conflicting and thus we need to
set our own preferences.
In the previous section we identified a need for an easy targeting method to fill the gap between the
existing more conventional and the mathematical methods. Such a method asks especially for
simplicity and transparency. Adequacy and consistency are still important for the main aspects, but we
will relax on this, if necessary.
6.2 Retrofit Structural Targeting
6.2.1 Example Problem

Before we give details about the new targeting method and its basis, we will sketch the basic approach
using an example that shows a number of frequently encountered design problems.
Consider the network of Figure 25. This network contains three exchangers (H2-E1-C2) that depend
on each other as they form a heat path (see Glossary in Appendix B and Linnhoff and Hindmarsh,
1983). If for some reason E1 has an increased duty, the duties of both H2 an C2 will have to decrease
accordingly to maintain the specific outlet temperatures, and vice versa. In retrofit we can use this
property and add area to E1 to save both hot and cold utility.
134 Chapter 6
The example network contains two other

exchangers heater H1 and a cooler C1. These
exchangers are each independent of other
exchangers.11 A change of heater or cooler duty
will only affect the outlet temperature of the
stream Cold1 and Hot1 respectively. There is no
link between Hot1 and Cold1 to shift the excess
heat from Hot1 to the shortage in Cold1. The Figure 25 Example network
only way to save utility is the installation of a
new match (N1) to create a new path. Once this path has been created, we can establish a saving in a
similar way as in the H2-E1-C2 path. Obviously, there is a limit to the possible saving by the
intensification of any path. This raises the first question that we should answer to solve these kind of
problems:
• How much energy can be saved in a new or existing path and at what cost?
The number of options for intensifying new and existing paths increases rapidly when the network
becomes larger. In the simple example problem we have already identified two options for energy
saving and there may be even more options12. Obviously, the largest saving will be possible when we
ignore the existing network and install an optimal new one. This is generally not acceptable and not
economical as well. In practice each change must carefully be justified and there will be a strong
tendency to a no-change philosophy. We are thus challenged to find just the few affordable changes
and leave the remaining network untouched. Consequently, whenever we are able to answer the first
question above, we still need to solve a number of other questions:
• What are the essential network parts to modify?
• How should we define these network parts for complex and extended networks?
• What paths are available in a network, through which energy saving is possible?
• What parts of an existing network can effectively be connected by a new match that will create
a new path?
• How should we trade off the different options?
We will address these issues in the subsequent sections in which we will elaborate a new targeting
method that guides the answer to these questions in a practical way. As we will show the key of the
answers to the questions is in seven guidelines, summarised in Box 1, that results in the following
basic targeting approach, given in Box 2.
11
We ignore any dependency due to the associated process for this example.
12
Actually there are more options: connect Hot1 and Cold2 or Hot2 and Cold1
Box 1 Summary Targeting Guidelines

Guideline I Allow only essential changes in retrofit
Guideline II Identify essential constraints for energy saving in the existing network by
comparison of constrained and unconstrained global targets
Guideline III Isolate subnetworks to be modified independently
Guideline IV Create and exploit paths to save energy
Guideline V Divide the network in independent integrity zones to identify and promote local
changes
Guideline VI Base integrity zones primarily on the existing network structure
Guideline VII Refine integrity zones based on other stream dependencies
Box 2 Outline Structural Targeting Approach

• define integrity zones within the current network based on relevant stream relations;
• create subnetworks, by building them from the defined integrity zones;
• determine targets for each subnetwork; start with the simplest subnetworks (i.e. those with the
least integrity zones);
• evaluate the targets of the subnetworks and compare with each other;
• select the best alternative(s);
• zoom in or out to more detailed or more lumped subnetworks;
• repeat the steps above until an adequate (set of) subnetwork(s) is identified with related saving
and area/investment targets.
6.2.2 Method Basis and Definitions

The new method is based on a number of views that developed during the review of literature and the
elaboration of a number of case studies. The views are described below and summarized in a number
of design guidelines.
Guideline I: Allow only essential changes in retrofit

In energy saving retrofit the maximum revenues of energy saving are generally small compared to the
total existing yearly plant revenues. As a result (see Figure 2, Section 1.1), we can only justify
relatively small investments and the plant changes shall not compromise the reliability of the plant.
These two requirements force us to look for essential changes only
Changes to an existing installation are relatively costly and hard to implement compared to similar
changes to grassroots design. See also Section 2.6.3. Minor conceptual design changes may become
big issues during detailed engineering and construction, with high associated costs. Hardware costs are
often only a small fraction of the installed cost during retrofit, especially when downtime is taken into
136 Chapter 6
account (Smith, 2005). The installed costs and risk of a big local change are generally lower than of a
set of small changes, even if the hardware costs of the former option are much higher.
Any change to a running plant must be approved by the operational staff. They will only accept
changes that are transparent and have a clear added value. Local changes are easier to justify and to
evaluate for operational and safety consequences.
The guideline to allow only essential changes is clearly a step beyond Tjoe’s statement (Tjoe, 1986) to
reuse all existing area, but it is in line with more recent retrofit approaches (Asante and Zhu, 1997, see
Chapter 7). Bottom line is the no-change option, which is a feasible and the least-integrated option for
the case.
Guideline II: Identify essential constraints for energy saving in the existing network by
comparison of constrained and unconstrained global targets
It is necessary to determine the significance of constraints in the existing network to determine
essential changes. This significance becomes clear, when we compare the target characteristics of a
network without constraints with the characteristics of the existing network and target characteristics
of possible changes to the network. This is essentially the areas of integrity approach of Ahmad and
Hui (1991, see also Chapter 5) applied to the retrofit case. Ahmad and Hui determined, however, the
most irrelevant constraints that are allowed to get the least integrated network but with maximum
heat recovery equal to the heat recovery for the unconstrained network. For retrofit, it is more
important to identify the most significant constraints that should be removed, to get the maximum
improvement with the minimum number of changes.
Guideline III: Isolate subnetworks to be modified independently

The retrofit design of small networks is simpler and results in simpler modifications than the retrofit of
large networks. A common approach to simplify the design of large design problems is the
decomposition into smaller problems with only a limited number of variables or just a fraction of the
total scope (Daichendt and Grossmann, 1994a, Douglas, 1988), that are addressed independent of the
remaining of the design problem. Decomposition of the scope to smaller independent fractions not
only simplifies the design process, but generally also the resulting design itself.
Large networks can also be split in smaller fractions. We will call these fraction subnetworks:
Subnetworks are fractions of a heat exchanger network that can be modified independently of the
remaining of that heat exchanger network.
Following Guideline I, we should isolate the essential subnetworks from the total existing network as
subjects for further design. This avoids unnecessary modifications and focuses on the essential
network parts. Additionally, this allows the identification of various independent retrofit options.
Modifications to independent subnetworks (i.e. subnetworks without overlap) are complementary and
can be elaborated as separate projects.
The guidelines below describe how to demarcate subnetworks effectively.

Guideline IV: Create and exploit paths to save energy

The example problem shows the essential elements in a network to save on duties of hot and cold
utilities:
• a heater;
• a cooler;
• a path.
All three elements must be included. There is no way to reduce the duty of a heater or a cooler
independently and a heat path is the only way to connect them. Paths may exist in a network (like H2-
E1-C2) or new ones must be created. Energy saving results from a heat load shift through a path from
heaters and coolers to process-to-process heat exchange. Linnhoff and Hindmarsh (1983) defined the
concept of paths and studied their properties for flexibility and control. Zhu and coworkers (Asante
and Zhu, 1996, 1997 and Zhu and Asante, 1999) based there retrofit targeting and design method
mainly on the mathematically assisted generation and exploration of heat paths. They concentrated on
the saving potential through paths and introduced the concept of network pinch, i.e. the match that
constrains the utility duty saving in a network (part), by limiting the duty shift through a path. The
authors showed that a network pinch can be relaxed by structure modifications (match relocation, new
match, stream split) changing the path(s).
Guideline V: Divide the network in independent integrity zones to identify and promote local
changes
For grassroots targeting Ahmad and Hui (1991) introduced the concept of areas of integrity, in this
thesis referred to as integrity zones, to recognize during targeting streams that are logically related.
They defined the integrity zones as follows:
integrity zones are logically identifiable areas, in which a process plant can often be divided
associated with specific processing tasks or with practical aspects like safety and layout.
These integrity zones allow the exploration of targets for specific logically grouped streams and the
dependency of these targets on the presence or absence of integration between these groups of streams.
The designer can thus separately review the heat integration opportunities of particular entities within
a process, without the necessity to address individual streams. The integrity zones are scalable to keep
the desired balance between accuracy and overview for each case.
Obviously, the relations between streams are even more significant in retrofit than in grassroots
problems. Primarily, relations result from the existing network. Secondly, they result from the (fixed)
lay-out, that determines the distance between streams and the availability of specific utilities. Finally,
relations result from all aspects that may relate streams in grassroots problems as well, like safety and
connectivity with specific process units (Ahmad and Hui, 1991). Consequently, integrity zones are a
useful addition to paths to capture the existing network structure and other relevant relations and
requirements between streams and heat exchangers.
To understand the concept, it is important to recognize the difference between the definition of
subnetworks and integrity zones: each integrity zone is a subnetwork but subnetworks may also be any
combination of individual zones. Integrity zones must be as self-contained as possible to be useful in
targeting and design. This allows us to have a true distinction between intra-zonal integration (within
a zone) and inter-zonal integration (between zones). This distinction may have numerous reasons like
lay-out, allowed exchanger type or material and safety. We will generally assume that intra-zonal is
138 Chapter 6
always feasible. Integration of different integrity zones requires more structural complexity. This is
only desirable, if it gives substantial additional savings or lower (area) investments. Obviously, there
is a (large) number of possible integrity zone divisions, based on different priorities. The integrity
zone concept is very flexible to review details in a simple way, but once defined we have to keep in
mind the selected zoning basis and possible zoning alternatives in the subsequent targeting and design
process.
Guideline VI: Base integrity zones primarily on the existing network structure
The key difference between the grassroots integrity zones of Hui and Ahmad and retrofit integrity
zones is the incorporation of the existing network structure as a basis for the demarcation. Relevant
integrity zones need therefore be built from structural unities in the existing network. Logical unities
in the example problem are:
• Stream Cold1 and Heater H1 and its hot utility;
• Stream Hot1 and Cooler C1 and its cold utility;
• Stream Hot2 and Cold2 with Heater H2, Exchanger E1 and Cooler C2.
According to Guideline V, we want integrity zones to be independent, i.e. we want to be able to
modify each integrity zone without modifying any other integrity zone. We may consider to separate a
hot or a cold stream from its connected heat-balancing stream, eg. Stream Cold1 from the hot utility,
and assign them to different integrity zones. However, in that case we cannot change each integrity
zone independently anymore: we cannot reduce or reassign the hot utility without changing the
matching on Stream Cold1. Obviously, individual streams are not a proper basis for zoning. On the
contrary each match (exchanger, heater or cooler with both connected streams) can always be changed
independently. We can, for example, replace a single match with two parallel matches with the same
combined duty, which does not affect the remaining network. The key difference is that a match is
heat balanced and a single stream never is.
Consequently, integrity zones should be heat-balanced parts of the original network in retrofit. The
smallest heat-balanced parts of the existing network are the stream fractions originally covered by the
individual process-to-process or process-to-utility heat exchangers. These network parts are the
smallest integrity zones that can be identified. The maximum number of integrity zones is thus the
number of heat-exchangers present in the existing design. More information about the existing
structure must be included to get integrity zones that are more practical for structure-related targeting.
The integrity zones, however, will always be combinations of heat exchangers and their stream
fractions. Table 14 in Chapter 3 shows the attributes that are relevant for the definition of integrity
zones in retrofit. Note that in grassroots integrity zones are mainly based on streams, whereas in
retrofit the integrity zones are based on existing exchangers and associated stream fractions.
Heat exchangers are by definition in just one integrity zone. Streams, however, can flow through
several integrity zones. A fraction of such a stream is handled in a single integrity zone and only this
fraction is actually part of that integrity zone. Each stream fraction is thus just in one integrity zone.
Note that the utility streams must be included to heat balance the integrity zones that contain a utility
exchanger. The utilities have to be part of these integrity zones explicitly and cannot be ignored as is
common in existing retrofit methods. The load of the utility stream is initially fixed at the existing load
in the exchanger. It may be changed later by a new network design.
Integrity zones are more valuable in retrofit targeting when they are defined to represent the network
structure rather than single matches. Zones must demarcate parts of the network that can easily be
integrated. Such parts include streams that are close together (physically) or connected in the existing
situation. Therefore, it is useful to combine in one zone the streams and exchangers that are connected
in the existing situation and thus form an existing heat path.
When we search for paths to exploit and save utility costs, we will prefer existing paths over new
paths. This only requires the addition of area to existing matches. On occasions it is useful to make a
new match across an existing path and improve its potential. Still, these types of modifications are
preferred over the creation of a completely new path using a new match. Modifications within an
existing path will involve streams that are local to each other in the field and thus these modifications
will generally be easier and cheaper than a new match between streams that are not connected at all.
This also holds for matches between streams that are connected through any part of a path, i.e. any
chain of heat exchangers not necessarily connecting any utility exchangers. As we define integrity
zones to recognize easy to integrate parts of the network, it is useful to base these integrity zones on
the existent (parts of) paths. Such 'path-based integrity zone' should contain all exchangers, associated
with a specific process stream and all streams these heat exchangers connect. The path-based integrity
zones thus contain the independent parts of the original network.
Guideline VII: Refine integrity zones based on other stream dependencies

The path-based zoning may still not give the integrity zones that will be the most practical
representation of the structure. On the one hand, the individual integrity zones will be large, if the
network is highly integrated. This makes the assumption less acceptable, that heat shifts and new
matches will be easier within integrity zones than between integrity zones. Also the desired reduction
of the design problem will be limited and the focus on the problem area may be too weak. On the other
hand, the number of integrity zones may still be too large to make a rigorous evaluation, if the network
is large and has little integration. Therefore, the path-based integrity zones may be further refined by
split and combination to get a practical set of refined integrity zones. A number of arguments can be
used for in this refinement:
• The physical lay-out may also justify the combination of integrity zones that are close together
or the split of integrity zones that are spread out. This layout is not necessarily based on the
functionality and may result in rather different zoning.
• Operational aspects may ask for the combination or split of independent integrity zones. The
desired (in)dependency of streams may be used to maintain the best flexibility, control, safety
and start-up and shutdown procedures. Streams that may not be matched should be in different
integrity zones. During analysis the combinations should be excluded that would match such
streams. This enables the exclusion of forbidden matches.
• The functionality of plant sections, as presented in the flowsheet, may justify the combination of
independent integrity zones. We may, for example, combine the reboiler and the feed preheater
and occasionally the condenser of a column.
• The presence of a ‘zone pinch’, a local pinch within an integrity zone, may prevent integration
of streams within an integrity zone. For example, the reboiler and the condenser of a distillation
column may be in one integrity zone, but integration is not possible. If such an integrity zone is
integrated with another integrity zone, generally, only the heater or the cooler needs to be
integrated. In more general terms, integration of an integrity zone with a pinched integrity zone
140 Chapter 6
generally only integrates with the heat sink above the zone pinch or the heat source below the
zone pinch. The remaining part of the integrity zone should not be modified, but its presence
may complicate the design process. Therefore, such a pinched integrity zone may be split into
two integrity zones or more if additional near pinches or utility pinches exist. We can check
either the composite curves or the grand composite curve for each integrity zone to identify
logical splits. Additionally, we may look at the temperature ranges of the heat available and
required in the initially specified integrity zones to guide the split of specific integrity zones
among them. This may limit the number and the size of the integrity zones that need to be
integrated to get a saving and thus simplify the actual network design. If a stream crosses the
zone pinch the split should be made between the two heat exchangers associated with this
stream that have inlet and outlet temperatures closest to the zone pinch temperatures.
• Temperature ranges of the process streams or used utility type may also be a reason to split a
path based integrity zone, even if no pinch point exists.
The importance of the given arguments varies from case to case. In most cases physical lay-out is most
crucial. Various grounds for zoning may give rather different zones. In such cases the analysis should
evaluate various scenarios. An example of the zoning approach outlined above is given in Section
6.4.2. Another example is in the case study in Chapter 9.
6.2.3 Structural Targeting Procedure
Structural Targeting with Network Retrofit Integrity Zones

The guidelines described in the previous section already outline the main targeting steps that we will
elaborate to a procedure below. We will start this elaboration from the initial grassroots targeting
method of Ahmad and Hui (1991). In their method the authors first divide the design problem into
integrity zones. They then determine the unconstrained target for the whole problem. Next, they
determine the penalties for excluding the integration between pairs of integrity zones. This shows the
essential integration, i.e. the harmless constraints, to obtain the overall targets (Guideline II). Finally,
they translate the found essential transfers between integrity zones to demands for the subsequent
design.
The new retrofit targeting procedure works similarly, but in this case the objective is to identify the
essential transfers between integrity zones to get a reasonable fraction of the maximum heat recovery.
The procedure is illustrated in Figure 26. First, we divide the design problem into independent zones,
but with different requirements than for grassroots zones (see the Guidelines V, VI and VII in the
previous section and below). Next, we have two reference cases in retrofit instead of one: the original
case without integration between the integrity zones and the unconstrained case equal to the
unconstrained grassroots target case of Ahmad and Hui. Unlike the grassroots approach, the retrofit
procedure starts from the least-integrated, original case (Guideline I). The unconstrained case is only
used as a reference. Basically, the remaining of the procedure investigates the saving potential within
individual integrity zones and the economy of the integration between sets of two or more integrity
zones. In retrofit we thus check what integrity zones have to be integrated (Guideline I, III and IV),
whereas in grassroots Ahmad and Hui check what integration between integrity zones may be left out.
Figure 26 Retrofit targeting procedure for the preliminary design stage of conceptual network
design with Structural Targeting. Within the scheme ‘zone’ is used for integrity zone
142 Chapter 6
Both the grassroots method of Hui and Ahmad and the new
retrofit method are supertarget-like methods. They are merely
targeting frameworks guiding the use of the more basic
targeting methods (Figure 27) and act like a kind of case-
generators for lower level targeting methods. We can apply
supertarget methods with various combinations of basic
targeting methods. The selection of these basic methods and the
detailed setup of the supertarget method depends on the
objective of the targeting analysis. To specify this we need to
determine:
1. the evaluation criteria,
2. the constraints,
3. the related variables to evaluate the criteria and
constraints for each option and
4. the desired evaluation accuracy. Figure 27 Supertargeting vs.
targeting methods
Once we have selected a suitable targeting method set we can start the generation and evaluation of
alternatives. The proposed approach for this (Figure 26) is a combination of the alternative generation
and evaluation approach of Ahmad and Hui (1991) and the general evaluation approach we have
proposed in Chapter 3, Figure 12.
The next step of the procedure is the calculation of the unconstrained targets to find the saving scope
in the most ideal case, thus initially relaxing all constraints and ignoring any potential integration
difficulties. If there is insufficient scope in this ideal case, we can either relax the minimum saving
criterion or stop our search and leave the procedure.
When we think there is sufficient scope we proceed with the zoning step. We demarcate independent
integrity zones by heat exchanger grouping to represent the network and other stream dependencies,
according to the Guidelines V, VI and VII. Next, we determine the saving scope within each
individual integrity zone, i.e. the saving scope while unconstrained integration is allowed only within
one integrity zone, we subsequently extend the number of integrity zones between which integration is
allowed until the gain in saving scope is too small to justify the extension of the number of integrated
zones. We will generally find that the higher the number of integrity zones we allow to integrate, the
less the increase in saving scope by adding another integrity zone. The relative approach to the
(known) maximum saving level is sufficient basis to decide to proceed or not, even if the scope for the
next number of integrated zones is unknown.
When we reached the practical maximum number of integrated zones and completed the targeting
calculations for all alternatives we can use the scheme in Figure 12 to select the best one(s). Next, we
have the option to repeat the procedure for a set of differently defined zones to find the best options
for some other design basis. Finally, we have to reevaluate all ‘best’ alternatives to select the best set
for all criteria.
Selection Criteria
The described approach implicitly takes into account two main criteria: saving scope and the number
of integrated zones. Other criteria are partially captured in the zoning or must be evaluated from the
Figure 28 Typical saving on investment curves

calculated targets. We recognize quantitative and qualitative criteria (See Section 3.3.3). Quantitative
criteria give a number for each alternative that we can compare and from which we can derive an order
of preference for all alternatives. Such quantitative criteria are generally easily evaluated, even if the
number of alternatives is large. Qualitative criteria must generally be evaluated by judgement and a
ranking of alternatives is less straightforward. We can capture many qualitative criteria in our zoning
basis and reduce the evaluation of the qualitative criteria to the evaluation of which integrity zones
need cross connections. This way, we can do the main screening of alternatives with quantitative
criteria only, which makes the evaluation process manageable and unambiguous, also when we must
evaluate a large number of alternatives.
Unfortunately, one of the most important criteria for network retrofit evaluation, the saving on
investment, is a relation between two variables rather than a unique number. Figure 28 shows how this
complicates the evaluation of alternatives. Alternative III has the largest maximum saving, Alternative
II the lowest initial investment and Alternative I the smallest possible pay back period. Each
alternative gives the highest saving for some range of investment. Obviously, the best alternative
depends on additional criteria, such as they a demand for the minimum pay back period, the maximum
saving for a specific investment or for a fixed maximum pay back period.
We can use the shape of the saving on investment curve to compare alternatives, if the number of
alternatives is limited. This gives a clear overview of the available options. Visual evaluation is,
however, a qualitative evaluation and impractical if the number of alternatives is too high. In those
cases we need additional and preferably numerical criteria for the selection of the best alternative(s).
Figure 29 shows a number of characteristic values that we can use instead of visual shape evaluation:
• the minimum initial investment (a)
• the maximum saving (b)
• the minimum pay back period (c)
• the saving or investment at minimum pay back period (d)
• the saving or investment at specific maximum pay back periods, for example at 1 or 2 years (e)
• the saving, investment or actual pay back period at specific maximum pay back periods for
incremental investments (f)
144 Chapter 6
Figure 29 Characteristic points for the saving on investment plot
Instead of the pay back period we may use any another economic criterion such as the internal rate of
return. See text books as Seider et al. (2004) and Peters et al. (2003). This will change the results but
allows the same approach. The maximum pay back periods for incremental investments shows to what
extent it is worth to exploit an option. For Alternative I in Figure 28 it is useless to invest more than
say two times the amount at the minimum pay back period. The point at two year pay back is therefore
not a useful comparison point for Alternative I. The points at a specific maximum pay back period for
incremental investment is characteristic for each curve and thus are better for the evaluation. We will
use this criterion more often in this thesis and will refer to it as the maximum incremental pay back
period criterion.
The identification and calculation of the characteristic points requires the saving on investment data in
an appropriate form. It is possible to use a series of data points for this purpose, but a fitted function
would be easier both for storage and for the calculation of the characteristic points. In literature no
such relations are available Therefore the following typical function has been derived for this thesis
for the dimensionless saving ȟ as function of the dimensionless investment Ȗ:
S β (γ − γ 0 )δ
ξ≡ = for γ > γ 0 (37)
S
max β γ − γ δ +1
( 0)
in which (see also Figure 30):
ȟ the dimensionless saving [-];

I
Ȗ the dimensionless investment [-]: γ= (38)
C Apb
I0
Ȗ0 the dimensionless minimum investment [-]: γ0 = <1 (39)
C Apb
§ 1−γ 0 ·
ξ pb
)( ) ¨¨ ¸¸
ȕ a dimensionless constant [-]: β= 1−γ © ξ pb −1 ¹ (40)
(ξ −1 0
pb
γ 0 −1
į a dimensionless constant [-]: δ= (41)
ξ pb − 1
S pb
ȟpb dimensionless saving at min payback point [-]: ξ pb = (42)
S max
S yearly cost saving [¼/yr];
Smax maximum yearly cost saving [¼/yr];
Spb yearly cost saving at minimum payback
period point [¼/yr];
CApb area cost at the minimum payback
period point (see below) [¼];
I investment [¼];
I0 minimum investment [¼].
An example of the curve is in Figure 30.

The typical curve has three constants, ȕ, Ȗ0 and į,
which we can derive from three points:
• the minimum investment, I0, is part of the
cost function and may be adapted to
include integration difficulties and is used Figure 30 Approximation function with
characteristic points
to find Ȗ0;
• the maximum saving, Smax , can be found by any of the grassroots multi-utility optimisation
methods (see Chapter 5), both algorithmic or mathematical model based, that makes ȟ 1 if
Ȗ .;
• the steepness of the curve, which we can characterise by the point with minimum pay back
period (CApb , Spb). We define at this point that Ȗ = 1. The dimensionless equivalent of this
point is thus (1 , ȟpb). We can find this point by minimisation of the saving and related
investment targets, varying the utility duties.
Appendix E shows the derivation of the approximation function. It is based on the analytical solution
of the most simple retrofit targeting problem in which one ideal heat exchanger is extended to transfer
more heat, like Exchanger E1 in Figure 25. Consequently, the function has similar properties as the
generally found saving on investment relations, also for more complicated cases:
• It has an offset on the X-axis which is the initial investment to get the first saving.
• It has its maximum at the maximum saving for ǻTmin = 0, which is reached for infinite investment.
• It is continuously ascending after the initial investment. The slope of the curve is continuously
descending for Ȗ > 1, i.e. above the minimum payback point.
Some simplifications were necessary to derive the approximation function. Consequently, part of the
curve has a different shape than the actual saving on investment curve. The approximation gives an
increasing slope between Ȗ > Ȗ0 and some point below Ȗpb, whereas the original curve has a steep sloop
from Ȗ = Ȗ0. The deviation is especially significant close to Ȗ=Ȗ0, as the approximation approaches
asymptotic to ȟ = 0 for Ȗ Ȗ0, Figure 30. This is illustrated in the examples of Appendix E. The
approximation should therefore only be used for Ȗ > Ȗpb. This is no serious limitation as cases with low
ȟ-value have little saving and thus have hardly any practical meaning. Generally, we are only
interested in cases with ȟ ȟpb for which the approximation function is valid.
146 Chapter 6
The typical curve represents most of the found saving on relations except for threshold problems. In
these cases the maximum saving is determined by the first law heat balance rather than by the infinite
small temperature approach. Consequently, the maximum saving is obtained at a finite investment for
a ǻTmin > 0. It is inconvenient to use the given typical curve for most of these cases. Instead, we can
store the threshold point, which is the most characteristic point for these problems, and include this in
the evaluation.
6.3 Retrofit Targeting with Multiple Utilities
6.3.1 Example Problem

Figure 31 recalls the example network from
the previous section. In this case Heater H1
uses a medium pressure steam (195°C
condensing temperature) and Heater H2 uses a
higher pressure steam (240°C condensing
temperature), which is more expensive.
Obviously, there is a utility cost saving
opportunity when we can use the medium Figure 31 Alternative example network
pressure steam in Heater H2. A similar cost
reduction would be possible if a third utility, currently not used, would be available at lower cost than
any of the used utilities, provided that this utility is sufficiently hot.
So far, we have ignored this kind of opportunities in which we can save on utility cost without a
reduction of the total utility duty. In some ways this class of retrofit design is different from retrofit
with only one hot and one cold utility.
In retrofit with one hot and one cold utility, the sum of duties of all hot and all cold utility exchangers
always reduces. Generally, it is also assumed that the duty of each utility exchanger is smaller or equal
than the original duty of that exchanger. Consequently, it is generally assumed that there is abundant
utility area and often only process-to-process exchanger area is taken into account. In multi-utility
retrofit it is very well possible that the duties of cheaper utilities increase after retrofit. As a result we
also need more area for these services. Sometimes it is possible to use area from excess utility
exchangers of one type to fill a shortage for a utility of another type. Some area is however type
specific, like area of fired heaters or air coolers, and reuse for another application is impossible.
Even if the area type is applicable, it is not always possible to use excess area. If, for example, a new
cheaper hot utility is available at 175°C, we may replace part of the duties of both the Heaters H1 and
H2 with this utility. We must keep, however, part of the original duty to get the required outlet
temperature. As a result we cannot use excess area of the original utility exchanger, that will be
oversized for the reduced duty. The existing area becomes available only if we can completely replace
the original utility. Consequently, partial replacement of utility is generally less efficient.
The discussion above raises a number of additional questions that we need to answer when we want to
exploit the saving potential in networks with multiple utilities:
• What operating cost savings are possible by shifting or switching to other utility types?
• How should we evaluate and trade off the related investment costs?
• How do we take into account the different types of utility area to prevent a severe
underestimation of the required transfer area?
• How should we combine and trade off savings from duty reductions and utility-type shifts?
• How should we avoid uneconomical partial load shifts?
In the sections below we will elaborate a new targeting approach for multi-utility cases in retrofit and
address the questions and design issues mentioned above.
6.3.2 Method Basis

Apart from the literature reviewed in Chapter 5 also the literature about the integration of furnaces,
heat engines, heat pumps and refrigeration systems (see overview in Chapter 1) and some literature on
total site integration (eg. Dhole and Linnhoff, 1993a, Hui and Ahmad, 1994b and Varbanov et al.,
2004) contains some approaches to multi-utility optimisation. All methods contain either the
optimisation of a mathematical model or a visual selection of the optimal utility mix. Both groups of
methods are difficult to include in Structural Targeting as they nearly all lack the required retrofit area
targets. Consequently, they also ignore the area reuse issues outlined in the example problem above.
Only the hypertargets method of Briones and Kokossis (1999b,c) may be adequate to provide the
required targets, but we have rejected their method before, because of its complexity.
As there was no applicable method available in literature, a new one has been developed during the
research for this thesis and implemented in the computer program PHITS (Appendix G). The
developed method was primarily meant to generate saving on investment trend lines for all retrofit
problems, including multiple utility cases, as already available for retrofit problems with one hot / one
cold utility, to facilitate the selection of the most economical options. Speed and simplicity was
preferred over accuracy and correctness. Therefore, we will just describe the algorithm and some
physical background and omit any further justification.
Background
Parker (1989, from Hui and Ahmad 1994b)
describes the multi-utility targeting problem for
grassroots problems. Figure 32 shows the compos-
ite curves of a typical problem with three hot and
two cold utilities. Theoretically, the system can be
heat-balanced using just sufficient of each utility to
get a zero approach temperature at all pinches
(marked in the figure). We must increase the utility
duties to get realistic heat transfer areas. To relax
on the process pinch, we must increase the duty of
at least one hot and one cold utility. To relax a
utility pinch, we can also shift load to a hotter hot
or a colder cold utility. For N utilities we can
Figure 32 Composite curves of a typical multi-
choose N - 1 utility duties. The Nth utility duty is
utility targeting problem
fixed by the overall heat balance.
148 Chapter 6
Parker uses N one-dimensional optimisations to find the optimal grassroots utility mix. Each
optimisation trades off the utility and the area investment costs to arrive at some economic criterion.
The optimisation of each pair of utilities is non-linear due to the non-linear nature of the area cost
function. An alternative to Parker’s method is the simultaneous optimisation of all N - 1 duties, which
is a constrained multi-variable NLP optimisation. The latter approach is used in PHITS. Note, that
integer optimisation is not required in this targeting method, as the utilities are matched to the
composite streams and not to actual streams.
In retrofit the multi-utility targeting problem is similar. In this case we have to trade off utility cost
saving against the required investment to adapt the network and add area. Often an economic criterion
with the payback time is used for evaluation. Finding the optimal utility mix is still the multi-variable
NLP optimisation described above, but in retrofit we can define some additional constraints to bound
the feasible region for the utility duties:
• Utility cost saving will only result from duty shifts and duty savings. Therefore the sum of hot
utility duties should be equal or lower than the original sum of hot utility duties. The overall
heat balance will ensure that the sum of cold utility duties will also be below the original value.
• For utility cost savings we will only shift duty to cheaper utilities. The duty of the most
expensive hot (generally the hottest) utility and of the most expensive cold (generally the
coldest) utility will be equal or below their original duties. The duty of any other hot utility
should be below the sum of original duties of this and all more expensive hot utilities. The same
holds for each cold utility.
The basis above is implemented in a new algorithm that maximises the saving on investment. The
algorithm varies the utility duties and calculates for each set of duties the associated cost savings, the
required additional area and the related investments. The utility duties are represented by the duty shift
variables R, defined below, that have clearly defined feasible ranges. The core part of the optimisation
problem with the variable definition and demarcation and the saving calculations are represented by
the following relations:
Given a hot and cold composite stream with enthalpy functions Hh(Th) Ths Th Tht ,
Hc(Tc) Tcs Tc Tct ,
m hot utilities with existing duties Qu,h1,exist ..Qu,hm,exist ,
n cold utilities with existing duties Qu,c1,exist ..Qu,cn,exist .
Solve objective
max
(
S Q uh ,Q uc ) (43)
I ( Q uh ,Q uc )
Subject to
m n
S = ¦ Shi + ¦ Scj (44)
i =1 j=1
Shi = (Q u,hi,exist − Q u,hi ) ⋅ Cu,hi
(45)
Scj = (Q u,cj,exist − Q u,cj ) ⋅ Cu,cj
(
A new = f Q uh ,Q uc ;H h (Th ), H c (Tc ) ) (46)
I = f ( A new ) (47)
in which
S yearly cost saving [¼/yr];
I investment [¼];
Q uh , Q uc vector with hot, cold utility duties: Qu,h1..Qu,hm , Qu,c1..Qu,cn [W];
Qu,hi,exist existing utility duty of hot utility I [W];
Qu,cj,exist existing utility duty of cold utility j [W];
Shi , Scj yearly cost saving for hot utility I, cold utility j [¼/yr];
Cu,hi Cu,cj unit cost for hot utility I, cold utility j [¼/(yr·W)];
Anew new heat transfer area [m2], calculated from a retrofit area targeting algorithm that is a
function, f, of the hot and cold composite streams and the utility duties;
and in which is assumed:

Cu,hi < Cu,h(i +1) ∀ i ∈ hot utilities
(48)
Cu,cj < Cu,c( j+1) ∀ j ∈ cold utilities
whereas
• the hot utilities have increasing cost with increasing supply temperature;
• the cold utilities have increasing cost with decreasing supply temperature;
• no hot or cold utilities have temperature ranges that overlap.
If these conditions are met, we can rewrite the optimisation problem in terms of duty shifts from the
existing utility duties, R, instead of the actual utility duties. This problem is easier to solve as we can
more easily bound the variables.
S ( R h1..R hm , R c1..R cn )
max (49)
I ( R h1..R hm , R c1..R cn )
Subject to
Equation 44, 45, 46 and 47 above,
and in which:
Rhi the net duty shift from hot utilities at or above hot utility I to hot utilities below utility I [W]
for I > 1, calculated by:
m m
R hi = ¦ Q u,hk,exist − ¦ Qu,hk (50)
k =i k =i
Rcj the net duty shift from cold utilities at or below cold utility j to cold utilities above utility j
[W] for j > 1, calculated by:
n n
R cj = ¦ Q u,ck,exist − ¦ Qu,ck (51)
k= j k= j
The hot duty at I = 1 is the overall duty saving, which is equal for the sum of hot utilities and the
sum of cold utilities:
R c1 = R h1 (52)
150 Chapter 6
Additionally, we can set bounds for the variable R:

R hi ≥ 0 ∧ R cj ≥ 0 (53)
m
R hi ≤ ¦ Qu,hk,exist (54)
k =i
n
R cj ≤ ¦ Qu,ck,exist (55)
k= j
The investment is calculated from the targets for additional area with the adapted stream area
contributions target algorithm described at the end of this section or one of the alternative area
targeting methods presented in Chapter 5.
The resulting targets are returned to the optimizer to make a new optimizer step. If we have different
design alternatives, we can determine the optimum payback point for all of them and use these figures
for evaluation. In the evaluation method described in Section 6.2.3 the saving on investment relation is
used as the basis for evaluation from which a number of criteria are derived. We have proposed the
use of an approximation function for design problems with many alternatives.
Multi-utility problems lack a one-to-one saving

on investment relation. A saving is a linear
combination of the savings for each utility and
generally there will be more than one
combination of utilities that results in the same
saving. Each utility combination has its own
related investment target. As a result there is a
range of alternatives with the same savings but
with different investment targets. We can
represent these alternatives with a horizontal
line in the saving on investment plot, Figure 33.
Similarly, there will be a set of alternatives with
the same investment targets that have different
saving targets. For an economic evaluation the
minimum investment for a saving or the
Figure 33 Saving on investment relation for a
maximum saving at an investment is the most multi-utility problem.
relevant. This is represented by the ‘optimum
line’ in Figure 33. We can use the multi-utility
optimisation approach described above in the Equations 49 to 55 to find the minimum pay back point
(d) or, if we modify the object function, any other point of the ‘optimum line’. Alternatively, we can
approximate the optimum line with Eq 37 based on the minimum investment, the maximum saving
and the minimum payback point (d). We define the ‘optimum line’ as the equivalent for multi-utility
targeting of the saving on investment line used for two-utility targeting. We will use the
approximation function, Equation 37 in Section 6.2.3, to compare the saving potential of individual
subnetworks with two or more utilities.
Multi-utility Targeting Procedure

The approach described above is captured in the following procedure for multi-utility targeting.
1. Determine maximum saving.
Use some quick placement rules, based on early pinch analysis literature (from Kemp, 2007) if :
a. all hot utilities have higher costs when their (source) temperatures are higher (continuously
rising cost with rising source temperature);
b. all cold utilities have higher costs when their source temperatures are lower (continuously rising
cost with decreasing source temperature);
c. No overlapping utilities;
d. No utility generation.
The quick placement starts at the process pinch. The coldest (cheapest) hot utility is applied until it
causes a utility pinch at a minimum approach temperature of zero. Subsequently, the next hotter
utility use is maximised in a similar way, until the system above the pinch is heat balanced. The
cold utility duties are placed in the same way, starting at the process pinch with the hottest
(cheapest) cold utility.
If the quick placement approach is invalid, we can use a LP optimisation model like the one from
Cerda et al. (1983), see Chapter 5.
2. Determine initial investment .
In this thesis the initial investment equals the initial investment constant (a) in the area cost
function. Alternative approaches may include corrections for example for the number of utilities or
the number of matches in the original network. Another reasonable correction will be the initial
cost to apply a new utility.
3. Check for a threshold problem.
The approximation function presented in Section 6.2.3 is invalid for threshold problems, when
there is no minimum pay back period point. In these cases it is sufficient to know the maximum
saving and the initial investment. The remainder of this procedure can be skipped in that case.
4. Find the utility mix with the lowest payback period by constrained NLP.
In PHITS an adapted area efficiency method (see below in Equation 56 to 59) is used for the area
targeting that is necessary to estimate the investment costs. The constrained NLP optimisation is
done by a simplex method with some constraints handling.
5. Calculate the parameters of the approximation function (Equation 37);
Use the relations presented in Section 6.2.3.
6. Use the approximation function in the evaluation of alternatives as outlined in Section 6.2.3.
Area Type Contribution for Incompatible Types

In the research for this thesis we needed a simple retrofit area targeting method giving a good trend of
the required additional area with changing utility use. The literature review in Chapter 5 shows that the
area efficiency method of Tjoe (1986) and Ahmad and Polley (1990) is obviously the simplest and
most straightforward retrofit area targeting method available in literature. Therefore, this method was
selected for the case studies in the research for this thesis. The application to multiple utility cases of
this method is, however, not described in literature. During the execution of a case with more than one
hot and one cold utility, we came across the questions outlined in the example problem of this section,
while we found unexpected results for the area targets in many cases. A detailed review of these cases
showed an unrealistic reuse of utility area for other utility or process services.
152 Chapter 6
Panjeh Shahi (1992) and Shokoya (1992) presented methods to determine area targets per stream or
per virtual match between two streams. This associates target areas with individual streams. Based on
these methods we set up an adaptation of the area efficiency area targeting methods, that recognizes
different types of area related to different sets of streams.
In our approach we classify required and available area based on individual stream contributions. First,
we define what streams (including utilities) have interchangeable transfer area and define stream
groups accordingly. Next, the net required area is calculated for each stream group separately. The
following equation has been derived:
A add = ¦
all Js ∈ST
(
max 0, A add,Js ) (56)
α
1
2 ¦ A tar, j − 2ex ¦ A ex, j
j∈JS j∈JS (57)
A add,JS =
α new
Q j,q § 1 ·
A tar, j = ¦ ¨
¨
+ Ωopp, j,q ¸
¸ (58)
q∈Z ∆Tln,q © h j,q ¹
1 CPm,k,q
Ωopp, j,q = ¦
¦ CPm,k,q k ∈K
j,q
h k,q (59)
k ∈K j,q
in which
Aadd the target for the area to be added to the network at a specific target use of utilities [m2]
Atar,j the grassroots target contact area of stream j at a specific target use of utilities [m2];
Aex,j the actual transfer area of all exchangers related to stream j available in the existing
network [m2];
Įex the area efficiency of the existing network = Atar /Aex a specific target use of utilities [-]
Įnew the area efficiency of added area [-];
ȍopp,j,q the heat transfer resistance of the opposing streams of stream j in enthalpy interval q
[m2·°C/W] in the composite curves assuming the spaghetti network model (Appendix B)
Qj,q duty to be transferred from/to stream j in interval q [W];
ǻTln,q log mean temperature difference for enthalpy interval q [°C];
hj,q heat transfer coefficient of stream j in enthalpy interval q [W/(m2·C)];
hk,q heat transfer coefficient of stream k in enthalpy interval q [W/(m2·C)];
CPm,k,q heat capacity flowrate for stream k in enthalpy interval q [W/°C];
ST set of all stream groups;
Js set of all streams in group s;
Z set of all enthalpy intervals;
Kj,q set of all opposing streams for stream j in interval q.
Note the factor ½ in Equation 57 is to avoid that the heat transfer area is counted twice, both from the
hot side and from the cold side. The interface area is thus half the facing area of the stream.
6.4 Case Study: Aromatics Case
The new Structural Targeting method has been applied to an aromatics case described below and to an
industrial case, the C234-Case, described in Chapter 9. The case below has only two utilities and uses
visual inspection of the saving on investment curves. The C234-Case in Chapter 9 has more than two
utilities and relies on comparison of the approximation function of this saving on investment relation
using characteristic numbers.
6.4.1 Description
The use of integrity zones and the Structural Targeting approach is illustrated using the Aromatics
Case originally published by Tjoe (1986) and Tjoe and Linnhoff (1986). The case has only one hot
and one cold utility. The network grid and the data for the Aromatics Case are given in Figure 34.
Figure 34 Original grid and data of the Aromatics case from Tjoe (1986) (duty [kW]\area [m2]).
The utility costs are 2 ¼/GJ 13 and the area cost are calculated according to
CA [¼] = 6300 + 670 Area 0.83 if Area < 484 m2
CA [¼] = 252 Area if Area 484 m2
The payback time must be within 2 years.
13
The original utility and area cost data were in £. The same figures are used in ¼ here for consistency
within the thesis. For trade-offs only the relative costs of utilities and area is important.
154 Chapter 6
6.4.2 Zoning
In the aromatics case 10 exchangers exist and thus at most 10 elementary integrity zones can be
demarcated, if we further ignore the structure of the existing network. If no more network information
is included, 210-1 = 1023 integrity subnetworks need to be evaluated. 672 of them meet the basic
requirements of having a heater and a cooler. Also the paths in the existing network are not
sufficiently recognized. The use of the presented zoning principles will focus the evaluation to the
relevant subnetworks.
The existing network contains four groups of heat exchangers that are connected to each other by a
path. These independent zones are given in Table 28. They are labelled A to D. Zone A may be used
for the structural targeting, but compared to the other zones this one is relatively large. It is not really
necessary to split this zone, but we will show that such a division can simplify the retrofit design. The
pinch zone rule is the obvious motivation to refine the zoning in this case. It is not possible to split it
exactly at the A-zone pinch (100C and 136C) as the new zones must still be built from the existing
heat exchangers and their covered stream fractions. Therefore, the split is made at the connection
between two exchangers closest to the pinch. That is between E1 and E5, at 174C. The resulting
zones are denoted as A1 (H1 and E1) and A2 (E5 and C1).
Table 28 Zones of the Aromatics Case

Zone Exchangers included Hot streams Cold streams
A H1, E1, E5, C1 1 5, 6
B H2, E2 2 9
C E4, C2 3 8
D E3, C3 4 7
6.4.3 Targeting
The refined zoning gives five zones. 20 of the 31 subnetworks, that can be built from these zones,
have both a heater and a cooler and thus a saving potential. Six subnetworks contain two zones, nine
subnetworks three zones, four subnetworks four zones and one subnetwork five zones (the total
network). Further, six sets of independent (i.e. not sharing any integrity zone) subnetworks with two
zones can be identified, eg. the set of subnetwork A1-C + subnetwork A2-B. Also, there are six sets of
independent subnetworks with two and three zones, eg. the set of subnetwork A1-A2-C + subnetwork
B-D. The more zones involved in a subnetwork the more complex generally is the structural change
required to exploit the saving potential. According to the procedure of Figure 26, we should review
the subnetwork with the least integrity zones first and extend with additional zones, only if there is
sufficient scope for saving. In this case, however, we will evaluate all relevant combinations as their
number is limited and a rigorous review can confirm the basic assumptions.
The targets of the best representatives of each level of complexity are drawn in a savings on payback
plot, Figure 35. This plot is used instead of the commonly used saving on investment plot as it better
shows differences in the economic potential of the subnetworks. The constant area efficiency targeting
method Tjoe and Linnhoff (1986) is used for each subnetwork independently.
Figure 35 Saving on payback plot for the subnetworks with the best potential
The plot clearly shows a roughly equal payback for all best subnetworks up to a saving of about
4.7 MW and below 2 years payback time. Beyond this saving only a few, rather extended,
subnetworks are possible and the payback time increases rapidly with the savings. Another remarkable
thing is the presence of zones A1 and D in all selected subnetworks. The subnetwork with only these
two zones is the simplest below the 4.7 MW saving. Addition of more zones generally even reduces
the economic efficiency, while the potential complexity of the retrofit design increases. The addition
of zone B allows more savings, but an economically acceptable saving beyond 4.7 MW is only
possible when a fourth zone is added as well.
The analysis must also take into account the maximum payback time of 2 years. Figure 35 shows a
maximum saving of 4.7 MW at this payback time, while the simplest subnetwork A1-D still offers 4.2
MW. The integration of more zones than in subnetwork A1-D will yield an additional saving of at
most 0.5 MW (3104 ¼/yr). This is not viable. Thus the target for the retrofit is set to achieve 4.2 MW
at 2 years payback time in the subnetwork A1-D.
156 Chapter 6
6.4.4 Design
The retrofit design for subnetwork A1-D and the set targets can be made almost by inspection. Care
must be taken to keep the two zones as self contained as possible. The resulting design is given in
Figure 36. A new match is created between the streams 4 and 5 and area is added to both existing
process-to-process exchangers, E1 and E3. The use of the driving force plot (Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1986)
helps to find a more optimal design, Figure 37. This design requires a split of stream 4. The area that
must be added to match E3 can be placed in parallel with the new exchanger, giving a lower amount
of additional area.
Both designs give the target saving of 4.2 MW. In the design without split the new match has an area
of 418 m2, while 394 m2 is added to E1 and 1189 m2 to E3. In the design with split the figures are
676 m2, 394 m2 and 619 m2 respectively, a reduction of 312 m2. The former design gives a payback
time of 2.1 years, the latter of 1.8 years.
Figure 36 Subnetwork A1-D with modifications without stream split (duty [kW] \ area [m2])
Figure 37 Subnetwork A1-D: alternative modifications with stream split (duty [kW] \ area [m2])
6.4.5 Discussion
The achieved saving is 4.2 MW. This saving is 17% larger than the 3.6 MW saving achieved by Tjoe's
retrofit method. This is because Tjoe has set the energy targets from the saving on investment relation
for the entire network, which results in targets of 3.6 MW for two year pay back period. See the total
network curve in Figure 35.
Although the savings targets are different, the resulting structures of the final designs are similar. Also
the economical figures are comparable. However, the initial design of Tjoe differed considerably. This
initial design required an extensive analysis of the entire network with remaining problem analysis and
the driving force plot. Finally, they used a large number of evolution steps to achieve their final
design, but they failed to exploit the full potential of the found structure. Using the structural targeting
method no evolution was necessary in this case.
The previous paragraph shows that the potential of subnetwork A1-D is comparable to that of
subnetwork A1-A2-D. The zones A1 and A2 resulted from the refinement of the initially identified
zone A. Structural targeting shows that the A2 zone hardly contributes to the saving. As a result of
splitting zone A, this irrelevant part can be discarded. If the original zone A was kept, a design should
have been made for the subnetwork A-D. This would have been less easy. Subnetwork A-D includes
two coolers instead of one as in subnetwork A1-D. A trade-off is necessary in this case to find out how
the cooler loads should be reduced. Though a quick qualitative trade-off may be possible, eg. using the
driving force plot, a quantitative trade-off is more reliable and thus preferred. One possible way is to
evaluate all possible structures in the A-D subnetwork, but this is complicated. Another way is to
target the area requirement for all combinations of zones including either H1, C1 or C3. This is
essentially the same as we did when we split zone A. A careful demarcation of the zones thus prevents
unnecessary calculations.
The case study shows that Structural Targeting effectively identifies the practical saving scope and the
essential network parts, required to achieve this saving. It reduces the actual network design effort
considerably.
158 Chapter 6
Conceptual Retrofit Design Method Review 159
Chapter 7
Conceptual Retrofit Design Method Review
Conceptual Retrofit Design Methods are the methods used in the refined
stage of conceptual network retrofit design. They cover the actual
network design in terms of network structure, matches, match
specifications and assignment of existing heat transfer equipment, to get
an economical utility cost reduction. In the retrofit design framework of
Chapter 3 the refined conceptual design stage follows the target and
preliminary conceptual design stages that have given targets for utility
use, units and area addition.
This chapter reviews the design methods available in literature for
refined conceptual network design in a systematic way to show the
available options for design method selection and to identify occasional
gaps. It contains 27 different methods that are divided in five groups:
grassroots based, target based, evolutionary, mathematical and user-
directed mathematical methods. Each method group and the included
methods are briefly described. Additionally, all methods are classified
based on their applicability for specific types of design cases. Finally, all
methods are assessed and rated on their usefulness.
These descriptions and assessments are both an introduction to and a
selection guide for refined conceptual network design. It shows that there
is a wide coverage of the design problem types. Some problem types are
identified for which no adequate design method is available or for which
the available methods are difficult to apply. The latter include some
mathematical methods that are often difficult to apply to industrial cases,
especially outside the academia.
160 Chapter 7
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Context and Objective

Refined Conceptual Retrofit Design is the third stage of the conceptual retrofit network design phase
in the design framework, Chapter 3. In this design stage, we must convert all available information
and insight into a basic network design, with specification of topology, matches and the reuse of
equipment as defined in detail in Section 3.4 to the first complete design(s). It is an essential and well
recognized step in heat exchanger network (retrofit) design As a result this design stage is generally
referred to in literature as the network design. In this chapter we will use the phrase ‘conceptual
network design’ for this design stage.
Conceptual network design has extensively been described in literature since 1970. As a result there
are many methods available for a number of problem classes, taking into account different design
aspects and design objectives. Reviews of the heat exchanger network design methods are available
from Gundersen and Naess (1988), Linnhoff (1993), Jezowski (1994a and 1994b), Gundersen (2000)
and Furman and Sahinidis (2002). Detailed descriptions of network design methods are also included
in various text books, like the ones from Shenoy (1995), Smith (2005) and Kemp (2007). These
reviews and descriptions give a good overview of the available design methods especially for
grassroots design. The literature after 2000 is, however, hardly reviewed and there is also only limited
attention for retrofit design methods. Besides, the available reviews give at most an outline of the de-
sign methods. Details of their applicability and special requirements or features are hardly mentioned.
This chapter gives the necessary overview of the currently available design methods for conceptual
retrofit network design, to select a proper method for each specific situation in our design approach. It
reviews the methods, the required data and the included options and evaluates their use and
applicability. The systematic organisation of this review gives not only an overview of the available
methods, but also of the blank areas in literature.
There are many publications in heat exchanger network literature that claim to be a new method, but
actually are minor adaptations to existing methods or reports of specific applications. We will lump
method variations together as much as possible and ignore specific applications of the method to keep
a useful overview. Many targeting methods are accompanied by some guidelines for the use of the
given targets in design, that may qualify as design methods. These guidelines are however not
included when they are either similar to one of the included methods, too straightforward or when
included as performance analysis in Chapter 4.
7.1.2 Conceptual Retrofit Network Design

Conceptual retrofit network design is the specification of a set of modifications of an existing heat
exchanger network to achieve a predefined performance improvement. The refined and final design
stages of this design phase both aim for a complete specification of the main design variables (Section
3.4). In contrast with targeting, refined and final design address all matches and streams individually.
It specifies the task of each exchanger (i.e. duty between specific streams at specific temperatures) and
its physical characteristics (size, type, etc.). All physical, practical and economical constraints must be
taken into account properly in these stages. The relaxations used in targeting are no longer valid.
The scope and the relevant design variables are similar for the refined and final design stages. Refer to
Section 3.4 and especially the Tables 19 and 20 for a detailed description of the scope of the two
design stages. There is a clear difference in the main activities in the refined and final design stages:
the refined design stage generates design alternatives, whereas the final stage checks the feasibility and
optimality of these alternatives and revises the specification, if necessary. Design methods in literature
are generally meant for the generation of alternatives. They are thus mostly related to the refined
design stage. Therefore, this chapter is especially related to this refined design stage. The final design
stage may also occasionally use the design methods reviewed in this chapter.
7.2 Existing Methods Overview
Table 29 and 30 give an overview of the methods for conceptual retrofit design of heat exchanger
networks. Table 29 lists the references to all reviewed methods and defines the short reference used in
the other review tables in this chapter, Tables 30 and 31. Table 29 gives the input data requirements
for each method and summarises the analysis and targeting methods that are explicitly mentioned in
the specified literature about the design method. Next, the table summarises the (retrofit) design
options the design method is suited for, which may include:
strm segm. marks whether the method can handle segmented streams with varying heat
capacity flowrate or heat transfer coefficient;
strm splits marks whether networks with existing or new splits are allowed;
hx types marks whether the methods takes into account ideal strictly counter-current heat
exchangers (ideal hx), shell-and-tube exchangers with one shell and two tube-
passes (S&T 1-2) and advanced heat exchangers. All methods take into account
counter-current heat exchangers, as they need no special provisions. Methods for
shell-and-tube exchangers must take into account the FT-factor and methods for
advanced heat exchangers must take into account the exchanger dependent transfer
capacities (heat transfer coefficients).
retrofit shows the retrofit options as reviewed in Table 11, Chapter 2. These include size
modifications in general (marked with ‘X’) or by heat transfer augmentation (‘Y’).
There are no design methods that evaluate the use of other specific size
modifications: bundle replacement, shell addition or plate area addition.
Additionally, the retrofit options include topology modifications: the re-sequence
of existing exchangers maintaining the original streams (‘Q’), the relocation of
existing exchangers to match one or more new streams (‘R’), the addition or
deletion of stream splits (S), the demolition of existing exchangers (‘T’) and the
addition of new exchangers (‘U’).
Table 30 shows which design variables get special attention in the design method. The variables given
in this table are derived from the variables in Table 14 in Chapter 2. Appendix D shows how the
variables in these tables relate to each other. Variables can be included as a real design variable,
marked with a dot (), or as a design constraint, marked with ‘c’. For the utility use variable we
recognize methods that assume fixed utility loads (f), allow cases with two utilities (2) only or allow
an arbitrary number (m) of utilities. Apart from the basic data mentioned in Table 29, more data is
required based on the addressed variables. Those variables that are marked as constraint or fixed
Table 29 Overview of retrofit design methods
Short Ref Reference Description Required Used Required Included Options / Capabilities 4)
Data 1) Performance Targets 3) general exchanger types retrofit
Analyses 2) options 5)
strm cp ideal 1s-2t Adv.
splits segm HX S&T HX
Grassroots Based Retrofit Design Methods
JON Jones et al. (1986) network simulation and grassroots based abce A2,B1/3 EAnC q q q XU
optimisation
OZG Özgen et al. (1989) grassroots pinch guided abce A1/2,B1,E1 En q q - - XQRSU
ZHE Zhelev et al. (1987) structural matrix abce A2,B1,E1 En - q - - XU
SAB Saboo et al. (1986a,b) resilient network generation abce A2 EA q q q - - XQRSU
Design Methods Based on Retrofit Targets
TJO Tjoe (1986), Tjoe and Linnhoff pinch design based retrofit abce A2,B*,D1/2, EACĮ q q q - - XQRSTU
(1984, 1986, 1987) E1/2
FRA Fraser and Gillespie (1992) refinery integration abce A2,D1,E1/2 EAC - q - - XQRTU
POL Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1990), fixed pressure drop abcdefk A2,B*,D2, EAnCǻpĮ q q q q XQRSTU
Polley et al. (1990, 1992, 1996), E*,F*,G2
Panjeh Shahi (1992)
ZHU Zhu et al. (2000) heat transfer enhancement optimisation abcdef A2 E - q - - XYQRTU
YEA Yeap et al. (2005) heat recovery with minimum fouling abcdefg A2,D4,G2 E q q - XQUS
Evolutionary Network Screening Methods
LAK Lakshmanan and Bañares- thermodynamic inspection abce A2,B1 - q q - - XQRSTU
Alcántara (1996, 1998)
PTA Ptacnik and Chepos (1989) retrofit analysis tables abce A2 E - q XU
CAR Carlsson et al. (1993), Carlsson match cost matrices abcek A2,B1 - - - q q XQRTU
and Berntsson, (1995)
GUL Gulyani and Mohanty (2000) stepwise topology modifications abcek A2 E - - q - - XQRU
Short Ref Reference Description Required Used Required Included Options / Capabilities 4)
Data 1) Performance Targets 3) general exchanger types retrofit
Analyses 2) options 5)
strm cp ideal 1s-2t Adv.
splits segm HX S&T HX
Rigorous Mathematical Methods
YEE1 Yee and Grossmann (1987) MILP structure optimisation abce A2 E - - q - - XQRTU
CIR1 Ciric and Floudas (1988, 1989) MILP/NLP model abcek A2,B1 EC q - q - - XQRSTU
CIR2 Ciric and Floudas (1989, 1990a,b) MINLP model abcek A2,B1 - q - q q - XQRSTU
YEE2 Yee and Grossmann (1991) MINLP total cost optimisation abcek A2,B1 EAT 6) q - q - - XQRSTU
MA Ma et al. (1999, 2000) const. approach temperature model abcek A2,B1 - q - q - - XQRSTU
NIEL Nielsen et al. (1996) object orient. model with sim. anneal. abcek A2,B1 - q q q q XQRSU
ATH Athier et al. (1998) simulated annealing assisted NLP abcek A2,B1 - q - q - - XQRSTU
NIE Nie and Zhu (1999) network pinch with heat tr. enhancement abcdefk A2,B1,G2 - q - q - - XYQRSU
SOR Sorsak and Kravanja (2004) MINLP with different exchanger types abcekl A2,B1 - q - q q q QRSTU
BJO Björk and Nordman (2005) genetic algorithm and MINLP abcek A2,B1 - q - q - - QRSTU
BUL Bulatov (2005) multi-stream plate fin optimisation abcdefkl A2,B1 E q - - - q RSTU
User-directed Optimisation Methods
ASA Asante and Zhu (1996, 1997) Zhu network pinch based models abcek C1D2E1 ET 6) q q q - - XQRSU
and Asante (1999) Varba-nov and
Klemes (1999, 2000)
BRI Briones and Kokossis (1996, hypertargets based abcek A2B123 EATC 6) q q q - - XQRSTU
1999a,b,c)
ABB Abbas et al. (1999) constraint logic programming abce B1 - q - q - - XQRSTU
For table notes refer to next page
Table notes for Table 29:
1 Refer to Table 26 external data:
a = streams for heat exchange; b = phase of streams; c = Ts(ource), Tt(arget) of streams; d = Pin, Pout or ǻP;
e = duty, either from Hout - Hin or T-H from Ts to Tt or cp(T) and massflow;
f = density, viscosity, conductivity; k = economic and cost data.
2 Performance analyses:
A = structure analysis; A1 = process flow diagram; A2 = network diagram (pinch grid, retrofit thermodynamic diagram or traditional network grid); A3 = plotplan;
B = economic analysis; B1 = cost calculations; B2 = energy - area plot; B3 = retrofit investment evaluation plot;
C1 = composite curves; C2 = grand composite curves;
D = match T - profile analysis; D1 = cross-pinch analysis; D2 = driving force plot (including composite curve driving force plot); D3 = auxiliary heat flow curves; D4 =
modified temperature field plot;
E = network efficiencies; E1 = energy efficiency; E2 = area efficiency; E3 = units efficiency;
F = match efficiencies; F1 = (fixed heat transfer coefficient) match efficiency; F2 = pressure drop based efficiency;
G = exchanger performance numbers; G1 = FT -factor; G2 = heat transfer coefficient and wall conductivity; G3 = micro scale characteristics;
* = all methods of the mentioned performance analysis group
3 E = total energy requirement; E = utility targets; A = area; n=number of units; C= cost; T=topology; Į = area efficiency; ǻP = optimum exchanger pressure drops
4 q = mentioned by authors; = possible to include;
5 Retrofit options: X = match extension (general size modification); Y = heat transfer enhancement; Q = re-sequence existing exchanger (keep original streams); R = relocate
existing exchanger (other stream(s)); S = stream splits; T = take out (demolish) exchanger; U = add new exchanger;
6 Precreening required, see Chapter 5
Table 30 Design variables taken into account by the available retrofit design methods. Method identifiers are explained in Table 29.
User-directed
Grassroots Based Target Based Evolutionary Rigorous Mathematical
Mathematical
MA
BRI
NIE
TJO
BJO
JON
POL
PTA
ZHE
SAB
SOR
FRA
BUL
ASA
GUL
CAR
ABB
OZG
ZHU
YEA
LAK
ATH
CIR1
CIR2
NIEL
YEE1
YEE2
macro utility duties/operating cost 2 2 2 m 2 m 2 2 2 m 2 f 2 f fr fr m m 2 m 2 m m f f m m
match\shell count
tot. transfer area
network topology
hx Tin\ Tout \ hx duty
hx massflow
ǻP distribution
hx locations c c
investment\profit
reuse equipment
meso unit type (incl. surface)
hx ǻTmin (EMAT) c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
hx size (area\weight)
Ft
hx max ǻP c c
hx detail design (aspects)
micro heat transfer coefficients c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
fouling factor c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
materials c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
2 = one hot and one cold utility, m = multiple utilities, f = utility duties fixed, fr = utility duties initially fixed but relaxed in the last stage of optimisation
= included as design variable, c = included as design constraint
166 Chapter 7
require proper input values that will not change during the refined design stage. For any other design
variables upper and lower bounds and initialisation values may be available from previous design
stages or from the problem definition of the refined design stage.
Table 29 and 30 show the capabilities of each method. Any specific limitations are in the evaluation
Table 31 at the end of this chapter.
7.3 Grassroots-based Retrofit Design Methods
Early systematic retrofit design methods tried to generate networks using grassroots design techniques,
that were as close as possible to the existing design. Jones et al. (1986) used a network generation
program, Hextran, to do this. They varied the constraints on the energy consumption and the
relaxation of the pinch to get different designs. The designer had to judge the compatibility of these
designs with the existing design. If necessary, evolution of the generated design was used to enhance
the compatibility. Even in recent literature (Bagajewicz and Soto, 2003) this approach is still
described, while dedicated retrofit methods are now available. Özgen et al. (1989) used a similar
approach, but without automatic network generation. Zhelev et al. (1987) introduced a 'structural
matrix' representation of heat exchanger networks that facilitates the evaluation of the compatibility of
the new and existing networks.
Saboo et al. (1986a,b) followed a more enhanced retrofit approach that comes close to the user-
directed optimisation methods (Section 7.6.2). First, they analyse the existing structure and calculate
the minimum energy requirement for the network with the existing unmodified exchangers. Next, they
determine the minimum energy requirement for the network with unmodified structure, but with
exchanger size modifications allowed. They defined this as a linear programming problem. They were
also able to evaluate repiping options using the structure analysis iteratively, but more rigorous
modifications were outside the scope of these analyses. Instead, they used their mathematical
grassroots network generation method with some additional constraints to find new structures. They
added constraints to drive the generated network towards the existing structure.
7.4 Design Methods Based on Retrofit Targets
Target-based methods are built on the availability of targets and target-based analysis methods. They
use targets that result from a preceding design stage (Chapter 5), to guide the conceptual network
design. The target-based methods fit very well in the stage-wise design approach presented in Chap-
ter 3, that promotes the use of targets as basis for every refined and final design stage. Target-based
methods extensively use the performance analysis methods (Chapter 4) that relate to these targets.
Tjoe (Tjoe, 1986 and Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1984, 1986, 1987) introduced the first of this kind of retrofit
design methods. Later his method was the basis for methods published by Fraser and Gillespie (1992)
and Panjeh Shahi (Panjeh Shahi, 1992, Polley and Panjeh Shahi, 1990 and Polley et al., 1990). These
extensions address the problems of a large-scale industrial case and pressure drop limitations
respectively. They are summarised below.
The method of Tjoe (Tjoe, 1986 and Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1984, 1986, 1987) has three stages to get a
retrofit network design:
• network improvement based on performance analysis of the existing network,
• network completion based on the pinch design method and
• network evolution similar to grassroots design evolution (Linnhoff and Flower, 1978b) to
reduce the number of new heat exchangers.
Network improvement rigorously analyses the exchangers in the existing network. It reviews the
possibilities to improve the performance of exchangers that perform poorly with respect to the targets.
Energy saving retrofits require the addition of heat transfer area. This gives some flexibility in the
arrangement of the existing area. During network improvement only the tasks of the poorly
performing exchangers are changed (rearrangement) by changing the design inlet temperatures, the
handled massflows (splits) or the matched streams (relocation). Tjoe developed three tools for network
improvement: cross-pinch analysis, the driving force plot and remaining problem analysis. Initially,
Tjoe suggested breaking all matches that violate the pinch, according to cross-pinch analysis, and
reuse the exchangers for new matches that obey the design pinch rules. This problem was hard to solve
and resulted in poor designs. Tjoe improved the method by a number of guidelines to shift exchangers
in thermal space to a more ideal temperature profile, while maintaining the same streams connected.
These guidelines use the driving force plot as design tool. See the Glossary in Appendix B.
Additionally, Tjoe uses the match efficiency to identify the matches that are the most preferred to
change and to evaluate the effect of any established modifications.
Trivedi and O’Neill as quoted by Gundersen (1991) mention another approach for network
improvement, based on their dual temperature approach. According to the review of Gundersen their
method screens the cross-pinch exchangers more systematically, but, as far as known, it has never
been published in open literature.
Network completion fills up the thermal gaps that result from the first stage. The existing area is
generally unable to get the network at the target performance, irrespective of the performance
improvement of the individual exchangers. During network completion we can add area either along
with existing exchangers (size modifications) or in new matches to heat and cool all process streams
effectively to the required target temperatures. The designer should assure the feasibility of the
completed design but the resulting network is often not optimal. Tjoe uses mostly grassroots design
concepts in this stage, but tries to limit the changes of the structure that resulted from the first stage.
The network evolution stage reduces the network that results from network completion to a simpler
design that requires less investment. The approach is comparable to the evolution in the grassroots
pinch design method and Tjoe also uses the same tools: load shifting through paths and loop breaking.
The presence of existing area in most of the matches makes these techniques more complicated.
Fraser and Gillespie (1992) introduced the clear distinction of plant regions in retrofit analysis and
design. They applied grassroots energy targeting and part of Tjoe’s retrofit method to a complete
refinery. They showed how to group related streams and exchangers to individual subproblems and
how to analyse and design for options within and between these subproblems separately. For the
integration between plant regions the authors suggested mainly adaptations of the steam system to
transfer the heat more effectively.
168 Chapter 7
Pressure drop considerations

Panjeh Shahi and Polley (Polley and Panjeh Shahi, 1990, Panjeh Shahi, 1992, and Polley et al., 1990,
1996) extended the method of Tjoe to take into account pressure drops. In line with their pressure drop
based area targeting (see Chapter 5), they introduced the ideal pressure drop distribution (Section
4.5.2) in network design and defined rules to modify the network by rearrangements and stream
splitting to improve the actual pressure drop distribution. They evaluated the existing design and the
modifications by both the match efficiency and the pressure drop based match efficiency (Section
4.5.2). The former relates to the temperature differences and fixed heat transfer coefficients only,
whereas the latter includes the pressure drop as well. Polley et al. (1992) showed that the same tools
are applicable to evaluate the application of heat transfer enhancing devices. Later, Zhu et al. (2000)
presented an approach to select the most optimal type of heat transfer enhancement based on the ratios
of friction factors and heat transfer coefficients of the plain tubes and the tubes with heat transfer
enhancement.
Yeap et al. (2005) introduced a visualisation tool (Section 4.3.5) to determine fouling risks in crude
preheat trains. Additionally, they described a number of heuristics to use this tool to revise the
network and revise or install exchangers to mitigate exchanger fouling.
7.5 Evolutionary Network Screening Methods
7.5.1 Retrofit by Inspection

Until the advent of systematic approaches, retrofit design of heat exchanger networks was performed
by common sense inspection of the existing network, referred to as retrofit by inspection. More
recently, Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara (1996, 1998) and Gulyani and Mohanty (2000)
advocated this retrofit by inspection again, as they found the available methods unreliable or
unnecessary complicated. Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara (1996, 1998) introduced the retrofit
thermodynamic diagram (Section 4.2.1), a renewed graphical representation of the network, and some
guidelines to perform the network analysis. They also presented a software tool, Eclair, that assists the
designer to review the network and to optimise visually changes to the network structure. The authors
suggest performing the retrofit design evolutionary and mentioned four heuristic guidelines to be
checked at each modification step to determine the preferred option. These four guidelines are in
decreasing order of preference:
1shift load through an existing path; first investigate the paths with the fewest exchangers and the
largest existing utility loads;
2 create paths and shifts loads through them; include exchangers that are not too close to the
thermodynamic bound, i.e. don't have too close approach temperatures that may prevent load
shifting;
3 split streams to reduce criss-crossing;
4 relocate exchangers either to reduce criss-crossing or to reuse freed area.
The concepts of Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara are the basis for the constrained logic program-
ming methods of Abbas et al. (1999), Section 7.6.2.
Gulyani and Mohanty (2000) proposed a step-wise retrofit strategy, based on grassroots targets for
heat recovery and number of units. They defined four stages to investigate options with increasing
impact, starting with area addition to existing exchangers, followed by reassignment of existing
exchangers changing one stream, next the reassignment changing both streams, and finally the
addition of new exchangers. The method is, however, hardly elaborated.
7.5.2 Option Screening Tables

Screening methods that are more systematic have been presented by Ptacnik and Chepos (1989) and
by Carlsson et al. (1993). Both methods build a new network specifying one match at a time and using
a tabulated overview of the prospects of all options. These tables take into account the existing
network and will thus present the existing matches as preferred options.
The oldest method of this kind was proposed by Ptacnik and Chepos (1989). They use a simple LP
algorithm to calculate the maximum energy savings for a manually generated set of topologies at a
given exchanger approach temperature. This results in the heat loads for each exchanger (old or new)
and allows the calculation of the required areas and additional shells. They summarise the resulting
energy savings, the required area and additional shells for all evaluated modifications in a number of
tables, referred to as 'Retrofit Analysis Tables'. These tables are used to select the most promising
option to get maximum energy saving with the least impact. After acceptation of an option, they
proceed with the next match for which a new a new set of tables must be generated. The authors
suggest repeating the procedure for a range of approach temperatures to find the value that gives the
most optimum design.
A similar approach, but based on much enhanced cost matrices, was proposed by Carlsson and
coworkers (Carlsson et al., 1993 and Carlsson and Berntsson, 1995). Instead of the approach
temperature they fix the energy saving in advance and suggest optimising this saving by an iterative
use of the method. The authors start the retrofit design from scratch and aim for a retrofitted network
with a strict pinch decomposition, thus dividing the design in one independent design above the pinch
and another below the pinch. If exchangers exist in the original network that transfer heat from below
the pinch to above the pinch and consequently have a temperature difference below ǻTmin, they
suggest changing the energy saving (ǻTmin) level to locate these exchangers either completely above
or below the pinch. If a reverse heat transfer exist, the causing exchangers should be shifted later in the
design, but the designer must decide in advance either to shift it above or below the pinch. Starting
from either the pinch or the stream ends, they look for the match with lowest cost that can be
specified. They base this selection on a cost matrix that includes the cost of each possible match.
These costs may include required (additional) area, type of exchanger, physical distance, pressure
drops and other quantifiable cost. The cost of existing matches will be relatively low in this matrix and
are thus shown as preferred options. When a match is chosen, the matrix is updated to allow the next
selection, until the network above or below the pinch is completed. The same procedure is used at the
other side of the pinch. The reported method does not allow stream splits and the relocation of an
exchanger to another stream match is rather complicated.
170 Chapter 7
7.6 Mathematical Optimisation Methods
Mathematical optimisation methods use one or more models of mathematical equations and
constraints that describe the design problem and an objective function for the performance of the
design. These models are optimised by mathematical solvers to minimise or maximise the objective
function within the feasible domain of the given constraints. We recognize two groups of methods:
• rigorous mathematical methods contain generally rather complex models and mathematical
optimisation strategies to get the optimum network design based on predefined objectives and
constraints;
• user-directed optimisation methods apply one or more simplified models to generate design
alternatives to support a designer to build the optimal network.
Both groups are described below.
7.6.1 Rigorous Mathematical Methods

Rigorous mathematical methods use a formal mathematical approach to conceptual network design.
They define the design problem in terms of mathematical equations and specify all objectives and
constraints in advance. The mathematical equations describe the streams, the heat exchangers and the
connectivity options in the network by means of a superstructure. Next, a mathematical optimisation
tool generates the optimum (set of) designs. When all variables in the optimisation problem are of the
continuous type, Non-Linear Programming (NLP) methods are applied. If the relations between the
variables are all linear, Linear Programming (LP) methods can be used. When also integer variables
are involved Mixed-Integer Non-Linear Programming (MINLP) or Mixed-Integer Linear Program-
ming (MILP) methods are required. If the found optimum does not meet our expectations and we find
a need for additional demands and preferences, we must add the proper constraints or alternative
formulations to the model and restart the design.
There are many representatives of this class of design methods both in grassroots and in retrofit
design. Furman and Sahinidis (2002) review these methods from a mathematical point of view. The
main retrofit conceptual network design methods are described below.
Like in grassroots design (refer to Furman and Sahinidis, 2002), the retrofit methods evolved from
sequential MILP/NLP optimisation strategies with corresponding models to simultaneous MINLP
optimisation methods. The latter methods optimise all design variables at once and should be able to
trade-off all design aspects more rigorously. The resulting optimisation problem is complex. It
requires at least a pre-screening and initialisation stage prior to the solution of the actual optimisation
problem. In grassroots design such strategies proved to be insufficient to solve industrial size
problems. This resulted in several alternative strategies that used either a form of decomposition (eg.
Gundersen et al., 1997) or the introduction of more knowledge to support the solution (Floudas and
Grossmann, 1995). For the retrofit case such alternatives have not been reported to date, but to some
extent the user-directed mathematical methods summarised in the next section fall in this category.
Yee and Grossmann (1987) extended the grassroots MILP transhipment model of Papoulias and
Grossmann (1983) to a MILP assignment transhipment model for retrofit, which is solved to find the
least topological modifications that allow a given heat recovery. It contains no area or cost
considerations and the heat recovery level is fixed in advance. Ciric and Floudas (1988 and 1989)
presented a two stage procedure comprising an enhanced MILP model to optimise the topology and a
NLP model to optimise the cost of a topology. They called their MILP model the generalised match-
network hyperstructure of the retrofit problem. It is built from the superstructures of each individual
process stream, that each contains all possible matches and network configurations for that stream.
Initially, the model includes simple estimations for the required area and the investment cost, that
allow the effective solution. The heat recovery level is still fixed and should be optimised by an
iterative solution of the model. Later the authors (Ciric an Floudas, 1990a,b) extended the model with
enhanced area and cost calculations, that used individual match calculations instead of global area
targets. This resulted, however, in a complex MINLP optimisation problem that was hard to solve by
the 1990 state-of-the-art mathematical optimisation algorithms.
Yee and Grossmann (1991) presented the first method that could optimise for minimum annual cost,
thus trading off operating cost and investments. The method consists of two stages: a prescreening
stage and an optimisation stage. The prescreening stage is comparable with targeting and uses the
same methods: the transhipment algorithm to calculate the utility requirement, the NLP model from
either Colberg and Morari (1990) or Yee et al. (1990) for an area (investment) target and their own
MILP retrofit model (Yee and Grossmann, 1987, see above) for the cheapest set of topological
modifications. From these targets they determined the optimal levels of the heat recovery and all the
topological modifications that are associated with these heat recovery levels. In the optimisation stage
a superstructure is constructed containing all existing exchangers and the new ones that have been
identified in the prescreening stage. All possible configurations of these exchangers are included. The
optimisation of this superstructure to minimise the annual cost is a MINLP problem, which they solve
by various (direct search) optimisation methods.
Ma et al. (2000) presented a two stage approach to get optimum network designs. The first step (Ma et
al., 1999, 2000) is an alternative for the model of Yee and Grossmann (1991), described above, to do
prescreening and initialisation. They linearize the original model by defining a constant approach
temperature for all matches. This removes the non-linearity due to the area calculations and thus
simplifies its solution significantly. They justified this approach by the argument that the driving force
has to be divided equally over the matches and showed that this was effective for a number of cases.
The structure determined with this model was used as starting point for a rigorous MINLP model with
actual approach temperatures, that was used to get the final optimum design.
Some alternative mathematical models have been proposed for specific network retrofit design
problems. Nie and Zhu (1999) presented some NLP models to incorporate pressure drop, shells
arrangement (series and parallel) and the application of heat transfer enhancements. The models fit
within the network pinch retrofit design approach of Asante and Zhu (1996), see Section 7.6.2, and
therefore exclude the main combinatorial problem of stream matching and reuse of existing
exchangers, which is handled by other models of this approach. Sorsak and Kravanja (2004) presented
a model that allows network optimisation with the application of different exchanger types as existing
and new exchangers. They included simplified models and application constraints for double pipe,
plate-and-frame and shell-and-tube exchangers with two shell passes and include these in the network
superstructure. Bulatov (2005) presented a model to retrofit networks with existing multi-stream plate-
fin heat exchangers and maximum reuse of the existing exchangers. He defined an optimisation
framework with a MILP to optimise the stream arrangements and a NLP model to minimise the total
exchanger volume required.
172 Chapter 7
The solution of the rigorous network optimisation models discussed above is generally cumbersome,
especially for large and significantly constrained cases that are common in industry (Bjork and
Nordman, 2005). Random search algorithms, like simulated annealing and genetic programming, are
alternatives to the standard search algorithms used for MINLP optimisation. Simulated annealing is
based on statistics, while genetic programming relies on the simulation of an equivalent of the natural
evolution process, producing successive generations of solutions while retaining only the better
candidate solutions in each generation for producing the next generation. Nielsen et al. (1996) applied
a simulated annealing algorithm to optimise their object-oriented model of heat exchanger networks.
They provided few details about this algorithm and concentrated on the model. Due to its object-
oriented nature, this model can include all kind of exchangers and other equipment and various models
of process and utility streams. As a result the model is very flexible but it is hard to find an optimal
solution. Consequently, the authors suggest using direct search algorithms in addition to simulated
annealing. Such a combination of methods has been reported by Athier et al. (1998), but applied to a
much simpler model. The latter authors use simulated annealing to optimise the topology of the
network and a (sequential quadratic programming) NLP algorithm to optimise the continuous
variables. They found their method robust and applicable to moderate sized problems. Bjork and
Nordman, (2005) used genetic programming to solve a modified form of the retrofit design problems
defined by Yee and Grossmann (1991). They reported good results also for large-scale problems.
7.6.2 User-directed Optimisation Methods

Despite the progress made in the mathematical optimisation algorithms, these still have difficulty to
solve most industrial problems. On the one hand this is due to the limitations of the mathematical
optimizers, on the other hand this is because it is generally very hard to define all constraints and
preferences explicitly prior to design, as required for rigorous mathematical design methods. As a
compromise, some methods have been proposed that combine a number of robust and fairly easy to
solve mathematical models with some user interaction to allow selection of alternatives.
Asante and Zhu (Asante and Zhu, 1996, 1997, Zhu and Asante, 1999) presented a three-stage
approach to find the optimum modifications of an existing network. In the first stage they identify
what they call the network pinch. The network pinch is the location in a network structure at which the
temperature difference between the matched hot and cold streams tend to the minimum allowed
approach temperature when heat is shifted through the paths in this network structure. This network
pinch limits the energy saving potential of the network even further than the well-known process
pinch. The LP model identifies the maximum energy saving that is possible within the analysed
structure. It does not take into account the installed and required heat transfer areas in the matches. In
the second stage they use a MILP model to identify the topology changes that give greatest relaxation
of the network pinch and thus allow the largest energy saving. The authors suggest using the model to
identify a number of alternative options with a varying number of modifications and with varying
weights for the included topology changes: new match, match relocation, utility switch and new utility
exchanger. Zhu and Asante (1999) give several model extensions to handle streams with varying heat
capacity in segmented streams and to optimise stream splitting. Further heuristics to select proper
topology modifications are presented by Varbanov and Klemes (1999, 2000). The third stage uses a
NLP model to optimise the selected topology. In this stage the exchanger areas are also taken into
account. The network is optimised to get the lowest annual cost for utilities and additional investment
for the given topology. Another extension of the method is the work of Nie and Zhu (1999) discussed
in the previous section. The method of Asante and Zhu relies on the designer to decide about the
preferred topology and by-passes many problems of the previously mentioned models. They claim a
fast solution with the models.
Briones and Kokossis (1996, 1999a,b,c) presented a similar, but more cost based approach. Their two-
stage MILP screening presents a number of alternative topology changes and an estimation of the
related additional area and investment for a previously fixed heat recovery level. In the first screening
stage the model screens only two retrofit options: area addition to existing matches and the installation
of new matches. They assign costs to the number of matches that need to be changed or have to added
and to the estimated additional area for each match. The second screening model uses the optimisation
results of the first model and reviews the potential for exchanger relocations and the costs of repiping
as well. This model is an extension of the first model, which is included for computational efficiency.
The authors solve the screening models for a number of heat recovery levels to determine the relation
between saving and investment targets. They plot the saving on investment of each solution of the
‘solution stream’, generated this way, together in one plot to visualise the saving on investment
relation. They called the identified relation based on actual designs hypertargets to differentiate them
from the simpler composite curve based targets. The hypertargets allow the selection of an
economically optimal solution and the related new topology. Finally, this topology is optimised by a
NLP algorithm to minimise its yearly costs. Only in this stage it is possible to include streams splits.
Another combination of insights and optimisation techniques was presented by Abbas et al. (1999).
They captured the heuristics of Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara (1996) (Section 7.5.1) in an
optimisation tool that uses constraint logic programming, a technique from knowledge-based
reasoning. This technique is limited to linear problems and as a consequence the method has
significant limitations. The authors used the tool to add the new matches one at a time to prevent
excessive searching. Meanwhile, this allows some user control over the solution.
7.7 Evaluation of the Existing Design Methods
The previous overview shows that there is a wide variety of design methods. Some of them are
outdated and only included to show the historic developments and the growth of insight in the
problem. The major part of the methods, however, contain elements that are still worth the attention.
Old ideas tend to return as new methods, that are much more efficient: Lakshmanan and Bañares-
Alcántara (1996, 1998) returned to retrofit by inspection, but used the insights from pinch technology
to create a new representation of the network; Asante and Zhu (1996, 1997) improved and extended
the investigation of saving potential in an existing network structure that was earlier described by
Jones et al. (1986), Saboo et al. (1986a,b) and Ptacnik and Chepos (1989); Briones and Kokossis
(1996, 1999a,b,c) created a target-based mathematical approach based on the original target-based
approaches that received much criticism due to the unreliable targets. The last method also renewed
the interest of decomposed mathematical methods with separate MILP and NLP stages, while MINLP
models were thought the best option.
Clearly, insights change and, as we may expect, no method provides the solution for all the retrofit
design problems. Unfortunately, there are only few extended comparisons of design methods in
literature. Most reviews are in the introductions of various new methods. These reviews are generally
very brief and rather biassed with emphasis on the need for the new method. The two most complete
174 Chapter 7
review articles by Gundersen (1990) and by Jezowski (1994b) concentrate in their evaluation on a
long lasting controversy between the pinch or target-based approach and the mathematical approach.
Their conclusion was that the former approach gives the best insight but the latter should be able to
give better solutions in less time. This conclusion is still valid and the hybrid methods of Asante and
Zhu and of Briones and Kokossis are clear attempts to join the best of these two worlds. The most
recent overview by Furman and Sahinidis (2002) is more bibliographic and shows references to
specific topics or design approaches. A comparison of alternative methods is not included.
The overviews in literature are thus insufficient to select a suitable method. This evaluation tries to
give a more complete overview. Table 31 at the end of this section reviews a number of evaluation
aspects of the described retrofit design methods, to facilitate the selection of a design method.
Combined with the Tables 29 and 30, it gives the options that are currently available. The included
evaluation criteria are extracted from the more generic criteria we defined in Section 2.6 and in
Section 3.1. Though many design methods are published and reviewed in the past, no fundamental
discussion of the requirements for such methods is known. Consequently, the insight from the
gathered literature has been used to define our own criteria.
The first column of Table 31 contains the short reference to each method as explained in Table 29.
The methods are ordered, as before, according to their appearance in the text. The next two columns
specify the type of each method. The first of the two columns gives at least two classifications: the
main form and the type of the method. The second column gives the other specification, the design
objective. This is similar for all methods, either the energy saving is maximised or the (annual) costs
are minimised, because only methods that fit in the limited scope of this thesis have been selected.
The next seven columns give a qualitative evaluation of six qualities of the design methods.
1 Math expert and hen expert show the requirements for the designer to use the method
effectively. The expertise in mathematics and the experience in heat exchanger network design
are shown separately as these represents two extremes of design: brute-force optimisation and
smart manual design. They are rated as ‘a’, ‘b’ or ‘c’ in order of increasing level of expertise.
2 Simplicity is a qualitative average of the expert levels joined with an appraisal of the suitability
of the method for novice users. It thus expresses the demands on the users of the method. ****
requires an ‘a’ for both the math and hen expert levels, mentioned above. If one expert level has
a ‘b’, the mark is at most ***, with one ‘c’ it is at most **. A method has gotten a lower mark,
if it is significantly more complex than other methods with similar expert levels.
3 Transparency evaluates the ability of a method to explain and justify the resulting designs. For
mathematical model optimisation methods the transparency is low (*) as it gives a solution
only. Mathematical methods that use additional analyses provide more insight and get a higher
mark. A user-directed method that includes all relevant design aspects gets either *** or ****, if
it includes a clear procedure as well.
4 Traceability reviews how well-structured the design method is. The ideal method for this aspect
is a procedure that asks for a well-defined input and gives well-defined results. The quality of
the result is irrelevant in this aspect. Methods that approach this ideal procedure get ****. If
there is a clear procedure that depends on some user interaction or if the procedure contains
some blank areas, it gets ***. Methods with ** give designers a well-structured guidance to
start and proceed with the design, but the main decisions are left to the designer. The lowest
grade applies for methods that give some rules and ways to get insight, but lack a clear and
complete design approach. Such methods depend mainly on the ability of the designer to find a
feasible solution.
5 Ease indicates the relative work load that is associated with each method to get a complete and
acceptable solution. The methods get **** if the result is achieved with little effort and * when
labourious. The qualifications have been awarded after a pair-wise comparison of all methods
described and are not related to specific marks.
6 Completeness summarises the extent and potential of each method to incorporate different
design aspects. The mark *** is taken as the reference value and applies for methods that
explicitly include energy use, transfer area requirements, costs and reuse of existing exchangers
and meanwhile can take into account a number of practical constraints. Important additions to
this standard are awarded with an extra *, whereas the lack of each basic feature is charged with
one * less. Examples of important additions are pressure drop and advanced topology
considerations.
Finally, the last column of the evaluation table gives the main features and limitations of each method.
What can we say about individual and groups of methods? The grassroots based methods are
essentially outdated, but contain useful elements that have been included in recently presented retrofit
methods, as discussed above. Nevertheless, the use of network simulation still is an attractive tool for
those designers that are more familiar with simulation than with the more fundamental and abstract
network design methods. It is very likely that they will miss good opportunities, as they lack the
necessary overview.
Target-based methods are built around this global view on the design. They are superior to other
methods in providing insight in the design problem and the design options. Additionally, the design
method of Polley and coworkers is the only one that takes pressure drop into account. The target-based
methods require that the designer searches and identifies all options him- or herself and makes all
design decisions. Experienced designers will probably prefer such an approach, but it complicates its
use for novice designers. There has been much criticism on retrofit targets in literature. See also the
method evaluation in Chapter 5. Carlsson et al. (1993) and Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara (1996)
find that they are unreliable and thus will confuse the design by target-based methods. More enhanced
targeting methods like from Briones and Kokossis (1999a,b,c) will give more reliable targets, but in
general retrofit targets must be handled with care. The overview, any trends and the design
initialisation and demarcation based on targeting is, however, worthwhile.
The inspection and heuristic method of Lakshmanan and Bañares-Alcántara (1996) also puts much
emphasis on the gain of insight. The lack of targets, however, complicates the decisions about where
to start and how to proceed especially for large designs. The method of Ptacnik and Chepos (1989) is
difficult to understand and to apply, but the main concept is useful and approaches the one adopted by
Asante and Zhu. The method of Carlsson and coworkers is the only one that can systematically
include any cost-based design factor. Apart from the limitations of the approach with respect to the
included design options, it has the principal drawback that it starts the design virtually from scratch.
This results in a great design effort and tends to give poor designs, unless the designer is very keen in
keeping the existing structure. The results from Carlsson’s method will probably deviate from the ones
from other methods, but it is not likely that they will be better. The approach of Gulyani and Mohanty
(2000) is hardly usable as a design method. It mainly shows an order of preference for different
general network retrofit options. It is up to the designer to find relevant opportunities.
176 Chapter 7
The mathematical retrofit models currently describe all main aspects of retrofit design. Theoretically,
the method of Yee and Grossmann (1991) is superior as it solves all variables simultaneously. This
would result in the true global optimum, whereas other only approach this optimum in the ideal case.
The price for this improved validity is a hard to solve optimisation problem. For most cases it is
impossible to guarantee the global optimum, because the solver may be trapped in a local optimum.
The pre-screening by simplified models will reduce the chance to get trapped, but it will not prevent it.
Simulated annealing may also be applied for pre-screening and initialisation of such model-based
optimisation methods. The simulated annealing algorithm itself is generally too inefficient to solve
NLP problems, but it may be useful for integer programming.
Irrespective of the possibility to find the global optimum, it is questionable whether this will be the
most desired solution for the case anyway. In the first place it is difficult to capture all design aspects
in the model, the object function and the constraints, while the more you include often the harder the
solution of the mathematical problem. Additionally, there are generally many acceptable solutions
close to the optimum. A designer may find some of them more useful than the mathematical optimum,
because he or she will use knowledge that is not or insufficiently available in the model. The
mathematical methods allow the identification of near optimal solutions through the addition of more
constraints, but for large (industrial) size cases this will be a tedious job.
The user-directed methods try to overcome the above mentioned difficulties of mathematical
optimisation methods by the introduction of knowledge and user-interaction. They reduced the
mathematical part to MILP and NLP models, that they found fairly easy to solve. Obviously, the
required linearisation is a concession to the accuracy: Asante and Zhu ignore transfer areas when they
optimise the topology, Briones and Kokossis have left the optimisation of the heat recovery level out
of their model and Abbas et al. (1999) accepted a number of important limitations on the solution and
the solution process. The limitations of the last method seem too essential to allow its general
application. The two other methods are probably much more generally applicable, but they will have
poor results for particular groups of cases. An important feature of both methods is their ability to
include practical constraints through user-interaction.
Specific methods for the application of special enhanced heat transfer equipment are relatively new.
The application of heat transfer enhancements (Zhu et al. 2000, Nie and Zhu, 1999), multi-stream
plate fin exchangers (Bulatov, 2005) and the design for fouling mitigation in crude preheat trains
(Yeap et al., 2005) are all relevant specialities. The methods are, however, rather specific and seem
difficult to incorporate in more generic retrofit design methods. Only the mathematical approach of
Sorsak and Kravanja (2004) gives a more unified approach with conventional and advanced
equipment, but only with two-stream exchangers.
Table 31 gives many options for intermediate and advanced users. New users have only few options.
Probably, they are best helped by the target-based methods to get insight and experience. Large cases
will be too difficult to handle without sufficient insight, irrespective of the method used. When the
user is sufficiently familiar with the heat exchanger network design problem in general, he or she can
select a suitable method for his or her experience and for the case to be done.
The tables 29 and 30 show the capabilities of the current methods. Table 30 shows that there are at
least a few alternative methods for all design variables. The least alternatives are available for heat
exchanger location (representing plot and flowsheet related aspects), unit and surface type and heat
exchanger details. The lack of methods that take into account heat exchanger details is remarkable as
these details often determine the applicability and performance of existing exchangers, especially
when applied in a new service. Apparently, it is not (yet) possible to evaluate key exchanger details in
network design. Consequently, it is essential to check the assumed performance of reused heat
exchangers with detailed exchanger rating models, as included in the design approach of Chapter 3.
The most complete methods with respect to included design variables are the methods of Polley and
Panjeh Shahi (1990), Carlsson et al. (1993) and Zhu and coworkers (Asante and Zhu, 1996, Nie and
Zhu, 1999). Only the method of Carlsson et al. includes both heat exchanger location and, to a certain
extent, unit type selection. This method is very labourious and gives little insight. For inexperienced
designers it will be hard to use. The two other methods allow incorporation in the design of case
specific preferences and limitations by user interactions, but they include no way to address these
issues systematically.
The design methods that handle different types of exchangers are all based on the evaluation of all
alternatives. The costs and benefits of all types at each match is evaluated individually or as part of an
optimisation. They give no fundamental insight in the advantages of one type of exchangers over
another for a specific match and do not use such information to identify opportunities. Such a method
is only available for the application of heat transfer enhancement (Zhu et al., 2000).
The application of multi-stream plate-fin heat exchangers in retrofit is only described by Bulatov
(2005). His approach includes both existing and new multi-stream heat exchangers. It is a rigorous
mathematical method, which has some drawbacks as discussed above. Besides, it does not allow
different heat exchanger types and the presence of other existing two-stream heat exchangers.
The preceding discussion shows the following limitations of the available conceptual design methods,
which we should take into account during method selection and which may be subject for further
research:
• few methods are usable for novice designers; the method is either too complex or it results in
inadequate designs;
• exchanger details can hardly be taken into account during network design and must be checked
afterwards;
• design for new multi-stream heat exchangers is not possible;
• design with alternative exchanger types is only described as mathematical optimisation
problem; no fundamental design guidelines are available.
Table 31 Retrofit Design Method Evaluation. Refer to Page180 for table notes.
Short Ref 1) Method Design Objective Qualifications Features and Limitations
Type 2) math hen simpl trans trace- ease comple
expert expert icity paren ability teness
3) 4) cy
Grassroots -based Retrofit Design Methods
JON D max E saving a a/b *** ** ** *** ** Hextran used; no systematic topology design
OZG GB max E saving; least units a c * ** * *** * case study based approach
ZHE PB max E saving a b * ** *** ** * structural matrix
SAB PDB max E saving b b ** ** ** ** ** interactive software (RESHEX) used; exploits existing path first
M2/3
Design Methods Based on Retrofit Targets
TJO PC max E saving a c 5) ** *** ** ** *** many analysis methods included; evolution very complicated in
retrofit.
FRA PC max E saving a b 5) *** ** ** *** * zoning; combination of available techniques.
POL PC min total cost a b 5) ** *** ** ** **** ǻP dependent heat transfer coefficient
ZHU GC min transfer area a c ** ** * ** * optimise use of heat transfer enhancement
YEA CHG mitigate fouling a c ** ** * ** * use of modified temperature field plot to guide retrofit design
for a single cold stream
Evolutionary Network Screening Methods
LAK DH max E saving a b 5) *** ** * *** ** path selection heuristics;
stream splits and large problems difficult to handle.
PTA GDM1 max E saving a b ** * ** *** * incomplete description of method.
CAR PD min total cost a c * ** ** * **** all cost related aspects may be included;
complicated design around pinch.
GUL PGD min complex topology a b *** **** ** **** * gives order of preference of type of topology change; actual
changes network design not elaborated.
Short Ref 1) Method Design Objective Qualifications Features and Limitations
Type 2) math hen simpl trans trace- ease comple
expert expert icity paren ability teness
3) 4) cy
Rigorous Mathematical Methods
YEE1 M2 min changes for fixed E b a/b *** * **** **** ** network optimisation of fixed utility duties.
CIR1 M2/3P min total cost for fixed E b a/b *** * **** **** ** optimisation of E only for fixed topology
CIR2 M4P min total cost for fixed E c a/b ** * **** *** *** hyperstructure; optimisation of E only for fixed topology; hard
to solve for large problems
YEE2 M2/3/4 min total cost c a/b ** * *** ** *** superstructure model; hard to solve for large problems;
MA M2/4P min total cost c a/b ** * **** *** *** MILP model to initialise final MINLP model
NIEL M5 min total cost b+ b * ** **** *** ** object oriented network model allows different hx types; limited
description; hard to solve for large problems.
ATH M3/5 min total cost c b * * *** ** *** simulated annealing for topology optimisation;
hard to solve for large problems.
NIE M3 min utility and total cost b/c b ** * *** ** ** two-stage optimisation A) units, B) shells but only relevant
part; iteration between both models required
SOR M4 min total cost c b * * **** *** *** exchanger type selected based on hx size and operating
conditions (temperature); FT correction for shell-and-tube hx
BJO M4/5 min total cost c b * * *** *** ** max 1 match (new or existing) between stream pairs;
decomposition in subnetworks by genetic algorithm;
subnetworks solved by MINLP
BUL M2/3P min unit size b b ** ** *** *** ** retrofit of multi-stream plate fin exchangers
User-directed Optimisation Methods
ASA PHD min util use b b ** ** ** *** **** splits handled manually (heuristics); point utils only; two-stage
M1/2/3 min total cost 6) screening/optimisation; models only partly published.
BRI M2 min total cost b b ** ** ** ** **** set of alternative solutions; tested on industrial cases;
debottlenecking possible; models for fixed heat recovery level.
ABB FHM max E saving b+ b ** *** ** **** ** design based on logic rules; isothermal mixing; fixed stream
split ratios; max 1 heat exchanger between streams.
180 Chapter 7
Notes for Table 31

1 Refer to Table 30 and the literature list for the complete references.
2 P = procedure; H = heuristics; G = concept (not worked out in detail)
M = model for mathematical optimisation: M1 = LP; M2 = MILP; M3 = NLP; M4 = MINLP; M5 = other
method as simulated annealing or genetic programming;
C = existing heat exchanger network improvement followed by thermal gap completion;
D = evolutionary design enhancement;
F = expert system or AI;
3 a = basic math only; b = moderate math but well defined; c = complex math
4 a = starter level; b = intermediate level; c = advanced heat exchanger network design expert level
5 Method is usable for starters as well, but expertise is necessary to circumvent the pitfalls of the method, see
text.
6 Decomposed solution
Retrofit Design with Alternative Exchanger Types 181
Chapter 8
Retrofit Design with Alternative
Exchanger Types
A new conceptual network retrofit design method that exploits the

benefits of alternative exchanger types in retrofit design is elaborated and
demonstrated in this chapter. The design method, referred to as the
Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure, is based on eight guidelines that
direct the designer to more optimum designs, give ways to use existing
equipment effectively and optimise the application of strictly counter-
current and multi-pass exchangers within a network. The design
procedure recognizes steps for initialisation of the design, for
improvement of the efficiency of the existing exchangers and for
efficient network completion. Initialisation sets the design scope and
objectives, based on retrofit targets. The efficiency of the existing
exchangers is improved by thermal shifting and stream splitting with
practical constraints. The improvements are aimed at the creation of
smooth thermal gaps at locations with low driving forces. This simplifies
the final network completion steps and takes the most advantage of the
potential of new advanced two- and multi-stream exchangers. The
method is illustrated and evaluated with a simplified crude preheating
train case study.
182 Chapter 8
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 Context
The review in the previous chapter identified a number of refined conceptual network retrofit design
methods that take into account heat exchanger details systematically. Most of these methods focus on
details of multi-pass exchangers and recognize specific inefficiencies and limitations compared to
ideal strictly counter-current heat exchangers. The methods that have these capabilities for multi-pass
exchangers are shown in Table 29 in Chapter 7. There is a number of alternative exchanger types that
may also be applied. Section 1.3.2 reviews these types and gives their features and limitations. An
adequate systematic approach to apply these types in (retrofit) network design is not available.
Carlsson et al. (1993) calculate their match cost matrices taking into account the selected exchanger
type for each match. This allows the evaluation of alternative types. Nielsen et al. (1996) and Sorsak
and Kravanja (2004) included the option of alternative exchanger types in their optimisation models
for retrofit network design. Bulatov (2005) presented another optimisation model, which allows
retrofit design with existing multi-stream plate fin exchangers. Besides, the network design with
different exchanger types can be done using the network simulation approach of Jones et al. (1986)
and the design approach for pressure drop constrained networks of Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1990),
Panjeh Shahi (1992) and Polley et al. (1990, 1992, 1996), although this capability is not explicitly
mentioned by the authors. Polley and Haslego (2002b) discussed the use of two- and multi-stream
plate exchangers in heat exchanger network retrofit, but presented no new design guidelines.
The above mentioned methods either allow the analysis and evaluation of networks with different heat
exchanger types, the mathematical optimisation of such networks, or they focus just on the application
of one heat exchanger type only. There are no basic guidelines for retrofit network design to exploit
the qualities of specific heat exchanger types, which can be available as existing or new equipment.
Also in grassroots network design literature the exchanger type selection is ignored until selection is
required during the detailed design of selected matches. Alternative types can be identified and
evaluated based on the requirements of the specified exchanger service and selection guidelines like in
Section 1.3.2 and Hewitt (1992). Most retrofit design methods mentioned above have grassroots
design equivalents.
A number of grassroots design methods take into account design details and limitations of multi-pass
shell-and-tube exchangers, including Polley and Linnhoff (1988), Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991,
1996), Reddy et al. (1998), Ravagnani et al. (2003) and Mizutani et al. (2003b).
Similar methods are available for plate-fin exchangers by Picón-Núñez et al. (2002), Pua and Zhu
(2002) and Picón-Núñez et al. (2006). Sorsak and Kravanja (2002b) also presented a grassroots
equivalent to do mathematical optimisation of networks with different exchanger types. As for retrofit,
the above mentioned grassroots design methods provide no basic guidelines to optimise networks with
different heat exchanger types and effectively exploit the qualities of specific exchanger types.
8.1.2 Objective
In this chapter we want to develop a new retrofit network design method for refined conceptual retrofit
design that takes into account the qualities of specific types of heat exchangers to determine the
network topology and to specify individual matches to get an optimum heat exchanger network. As we
have no supporting grassroots design method to optimise the network design with different heat
exchanger types, we focus on a simplified retrofit problem, in which:
• the existing network consists of a single type of exchangers;
• two types of new exchangers may be installed: either the existing type or one selected
alternative new type may be used;
• new exchangers may be joined in the multi-stream version of the new type, if applicable.
These restrictions simplify the problem of selecting between various new types, and keep the research
scope manageable. Meanwhile, it allows equal treatment of all existing exchangers. Apart from the
aforementioned restrictions, we will base our new method on the refined conceptual network design
problem as specified in Table 19 in Chapter 3. This way the new method will also fit in the general
retrofit design framework presented in Chapter 3. The embedding in this framework gives some
additional requirements and opportunities for the new design method:
• the method should effectively use the results of the preceding design stages, including the
retrofit targets from the preliminary conceptual design stage;
• the method should verify the validity of the results of the preceding stages;
• the method can rely on the detailed design stages that will follow the refined conceptual
network design stage to elaborate details and verify assumptions.
Refer to Appendix A for a listing of additional assumptions and limitations.
A predecessor of this new method has been presented before by Van Reisen et al. (1995b).
8.1.3 Method Criteria

The new refined conceptual network design method should primarily meet the specifications given in
the previous section. Additionally, we will use the same criteria as used for the evaluation of existing
design methods in Chapter 7 for the development and evaluation of the new design method: i.e. exper-
tise required, simplicity, transparency, straightness, efforts and completeness. The previous section
especially emphasized the need for basic guidelines that provide know-how and know-why about the
optimum application of specific exchanger types. We will therefore especially aim for transparency.
8.2 Example Problem
Before we elaborate the new design approach, we will illustrate the design problem with an example.
Consider the network of Figure 38 that is part of a simplified existing crude preheat train. All existing
exchangers, except the heater, are multi-pass shell-and-tube exchangers with one shell pass and two
tube passes (1-2 shell-and-tube exchangers). Retrofit targeting showed an economical saving potential
of 26.4 MW, assuming changes will be allowed throughout the shown network. The network design
objective is to find the most economical network that will give the target saving potential and is
practically feasible.
In Chapter 6 we explained that duty saving requires the shift of heat through a path from a heater that
uses hot utility to a cooler that uses cold utility. The example network has only one heater and
consequently the target saving must be achieved in this heater. Any paths used for duty saving must
start with this heater. On the other hand, the example network contains four coolers. We can distribute
184 Chapter 8
270 ° 138.9 ° 40 °
H2 C2
11312
350 ° 128.1 ° 30 °
H3 C3
380 ° 3316
228.9 ° 50 °
H4 C4
26048
150 ° 115 ° 100 °
H5 C5
290 ° 9890 190 °

H6
`
390 ° 235.4 ° 193° 119° 90.2 ° 75.8 ° 31.54 °
C1 H1
80418 E6 E5 E4 E3 E2
38450 \ 2356 7500 \ 241
22000 \ 1183 15000 \ 729 23023 \ 1223
Figure 38 Original network grid for example problem with stream temperatures [°C] and existing duty
[kW] \ area [m2] specification for each exchanger.
the total target duty saving arbitrarily over these four coolers. The original network already contains
heat paths between the heater and any of the four coolers.
The network pinch analysis of Zhu and Asante (1999) as available in Aspen Pinch (1999) shows that
the existing structure allows a saving of 14.9 MW with a minimum approach temperature of 0C. This
is below the saving target, whereas realistic temperatures differences, well above 0C, in the exchan-
gers will limit the saving with the existing structure even further. The existing exchangers are multi-
pass exchangers, which generally require a significantly higher approach temperature to prevent high
area inefficiencies. The area efficiency drops dramatically when the streams have significant temper-
ature cross, i.e. when the hot outlet temperature is significantly below the cold outlet temperature, and
two or more shells in series are required to get the specified heat transfer.
Apparently, we need topology changes to get the desired duty saving. Additionally, we have to find an
efficient way to reuse the existing exchangers and to select from the available options to install new
transfer area as described in the sections 2.4.2 and 2.5.2. With the new design method we approach
systematically and based on insight in the design problem the following design questions:
• What is an efficient (thermal) location for the existing multi-pass exchangers ?
• Is it efficient to use all existing equipment?
• What is the most efficient distribution of duty reduction of a specific utility over the existing
users, in other words, what should be the target duty for individual utility exchangers?
• What structure modifications are required to get the required duty saving:
• exchanger repiping and relocations;
• addition of new matches;
• stream splits.
• What network design aspects should be taken into account to select efficiently from the three
available exchanger types:
• multi-pass shell-and-tube exchangers;
• single-pass strictly counter-current exchangers;
• multi-stream strictly counter-current heat exchangers.

We will address these issues in the subsequent sections in which we will elaborate a new refined
conceptual design method that guides answering these questions in a practical way. As we will show,
the key to the answers is in eight guidelines that results in the following basic design approach:
• isolate the relevant network part for design;
• determine preliminary duties for each utility exchanger;
• shift existing process-to-process exchangers in thermal space to improve the exchanger
efficiency but with maximum reuse of the existing stream routing;
• further enhance the efficiency of the existing exchangers using a revised utility assignment,
stream splits, exchanger swap, relocation or discard, while recognizing the properties of the
existing and new exchanger types;
• complete the created thermal gap(s) with new two- or multi-stream exchangers.
8.3 Network Design Guidelines
In Section 8.1.2 we specified a number of requirements for the new network design method. We
especially identified a need for basic design guidelines to make efficient designs based on a good
understanding of the design problem. This section presents a number of such guidelines and their
background, including relevant insights and assumptions. The guidelines are divided in two groups:
• basic guidelines applicable to any heat exchanger network irrespective of the used exchanger
types;
• guidelines for effective use of multi-pass, strictly counter-current and multi-stream heat
exchangers.
Box 3 summarises the guidelines. The subsequent sections give the basis of these guidelines and more
details. The guidelines are complementary to each other and may be applied simultaneously.
Box 3 Summary of Network Design Guidelines

General
Guideline I Use targeting to initialise and to guide the design.
Guideline II Assess and effectively reuse the existing equipment prior to installation of new
equipment.
Guideline III Avoid design evolution to simplify an inefficient retrofit design.
Guideline IV Take into account the actual impact of topology changes and match extensions on
the heat transfer equipment and associated piping.
Exchanger type dependent

Guideline V Recognize temperature cross limitations of multi-pass exchangers while
intensifying heat recovery.
Guideline VI Take into account the FT-factor while improving the efficiency of exchangers by
thermal shifting and stream splitting.
Guideline VII Exploit the potential of specific exchanger types to rationalize stream splits.
Guideline VIII Apply multi-stream exchangers to improve transfer efficiency, relax plot space
requirements and save on network costs.
186 Chapter 8
8.3.1 General Applicable Heat Exchanger Network Design Guidelines
Guideline I Use targeting to initialise and to guide the design

The target and preliminary design stages of the conceptual design phase of the generic retrofit design
framework precede the refined network design and provide targets for utility duties, transfer area, the
number of transfer units and area efficiency. Structural Targeting, the new targeting method based on
integrity zones presented in Chapter 6, also provides structure targets, which give the essential parts of
the original network that need to be modified. Both the basic and structured targets should be used to
initialise the refined network design and to guide subsequent design steps.
The initialisation using the structured targets can significantly reduce the refined design effort. We
simply hide all non-essential parts of the original network, i.e. the non-essential exchangers and the
(parts of the) streams that are matched by these exchangers. This often gives a much smaller network
for retrofit design, depending on the level of integration of the original network and the severity of the
saving demands specified for the retrofit project.
Guideline II Assess and effectively reuse the existing equipment prior to installation of new
equipment
The existing installation is valuable capital in retrofit, which must be reused as efficiently as possible
(Tjoe and Linnhoff, 1986, Gundersen, 1990). The revenues of energy saving retrofit are often small
and inefficient reuse of the existing area can easily jeopardize the retrofit project. The pinch design
philosophy is to start design at the most significant constraint for design. Obviously, the existing
exchangers are the main constraint in heat exchanger network retrofit. Consequently, we should start
retrofit design with the assessment of the existing equipment and the specification of new tasks for this
equipment. The retrofit design should take into account both the existing exchangers and the
associated existing plant installation including piping, civil structures and rotating equipment (Polley
and Panjeh Shahi, 1990, Polley et al., 1990).
In some cases, discard of existing equipment may be unavoidable or beneficial:

• Excess area of utility exchangers that get a reduced load is often dedicated area for that utility
(eg. air coolers) or is maintained as spare capacity and flexibility.
• High saving requirements may force rigorous network renovation that is only possible with
(partial) replacement of the network.
• It may be more efficient to replace the existing exchanger to get plot space available and save
on installation cost, if a new (compact) exchanger is necessary in parallel with an existing
exchanger and this new exchanger can easily be extended with the area of the existing
exchanger.
Heaters and coolers, like fired heaters and reboilers, may have turndown limits. Retrofit will reduce
the load on those heaters and coolers. The existing equipment may thus limit the achievable saving or
force an alternative duty assignment, especially when there are operational turndown requirements.
The heat recovery pinch is the main constraint in grassroots heat exchanger network design, but this
pinch is less important in retrofit design until all existing exchangers are fixed.
Guideline III Avoid design evolution to simplify an inefficient retrofit design

Pinch technology-based design methods generally contain design evolution as the final step to
simplify the network and to reduce the final network cost (Kemp, 2007). This is also advocated for
retrofit (Tjoe, 1986). Design evolution is, however, a very complicated and rather ambiguous task in
retrofit. This may be simplified with adequate tools that check not only the heat load of matches but
also the estimated transfer area required. Nevertheless, it is difficult to keep sufficient overview and
understanding, when we apply evolution to a large network with extended loops and paths. It will
generally be a tedious job in which a proper trade-off between saving and investment is hardly
possible. Besides, design evolution is based on matches and thus neglects the installation costs of any
extensions of the match areas. This is generally an invalid assumption in retrofit and as a consequence
the aimed cost reduction may eventually give a cost increase. We will, therefore, avoid design
evolution simplifying the initial retrofit designs as much as possible, to avoid the mentioned
ambiguous steps in design evolution and the possible undesired results. We use enhanced targeting
that simplifies the initial design problem and result in more rational initial designs, instead.
Apart from the design evolution to simplify designs, mentioned above, there are also evolutionary
retrofit design methods that make step-wise improvements of the original network. These methods are
discussed as a separate class of network design methods in Section 7.6.2, labelled as user-directed
optimisation methods. This is a different kind of evolution that is outside the scope of this guideline
and need not to be avoided.
Guideline IV Take into account the actual impact of topology changes and match extensions
on the heat transfer equipment and associated piping
Topology changes and match extensions generally seem straightforward in the grid diagram used for
network design. The actual impact on the related heat transfer equipment and the connected piping
may, however, be much more complex than anticipated. The proposed changes may turn out to be
infeasible, which requires revision of the retrofit design. Below, we give some detailed guidelines as
elaboration of the general Guideline IV, to check for infeasibilities in an early stage. These relate to
match extension with topology impact, minimisation of the number of tie-ins, excessive piping costs
due to inefficient matches and ineffective stream assignment to existing exchangers.
Guideline IV-a Recognize the difference between shell extension and shell addition as
alternatives for match extension
The extension of the heat transfer capacity of matches does not change the match topology and thus
seems to have only minor (installation) costs in match-based approaches. In a number of cases this
will be true as many exchangers have substantial over-design and the used heat transfer coefficients
are often rather conservative. Two of the four alternatives for size modifications (Table 11, Chapter 2),
heat transfer augmentation and tube bundle replacement also have little additional installation cost, but
in many cases these modifications are insufficient or unacceptable. Generally, we need to add one or
more new shells if we want to extend the existing match14. Such a modification is, with respect to
installation costs, comparable to the installation of a new unit, as it requires changes in piping and
supports and may result in lay-out problems. Eventually, replacement of a shell with a larger one may
be a cheaper solution, even when we have to discard the existing shell.
14
A match is a thermal link between streams, while a shell is a physical piece of equipment. Refer to the
Glossary in Appendix B for a more elaborated definition.
188 Chapter 8
When necessary, we can add new shells in several ways. We can add them in series at either side of
the existing shells or in parallel with the existing shells. The selection between series or parallel place-
ment affects the performance of the exchangers (see the next section) and therefore we should include
this already in conceptual retrofit network design. This is uncommon in retrofit design literature,
except in literature on heat exchanger network retrofit design with pressure drop constraints (Panjeh
Shahi, 1992, Nie and Zhu, 1999). If pressure drop is ignored, the heat transfer area is, generally,
lumped in a match and handled as a single exchanger. This eases the conceptual design but may give
infeasible results. Eventually, an approach that recognizes individual shells and the captured structure
of shells in series or in parallel will be more transparent. It may also open hidden opportunities such as
the swap between a series and parallel configuration or the relocation of a single shell from a match
with excess area, to allow its reuse in another service (see also Guideline VII below).
Guideline IV-b Minimise the number of tie-in points by effective placement of exchanger shells
A tie-in point is an interface between new and existing equipment. Each tie-in point gives much work
in detailed engineering and construction and additional installation costs. Therefore, we should aim for
a minimum number of tie-in points in network design. This requires the efficient placement of new
equipment.
An example of such an efficient placement is shown in Figure 39. The retrofit design in this example
requires area addition in new shells for two matches. Additionally, a new shell is added to make a new
match. In Alternative A each new shell is put apart, which results in four tie-in points per shell, twelve
in total. In Alternative B all new shells are placed side by side, which results in eight tie-in points, a
reduction of four tie-ins. The efficiency of the heat exchanger network is unaffected.
Guideline IV-c Minimise the impact of assigning new streams to existing exchangers
In some cases the present physical position of an exchanger in a network is very inefficient. This is a
real problem only when it blocks the target energy saving as it uses too much driving force. The
auxiliary heat flow curves (Section 4.3.7 and Appendix C) clearly show such inefficient exchangers.
Besides, inefficient exchangers can complicate the remaining network design and give poor results. In
both cases we should consider a different service for this exchanger or, occasionally, one of its shells.
Again there are various alternatives, Figure 40 :
• connect to the same streams but in a different exchanger order at one or both sides (swap
exchangers);
• change the serviced stream at one side (relocate one side);
• change the serviced streams at both sides (relocate exchanger).
Obviously, these modifications have a significant impact on the piping and may even require a
physical relocation of the exchanger. Also the flow direction may change, which may be infeasible or
may require expensive equipment modifications. A change of service demands a careful evaluation of
the mechanical capabilities of the existing exchanger, primarily the construction material and the
maximum allowable design conditions of that exchanger. An exchanger swap generally has the least
impact. The mechanical requirements remain the same in most cases, whereas reuse of part of the
original piping is likely. A careful selection of the necessary rerouting avoids excessive additional
costs. Exchanger relocations will generally require more rerouting of pipes than exchanger swap and
will tend to be more costly. We should recognize this while selecting an alternative.
H
H
Original Network
tie-in
point tie-in
point
C C
H H
H H
Alternative A (12 tie-in points) Alternative B (8 tie-in points)
Figure 39 Alternative new shell locations and number of tie-in points
A B C
A
H B
Original Network
A B C B A C
B A
H A H B
Alternative A Alternative B
Figure 40 The swap of Exchanger A and B at the hot side in Alternative B is preferred
over the relocations of the cold sides of Exchanger A and B in alternative A.
Guideline IV-d Recognize piping requirements of new stream assignments and new matches
The network grid diagram shows connections of streams between exchangers as simple lines. In
reality, the physical location of network elements (heat exchangers, source and target of streams) may
be far apart, while other elements are close together. This may also be the case for new connections
between existing network elements and added connections with the new exchangers. The network grid
does not allow analysis of the complexity of connections adequately. In addition, we need to check the
process flow diagram and the plot plan.
The integrity zones introduced in Chapter 6 may be based on the physical location of streams and
equipment. We can adapt the network grid diagram to show the different integrity zones. If we match
streams from different integrity zones, we know the related pipe routings are more complex than if we
match streams within an integrity zone. This will avoid unexpected network complexity. An example
of a network grid diagram with integrity zones is in Figure 36 in Section 6.4.4.
190 Chapter 8
Figure 41 Reducing driving forces (temperature differences) in composite curves saves energy. Qsav,cc is
the energy saving for a counter-current heat exchanger, Qsav,nto is the energy saving for one
exchanger with no temperature overlap that is the limit for a multi-pass shell.
Figure 42 Effect of CPm on the maximum additional saving by strictly counter-current exchangers
8.3.2 Guidelines for Effective Use of Multi-Pass, Counter-current and Multi-Stream

Exchangers
Guideline V Recognize temperature cross limitations of multi-pass exchangers while

intensifying heat recovery
The key issue of heat exchanger network retrofit is the recovery of heat by intensified process-to-
process heat exchange that reduces the need for supply and release of heat from and to utilities (Tjoe
and Linnhoff 1986, Asante and Zhu, 1996). This requires a reduction of the driving forces, i.e. the
temperature differences, used for heat exchange as illustrated in the composite curves of Figure 41.
Tjoe (1986) already used this insight for his rules to shift exchangers in thermal space and to split
streams.
Figure 41 also shows that the reduction of the driving forces may result in a temperature cross, i.e. an
overlap of the hot and cold stream temperatures within a match when the hot outlet temperature is
below the cold outlet temperature. We will need more than one heat transfer unit (see Glossary,
Appendix B) in a match, if we need to heat a cold stream above the resulting hot outlet temperature.
This requirement complicates the application of multi-pass exchangers, including most of the
commonly used shell-and-tube exchangers. Multi-pass exchangers contact the hot and cold streams
less efficiently than strictly counter-current exchangers. Consequently, multi-pass exchangers have at
most one heat transfer unit per shell. We will need more multi-pass shells in series if we need more
heat transfer units, as required to establish a temperature cross in a match. For an economic trade-off
we must take into account the fixed costs per shell. An additional shell gives additional saving scope
for multi-pass exchangers. This saving scope must justify the additional shell costs. These shell costs
are often too high and consequently the saving scope with multi-pass exchangers is limited.
Advanced heat exchangers with strictly counter-current streams have a clear advantage in these
situations. The impact of this effect increases when the lowest heat capacity flowrate within the match
increases. A larger minimum heat capacity flowrate, CPm, will reduce the effectiveness of a single heat
transfer unit, whereas it increases the saving duty per unit reduction of driving force (Figure 42).
Strictly counter-current heat exchangers are thus advantageous compared to multi-pass heat
exchangers, when they need less shells for the same service. The exploitation of this advantage
requires knowledge about possible temperature overlaps. This is facilitated by the composite curves.
Composite curves generally contain pinched and wide areas. Temperature overlaps are more likely to
occur in pinched areas than in wide areas, as on average the temperatures in the pinched areas are
closer together. Consequently, the strictly counter-current exchangers will be most advantageous in the
pinched areas. Still, there may be opportunities in the wide areas as well, as the composite curves only
give the mean temperature differences, whereas individual matches may still require a considerable
overlap.
Guideline VI Take into account the FT-factor while improving the efficiency of exchangers by
thermal shifting and stream splitting
The costs to retrofit a network depend on the amount of area that must be added. In Section 5.4.3 we
showed that this amount of new area, Aadd, depends on the efficiency, Įex, of the existing area, Aex,
which we expressed in the following relation for a target energy use, Etar,:
192 Chapter 8
A tar ( E tar )
A tar,add ( E tar ) = − A ex (36)
αex
with Atar,add the minimum area target at Etar [m2];
Įnew the area efficiency of the added area [-].
The minimum area target can be approximated by the transfer area of a vertically aligned virtual net-
work (Townsend and Linnhoff, 1984). This vertical alignment of exchangers in thermal space
generally minimises the heat transfer area required. This minimum is rigorous for systems with equal
heat transfer coefficients for all hot and all cold streams, as proven by Nisida et al. (1971). It is
generally also valid when the hot side heat transfer coefficients differ from each other by less than a
factor 10 and the same is valid for the cold side heat transfer coefficients (Ahmad et al., 1990).
We can use the driving force plot, the overall area efficiency number, the match efficiencies and the
auxiliary heat flow curves to guide the network changes to improve the efficiency of the existing
exchangers (Tjoe, 1986, Panjeh Shahi, 1992). We can apply two kinds of modifications to improve the
vertical alignment of the existing exchangers: the shift of the heat exchangers in thermal space and
stream splitting (see Glossary, Appendix B). Below we will discuss both options as detailed
elaborations of the general Guideline VI.
Guideline VI-a The FT -factor of a heat exchanger is not affected by thermal shifting
The thermal shift of a heat exchanger changes the task of that heat exchanger, i.e. the duty and the in-
and outlet temperatures. Refer to the simple network and related composite curves and driving force
plot in Figure 43. Increased process-to-process heat exchange reduces both the heater and cooler duty.
This is shown as a larger duty overlap in the composite curves. The driving force of the existing heat
exchanger at the original thermal location (original inlet and outlet temperatures) now becomes too
high, related to the new ideal profile. This driving force must be reduced to achieve the target thermal
shift effectively. We can either do this by reducing the hot inlet temperature or increasing the cold
inlet temperature. This is shown in Figure 43 as Alternative ‘a’ and ‘b’, respectively. For ideal strictly
counter-current exchangers both alternative positions are equally efficient. There is no preference.
hot utility duty
Alternative a
al
fit
in
C
tro
ig
re
or
H original retrofit
new duty Th
existing hx
Alt b
Alt b
T [°C]
original Alt a
[°C] Th=Tc
Alt a
C
H
Tc[°C]
Alternative b
Driving Force Plot
H [W]
Figure 43 Alternative positions for exchanger thermal shifting. New area is filled.
The impact of thermal shifting on non-ideal exchangers is less straightforward. Any deviation from
strictly counter-current flow results in a lower exchanger efficiency that is caused by inefficiencies
within the exchanger rather than by the task of the exchanger within the network. This inefficiency is
given by the FT - factor (Section 2.3). The internal inefficiencies also result in more new area:
A tar ( E tar ) − FT,ex ⋅ α ex ⋅ A ex
A tar,add = (61)
FT,new ⋅ α new
with FT,ex the correction factor for the existing exchangers [-];
FT,new the correction factor for the new exchangers [-].
Retrofit with different types of exchangers should thus improve both the area efficiency, Į, and
FT - factor as much as possible. The impact of shifting in thermal space on Į is explained above based
on the analysis of Tjoe (1986). The impact of shifting in thermal space on the FT - factor is not
discussed in any known literature and will be described below.
The FT - factor is related to the in- and outlet temperatures of the exchanger. For new heat exchangers
we generally fix the duty. In that case we see a direct dependency between the inlet temperature
differences and the FT - factor. In retrofit the duty of existing exchangers is variable and the area is
fixed. In that case a larger difference between the inlet temperatures may still give a larger FT - factor,
but the related increase of the duty will decrease the mean temperature differences and consequently
decrease the FT - factor. We cannot determine the net effect on FT - factor from a simple qualitative
analysis. We will therefore elaborate a simple case in more detail below.
The base problem for the analysis is presented above in Figure 43. It is a simple system with a heater,
a cooler and a process-to-process heat exchanger, the latter further referred to as the exchanger.
Suppose the exchanger is a shell-and-tube exchanger with one shell- and two tube-passes with FT < 1.
We would like to know how the efficiency of this exchanger depends on its position in thermal space.
This will allow us to determine the most optimal position of the existing exchanger. We will use the
following assumptions for the analysis:
• the exchanger is a standard shell-and-tube exchanger with one shell and two tube passes;
• the heat capacity flowrate of both the hot and cold stream is independent of the stream
temperature;
• the total heat transfer coefficient for transfer from the hot to the cold stream is independent of
the hot and cold stream temperatures.
Appendix F gives the details of the analysis. It shows that we can express the FT - factor as a function
of the dimensionless numbers R, and NTUc only. These numbers are defined as follows:
R = CPmc/CPmh the ratio of cold and hot heat capacity flowrates [-];
NTUc = A·hov/CPmc the number of heat transfer units [-]; 15
in which A the heat transfer area [m2];
hov the total heat transfer coefficient [W/m2/°C];
CPmc the cold heat capacity flowrate [W/°C];
CPmh the hot heat capacity flowrate [W/°C].
15
Note the different definitions: NTU=A·hov/CPm,min , NTUc = A·hov/CPmc and NTUh = A·hov/CPmh .
NTU equals either NTUc or NTUh , unless R=1 for which NTU = NTUc = NTUh .
194 Chapter 8
Thermal shifting does not change the heat capacity flowrates of the streams and we have assumed both
the transfer area and the total heat transfer coefficient constant for the analysis. As a result both R and
NTUc will also remain constant during thermal shifting and the FT - factor, which is a function of
these two numbers only, will not change. The analysis thus shows that we can ignore the FT - factor
during thermal shifting in case the three mentioned assumptions are valid.
The analysis also gives a guideline for cases in which the assumptions are invalid. We can write the
FT - factor as a function of NTUh and NTUc only. This relation is plotted in Figure 44. The plot shows
the following general trends for cases in which the heat capacity flowrates or heat transfer coefficients
are temperature dependent:
• FT increases if the overall heat transfer coefficient decreases;
• FT increases if any of the heat capacity flowrates increases.
If the exchanger is of a different type than used in the analysis, the FT - factor will have a different
dependency on the exchanger in- and outlet temperatures. The relations for the FT - factor derived in
Appendix F are not applicable. Most exchanger types show, however, similar trends for the
FT - factor. We therefore expect that the main conclusions of the analysis will be applicable for other
exchanger types as well.
Guideline VI-b The FT -factor of non-ideal exchangers will generally decrease due to stream
splitting
Stream splitting may also improve the exchanger efficiency as it can improve the vertical alignment of
the exchanger. It either reduces the hot outlet temperature or increases the cold outlet temperature,
forcing part of the hot or cold stream to bypass the exchanger. The improvement of the vertical
alignment is always an improvement of the exchanger efficiency of ideal strictly counter-current
exchangers. We can derive the effect for a standard shell-and-tube exchanger with one shell and two
tube passes from the relation between the FT - factor and NTUh and NTUc plotted in Figure 44.
Figure 44 FT as function of NTUh and NTUc

The plot shows that the FT - factor always decreases, if we assume no impact of stream splitting on the
overall heat transfer coefficient. Stream splitting increases either NTUh or NTUc as it reduces CPmh or
CPmc. The higher NTU gives a lower FT - factor according to Figure 44. The assumption of constant
heat transfer coefficient is, however, generally invalid as we will discuss in the next guideline.
Guideline VII Exploit the potential of specific exchanger types to rationalize stream splits
Stream splitting is an effective option to improve the vertical alignment of existing exchangers (Tjoe,
1986, Panjeh Shahi, 1992) and sometimes to increase the saving potential in an existing network
Asante and Zhu (1996). Generally, we will combine stream splitting and exchanger shifting, because
the former opens opportunities to achieve better vertical alignment with the latter. The impact on the
exchanger efficiency has been discussed above in Guideline VI.
Multi-pass matches may consist of several shells, which can be in parallel or in series or any
combination thereof. During retrofit we can change the configuration from series to parallel or reverse.
This is equivalent to stream splitting with complete matches. The parallel configuration will be
advantageous to reduce the pressure drop over the match, which may be required to allow the addition
of new area and exchangers while the allowed pressure drop is constrained. The series configuration
will provide additional heat transfer units that may be required to establish a temperature cross within
a match with multi-pass exchangers Guideline V.
There is a number of issues related to stream splitting that are hardly addressed in the aforementioned
methods. Unfortunately, most of these issues complicate the use of stream splitting and make it often
less attractive. The issues that we should take into account are listed below.
• Stream splitting reduces the flow through the parallel connected exchangers or shells. This reduces
the pressure drop through each exchanger, which helps to stay within occasional pressure drop
constraints.
• The reduced flow also reduces the velocities in the exchangers. As the Nusselt number (Nu) relates
to the Reynolds number (Re) (Equation 7, Section 2.3), the single side heat transfer coefficient (h)
relates to the velocities (v) and the latter will thus decrease:
Nu Rea h va (62)
The constant a
0.8 for turbulent flow and consequently the heat transfer coefficient will decrease
by 43% when the velocity or the massflow is decreased by 50%. This effect is thus significant, but
affects only one side of the exchanger. The overall effect depends on the relative heat resistance of
the opposite side and may be much lower than the effect on the single side. The impact on the heat
transfer coefficient may change significantly, if the split causes a change in flow regime. Tube
inserts (Dewan et al., 2004) may be applied to improve the heat transfer.
• The reduced velocities will also propagate fouling. As a consequence, the (fouled) heat transfer
coefficient will decrease even further. The exact effect is difficult to predict. We can use the
temperature field plot in specific cases or use the background philosophy thereof as described by
Yeap et al. (2004, 2005). Often, exchanger designers use some lower velocity limits, depending on
the nature of the fluid, to limit the fouling tendency. These velocity limits may bound the allowable
split range. The fouling effect of stream splitting is independent of the above mentioned decrease
of the single side heat transfer coefficient.
• The FT - factor of non-ideal exchangers will nearly always decrease due to stream splitting, as
shown in Figure 44. The severity of this effect depends on the original and resulting NTUc and
196 Chapter 8
NTUh. Stream splitting has two effects on NTU. Primarily, it reduces the related heat capacity
flowrate, which results in an equivalent higher NTU. Additionally, it reduces the related single-side
heat transfer coefficient (see above). This in turn reduces the NTU at both sides due to its
dependency on the total heat transfer coefficient. This effect is less than linear. The changes at one
side are damped by the opposite single-side heat transfer coefficient, that remains constant. As a
consequence splitting always increases the NTU at the split side, but may reduce the NTU of the
opposite side. This generally results in a decrease of the FT - factor, but an increase is possible in
some cases, depending on the original values of both the hot and cold NTU.
• Each split results in additional piping and control. The associated costs depend on the media and
the requirements for automatic or manual control.
• In case of two phase flow at the inlet, proper control is hardly possible without installation of a
phase separation to avoid maldistribution. Splitting two phase flow streams is therefore generally
avoided.
• Each split introduces a control variable, which is an opportunity for process control. A split or an
exchanger by-pass are often required to control the stream target temperature. In such cases, we
often have to sacrifice energy efficiency for controllability.
The drawbacks mentioned above show that splitting is generally a rather complicated option. We
should carefully evaluate the need of stream splits and investigate alternatives. Below we give some
more detailed guidelines:
• Use stream splitting only when it both improves the vertical alignment and simultaneously
increases the scope for energy saving (after Asante and Zhu 1996). Stream splits that only improve
vertical alignment are generally inefficient. Stream splits that give both improvements are generally
near the process pinch.
• Only split around multi-pass equipment (shells), if the effect of the FT - factor is small, i.e. when
the hot outlet temperature remains well above the cold outlet temperature of the exchanger (shell).
This also holds for the transition from series to parallel configuration of the shells within a match.
• Apply strictly counter-current heat exchangers that allow a low temperature difference and have
relatively low area costs, to compensate inefficient existing heat exchangers instead of improving
the efficiency by stream splitting.
Guideline VIII Apply multi-stream exchangers to improve transfer efficiency, relax plot space
requirements and save on network costs
Some advanced heat exchanger types have a multi-stream option. These include plate-fin and plate-
and-frame exchangers (Section 1.3.2). The multi-stream alternative is more complex equipment than
the two-stream equivalent, but the advantages of the multi-stream alternative may justify their
application, especially when:
• low approach temperatures and good vertical alignment is possible without stream splits;
• compact volume of the transfer area and limited associated piping allows installation in small
plot space;
• their have lower installation costs compared to a network of two-stream exchangers that it may
replace.
The advantages should be balanced against the application conditions that we must take into account:
• the available exchanger type with multi-stream option must be applicable to all streams that
must be included in that exchanger;
• the streams to be included should be sufficiently close together at a location that allows
installation of the multi-stream heat exchanger;
• any control and flexibility demands must be met with limited control variables.
Most guidelines presented above remain valid when we apply multi-stream heat exchangers, but some
guidelines may need a different interpretation. The Guidelines I and III, use targeting to initialise and
avoid design evolution, are more important for multi-stream exchangers than for two-stream heat
exchangers. It is essential when we apply multi-stream exchangers to do an adequate initialisation of
the design and especially to make an exact demarcation of the essential network parts to be modified.
The retrofit design with multi-stream exchangers tends to integrate all streams of the design problem
in one or a few units. Improvement of the design with design evolution is not possible with multi-
stream exchangers, as there are no applicable evolution methods.
Guideline IV, check the actual impact of topology changes, should take into account the specific
consequences for multi-stream exchangers.
• all streams of a multi-stream heat exchanger must be routed to one location;
• any isolated existing heat exchangers that must be maintained significantly complicates the
design, as it may introduce supply and return piping to and from the multi-stream exchanger and
may require additional exchanger sections, Figure 45.
MSHE
a) existing exchanger
c) alternative 1
MSHE MSHE
b) undesired design d) alternative 2

Figure 45 Design alternatives for a multi-stream heat exchanger (MSHE) and an existing exchanger
8.4 Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure for Refined Network Design
The guidelines presented in the previous section are the basis for a new refined conceptual network
design method. This method has been derived from the retrofit pinch design approach of Tjoe (1986,
thesis), in which the new guidelines have been integrated. Unlike Tjoe’s approach, the new one is
more or less set-up as a procedure, to make the method more accessible for less experienced users. It
has to be stressed, however, that such a design procedure is always merely a guideline to deviate from,
than a fixed recipe. Box 4 summarises the new procedure. It relies especially on the shifting of
existing heat exchangers according to Guideline IV and the procedure is therefore called the Retrofit
Thermal Shifting Procedure.
Box 4 Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure
Initialisation from Targeting

1 Restrict the design problem to the relevant part as identified by (structure-based) targeting.
2 Start the design at the hot and cold utility side of the network and proceed from both sides
towards the pinch.
3 Use the balanced composite curves to identify the heat load on the heaters and coolers. The exis-
ting utility exchangers will generally be at the target ends of the streams. We can determine the
ideal range for utility heating and cooling from the composite curves. The cold composite tem-
perature that is vertically aligned with the hot composite source temperature is the target lower
bound for utility heating. The temperature on the hot composite curve vertically aligned with the
cold composite source temperature is the target upper bound for utility cooling, Figure 46.
Take into account the turndown limits of the existing heaters and coolers, especially reboilers.
Performance Improvement of Existing Equipment

4 Check which existing process-to-process exchangers have a path to a modified heater or cooler.
Check the performance of these exchangers with the in- and outlet temperatures resulting from
the duty change. Initially, keep the existing number of shells in series for multi-pass exchangers.
5 Check the feasibility of the modified existing exchangers to achieve the target saving at
reasonable costs, using the auxiliary heat flow curves and the match efficiencies.
6 Revise the utility distribution over the heaters and coolers to improve the efficiency of the
existing exchangers, if necessary.
7 Split streams to partly by-pass exchangers that block the targeted energy saving within the
available structure. Use the created by-pass for improved integration with other streams. Splits
that improve only the vertical alignment require a detailed cost analysis for justification. Avoid
splits on multi-pass exchangers that result in near equal exchanger outlet temperatures.
8 Consider swap or relocation of existing exchangers that show very poor performance. Consider
discard of exchangers that cannot be improved or that can be merged in planned new exchangers
at relatively low costs, compared to the saving in complexity and installation costs.
9 While moving the existing exchangers, concentrate the unbalanced stream parts in the network
that must be matched with new transfer area. Maximise the reuse of the existing connections
between existing exchangers and exchanger shells and avoid thermal gaps in between to reduce
the number of new connections.
Network Completion
10 Recognize and open up opportunities for new advanced area that is often most advantageous at
pinched zones. This is achieved by shifting the existing exchangers to the least pinched zones.
11 Fill in the created gap with advanced or conventional heat exchangers, taking into account the
existing structure. This can be facilitated with by any grassroots design method.
12 Concentrate the new area in as few exchangers as possible, also when this enlarges criss-
crossing. Meanwhile, avoid the creation of pinching matches and note the resulting effectivity
(FT-factor) for the selected new exchangers.
13 Apply multi-stream exchangers to improve transfer efficiency, relax plot space requirements and
save on network costs
Start over the design at Step 4, if it tends to become too complex or if targets appear infeasible.
Proceed with the performance analysis of the resulting network (Chapter 4).
The procedure comprises of three groups of design steps:

• the initialisation from targeting (Step 1 to 3),
• the performance improvement of existing equipment (Step 4 to 9) and
• the network completion with new equipment (Step 10 to 12).
Initialisation From Targeting

The first three steps are the initialisation of the design and represent Guideline I. They translate the
results from targeting to a proper initialisation of the refined conceptual network design. The first step
determines the fraction of the network that we will leave unchanged. Only the relevant parts identified
by structure based targeting are included in the network that we will redesign. This initialisation
reduces the design problem to the most essential and valuable part, required to achieve the desired
energy saving, and reduces the need for design evolution (after Guideline III). The steps 2 and 3
translate the overall energy target to targets per stream or match. It creates the freedom in the network
that is necessary to do the next steps to improve the performance of the existing exchangers.
Performance Improvement of Existing Equipment

The steps 4 to 9 aim for the improvement of the performance of the current equipment based on the
guidelines II, IV, VI and VII. The steps 4 to 6 evaluate alternative options for the adaptation of the
network in order of severity based on Guideline IV. Step 7 to 9 give additional guidelines to improve
the effectivity of the modifications based on the guidelines IV, VI and VII. The modifications in these
design steps reduce the mean driving forces and thus the heat loads on the existing heat exchangers to
achieve the best vertical alignment in the existing structure. Meanwhile, the hot and cold temperature
ranges at which the existing exchangers operate are shifted to either the cold or the hot ends of the
connected streams. The ‘ends’ may be the source or target equipment of the stream (eg. a tower or
reactor in/outlet) or a heater or cooler inlet as specified in the initialisation steps. These modifications
hot
utility created shift
thermal gap
T T shift
saving
[°C] Th,cool [°C]
Tc,heat
shift
old position
cold composite
shift
cold
utility
H [W] H [W]
Figure 46 Target temperatures for heating and Figure 47 Exchanger shifting to obtain
cooling by utilities. All hot duty thermal gap at the pinch
lower than Th,cool should be cooled
by cold utility and all duty higher
than Tc,heat should be heated by hot
utility.
200 Chapter 8
create a thermal ‘gap’ in the heat exchanger network as illustrated in Figure 47. This thermal gap is a
set of stream branches that lacks yet the exchanger area to transfer the required duty. The smoother
this gap, i.e. not fragmented by isolated parts of the existing network, the easier the completion with
new exchangers will be in the subsequent network completion steps. A careful positioning of the
existing equipment is therefore essential to get a proper design result and to avoid design evolution.
We should take into account the use of advanced heat exchangers, if applicable, to compensate for
inefficiencies of the existing exchangers. This gives more flexibility using the existing exchangers and
may avoid complex topology modifications.
The steps 5 and 6 require insight in the efficiency of particular matches and the possibilities to
improve their efficiency effectively. There are various tools to get sufficient information to make the
proper design decisions, including the driving force plot, the auxiliary heat flow curves and the
mathematical models of Asante and Zhu (1996). The driving force plot (Section 4.3.4) shows the
deviations from vertical alignment of matches. The auxiliary heat flow curves (Section 4.3.7) can help
to determine the relative importance of a match in blocking additional energy saving. These curves
and the mathematical programming approach of Asante and Zhu both allow the analysis of saving
scope as a result of specific topology modifications. Both tools show the pinches for further energy
saving in the current network, that Asante and Zhu referred to as the network pinch and pinching
matches, but each tool does this in a different way. The curves show only the maximum energy saving
for a match fixed at the current position, determined by the matched streams, the in- and outlet
temperatures and the transfer area, and no restrictions for the remaining network. The mathematical
approach determines the maximum saving for a fixed network topology, but without restrictions on the
in- and outlet temperature and on the transfer area for each match. It also determines the modification
that gives the highest increment in energy saving. 16
Network Completion
The final steps 10 to 12 must fill the thermal gaps created in the performance improvement steps. We
can fill the gaps with new area either on existing matches or on new matches. The design should aim
for a minimum number of new units, minimum repiping costs and best vertical alignment. The scope
of the design and the design objectives are very similar to grassroots design. We can thus make use of
the available grassroots design methods/rules. Examples of useful rules (Kemp, 2007) are the ‘tick-
off’ rule to aim for the least number of units and the pinch matching rules to keep good vertical
alignment and to avoid second law violations (i.e. requirements to transfer heat with negative
temperature differences) at completion of the design. The designer must take care of the optimal use of
area addition to existing matches to minimise the number of new matches.
The smoother the thermal gap, the clearer our overview will be of the remaining design problem and
the more comparable this remaining problem will be with grassroots design. These advantages come
on top of the already mentioned minimum number of tie-ins and maximum use of the existing
installation.
The thermal gap that results from the performance improvement steps, based on the guidelines from
the previous paragraphs, is a good opportunity for advanced heat exchangers and even for one or more
16
The approach of Asante and Zhu also includes an NLP optimisation of the match areas. This step is not
recommended here, as it does not include the minimisation of tie-in points (Guideline IV).
multi-stream advanced heat exchangers. The gap is often located around the pinch or a near pinch at
which the hot and cold temperatures are close and matches tend to have significant temperature over-
laps. Strictly counter-current advanced heat exchangers are especially advantageous at these locations.
The potential for multi-stream heat exchangers (Guideline VIII) depends on the physical distribution
of the thermal gaps in the plant. In addition the smoothness of the thermal gap is relevant for the
complexity and the possible extend of the exchanger. The actual design of a multi-stream exchanger to
complete the thermal gap is a problem equivalent to the grassroots design of such an exchanger, which
is described by Picón-Núñez et al. (2002, 2006).
The performance improvement steps 4 to 9 of the design procedure reuse all existing equipment and
improve their temperature profile without an exceptional number of changes to the network. However,
doubt may remain about the right thermal position of some exchangers. This should be solved in the
network completion steps. In some cases the initial position of one or more existing exchangers may
be questionable. Generally, these problem exchangers have too much heat transfer area. They should
be included in the design of the remaining problem in the gap. The network is then evolved and
meanwhile we must watch the performance of especially these exchangers. We can consider different
locations and occasionally the removal of the exchangers, to get a more efficient network. If such an
oversized match has more than one shell, it may be possible to divide the match and relocate part of it.
If the oversized match has only one shell, the complete match must be physically relocated.
Preferably, only one of the fluids should change (Guideline IV), but a complete change of the
exchanger’s task may be considered.
8.5 Example Case: Simplified Crude Preheating Train
8.5.1 Case Description

The example case introduced in Section 8.2 is a simplified crude preheat train case described by
Panjeh Shahi (1992). The case has been used to illustrate pressure drop constraint targeting and design
(Panjeh Shahi, 1992, Polley and Panjeh Shahi, 1990a, Nie and Zhu, 1999). It will be used here to
illustrate the new design approach with fixed heat transfer coefficients, whereas we will ignore any
pressure drop constraints.
Details of the case including stream, exchanger and economic data are in Appendix H. All process
streams are assumed to be single phase and their heat capacity flowrates and heat transfer coefficients
are constant over the full temperature range. All existing heat exchangers are multi-pass exchangers,
for which we apply a simple multi-pass exchanger model.
The crude stream has a desalter downstream Exchanger E4 (Figure 48). The new design must allow
operation of the desalter at a temperature close to the current temperature (119°C). Some variation is
allowed in this temperature and therefore we will continue to represent the crude stream as one cold
stream.
202 Chapter 8
H5R
H5
H6R
H2
H6
H3
H4
DESALTER
E4 E3 E2 C1
H1 E6 E5
C2 C3 C5
H3
C4 H2
H4
Figure 48 Simplified flowsheet original simplified crude preheat train
Table 32 Original network characteristics and targets from the preliminary design stage
Existing Target Difference
Hot utility use (MW) 80.42 54 26.42
Cold utility use (MW) 50.543 24.116 26.42
Utility Cost (MEuro/yr) 23.83 15.72 8.11
Number of shells (#) 1 26 48 / 44 22 / 18
Total Exchanger area (m2) 1 10223 / - 17696 / 16802 7473 / 6579

Pr-Pr Exchanger area (m2) 6797 / - 16931 / 15326 10134 / 8529
Area efficiency (-) 1 0.84 / - 0.84/ 0.93
Investment (MEuro) 2 - 8.14 / 6.78 /1.49 8.14 / 6.78 /1.49
Pay back period (yr) 2 - - 1.0 / 0.84 / 0.18

1
process-to-process area only; first number for multi-pass area with constant area efficiency targeting, second
number for strictly counter-current area with incremental area efficiency targeting.
2
estimate for multi-pass area / counter-current conventional area / counter-current advanced area
8.5.2 Initialisation From Targeting

The preceding preliminary design stage has set a number of design targets for the refined design stage.
The original network includes two additional exchangers (E1 and C1). In line with Step 1 of the
design procedure, we have applied Structural Targeting (Chapter 6) to the entire network. This showed
that these two exchangers can be left out of the design problem without a significant penalty. Further
simplification is not useful and we will do the refined conceptual network design for the entire
network shown in Figure 38.
500
450
400
350
Temperature [°C]
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Enthalpy [kW]
Figure 49 Hot and cold composite curve for the targeted utility duties (hot 54 MW, cold 24.1 MW)
The targets for this remaining problem are summarized in Table 32. The economic objective for
targeting has been the maximum realistic saving with a pay back period of 1 year maximum. More
details on the background of the targets are in Appendix H. In the subsequent sections we will
elaborate a refined conceptual network design that meets the set targets as much as possible, using the
design procedure outlined in Box 4 in Section 8.4.
Step 2 of the thermal shifting procedure recommends starting the design with the specification of the
utility exchangers. The duty of these heat exchangers should based on the composite curves (Step 3).
The hot utility side is straightforward, as there is only one heater in the network, Heater H1. The target
hot utility duty, 54 MW, is assigned to this heater. The cold outlet temperature of this heater is fixed to
maintain the current structure and to cover the hottest heat demand. The resulting cold inlet
temperature is 286.2 °C.
The low temperature side has four water coolers. The balanced composite curves, Figure 49, show that
ideally any heat available below 108.4 °C should be cooled with cooling water. Ideally, the inlet
temperature of all water coolers should therefore be 108.4 °C. Further elaboration will show that this
is not a practical specification. We will optimise the utility duty assignment to the coolers using Step 3
to 6 of the design procedure, which is elaborated in the next section.
8.5.3 Performance Improvement of Existing Equipment

High Temperature Side
The duty of Heater H1 is specified in the previous section to get a cold inlet temperature of 286.2 °C.
Next, we follow Step 4 of the design procedure and check the performance of the existing exchangers
at the high temperature side of the network, the exchangers E6 and E5. We specify the inlet
temperature to H1, 286.2 °C, as cold outlet temperature for E6. Additionally, we keep the existing hot
204 Chapter 8
600
500
H1
400
Temperature [°C]
E6
300
R PSb1
E5
200
E4 R PSb2A
100 E3
E2
C3 R P1
C2 C4
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
En th alpy [kW]
Figure 50 Auxiliary heat flow curves for the existing exchangers at the revised positions; exchanger
minimum approach temperature = 0°C
inlet temperature, the exchanger area and the number of shells in series for E6. The resulting hot outlet
and cold inlet temperatures are respectively 282 °C and 258.7 °C. In a similar way we specify E5. The
resulting hot outlet and cold inlet temperatures are respectively 257.8 °C and 234.9 °C.
Figure 50 shows the auxiliary heat flow curves for the new performance of the existing exchangers in
the revised network to check their feasibility (Step 5). It also shows the combined auxiliary heat flow
curve for the exchangers H1-E6-E5, indicated as RPSb1. There is some surplus of auxiliary heat flow
above the pinch, while the cold duty demand above the pinch (above 257 °C) is already satisfied. The
match efficiencies (Appendix H) for both exchangers are close to 1. Based on these performance
indicators, we accept and fix the new specification for E6 and E5.
Low Temperature Side

The low temperature side has four coolers and three process-to-process exchangers. The balanced
composite curves, Figure 49, show that ideally any heat available below 108.4 °C should be cooled
with cooling water. The composite curves also show that there is abundant driving force in this
temperature range and thus deviation from the ideal profile will generally not give big penalties. We
will use this knowledge below to minimize the number of units.
The presence of the desalter is a design constraint that may influence the assignment of cooling duty to
individual coolers. From the composite curves we can see that ideally all heat available between
108.4 °C and 170 °C should be used to heat the cold stream upstream the desalter to get a desalter inlet
temperature of 119 °C. This will give well vertical aligned matches which promotes a good area
efficiency. Unfortunately, only the streams H2, H3 and H5 have matches to Stream C1 upstream the
desalter in the existing network. We should consider a new match between the streams H4 and C1 to
improve the vertical alignment.
We will further assess the design upstream of the desalter to check if this new match is required. We
may prevent the new match on Stream H4 (Step 9), if we can decrease the duty of the coolers C2, C3
and C5 and allow more duty on C4. Stream H5 has heat available between 100 and 150 °C, which can
all be used for heating of Stream C1. We set the duty of Cooler C5 to zero to make all heat in this hot
stream available. Exchanger E2, connected to Cooler C5, is the first of a series of three exchangers to
heat Stream C1 in the existing network. The hot outlet temperature of this exchanger is set to 100 °C,
the target temperature of Stream H5. The cold inlet temperature is kept at 31.55 °C. The resulting hot
inlet and cold outlet temperatures are 128.7 and 67.9 °C, respectively. The auxiliary heat flow curve
for this thermal position of E2 (Figure 50) shows that this specification is feasible (Step 5).
We can achieve a desalter inlet temperature of 119 °C with the duties in the streams H2, H3 and H5, if
we transfer all heat in the streams H2 and H3 below approximately 190 °C to Stream C1. Additionally,
we need to transfer the remaining heat in Stream H5 to Stream C1 with additional heat transfer area or
matches. We first investigate the potential of the existing exchangers and the existing network
structure using Step 4, 5 and 6 and anticipating on Step 11. The existing exchangers will transfer the
maximum duty when the hot inlet temperature is at its maximum. We therefore specify the hot inlet
temperature of E3 and E4 at 190 °C. Initially, we try to maintain the structure on Stream C1. The
resulting cold outlet temperature of Stream C1 downstream E4 is 92.9 °C. With the hot duty still
available in H5 we will be able to heat stream C1 to 119.8 °C, which is even higher than the target of
119 °C. The calculated hot outlet temperatures of E4 and E3 give the required duties for the coolers
C2 and C3, respectively 7507 and 2067 kW. The remaining 14542 kW of the 24116 kW target cold
utility duty can be assigned to Cooler C4, which results in a hot inlet temperature of 149.9 °C. This is
much higher than the ideal limit for utility cooling of 108.4°C, but acceptable to get a simple design to
heat Stream C1 to the required desalter temperature. The achieved temperature is 119.8°C. The auxil-
iary heat flow curves and the match efficiencies also show that the new specifications are feasible.
The network with the shifted existing exchangers is shown in Figure 51. The thick stream lines
represent the covered duties, the single lines are the duties that need to be completed with new mat-
ches. Note, the anticipated new match to get the desalter temperature is not yet shown in Figure 51.
8.5.4 Network Completion

Completion with Two Stream Exchangers
The design completion upstream the desalter is straightforward and requires only a match upstream E2
on Stream H5 to downstream E4 on Stream C1. The new match NW1 gives the desired Stream C1
outlet temperature of 119.8°C. The driving force, Figure 52, is lower than ideal and consequently the
heat transfer area is relatively large. This is the penalty we pay for the simple shift of E3 and E4.
Step 7 of the design procedure asks for the investigation of the benefits of a stream split. The split
guidelines of Tjoe (1986) suggest a split of the cold stream around the exchangers E3 and E4 and
parallel installation of match NW1 to improve the vertical alignment and reduce the required heat
transfer area. Appendix H contains an elaboration of this split option. This shows that the split option
requires even more area than the current option. This is due to the multi-pass nature of the exchangers
as explained in Section 8.3.2. In contrast with Tjoe’s guidelines, stream splitting reduces the area
efficiency of the existing area in this case. We therefore reject the split stream option.
206 Chapter 8
270 ° 190 ° 105.6 ° 40 °

H2 C
C2
350 ° 190 ° 91.16 ° 30 °
H3 C
C3
380 ° 282 ° 149.9 ° 50 °
H4 C
C4
150 ° 128.7 ° 100 ° 100 °
H5 C
C5
290 ° 257.8 ° 190 °
H6
390 ° 286.2 ° 258.7 ° 234.9 ° 92.9 ° 74.3 ° 67.9 ° 31.54 °

C1 H
H1 E6 E5 E4 E3 E2
257 ° 108 °
Figure 51 Network with shifted existing exchangers
500
H1
450
400
350 E6
300
Thot [°C]
E5
250
200
E4
E3
150
C4 NW1
100 E2
C2 C3
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Tcold [°C]
Figure 52 Driving force plot for the shifted existing exchangers and the new match NW1
The completion of the network between the desalter and Exchanger E5 is less straightforward. We will
use standard network design strategies and tools to find an adequate design. If available, this (small)
design problem can be solved with an optimizer or using one of the other available grassroots design
methods. Below we apply the pinch design concepts and some common sense to complete the design.
The duty of four hot streams must be transferred to Stream C1. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
make any match that completely transfers the duty of one of the hot streams to the unsplit cold stream
without ruining the ability to match any of the other streams. Splitting the cold stream is thus
inevitable.
The driving force plot shows that the streams between the desalter and E5 form a kind of pinched
zone. The allowed temperature differences in this zone (> 23°C) are well above the minimum differen-
ces acceptable within multi-pass heat exchangers. We can thus allow some deviations from the ideal
temperature profile to limit the number of matches. Our target is a design with four matches to
complete the design (Step 12). With five streams to be integrated these four matches is the minimum
possible.
All four hot streams connect to the lower bound of the thermal gap between the desalter and
Exchanger E5. The streams H2 and H4 have comparable heat capacity flowrates, whereas Stream H6
has a much bigger and Stream H3 a much smaller one. The basic splitting rules from the early pinch
technology literature (Linnhoff et al., 1982, Kemp 2007) suggest a split in four branches for such a
design problem. With some trial and error, we found the smallest hot duty, from Stream H3, can be
combined with the match with largest hot heat capacity flow rate, Stream H6. This design also
prevents a very large temperature cross in the match between the streams H3 and C1, which would
require a large number of shells in series, if we need to apply multi-pass exchangers. Finally, we
optimize the split fractions of the three branches to get the lowest heat transfer area. The resulting
network is in Figure 53. In this design the new exchangers can be multi-pass shell-and-tube
exchangers, counter-current shell-and-tube exchangers and any applicable two stream advanced
exchanger. For counter-current exchangers only the optimum split factors are slightly different than
for multi-pass exchangers. Details on the exchanger specifications are in Appendix H.
270 ° 190 ° 105.6 ° 40 °

H2 C
C2
350 ° 190 ° 91.16 ° 30 °
H3 C
C3
380 ° 282 ° 149.9 ° 50 °
H4 C
C4
150 ° 128.7 ° 100 ° 100 °
H5 C
C5
290 ° 257.8 ° 190 °
H6
242 ° NW4
390 ° 286.2 ° 258.7 ° 234.9 ° 231 ° 138.9 ° 119.8 ° 92.9 ° 74.3 ° 67.9 ° 31.54 °
C1 H
H1 E6 E5 NW5 NW2 NW1 E4 E3 E2
238.3 °
257 ° 108 °
NW3
Figure 53 Two stream final design

208 Chapter 8
270° 257.8° 190° 105.6° 40°

H2 C
C2
350° 282° 270° 257.8° 190° 91.16 ° 30°
H3 C
C3
380° 282 ° 270 ° 257.8 ° 190 ° 149.9° 50°
H4 C
C4
150° 128.7° 100° 100°
H5 C
C5
290 ° 257.8° 190°
H6
390° 286.2° 258.7° 234.9° 230.4°226.3° 219.4° 131° 119.8° 92.9° 74.3 ° 67.9° 31.54°
C1 H
H1 E6 E5 MS1_4 MS1_2 NW1 E4 E3 E2
MS1_5 MS1_3 MS1_1
257° 108 °
Figure 54 Multi-stream final design; MS1_1 to MS1_5 represent 5 sections in one exchanger box
Completion with Multi-stream Exchangers

If we can apply multi-stream exchangers (Step 13), the completion of the design is again straightfor-
ward. Multi-stream exchangers can be designed to get the ideal temperature profile without the need to
minimize the number of exchanger units. Any stream splits are made internally at relatively low cost.
Picón-Núñez et al. (2002) and Pua and Zhu (2002) showed how to make a multi-stream exchanger
design with ideal temperature profiles.
The design upstream the desalter is the same as for two-stream exchangers. Downstream the desalter
the thermal gaps can be filled with one multi-stream exchanger, as we have been able to keep the
existing exchangers together, thus creating uninterrupted thermal gaps at all streams. Completion of
these thermal gaps can be done in one multi-stream exchanger with ideally 5 sections to get the best
vertical alignment. The resulting design is shown in Figure 54 with the individual sections shown as
separate exchangers.
8.5.5 Design Evaluation

A thorough design evaluation of the proposed options requires the evaluation of all criteria in
Table 12, Section 2.6. This will give a good basis to judge the feasibility of the designs, to select the
best alternative and to prepare a feasible start for the next design stage. For this example case, we will
simplify the evaluation and concentrate on the meso and macro criteria related to fundamental
assumptions, efficacy, effectivity and some constraint as given in Table 12. The imposed constraint on
the desalter temperature is taken into account and discussed above.
General Design Evaluation

In the proposed options all streams are completely heat balanced. The sums of the used utility duties
equal the duty targets. All matches have positive temperature differences and the multi-pass model
ensures that no unrealistic temperature crosses are within the exchanger units, unless compensated by
a sufficient number of shells in series. The performance of the existing exchangers is also modelled
with this simple multi-pass model. This is probably too simplistic. Detailed rating with dedicated
exchanger design and rating software must confirm the proposed revised service. For the new matches
a maximum shell size of 750 m2 is assumed. Also this figure must be confirmed by detailed exchanger
design. This exchanger design will also give the input to check the estimated exchanger cost. The used
cost models probably only allow comparison of options with equal exchanger types, in which the
relative cost is more important than the absolute cost. The comparison of options with different
exchanger types and also the optimisation of saving and investment is very rough and we will
therefore concentrate on trends and very obvious differences.
All existing exchangers serve the same fluids as original in the new service. Compatibility of fluid and
equipment will thus be no issue. Pressure and pressure drop was not taken into account in the design.
All options install much area in series with the existing area. The pressure drop will thus increase
significantly. Additionally, the cold (crude) stream has a much higher temperature at the inlet of the
fired heater, the actual hot utility exchanger, than in the original situation (286 versus 235°C). The
vapour pressure of the crude at the heater inlet will thus increase substantially. Generally, we want to
prevent vaporisation upstream the heater to avoid maldistribution problems that are common in two
phase flow systems. Suppression of vaporisation will require a higher pressure upstream the heater in
the revised design than originally required. This may affect the pump requirements for the crude,
which must handle both the higher pressure drop over the exchangers and the higher vapour pressure.
The pumps of all hot streams must also be checked for their capability to handle the higher exchanger
pressure drop.
The figures 55 and 56 show the simplified process flowsheets of the two-stream and the multi-stream
options. The original process flowsheet is in Figure 48. The applied design procedure gives significant
modifications, but concentrated at only two parts of the existing installation. We have to make new
matches for three streams, H2, H3 and H4, to Stream C1 downstream the desalter at which they are
not present originally. The added new match for the streams H5 and H6 can be close to the original
match and the revision of the piping will thus be limited. Obviously, the complexity of piping
rerouting depends on the plotplan and the availability of space to place the new matches. As we
propose to install more new area than the amount that is present in the original situation, space may be
a significant limitation and may even kill the feasibility of any of the proposed options.
Comparison with Targets

Table 33 summarizes the main characteristics of the three worked out design options. All options have
the same saving, equal to the primary target. The number of shells is lower than the target, as we based
the target on an average shell size of 475 m2 for the entire network, while we have used an actual
maximum of 750 m2 per shell. The number of shells targeting approach is thus conservative, but still
reasonable. For advanced exchangers no maximum was put on the area per shell. Consequently, the
number of shells equals the number of matches. In targeting with advanced area the fixed cost were
related to the number of streams instead the number of shells. For the advanced exchanger options the
shell target is thus irrelevant.
The added area in the multi-pass option is 6% above the target. During the design we aimed for the
minimum number of units and thus accepted the related area penalties. The presence of a pinched zone
in the network, as derived from the composite curves, was already an indication that vertical alignment
210 Chapter 8
REVISED LINE
H5R
H5
H6R
H2
H6
H3
NW1
NW5 NW2
H4
DESALTER
NW4 E4 E3 E2 C1
H1 E6 E5
C2 C3 C5
NW3
H3
C4 H2
H4
Figure 55 Simplified flowsheet of final two-stream exchanger option
REVISED LINE
H5R
H5
H6R
H2
H6
H3
NW1
H4
MS1
DESALTER
E4 E3 E2 C1
H1 E6 E5
C2 C3 C5
H3
C4 H2
H4
Figure 56 Simplified flowsheet of final multi-stream exchanger option

Table 33 Design characteristics for the three design options and comparison with targets
Two-stream Two-stream Multi-stream Target
multi-pass counter-current
Duty Saving (MW) 26.42 26.42 26.42 26.42
Cost Saving (MEuro/yr) 8.11 8.11 8.11 8.11
Number of shells (#)

Total 45 41 28 48 / 44 / 27 3
Added 19 15 / 5 2 2 22 / 18 / 1 3
Process-to-process area (m2)

Total 17589 16641 15765 16931 / 15326 4
Added total 10788 9841 8860 10134 / 8529 4
Added conventional 10788 9841 / 0 2 0
Added advanced 0 0 / 9841 2 8860
Area efficiency (-) 1 0.81 0.85 0.9 0.84 / 0.93 4
Investment (MEuro) 3 7.18 6.31 / 1.68 2 1.55 8.14 / 6.78 / 1.49 3
Pay back period (yr) 3 0.89 0.78 / 0.21 2 0.19 1.0 / 0.84 / 0.18 3
1
Area efficiency for process-to-process area only.
2
First number for multi-pass area with constant area efficiency targeting, second number for strictly counter-
current area with incremental area efficiency targeting.
3
Estimate for multi-pass area / counter-current conventional area / counter-current advanced area.
4
Two options are included: counter-current conventional and counter-current advanced two stream
exchangers.
would be difficult. We therefore used the more conservative constant area efficiency targeting method.
The two-stream counter-current option has 15% more area than the target. The target is based on
incremental area efficiency approach with the area efficiency for all new area set to one (ideal).
Apparently, the penalties for deviation from vertical alignment are more significant for counter-current
area than for multi-pass area. Another complication for targeting is the presence of both multi-pass
(existing) and counter-current (new) area. The area efficiency of the existing area is kept constant,
which seems reasonable as long as no stream splits are applied. The existing area will however also
influence the maximum vertical alignment possible for the new counter- current area. An area
efficiency of one for this new area is therefore apparently too optimistic. Even the multi-stream option,
which is internally perfectly vertically aligned, has 4% more area than the target. The area efficiency is
directly related to the exchanger area and thus gives the same trends as discussed above.
The calculated investment is below the target for all options with conventional area. The multi-pass
option is 12% cheaper than the target and the counter-current option with the conventional area cost
model is 7% cheaper than the target. The below-target investment is due to the below-target number of
shells, which compensates for the above-target amount of added area in both cases. This confirms the
general design philosophy to minimise the number of units in design and stresses the importance of a
reasonable shells target for the cost estimation. The advanced exchanger options are 12% and 4%
more expensive than the target for the two-stream and multi-stream options respectively. This is
comparable with the found deviations from the targets for additional area for these options. The excess
212 Chapter 8
investment is somewhat lower than the excess area because the number of streams used for targeting is
higher than the actual number of streams in the exchangers.
The investment targets seem conservative, which is generally preferred to prevent unacceptable
economics for the final retrofit project. These investments cost tend to rise when more details are
incorporated in the design. The cost savings are generally well defined, although subject to market
fluctuations. When we do a saving on investment analysis, as done to determine the desired saving for
this case, we have a better chance to find viable options if we keep margin from the economic limit
(one year pay back in this case). The used margin depends on the engineers judgement of the accuracy
of the models and the rigidity of the criteria. The evaluation above shows that the differences between
targets and actual values are significant in this case. We should compare the errors with the accuracy
anticipated during targeting. We may need to revise the targets, if the targeting assumptions proved to
be invalid. Such a revision is, however, not relevant for the illustration of the proposed design
procedure, which was the purpose of this example case.
Alternative Selection
The three options only deviate in the applied heat exchanger type. We have set the same saving target
for all options to find out how the exchanger type affects the design. The thermal shifting procedure
concentrates new area and new matches as much as possible. The revised task for the existing
exchangers and the thermal gap to be filled with new area is therefore similar for any type of new area.
This is likely to give similar designs.
The main difference between the options is the estimated investment required. The difference between
multi-pass and counter-current conventional exchangers is small compared to the accuracy of the cost
estimate. We have to do detailed exchanger design to find out what option is the best. Advanced area
is probably much cheaper than conventional area and thus based on the economics we should select
either the two- or the multi-stream advanced exchanger option. It is, however, doubtful if we can and
really want to apply this type of exchangers in this service, because fouling will be a big concern. If
we can apply this type of exchangers we may reconsider the design targets. The targeted pay back for
this type of exchangers is less than one year even when the temperature difference at the pinch
becomes 2°C. Such low temperature differences are not realistic for a crude preheat train as this
removes any operational flexibility. The current retrofit design has a pinch temperature difference of
33°C. A reduction of this temperature to 15°C will allow an additional saving of 9 MW, but the design
will be (significantly) different and probably more complex. As application is unlikely, the option is
not further elaborated.
Design Alternatives From Other Methods

In literature (Panjeh Shahi, 1992, Polley and Panjeh Shahi, 1990, Nie and Zhu, 1999) alternative
retrofit designs are proposed for this case. These alternatives all have taken into account pressure drop
constraints and therefore the designs are rather different. The retrofit design of Polley and Panjeh
Shahi (1990) has comparable saving, 24.4 MW (compared to 26.4 MW in the designs proposed
above). The proposed retrofit design also has a comparable complexity. It has two stream splits, one
double and one single (one single split more), three new matches (two less) and three exchangers with
additional area (three more). Unfortunately, the desalter constraint was ignored which makes the
design infeasible. The area requirements are not comparable as the literature case assumed pressure
drop constraints and varying heat transfer coefficients, whereas the designs proposed in this chapter
assume fixed heat transfer coefficients.
The alternative retrofit design of Nie and Zhu (1999) has only half the target saving of the above
described design. Consequently, the design changes are much simpler with two single stream splits
(similar to the two-stream exchanger design proposed in this chapter), one new match (four less) and
one match with additional area (one more). The imposed pressure drop constraints prevent the addition
of more equipment. Also in this case the area requirements are not comparable with the above
described design. A more detailed comparison has little added value because of the very different
design basis.
214 Chapter 8
Case Study 215
Chapter 9
Case Study
A practical case study, the C234-Case, from a C2 C3 C4 Separation

Section is elaborated to demonstrate the new design methodology for
conceptual network design with Structural Targeting and multi-utility
targeting methods and the guidelines for design with different heat
exchanger types. The case study follows the steps outlined in Chapter 3
to setup a refined conceptual network design. Both options with new
multi-pass conventional and counter-current advanced heat exchangers
are investigated. Three relatively simple retrofit options are found. These
options are independent and can be combined to get up to 77% of the
maximum saving possible in the entire network. Structural Targeting
shows quickly the essential network parts for energy saving and alter-
native integration options. The network design effort is very limited and
the designs are straightforward, also without specific design guidelines.
216 Chapter 9
9.1 Introduction
Case studies are an essential means to test and further develop a design method. This chapter outlines
an industrial case study for which a conceptual network design will be elaborated based on the new
retrofit design approach presented in the previous chapters. The case heat exchanger network is part of
a separation section to process a C2 to C4 hydrocarbon mixture. Figure 57 shows a simplified process
flow scheme of this separation section with the relevant heat exchangers. We will refer to this section
as the C234 Separation Section and to this case study as the C234 Case Study. The boundaries of the
case were based on the available information and the applied utilities. The actual plant has various
operating modes, but we will design for the most common operating mode only to get a more
transparent case.
The case study will concentrate on the first stages of the Conceptual Network Design phase as
described in Chapter 3. Meanwhile, we will pay attention to the availability and necessity of
information in preceding and subsequent design stages, also discussed in Chapter 3 (Figure 10).
Section 9.2 will outline the work in the phases that precede the Conceptual Network Design: Need
Identification and Base Case Definition. The subsequent sections will give the elaboration of the first
three stages of the Conceptual Network Design phase for the case study. These sections have a setup
similar to the outlines of the design stages in the tables 15, 17 and 19 in Chapter 3. The final design
stage of the Conceptual Network Design phase is not included as this stage is not essential to
demonstrate the new methodology, while it requires detailed information that is not available. We will
conclude this chapter with an evaluation of the case study and the used method.
9.2 Design Basis
Need Identification
The C234 Separation Section has operated satisfactory for many years. It has high production volumes
with small profit margins and therefore it is essential to minimize the operational cost without
compromising the product quality and availability of the plant. Simple improvements are preferred
over extensive renovations. Such simple changes reduce the required down time to do retrofit
construction and the risk of cumbersome startup and operation afterwards. The maximum pay back
time of any energy saving improvement should be less than one year. No other constraints were put on
the design initially.
Base Case Definition

Prior to any retrofit design activity, it is essential to review the current situation and define a proper
base case as reference. The information system of the plant contained some performance numbers, but
these numbers applied to the entire plant and had no meaning for the C234 Separation Section. Some
models were available for the C234 Separation Section as well, but the given heat balances appeared
unreliable. The existing network performance was thus poorly defined and had to be reconciled from
the available plant data.
C2 Fraction
V70
V40 C70 V71 V72 C71 C72
Deethaniser
C40
VLPSteam
E70
E71 E72 E73 C.W.
E40A/B
C.W. E20
E12A/B
Hot Water LPSteam C21
C.W.
Propene E-50
C3 Hydro- Splitter V20
genation
E50 E51 E52
E23 Propene Product
C10 C20
Depropaniser VLPSteam
Rectifier
C.W.
C.W. Hot water
E10
C.W. E20A-D
E31A/B
E13A/B C.W.
Debutaniser C4 Product Fraction

Depropaniser
C30
Stripper C11
LP steam
VLPSteam
E30A/B Gasoline
E11A/B
Figure 57 Simplified flowsheet of the C234 Separation Section

218 Chapter 9
Plant data have been collected from the original design books, the data logs in the DCS and the output
of the available simulation model of the plant. The design books gave the process flow schemes, the
availability of measurements and both the construction details and the design performance of the
existing equipment. The actual performance has been derived from the DCS data, averaged for a
typical operation period. Additionally, the plant owner provided the output of the plant model based
on the same typical operation mode. This output was the main source for the physical properties of the
streams. Additionally, it provided reference duties for most exchangers. The DCS data and some
simple simulations have been used to determine the actual conditions of the streams and to fine tune
the exchanger duties.
The resulting stream data were inconsistent with the exchanger performance estimated with the simple
counter-current and multi-pass exchanger models from the exchanger details (area, number of shells,
number of passes) and design heat transfer coefficients. The calculated heat transfer areas, based on
the above mentioned models, deviated significantly from the actual area. One third of the heat
exchangers had ±5% deviation from the actual area, one third around 20% and one third up to 80%
deviation. The stream conditions and the stream heat transfer coefficients have been reconciled
manually to improve the results of the heat exchanger network model with the plant data. See
Appendix H for more details.
Finally, we have defined a consistent base case for the C234 Case Study from the fitted idealised heat
exchanger network model of the C234 Separation Section. Details including the network grid diagram,
the used stream, exchanger and economic data, are in Appendix H, Section H.2.
9.3 Target Stage
Definition
In the first stage of conceptual network design, we want to determine the available scope for energy
retrofit saving, based on the stream data, existing utility consumption figures and some economic data.
Grassroots targeting and graphical analysis methods will show the ultimate and practical minimum use
of each utility within the network. There are no constraints on heat integration within the C234
Separation Section, nor on the minimum or maximum use of specific utilities. Therefore, we can use
unconstrained energy targeting. The cost of each of the six utilities is given by the plant owner.
Synthesis and Analysis

The existing network already has very low approach temperatures between the hot and cold streams.
Both strictly counter-current and multi-pass exchangers are present. The fluids present in the C234
Separation Section are relatively clean, thus we assume that we can apply advanced strictly counter-
current exchangers throughout the network. As a result we can select a low practical minimum
approach temperature of 1°C for energy targeting.
The figures 58 and 59 show the composite curves and the grand composite curves with original utility
placement, respectively. The cost for the used duty of each utility is in the options evaluation table,
Table 34, at the end of this section.
Case Study 219
160
140
120
100
Temperature [°C]
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Enthalpy [MW]
Figure 58 Composite curves without utilities for the original C234 Case at ǻTmin = 1°C
160
HU3
140
120 HU2
HU1
100
Shifted Temperature [°C]
80
60
40 AIR
20
CW1+CW2
-20
-40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Enthalpy [MW]
Figure 59 Grand composite curve at ǻTmin = 1°C with original utilities

220 Chapter 9
The composite curves show that relatively little process-to-process heat integration is possible in the
system. The grand composite curve better shows the saving options. It shows the opportunities for
small duty savings that reduce both the total hot and cold utility duties and for utility cost savings by
shifting duty from one utility to another. Ideally only one hot utility (HU1) and one cold utility (CW1)
should be used.
The used air cooling is only partially effective, as part of the heat is cooled from above the pinch. This
will, according to the basic pinch rules, give an additional hot utility use. It is therefore preferred to
eliminate air cooling, although it is cheaper per unit cooling duty than utility CW1. Deletion of air
cooling eliminates a utility pinch and finally saves an equal amount of hot utility. The cooling water
duty (the sum of CW1 and CW2) remains the same. Instead of saving on air cooling, we can also save
both on hot and cold utility (HU1 and CW1), if we allow the minimum approach temperature to drop
to 1°C. The duty saving is somewhat larger in this case (Table 34).
The higher temperature hot utilities, HU2 and HU3, are not required to balance the system, whereas
these hot utilities are more expensive than HU1. The shift of duty from HU2 and HU3 to HU1 will
thus reduce the utility cost. These shifts can be done with approach temperatures well above the
practical minimum of 1°C. Table 34 shows the saving potential of all identified options.
Table 34 Overview of ultimate saving options, unconstrained for the total system, with ǻTmin= 0°C for the
C234 Case
Utilities UnitCost Original Options
per utility duty
No HU3 No HU2 No CW2 No Air Min ǻT All
Euro/GJ kW Duty change related to original in kW
HU1 5 16630 896 10936 0 -1818 -1962 8052
HU2 5.7 10936 0 -10936 0 0 0 -10936
HU3 5.9 896 -896 0 0 0 0 -896
CW1 0.29 61081 0 0 14444 0 -1962 12482
CW2 0.39 14444 0 0 -14444 0 0 -14444
AIR 0.15 1818 0 0 0 -1818 0 -1818
Duty Saving 1 kW 0 0 0 -1818 -1962 -3780
Util. Cost MEuro/yr 5.399 5.374 5.162 5.354 5.109 5.078 4.481
Saving MEuro/yr 0 0.025 0.237 0.045 0.29 0.321 0.918

% max 3% 26% 5% 32% 35% 100%
1
Overall duty saving for both hot and cold utilities
Case Study 221
Evaluation
The evaluation of the composite and grand composite curves shows that we can reduce the hot utility
duty by maximum 13%. The utility cost can be reduced by 17%, a saving of 0.92 MEuro/yr, when we
also apply the cheapest possible utilities. This saving is rather modest compared to the total utility cost
in the plant the C234 Separation Section is part of. It is doubtful if this saving scope would be
sufficient to justify a more detailed analysis commercially. We will continue anyway to demonstrate
the design methodology. The limited saving scope, however, asks for simple retrofit changes that will
be easy to implement. We should keep this in mind during the next stages of design.
Table 34 gives some guidelines for the more detailed analysis:

• The duty shifts from HU3 to HU1 and from CW2 to CW1 hardly contribute to the total cost
savings and thus probably can be ignored.
• The duty shift from HU2 to HU1 seems interesting, especially, as HU2 is only present in one
exchanger, E40.
• The reduction or elimination of air cooling is preferred over the reduction of cooling water
CW1. Air cooling violates the process pinch and is only present at one location (E73).
9.4 Preliminary Design Stage
Definition
A more detailed analysis of the existing network should determine what part we can exploit of the
saving potential identified in the previous stage, taking into account:
• the constraints in the current network;
• the applicable exchanger type(s);
• the predefined economic criteria;
• the essential network elements to be modified.
We can explore the potential by retrofit target approximations, which give a good overview and avoid
the actual network design. This retrofit targeting must determine estimates for:
• the revised utility use and cost;
• the required heat transfer area;
• the associated new exchanger costs;
• the essential network elements to be modified.
We will use these targets as the basis to decide whether further elaboration of the design is necessary.
If this is the case, we will set these targets as the basis for this network design.
Also in this stage we have no specific constraints that we must take into account in the design. The
small saving scope identified in the previous stage forces us to look for simple retrofit options only.
Complexity will thus be one of the most important criteria and will prevail other criteria presented in
Table 12, Chapter 2.
The fluids in the C234 Separation Section are relatively clean. Advanced area is already applied in the
existing plant, though outside the scope of the case study. We will therefore take the use of advanced
area as a valid alternative in retrofit. This will generally be the preferred option, because of the lower
cost per unit area of these exchangers.
222 Chapter 9
Synthesis
We will apply the Structural Targeting method of Chapter 6 to determine not only the utility and area
amounts and costs, but also the essential network parts to be modified as required in this design stage.
Prior to this structural targeting approach, we should evaluate the performance of the current network
and included exchangers. The original network has only limited integration, 90% of all process-to-
process heat exchange in the original network is in one exchanger, E20, which is equivalent to 54% of
the total duty exchanged in the network. Of the remaining 46% of the exchanged duty only 6% is
process-to-process exchange. Consequently, most inefficiencies result from the selected utilities rather
than from inefficient process-to-process heat exchange.
The driving force plot, Figure 60, shows an exceptionally large driving force for the exchangers E73,
E51 and E52, and a rather poor placement of E71 and E72. We can thus expect some saving potential
Table 35 Initial zones defined for the C234 case with internal maximum cost saving
Integrity Included Exchangers Included Utilities Number of Max Cost Saving Fraction of
Zone Streams within Zone Total
included kEuro/yr
A E11 E13 HU1 CW1 4 0 -
B E10 E12 HU1 CW2 4 27 3%
C E50 E51 HU3 4 25 3%
D E20 E21 E22 E23 E52 CW1 CW2 8 1 0.1%
E E30 E31 HU1 CW2 4 17 2%
F E40 HU2 2 237 26%
G E70 E71 E72 E73 AIR 5 0 -

160
140 E51
E73
120
100
E72
80
Thot [°C]
E52
60
40
E71 GlobalNetwork
20 Th=Tc
-20
-25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Tcold [°C]
Figure 60 Driving force plot of the total original network with selected exchangers identified.
Case Study 223
in the retrofit of the networks around these exchangers. This is confirmed by the auxiliary heat flow
curves and match efficiencies (not included).
After the network performance analysis, we need to translate the insights from this analysis into a
definition of the relevant integrity zones as required for the structural targeting approach. There are no
specific design constraints that we must take into account and this makes the integrity zone definition
rather straightforward. Initially, we base the zones on the process flow diagram (Figure 57), which
shows the functional parts of the separation section and the exchangers that have a strong relation
based on this functional units. The resulting zones with some characteristics are given in Table 35.
Analysis
The original network contains six utilities. We have therefore used the multi-utility retrofit targeting
method described in Section 6.3 as implemented in PHITS (Appendix G). We have used two more or
less extreme scenarios, to determine possible differences in the retrofit options with conventional
multi-pass and advanced counter-current exchangers and to have an indication of the sensitivity of the
targets for different scenarios:
I) Counter-current area targeting with incremental area efficiency (new area efficiency of one) and
advanced (weight-based) exchanger cost for new area;
II) Multi-pass area targeting (Xp=0.8) with constant area efficiency (equal to the area efficiency in
the original network) and conventional exchanger cost for new area.
The main results for the total network are in the overall summary at the end of this section in Table 37.
We can afford to do a rigorous analysis of all other 127 (= 2 7 - 1) combinations with the seven defined
integrity zones with both targeting scenarios, as we have dedicated software available. This gives for
each subnetwork a number of relevant characteristics as described in Appendix H, including the
number of existing exchangers and streams included, the maximum saving potential and some
characteristics of the applicable saving on investment relation, which is the input for a first evaluation
of the options.
Evaluation
Integration within integrity zones is always preferred over integration between zones. Table 35 shows
the saving scope within the individual zones. The cost savings shown are all based on the shift to
cheaper utilities (either to HU1 or CW1). There are no options to reduce the total sum of hot and cold
utility duties within an integrity zone. In most zones the maximum saving is limited. Meanwhile, the
cheaper utility is not yet available in the zone and thus we probably need additional investment to
make it available. Only in Zone F the saving is sufficiently large to justify further elaboration. This
zone contains exchanger E40 which is driven by hot utility HU2. The analysis in the previous stage
already showed that HU2 can be replaced by HU1, which will give a significant cost reduction. This
modification of exchanger E40 is the first identified saving option.
Additional saving options must result from the integration between integrity zones. The identification
of these options requires the evaluation of the remaining 120 subnetworks that represent all possible
combinations of the seven integrity zones. A weighted ranking of the subnetworks (see Appendix H.2)
based on the results of the analysis and comparison of individual characteristic figures gives us some
insight in the way we can exploit the saving potential:
224 Chapter 9
• The minimum pay back time for most subnetworks using Scenario I (conventional multi-pass
exchangers) is above 1 year. We will probably have to apply counter-current or advanced
counter-current exchangers.
• The trends in the analyses with Scenario I and Scenario II are similar.
• Subnetworks including Integrity Zone E always show poorer performance than similar
subnetworks with one of the Integrity Zones A, B or F.
• Exclusion of one of the Integrity zones A, B or E hardly affects the saving potential (maximum
saving and minimum payback point) of the total network. Exclusion of more than one zone
gives worse results. The lowest impact results if we exclude Integrity Zone E. This zone is also
more independent in the process than the other zones. Therefore, we prefer not to elaborate the
subnetworks with Integrity Zone E.
• It is necessary to integrate Integrity Zone G with one of the Integrity Zones A, B or F, to get a
substantial fraction of the saving possible in the total network. The addition of Integrity Zone D
has significant added value in saving potential. Integrity Zone C seems less important.
Refinement
The first analysis has given some reduction of the design problem, but we need more focus and clearer
targets to start the subsequent design stage. We will therefore refine the zoning based on the guidelines
given in Chapter 6. We will do this refinement in two steps: firstly, we will use smaller zones and
finally we will use individual heat exchangers, the smallest possible zones.
Most of the initially defined integrity zones have a distinct hot and distinct cold part and a clear pinch
point in between. It is likely that only the hot or cold part is relevant for heat integration. Therefore, it
is useful to split the integrity zones at the pinch, but we may loose the link with the process that was
the basis for the initial zone definition, if we split all integrity zones in this way. Additionally, we will
have up to 13 integrity zones with 213 possible subnetworks, which makes it difficult to analyse all
options rigorously. As an initial refinement, we split the most extended integrity zones, D and G, more
or less at the zone pinch to get nearly the same number of exchangers in all integrity zones. The
resulting integrity zones, which replace the original integrity zones D and G, are in Table 36.
The analysis of the subnetworks built from the integrity zones A, B, C, D1, D2, F, G1 and G2 better
clarifies the essential parts of the network:
• The Subnetworks A-G2, B-G2 and F-G2 are the smallest with a substantial saving potential of
42, 40 and 36% of the total maximum, respectively. The F-G2 option is the least favourable,
also because it interferes with the saving potential with Integrity Zone F as discussed above.
Table 36 Refined integrity zones defined for the C234 Case with internal maximum cost saving
Zone Included Exchangers Included Utilities # Streams Max Cost Saving Fraction of
Included within Zone Total
Euro/yr
D1 E21 E22 E23 CW1 CW2 5 892 0.1%
D2 E20 E52 CW1 4 0 -
G1 E70 E71 - 3 0 -
G2 E72 E73 AIR 3 0 -

Table 37 Main targeting results for total network and main subnetworks from various zone
refinement levels based on addition new area as counter-current area and weight based exchanger cost
(Scenario II)
Subnetwork 1 No No Target Target Saving at Max Cost Saving
Units Strms CostSaving Payback 1 yr
@ Min PB @ Min PB pay back Absolute Frac. of
kEuro/yr yr kEuro/yr kEuro/yr tot.saving
%
TOTAL (Scenario I) 2 18 32 623 0.88 801 918 100 %
(Scenario II) 2 18 32 806 0.46 918 918 100 %
ABCDFG 2 16 28 802 0.45 901 901 98 %

A-B-C-D1-F-G2 2 11 20 696 0.36 898 898 98 %
1 11 20 574 0.5 661 661 72 %
A-G2 4 7 314 0.36 387 388 42 %

B-G2 4 7 336 0.32 374 374 41 %
F-G2 1 3 5 290 0.32 290 290 32 %
A-D1-G2 6 11 453 0.47 532 532 58 %
B-D1-G2 6 11 427 0.44 543 543 59 %
F-D1-G2 1 5 9 434 0.44 434 434 47 %
D1-F 1 3 6 135 0.44 144 144 16 %
C-D1 4 7 156 0.54 168 168 18 %
E40 2 1 2 237 0.18 237 237 26 %
E10 E72 2 4 217 0.41 234 234 25 %

E40 E72 2 2 4 167 0.54 180 180 20 %
1 2 4 147 0.61 159 159 17 %
E11 E72 2 4 134 0.68 145 145 16 %
E40 E72 E73 2 3 5 329 0.29 329 329 36 %
1 3 5 290 0.32 290 290 32 %
E10 E72 E73 3 5 290 0.31 290 290 32 %
E11 E72 E73 3 5 290 0.33 290 290 32 %
E10 E52 2 4 144 0.18 144 144 16 %
E40 E52 2 2 4 137 0.22 163 163 18 %
1 2 4 122 0.25 144 144 16 %
E11 E52 2 4 114 0.27 144 144 16 %
E51 E52 2 5 141 0.31 168 168 18 %
E40 + E10 E72 2 3 6 454 0.29 471 471 51 %

E40 + E40 E72 2 2 4 384 0.27 396 396 43 %
E40 + E10 E72 E73 2 4 7 527 0.25 527 527 57 %
E40 + E40 E72 E73 2 3 5 527 0.2 527 527 57 %
E40 + E10 E72 E73 2 6 12 668 26 695 695 76 %

+ E51 E52
E40 + E40 E72 E73 2 5 10 668 0.23 695 695 76 %
+ E51 E52
1
Savings related to network with exchanger E40 (Integrity Zone F) revised to utility HU1 (indicated with ‘1’)
or to original network with exchanger on utility HU2 (indicated with ‘2’).
226 Chapter 9
• The added value of integration Zone F with G2 is only 32% of the total maximum saving, if
corrected for this independent option.
• The minimum payback period for all options is around 0.45 year for Scenario II and the
maximum saving can be achieved with a payback of less than one year.
• Addition of Integrity Zone D1 to the above mentioned subnetworks increases the saving
potential substantially. The minimum payback for these options is 0.3 year higher, but the entire
saving can still be achieved with a payback period of less than one year.
• The smallest subnetworks without Integrity Zone G2 are D1-F and C-D1.They have 15 and 18%
of the total saving respectively, which is within a pay back period of one year (Scenario II) and
a minimum pay back of around 0.5 year.
The limited saving scope for the entire case, discussed in the definition part of this section, forces us to
look for simple retrofit options. Therefore, we are more interested in combinations of independent
smaller retrofit options, than in the cases that extend over many zones. The analysis above gives three
mainly independent options to include: exchanger E40 (Integrity Zone F), Subnetwork C-D1 and one
of the Subnetworks A-G2, B-G2 or F-G2. Combinations of these three options can give already up to
86% of the maximum saving possible in the total network.
The analysis above shows that the zones D2 and G1 are not essential for the saving potential. We can
thus exclude these zones from further analysis. The analysis also provides some insight in nature of
the retrofit options of the C234 case:
• the hot utility on E40 can change from HU2 to HU1
• the heat available in the Integrity Zones G2 and D1 can be used in one or more of the utility-
driven exchangers in either Integrity Zone A, B or F
• The heat available in E12 and E13 cannot effectively be used to heat any process stream and
thus do not contribute to the saving potential.
We can do a similar retrofit analysis with individual heat exchangers as for integrity zones. This will
give the optimum integration at match level. The included exchangers are E10 E11 E20 E40 E50 E51
E52 E72 E73. Table 37 shows the most relevant options with the best ranked options in bold print.
The characteristics for the total network and some relevant subnetworks are also included in this table
for comparison. The results of the analyses show that the major part of the saving potential of the total
network can be captured by the retrofit of a few small fractions. Subnetworks with two exchangers
save up to 25% of the maximum possible saving. Addition of one exchanger to the subnetwork gives
up to 36% of the maximum saving. This is significantly more than with two exchangers and thus we
assume that this justifies the extension of the network. A better alternative with three exchangers is the
combination of adaptation E40 and the integration of the subnetwork with E10 and E72
integrated.(51% of the maximum saving) or the combination of integrating E40, E72 and E73 together
with the utility change in E40 (57% of the maximum saving). The same saving is possible if E10 is
integrated with E72 and E73, together with adaptation of E40. This requires, however, more changes
and is thus rejected. Independent of these changes integration is possible of E51 and E52 giving 18%
of the maximum saving. The pay back of this option is lower than the pay back of the above
mentioned options, but still far below the limit of 1 year. There is no additional information available
to determine whether any of the options is easier to implement or has operational benefits.
Consequently, we select a combination of three options to retrofit small subnetworks, solely based on
heat integration opportunities.:
Case Study 227
1. shift hot utility in Integrity Zone F ( E40 ) from HU2 to HU1;

2. Integrate the Integrity Zones F and G2, i.e. a subnetwork with E40 - E72 - E73;
3. integrate subnetwork E51 - E52.
We discussed Option 1 already in the previous section. Option 2 requires integration of two rather
different integrity zones, F and G2. Integrity Zone F only includes Exchanger E40, a reboiler. It is
unlikely that we can transfer the process stream from Integrity Zone F to Integrity Zone G2 for
integration. Integrity Zone G2 has mainly liquid streams. Routing of such a stream to Integrity Zone F
should be possible. Thus integration is an option, assuming that there are no serious safety or
operational concerns. Option 2 is only preferred over the alternatives E10-G2 and E11-G2 when also
Options 1 is selected. In that case we expect overall the least modifications with Option F-G2.
Option 3 basically is the feed effluent integration of a treating unit. This is commonly applied and thus
assumed to be feasible.
Based on the available information, we assume that the selected combination of the three options is
valid.
9.5 Refined Network Design Stage
In the preceding design stages we determined targets for utility use and saving, for new area addition
and investment and for subnetworks to be modified. In the sections below we will elaborate the
refined network design stage of the conceptual network design phase for the three most promising
options, identified in the previous section.
9.5.1 Subnetwork F
Integrity Zone F has one single heat exchanger, E40. Saving is possible within this subnetwork, that
will be referred to as Subnetwork F. The saving results from replacing utility HU2 by the cheaper
utility HU1. We must add area to E40 to get the required duty from utility HU1, as this utility has a
lower temperature. Table 38 summarizes the existing, target and revised subnetwork characteristics.
The required area addition is 61% of the current exchanger area. The installed amount of area equals
the target amount. This is as expected, because the heat exchanger models used in this case study for
targeting and refined design are the same. Targets for a single exchanger are thus identical to the
(refined) design area of that exchanger.
It is unlikely that the required additional area will fit in the existing shell. Therefore we assume one
new shell is required. This shell is best placed in parallel with the existing shell, as Exchanger E40 is a
reboiler. We can apply both conventional and advanced area, depending on space available and
practical aspects, like fouling tendency of the process stream and the ability to distribute the process
stream effectively over both exchangers. We need to do detailed exchanger rating and thermal design
to determine the actual pros and cons of both options. There may be excess overdesign or design
margins in the existing exchanger that we can use to limit or prevent installation of new area. Detailed
exchanger rating and thermal design will also give more accurate investment estimates. Probably,
advanced area is applicable and significantly cheaper than conventional area. Therefore, we decide this
addition of one shell with advanced area is the preferred option.
228 Chapter 9
Table 38 Conceptual design basis, targets and design results for Subnetwork F
Existing Target Design
Multi-pass 1 Advanced 2 Multi-pass 1 Advanced 2

Utility use
HU1 (kW) 0 10936
HU2 (kW) 10936 0
Utility Cost (MEuro/yr) 5.162 4.925
Cost saving (MEuro/yr) 0 0.237
Number of Shells
Total (#) 1 max 2 2 max 2 2
Added (#) 0 max 1 1 max 1 1
Exchanger area
Total (m2) 264 427 427 427 427
2
Added total (m ) 0 163 163 163 163
2
Added conventional (m ) 0 163 0 163 0
Added advanced (m2) 0 0 163 0 163
Investment (MEuro) - 0.21 0 0.21 0
Pay back period (yr) 0.87 0.18 0.87 0.18
1
Multi-pass: new area added as multi-pass conventional exchangers, targets based on multi-pass shell
targeting with constant area efficiency and conventional area cost estimate (Scenario I)
2
Advanced: new area added as advanced counter-current exchangers, targets based on strict counter-current
area targeting with incremental area efficiency and weight based advanced area cost (Scenario II)
117 ° 116 ° Zone F HU2 117 ° 116 °

HU2
73.4 ° E40 71 ° 73.4 ° E40 71 °
C40 C40
Integrity Zone Boundary

NW2
158.5 ° 105.6 ° 38.8 ° 158.5 ° 95.3 ° 57.7 ° 38.8 ° 38.8 °

H70 H70
74.9 ° E73 9.9 ° 74.9 ° NW1 27.9 ° E73 9.9 °
C73 C73
E72 E72
50 ° 24 ° 24 °
AIR AIR
Zone G2
obsolete
(a) (b)
Figure 61 Grid diagram of the existing (a) and revised (b) network for Subnetwork F-G2.
Case Study 229
9.5.2 Subnetwork F-G2
Definition
Figure 61a shows the current subnetwork F-G2 with the existing exchangers E40, E72 and E73.
Table 39 summarizes the main characteristics of the existing situation and the targets for design within
this subnetwork. Appendix H gives more details for this case. Below we will elaborate the option to
save on the utilities HU2 and AIR. Note, the original network with utility HU2 is initially taken as
starting point for the design. The modifications proposed in the previous section for Subnetwork F
separately to shift from HU2 to HU1 are ignored. In the evaluation of this section we will discuss the
option to combine the results for Subnetwork F-G2 with the option within Subnetwork F to shift the
hot utility from HU2 to HU1, as described in Section 9.5.1.
Synthesis
The conceptual network design of Subnetwork F-G2 is rather straightforward. The utility targets show
that we must remove air cooling and use the heat available in Integrity Zone G2 (i.e. hot stream H70)
to heat the cold process stream in Integrity Zone F (i.e. cold stream C40). Exchanger E40 is a reboiler,
thus the match between the streams H70 and C40 is best placed in parallel with this exchanger. The
design guidelines of Chapter 8 guide us to the final design given in Figure 61b, that uses the existing
multi-pass area effectively and minimizes the requirement for new connections. We must select a
proper type of new area to be added in the matches NW1 and NW2. NW1 is in series with Exchanger
E73, which is a multi-pass exchanger. Addition of multi-pass area is, however, not preferred due to the
large temperature cross (hot outlet temperature is 57.7°C, cold outlet temperature is 74.9°C) that
would require the installation of two shells in series for NW1. A counter-current exchanger is
therefore preferred for this match. The new match NW2 can be either a multi-pass or a counter-current
exchanger. Both options give the same amount of area. More details are in Appendix H.
Analysis
Table 39 shows the main characteristics of the retrofit design with conventional multi-pass and
advanced counter-current exchangers. The performance analysis of the new and revised exchangers
with the driving force plot and auxiliary heat flow curves shows that the exchangers are almost
perfectly placed. Figure 61b shows the network grid with the zone boundary to visualize the changes
within and between zones.
Evaluation
The presented retrofit design for Subnetwork F-G2 meets the targets for utility use and utility cost
reduction. The advanced exchanger option has a pay back time below the maximum of 1 year, the
multi-pass option slightly exceeds this pay back time limit. This is as expected from the targets
determined during the preliminary design stage.
The difference between targets and design for utility use and cost (equal), number of shells (1 shell)
and required investments for multi-pass area (-5%) is acceptable. The investment for advanced
counter-current area is significantly overestimated (29% higher target than design), whereas the
required area is significantly (10 to 40%) underestimate. This deviation is caused by targeting
inaccuracies (see Section 9.6) and it does not reflect the inefficiency of the proposed design. As
mentioned above the thermal placement of the exchangers in the revised network is nearly perfect.
Therefore, we ignore the deviation from the targets and accept the retrofit design.
230 Chapter 9
Table 39 Conceptual design basis, targets and design results for Subnetwork F-G2

Utility use
HU2 (kW) 10936 9118
AIR (kW) 1817 0
Cost saving (MEuro/yr) 0.29
Number of Shells
Total (#) 3 7 3 6 4
Added (#) 4 1 3 2
Exchanger area 3
Total (m2) 57 / 333 238 / 333 195 / 333 258 / 333 258 / 333
2
Added total (m ) 181 / 0 138 / 0 201 / 0 194 / 0
Added conventional (m2) 181 / 0 201 / 0
2
Added advanced (m ) 138 / 0 194 / 0
2
Investment (MEuro) 0.366 0.095 0.348 0.068
2
1
2
3
Process-to-process area / utility-to-process area
The integration between the two integrity zones in the subnetwork is kept to a minimum. Only one
match between the integrity zones is present, which connects the streams C40 and H70. In the
previous stage, we have already determined that the new match should be close to Exchanger E40 to
prevent complex routing of the reboiler fluid. The actual check of the feasibility of this match will
include the plot space requirements, space for new piping on the piperack, the required pump head for
Stream H70 and possible safety issues. Based on the available information, the proposed retrofit
design of Option F-G2 is accepted.
The retrofit design of Figure 61b still allows the shift of hot utility from HU2 to HU1 as described in
Section 9.5.1. In this case the additional saving is 17% lower than the saving given for Subnetwork F
alone, as the utility duty of E40 is reduced from 10936 to 9118 kW. We need to add 92 m2 new area to
E40. This is more than in the F-G2 design with HU2 (no utility area addition), but less than required
for the shift of the full load (163 m2) when Subnetwork F is not integrated with Integrity Zone G2.
Case Study 231
9.5.3 Subnetwork E51-E52
Definition
Figure 62a shows the current Subnetwork E51-E52 with the existing exchangers E51 and E52.
Table 40 summarizes the main characteristics of the existing situation and the targets for design within
this subnetwork. Appendix H gives more details for this case. Below we will elaborate the option to
save on the utilities HU3 and CW1.
Synthesis
The conceptual network design of Subnetwork F-G2 is straightforward. The utility targets show that
we must remove water cooling and use the heat available in Stream H52 to reduce the utility requir-
ements for Stream C51. There are no existing process-to-process heat exchangers, thus the new match
is simply placed in series with the existing utility exchangers. The resulting network is in Figure 62b.
149 ° 148 ° 149 ° 148 °

HU3 55.3 ° HU3 55.3 °
E51 E51
89 ° 54.5 ° 54.5 ° 89 ° 88.3 ° 54.5 ° 54.5 °
C5051 C5051
Integrity Zone Boundary
NW3
115 ° 77.3 ° 115 ° 77.3 ° 77.3 °
H52 H52
24 ° E52 17 ° E52 17 °
CW1 CW1
obsolete
(a) (b)
Figure 62 Grid diagram of the existing (a) and revised (b) network for Subnetwork E51-E52.
Analysis
Table 40 shows the main characteristics of the retrofit design with conventional multi-pass and
advanced counter-current exchangers. There is no need to evaluate the performance of individual
exchangers, as the design is straightforward. Figure 62b shows the network grid with the integrity
zone boundary to visualize the changes within and between zones.
Evaluation
All targets are very well met in the conceptual network design of Subnetwork E51-E52. As expected
from the targets, only the advanced counter-current exchanger option gives a pay back below 1 year.
We need to add an exchanger between the streams H52 and C5051. Such a match was already
evaluated in the previous stage and found feasible. If we maintain both existing utility exchangers, we
will keep the same flexibility to handle different operating scenarios. Other process issues, like
dynamic behaviour, must be evaluated in the detailed analysis of the option. Based on the available
information, the proposed retrofit option for Subnetwork E51-E52 is accepted.
232 Chapter 9
Table 40 Conceptual design basis, targets and design results for Subnetwork E51-E52

Utility use
HU3 (kW) 896 17
CW1 (kW) 879 0
Cost saving (MEuro/yr) 0.168
Number of Shells
Total (#) 2 4 3 3 3
Added (#) 2 1 2 1
3
Exchanger area
Total (m2) 0 / 98 274 / 98 246 / 98
Added total (m2) 274 / 0 246 / 0 270 / 0 246 / 0
2
Added conventional (m ) 274 / 0 270 / 0
2
Added advanced (m ) 246 / 0 246 / 0
Investment (MEuro) 2 0.325 0.055 0.322 0.055
2
1
2
3
Process-to-process area / Utility-to-process area
9.6 Evaluation
Final Results and Alternatives

The three stages of conceptual network design elaborated in this chapter have given us three
independent small scope retrofit options, each with one or two new or revised matches. This is in line
with the objectives set in the need identification phase to aim for small modifications only. Table 41
gives the saving, investment and some retrofit design characteristics for each option and the possible
combinations. Implementation of all three options gives 77% of the maximum saving that is possible
in the total network. The required exchanger investments pay back in about three months. More
refined design and detailed analysis are necessary, to check the actual feasibility of the options and to
get more accurate cost estimates. These include detailed thermal design and rating of the exchangers
and the elaboration of the modifications required in piping and other equipment.
The three options are selected based on the saving and investment targets in the preliminary design
(retrofit targeting) stage. There are various alternative options, like E10-G2 and E11-G2, that have
similar saving potential. If any of the selected options is cancelled, one of the alternative options may
be preferred. The final network design of these alternatives may even be better than the selected option
as the area and investment targets are rather inaccurate. Ideally, we should elaborate all nearly
Case Study 233
Table 41 Summary of saving, investment and modification characteristics of the identified main retrofit options
and the combination of these options
Retrofit Option Saving Fraction Investment Pay Back Number Number of
of total New/Rev streams
saving shells rerouted
kEuro/yr % kEuro yr # #
E40 237 26 43 0.18 1 1
F-G2 290 32 68 0.21 2 3
E51-E52 168 20 55 0.33 1 2
E40/F-G2 527 57 101 0.19 3 4
E40/E51-E52 405 46 98 0.24 2 3
E40/F-G2/E51-E52 695 77 166 0.24 4 6
equivalent options to get the most optimum design. In practice, we will never be able to get the
resources to do this, especially when the saving scope is small, as in this case.
Consistency Between Design Stages

The saving targets from the initial target stage are rigorous and only depend on a proper selection of
minimum approach temperature. The selected value of 1°C did not limit any option. Most options
identified in the preliminary design stage using retrofit targeting were so-called ‘threshold’ networks,
in which either the cold or the hot utility or one of the more expensive alternative utilities get zero
duty at an approach temperature above the set minimum approach temperature. In these threshold
networks the maximum saving is generally also a realistic saving.
The retrofit area and cost targets are rather inaccurate. Generally the cost of the designs are below the
targets for conventional multi-pass area and above the counter-current advanced area. Conservative
area targets are sometimes compensated by an optimistic number of new shells targets, which gives a
better match of the actual and target network costs. We have used a practical approach in the analysis
and evaluation of the designs, aiming for good options and not necessarily the global optimum. For
this approach the trend is more important than the absolute cost figure. The used targets are adequate
for the required relative comparison of the alternatives.
The two selected subnetworks F-G2 and E51-E52 show how different the accuracies can be. On the
one hand, the targets for E51-E52 match perfectly the design. The existing subnetwork has only
utility-to-process area, whereas the retrofit design has almost only process-to-process area. This area is
in one match, just as assumed in the targeting model and thus the results are the same. On the other
hand, the area targets for subnetwork F-G2 showed a significant underestimation (10 to 40%). This is
due to the high heat transfer coefficient assigned to air to compensate for the air-side finning. In the
existing situation, the big difference of heat transfer coefficients between the streams give an error in
the area target as discussed by Ahmad et al. (1990). This results in incorrect area efficiencies for the
existing area, that propagate into the new area targets (Equation 57 in Chapter 6). Fortunately, the
underestimation of area is compensated by an overestimation of the number of shells to give a
reasonable investment target.
234 Chapter 9
Work Process and Method

The used work method clearly structured the design and allowed for clear go/no go decisions points,
which prevents a waste of design effort. In a commercial situation we would probably have stopped
the design project after one of the early stages, unless we identified an option to implement the change
very easily.
The method allows the trade off between the extent of the modification and the saving potential. Small
subnetworks with limited number of integrity zones give designs with only a small number of matches
between these zones. The integrity zone concept was found useful to keep the designer aware of the
existing process structure. It is likely that alternative aspects can be included evenly effective, when
used as basis for integrity zone demarcation. The aggregation level can be adapted to keep problems
manageable for a designer and maintain the right focus.
The case was especially useful to demonstrate the Structural Targeting approach. The design
guidelines (Chapter 8) and network performance evaluation tools had limited added value, as the
identified options were small subnetworks for which we could make a retrofit design by common
sense as well. Besides, the wide range of heat exchanger sizes and duties in the case troubled the
network performance analyses in general and especially the use of the match efficiencies. The
performance of the big matches masks the performance of the small matches.
Structural Targeting is possible and useful for this case. The approximation function is, however,
hardly used, as the most relevant options are threshold networks. The presence of many threshold
networks also limits the added value of saving and investment targets, compared to saving targets only
as used in the network pinch method of Asante and Zhu (Asante and Zhu, 1996, 1997, Zhu and
Asante, 1999) and the approach of Fraser and Gillespie (1992). The former method may give similar
results, but this could not be verified as the available implementation in Aspen Pinch 10.2 was not able
to handle the multi-utility problem. The method of Fraser and Gillespie (1992) focusses on plant
regions and will not give the detailed network analysis to arrive at the proposed modifications.
Evaluation: Results and Prospects 235
Chapter 10
Evaluation: Results and Prospects
This chapter is the conclusion to this thesis. It summarises and evaluates

the research results in relation to the initial research objectives and
questions. Additionally, it reviews the work approach with an evaluation
of main choices made. The evaluation shows that nearly all research
questions can be answered adequately and almost all research objectives
are met. Some limitations and the relevance of the presented work are
also discussed. Finally, this chapter gives some proposals for further
research.
236 Chapter 10
10.1 Evaluation Based on Research Questions
This thesis was setup based on three research objectives and ten research questions related to these
objectives given in Section 1.5. Below we summarize and discuss the results of the work by an
extended response to each research question.
Question 1a: What design variables and criteria are useful to represent relevant design issues?
The most relevant general design variables and criteria for heat exchanger network design are
summarized in Table 42. This table is a summary of the Tables 8 and 12 in Chapter 2 that give an
extended overview of the design tasks and criteria per design detail level (macro/meso/micro). The
relations between specific design issues and the given variables and criteria are explained in Chapter 2.
Table 42 Summary of heat exchanger network design issues, variables and criteria per detail level
macro (network) meso (exchanger) micro (surface)
task / establish complete heat balance establish required heat transfer establish effective heat
issue for the subject manufacturing between matched streams transfer interface
process with an economical use of
utilities
variables utility selection and use exchanger type construction material

stream connections (topology, fluid side / flow path per stream wall thickness
match integration) temperature differences surface and surface
exchanger duties and in- and velocities and pressure drops extensions
outlet temperatures exchanger size / geometries
pressure drop distribution (flow channel dimensions)
equipment location exchanger orientation
total investment
criteria adequate models used adequate models used adequate models used
fulfills task fulfills task fulfills task
safe matches safe within design limits safe materials
installation space installation space flexibility / special
pressure drop pressure drop / velocities operations
investment application limits / standards effective use driving
controllability / flexibility performance reused equipment force (ǻT/ǻp)
effective use driving force flexibility / special operations heat transfer
(ǻT/ǻp) effective use driving force coefficient
complexity (ǻT/ǻp)
economy and ecology
Not all variables and criteria given in the Tables 8 and 12 are relevant for specific cases. A designer
should thus select the most relevant variables and criteria at each design detail level for each specific
case. Some guidelines for this design problem reduction are in Section 2.7.1.
Question 1b: What level of detail is necessary in conceptual network retrofit design to include all
design issues and design variables that are relevant in this design stage?
The answer to this question is case dependent. A systematic approach to determine the required detail
is given in Section 2.7.1. Still, the core scope of conceptual design is typical for all cases. It comprises
the specification of the network topology, the match duties, including utility duties, the in- and outlet
temperatures and the amount of heat transfer area. This is the common design problem described in
most heat exchanger network design literature. Specification of these variables requires only a limited
amount of data and a fairly ideal network model. In real cases, many details may be relevant and even
essential to incorporate. Some details are common for all retrofit heat exchanger network problems,
but other details will be relevant in specific cases only. As a result, it is hardly possible to identify all
essential details prior to conceptual design and thus give a clear answer to the question. A safe list
would include all details as elaborated in the Sections 2.7 and 3.4. A design with all these details
would be very impractical and labourious, while it may give poor or no results, when it diverts the
attention from the issues that are really important for the case. Therefore, the answer to the question is
not a fixed list but the above mentioned work approach to extract the relevant details for each case
individually.
Question 1c: Can we use the definition of the design space as a useful basis to clearly define actual
heat exchanger network retrofit design problems?
Yes, the design space definition helps to define the design problem systematically. It will support
especially less experienced designers to identify all relevant details at once and avoid infeasible
designs. A systematic approach to define the problem, as discussed in the answer to the previous
question, requires additional effort at the beginning of the design, but this will pay off through better
designs and less rework. We have applied the approach to an industrial case and found it effective to
keep the design problem and data processing manageable.
Based on experience and knowledge of the work processes within an engineering and contracting
company and the case studies done for the research of this thesis, we see additional benefits of the new
design approach.
Advantages
• address potential problems in an early stage of design;
• limit labourious jobs to cases that really matter;
• force verification of the assumptions with input by others;
• better traceable design approach which are easier to report and can be used to justify the results
to an independent party.
Disadvantages
• may be over done for small cases.
The claimed advantages and disadvantages are based on personal judgement only and should be
verified by more extended design projects.
Question 2a: Can we define a unified framework to fit in the analysis and design methods for heat
exchanger network retrofit?
Yes, we can. Chapter 3 defines a design framework and generic design and evaluation cycle that can
comprise all analysis and design methods available in literature. It is the basis for the used split of the
literature in analysis, targeting and conceptual design methods. It also shows that grassroots targets are
still relevant in retrofit to demarcate the design space.
Question 2b: What blank areas exist in current analysis and design methods?
There is especially a lack of targeting methods that take into account structure constraints and design
methods with different heat exchanger types. The method evaluations in Chapter 4, 5 and 7 show the
238 Chapter 10
limitations of the available methods for the analysis, targeting and design in the conceptual design
phase in more detail. The methods available for network analysis are rather complete and adequate to
analyse structure, driving forces, economy and a collection of efficiency numbers. The application of
some of them is, however, hardly demonstrated. Grassroots targeting literature is essentially complete.
The literature on retrofit targeting is more limited and the available methods are harder to use.
Especially targeting taking into account network structure and design constraints is difficult and no
targeting for problems with more than one hot or cold utility is available. Structural Targeting, the
proposed new targeting method with integrity zones and saving on investment approximation (Chapter
6), essentially fills this gap, but is rather inaccurate. The literature on conceptual network design
methods covers most of the common design problems. Little is found, however, about the
incorporation of heat exchanger location, of heat exchanger details and the application of different
types, except for some MINLP methods that may give solutions but little understanding. The design
guidelines in Chapter 8 are a first contribution to fill this gap.
Literature on heat exchanger network (retrofit) design concentrates on a relatively small part of the
design process as outlined in the general design framework (Figure 10, Chapter 3). This part, referred
to as the conceptual network design phase in this thesis, aims for setting the optimum saving scope
and generating alternative conceptual network designs for a well defined set of streams and a well
defined existing network. This is also the main subject of the literature review in this thesis. The
literature about other design phases is not reviewed, but the related literature specifically for heat
exchanger networks seems very limited.
Question 2c: Can we define a recommended practice for the use of heat exchanger network retrofit
analysis and design methods?
We can give a recommended design approach, but the selection of individual analysis and design
methods is more depending on the requirements for specific cases and the preferences of individual
designers The recommended general design approach is given as design framework in Chapter 3. The
stage-wise execution is essential for (heat exchanger network) retrofit design to balance the
engineering effort with the improvement potential. The use of a predefined general design framework
is also useful to get a more traceable and justifiable result.
The selection of recommended methods for individual design stages is less straightforward. Each
design problem is unique with specific characteristics, points of special attention and varying
availability of data. Additionally, each designer will have a different background and may have access
to different resources in different cases. Unfortunately, there are no generally applicable design
methods available that are generalisations of the published more specific methods. Each method has
its own philosophy that is sometimes complementary to the philosophy of other methods, but often
they are conflicting.
Consequently, a designer must select an appropriate design philosophy and related methods
specifically for the subject case. The selection tables 21 and 22 for performance analysis methods, 24,
25, 23 and 27 for targeting methods and 29, 30 and 31 for design methods are developed in this thesis
to facilitate the selection. The methods in the short lists given in the tables 43, 44 and 45 will be used
in most cases by a non-specialist designer with access to general available heat exchanger network
analysis and design software. The method selection is based on software capabilities of the latest used
commercial software released in 1999, but the current software is expected to have similar capabilities
(Aspen HX-Net, 2007 and Supertarget, 2007) .
Table 43 Recommended methods for network performance analysis of retrofit cases

method intent
common grid diagram network topology presentation
composite and grand composite review thermodynamic integration potential of heat
curves supplies and demands and need for utilities
driving force plot analyse used heat transfer temperature differences
economic performance numbers determine economic value
retrofit investment evaluation plot evaluate investments related to savings
energy and area efficiency compare actual with ideal use
heat transfer coefficient analyse heat transfer capability
alternative auxiliary heat flow curve analyse duty based driving forces
Refer to Chapter 4 for a method description and references
Table 44 Recommended methods for grassroots and retrofit targeting for retrofit cases
targeting method intent
common problem table minimum hot/cold utility requirement
grand composite curve utility mix optimization
ext. vert. aligned area (Bath) minimum transfer area estimate
Euler with pinch decomp. minimum number of transfer units
supertargeting target optimisation
constant/incremental area estimate transfer area addition for retrofit
efficiency area targets
network pinch, topol. targets identify retrofit options for energy saving
alternative shells targeting recognize limits multi-pass exchangers
fixed pressure drop (retrofit) rationalise heat transfer coefficients of streams for ǻp limits
due to pump/compressor capacity
transhipment model impact of constraints on energy targets
hypertargets detailed saving on investment trends may be more accurate
than area efficiency methods but more labourious
structural targeting focus on essential network parts; recognize integrity areas in
retrofit targeting
Refer to Tables 24 and 25 in Chapter 5 for reference related to given method description
Table 45 Recommended methods for retrofit network design

design method intent
common pinch design based retrofit improve performance existing equipment to minimize
need for new equipment
network pinch based models max duty saving with min topology changes
alternative fixed pressure drop design for pressure drop constraint streams
retrofit thermal shifting procedure optimise network with existing multi-pass and new
(Chapter 8) counter-current (advanced) heat exchangers
Refer to Table 29 in Chapter 7 for reference related to given method description
240 Chapter 10
Question 3a: Can we systematically define and effectively incorporate all relevant design issues?
Yes, the problem definition guidelines of Section 2.7.1 give a structured approach to get a well defined
problem. It is essential to explore each design case and determine which design issues can be ignored
at what conditions, to arrive at a manageable design problem, as discussed before in the answer to
Question 1a..
Question 3b: Is it possible to set up a practical method that is sufficiently controllable, flexible and
simple also for common industrial problems?
Yes, this is possible. The new design framework of Chapter 3 is especially setup to handle the wide
variety of industrial design problems. It shows the steps that are common in any industrial design
process and takes into account essential practical constraints, including the common division of
responsibilities in design over different people, the limited availability of resources and data and the
necessary timing of activities.
.
For the conceptual design phase, there are only few methods that can handle the complexity and
specific constraints that are common for industrial problems. The new targeting method with integrity
zones (Chapter 6, Van Reisen, 1995a, 1998) is clearly better suitable for industrial problems than the
available retrofit targeting methods. It allows to take into account in targeting many types of
constraints or design preferences. Additionally, it is applicable to common industrial problems with
more than one hot or cold utilities, when we use the proposed saving on investment approximation.
The combination of the new design framework and the new targeting method with integrity zones and
multiple utilities has proven to be effective to do retrofit design with industrial design problems.
Obviously, it is not the only approach we can apply. If we ignore the framework, we still have to do
the activities described in the design phases of the framework. The order of the activities can,
however, be altered, if preferred, as long as we take into account the actual and required availability of
data in actual plants and during the design. This constraint reduces the freedom to select the order of
activities. Significant deviation from the proposed design framework is therefore unlikely.
It is possible to do design without targeting or in differently defined stages. The method of Zhu and
coworkers (Asante and Zhu, 1996, 1997, Zhu and Asante 1999) is clearly different and without
genuine targeting stage. Also this approach can handle a wide range of industrial problems, provided
that adequate software is available. Other design methods as reviewed in Chapter 7 may be useful. The
most appropriate method depends on the case, the designer and the available resources, as discussed in
the answer to Question 2c.
Question 3c: Can we define general application rules for various exchanger types in retrofit to
make best use of the advantages of each type?
We can define application rules only for very specific cases with two idealised heat exchanger types.
Each exchanger type has specific application ranges, related to, among others, exposure temperature
and pressure, applicable materials and possible maximum heat transfer capacity. The applicable ranges
for the main types are summarized in Table 3 in Chapter 1.
There are no adequate retrofit design methods in literature to guide the selection of exchanger types
and to adapt the design to make optimum use of different heat exchanger types. The match cost
matrices method of Carlsson et. al. (1993) and the MINLP optimisation method of Sorsak and
Kravanja (2004) allow optimisation of networks with different heat exchanger types, but give no
guidance how different types should be applied.
In Chapter 8 we have developed some simple application guidelines for advanced two- and multi-
stream heat exchangers and for an effective reuse of existing multi-pass equipment in combination
with new advanced heat exchangers. These guidelines are based on a significant simplification of the
conventional (existing) and advanced (new) heat exchangers. In this simplified design problem,
conventional heat exchangers are two-stream exchangers with multiple tube passes, that require a high
temperature difference and have a low density of transfer area. Advanced heat exchangers are defined
as two- or multi-stream, strict counter-current exchangers that allow low temperature differences,
whereas they are compact and have a relatively low cost per unit heat transfer area. These
simplifications are too significant to get generally applicable design guidelines. The guidelines are
thus only a first attempt to define the desired general application rules of advanced heat exchangers in
heat exchanger network design.
Question 3d: Can we effectively adapt the network retrofit design to exploit the advantages of
advanced (compact) two- and multi-stream heat exchangers?
We can adapt the design for specific cases with some idealised heat exchanger types using the new
retrofit thermal shifting procedure. This procedure exploits the advantages of advanced two stream
heat exchangers and create opportunities for multi-stream heat exchangers. The procedure is, however,
based on guidelines that apply only to cases with two specific idealised heat exchanger types, as
explained in the answer to Question 3c above. Consequently, the applicability of the procedure is
limited.
The analysis of the effective application of multi-pass heat exchangers in Chapter 8 is independent of
the used simplifications. Intuitively, we expected that the effectivity of existing multi-pass heat
exchangers would reduce, if the approach temperature reduces. This is, however, not the case as also
the transferred duty reduces correspondingly. In practice the effectivity may still reduce due to
inefficiencies present in real exchangers that are not included in the simple multi-pass model. These
inefficiencies may become more relevant when the temperature differences decrease. A clear reduction
of the efficiency of multi-pass heat exchangers is caused by the introduction of a stream split around
the heat exchanger, which affects the ratio of the heat capacity flow rates of the hot and cold heat
exchanger sides. This is probably obvious for a thermal designer of heat exchangers but it is unknown
in heat exchanger network design literature. In the latter, stream splitting is suggested to improve the
vertical alignment of the heat exchanger and thus reduce the required heat transfer area. For multi-pass
heat exchangers this may have the reverse effect, if the reduction of the heat exchanger effectivity
exceeds the increase of the in- and outlet temperature differences. Alternative reasons for stream
splitting are to overcome a network pinch (Asante and Zhu 1996, 1997) or to reduce the pressure drop
for a specific stream (Panjeh Shahi, 1992). Also in these cases we will pay a penalty for stream
splitting around multi-pass heat exchangers, but that may be justified by an increased saving potential
or saving on fluid transfer equipment.
242 Chapter 10
10.2 New Method Evaluation
Below we compare the new targeting and design methods, Structural Targeting, the new multi-utility
targeting method and the Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure respectively, with alternative existing
methods. The evaluation of the new general design framework is covered in the answer to the
Questions 1c and 3b in the preceding sections.
10.2.1 Structural Targeting

Structural Targeting is presented in Chapter 6 and Van Reisen (1995a, 1998) as a preliminary network
design method, based on retrofit targeting with integrity zones, that may significantly reduce the
design effort in the subsequent refined network design stage. We should compare the performance of
Structural Targeting with alternative complete retrofit design methods, rather than with the more
elementary energy, area and number of unit retrofit targeting methods. Structural Targeting itself uses
such methods and does not replace them. The alternatives for Structural Targeting are the most
commonly used retrofit design methods from Tjoe (Tjoe, 1986, Tjoe and Linnhoff 1984, 1986, 1987)
and from Asante and Zhu (Asante and Zhu 1996, 1997) and the mathematical optimisation methods in
general as summarised in Chapter 7.
Structural Targeting is a much more efficient design method than the method of Tjoe. The trade off
between saving scope and complexity is not present in Tjoe’s targeting design stage, which easily
gives unrealistic saving targets. Both methods use the same targeting algorithms and thus have similar
difficulties with target evaluation due to the accuracy of these targets. Structural Targeting significant-
ly reduces the network design problem by focussing on the essential parts only. This saves time in the
refined design stage. Finally, Structural Targeting creates simple designs and promotes sets of indep-
endent network modifications. Consequently, it is not necessary to do design evolution, which is a
cumbersome final step of Tjoe’s method required to simplify the result of the initial network revision.
The Aromatics case clearly shows the advantage of Structural Targeting compared to Tjoe’s method.
Structural Targeting may be complementary to the network pinch method of Asante and Zhu. The
network pinch method sets no saving targets prior to design, but gives an evolutionary approach to
improve step by step the saving scope with minimum impact on the network topology. Structural
Targeting gives a better overview prior to design and allows better judgement of feasibility of a retrofit
project. The network pinch method uses relatively simple LP and MILP mathematical models to
determine the saving scope of alternative topology changes. It uses no area targets and thus avoids the
problems of Structural Targeting to get consistency between targeting assumptions and actual
achievements in refined network design. The area and cost targets are however included in Structural
Targeting to allow the evaluation of saving, investment and complexity together. The network pinch
method aims for topology changes with the maximum saving scope and ignores the area costs until the
topology changes are fixed. Both methods may result in incorrect design decisions, as either the area
cost are ignored or the area cost estimate is inaccurate. Both Structural Targeting and the network
pinch method can become complicated for large networks as the number of alternatives rapidly
increases. Structural Targeting, however, can be adjusted to a manageable complexity by an adequate
selection of integrity zones. If necessary, we can zoom in to the essential network parts in a number of
analysis steps with increasing detail. Such a decomposition is not possible with the network pinch
method and as this method also lacks overall targets, it may be difficult to select the best topology
change. Besides, the network pinch method requires appropriate optimisation models and solvers.
Some commercial network design software packages offer these models but it is not possible to adapt
the models for specific case requirements. If the standard models are inadequate, the network pinch
method cannot be used. Structural Targeting is always possible even with basic targeting software,
though dedicated software like PHITS greatly increases the number of options that can be evaluated.
In conclusion, both methods have their advantages and the selection will depend on experience and the
availability of tools. Structural Targeting may be used prior to the network pinch method to do an
initial network screening and to set overall targets.
Mathematical optimisation methods like the ones from Ciric and Floudas (1989, 1990a,b) and Ma et
al. (1999, 2000), will generally give more optimal results for specific design problems than Structural
Targeting. It will, however, be difficult for designers without mathematical optimisation expertise to
translate a specific network design problem to a mathematical optimisation problem and to get
optimum and practical results from the optimisations that are often hard to solve. Standard problem
formulations will be hard to use as each practical retrofit problem has specific constraints and
preferences that must be taken into account. There is no designer control in mathematical optimisation
and consequently any preference and the weight of each preference must be defined in advance. A
designer thus has to know the design problem very well and must investigate the sensitivities for all
input. Structural Targeting requires no specific expertise and can be done with basic targeting
software. The designer controls the design decisions and can incorporate additional knowledge when
relevant. This makes the design less traceable, but it will be easier to get practical designs.
Mathematical optimisation will be inconvenient to solve large design problems with many constraints,
as these problems are mathematically complex and close to or even beyond the capabilities of the
available mathematical solvers. Structural Targeting is sizeable by the selection of integrity zones,
which keeps the design manageable, but may hide good retrofit opportunities. Structural Targeting
may use mathematical optimisation to enhance the accuracy and facilitate the evaluation of
alternatives. This may be subject to further research, see Section 10.5.
10.2.2 Multi-utility Targeting

The retrofit targeting extension to handle multi-utility problems, also presented in Chapter 6, is an
alternative targeting method that we should compare with other retrofit targeting methods. There is
only one equivalent alternative, which is the area matrix targeting method from Shokoya (1992). Both
the new targeting and the area matrix methods rely on the same area estimation model, the spaghetti
network and will thus have similar accuracy. The area matrix targets may be better as it takes into
account the actual area distribution between streams. No data is available to compare the accuracy of
both targeting methods. Both methods require a non-linear programming optimisation, but the area
matrix requires the optimisation of a multitude of variables. The number of variables in the new
targeting method equals the number of utilities minus one. The number of variables in the area matrix
is roughly twice the square of the number of streams in the network. The area matrix targeting
problem will generally be difficult to solve, especially for large problems, whereas the new targeting
method always solved easily.
244 Chapter 10
10.2.3 Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure

The Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure is a refined network design method that creates opportunities
for advanced heat exchangers. Only two design methods have similar capabilities, as can be derived
from the overviews of Chapter 7. The match cost matrices method of Carlsson et. al. (1993)
and the MINLP optimisation method of Sorsak and Kravanja (2004) allow optimisation of networks
with different heat exchanger types, but give no guidance how different types should be applied. The
Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure gives guidance, but only based on significant simplification of the
design problem, whereas it does not take into account detailed design limits of specific exchanger
types. The optimisation method of Sorsak and Kravanja (2004) is the most complete as it includes
detailed criteria to apply different types of heat exchangers. It has, however, the common
disadvantages of mathematical optimisation methods that are described above and thus will be
difficult to apply to practical cases. The match cost matrices method is not well elaborated and
therefore further comparison with the new method is not possible.
The Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure may also be used to design networks with uniform exchanger
type. The method is generally straightforward and relatively quick for small design problems, up to
about 6 streams, but it tends to integrate all streams that are part of the design problem. For practical
design problems we have to reduce the required network design problem with a targeting method like
Structural Targeting to keep simple designs. Still, we may get further optimised networks with
alternative design methods.
10.3 Evaluation Research Work Approach
10.3.1 Literature Review

A literature review of heat exchanger network analysis and design methods is a complex task due to
the large number of different methods, the many publications about method applications and case
studies and the many different ways to define the problem scope. New methods tend to be additions to
existing methods to serve a specific application area. The original methods generally remain the
standard because of their simplicity. This is what is covered in standard text books on heat exchanger
network design. The method extensions, especially those published for targeting and design methods,
are hardly visible and rarely applied. There are no attempts to get more unified methods that comprise
the simple base methods and available extensions. The lack of generalisations results in long lists of
specific targeting and design methods. A preselection of the most relevant methods was difficult as
little has been published about the relative performance of various equivalent analysis and design
methods. We therefore decided to review and incorporate all available methods, but restricted to a well
defined scope based on the conceptual network design stage definition in Chapter 3. This initiated the
split in three method groups: performance analysis, targeting and network design.
The literature review has been based on the publications up to April 2007. It was limited to
publications in the English, German, French and Dutch languages, that were available from the library
of the Delft University of Technology. Therefore, it does not include some potentially relevant
publications in some Eastern European and some Chinese journals.
The assessment and qualification of the analysis and design methods was often rather difficult. There
was little supporting information in literature. Also the information in the publications of some
methods was rather poor and sometimes even did not allow to determine what options were available.
The final qualification was only possible after the definition of criteria for specific marks. Many
qualifications have been determined by a relative assessment of groups of methods. Some new
methods were added later, which often forced a reassessment of a complete group of methods. The
written qualification criteria were essential to maintain a consistent assessment.
The usability of specific methods depends on the availability of expertise and tools. In many cases the
application of a complex method is rather easy if the right tool is available. In the past decennia also
the process design software has developed. Unfortunately, we have not been able to use recent
versions of these software and check the features that are now accessible. The assessment is based on
the commercial software available in 1999 and a judgement of the currently available capabilities
based on recent software descriptions (Aspen HX-Net, 2007 and Supertarget, 2007).
The extensive literature review and application of the specifically developed method assessment
systematics resulted in clear method inventories and unified method assessments that enable method
comparison and selection. Meanwhile, these overviews give an essential contribution to understanding
of the heat exchanger network retrofit design issues and possible approaches, which is not available in
literature.
10.3.2 Case Studies

The case studies are selected mainly based on their availability. The Aromatics and Simplified Crude
Preheat cases have been used in previous key publications on heat exchanger network retrofit design
by Tjoe (1986) and Panjeh Shahi (1992), respectively. As a result the required data and some reference
results were available. At the start of the research for this thesis in the early nineties, there were hardly
any other well documented simple retrofit cases available. The selection of cases was thus obvious.
The practical case study included in this thesis has been selected from four practical cases based on
actual plants performed during the research. They were made available by early sponsors of the
research. For the selected C234 Case (Chapter 9) much data was available. Besides, the case could be
defined as a true energy saving retrofit problem, which was more difficult for the alternative practical
cases.
Together, the cases cover a wide range of typical industrial problems. This allowed the development
of a widely applicable design approach. Unfortunately, it was hardly possible to verify the design
approach, as each case was rather unique. It was not possible to test a specific design approach or
method adaption, developed to suit a specific case, to an independent case with similar requirements.
The Structural Targeting method has been applied most frequently. It was setup using the aromatics
case, for which it was found very powerful. It was also very useful for the C234 Case and some of the
other practical cases. The Structural Targeting method is more difficult to apply and less able to
reduce the complexity of the design for highly integrated cases with few independent network parts,
like simplified crude preheat case.
246 Chapter 10
Some retrofit design problems are not covered by the selected cases. These include, among others:
• cases with existing advanced heat exchangers;
• cases with existing multi-stream heat exchangers;
• cases with real match constraints, also referred to as forbidden matches.
These cases are relevant but less common. The elaborated cases cover the major part of the relevant
problems.
10.3.3 Development Analysis and Design Method

The new analysis and design method was based on the literature reviewed, the case studies and,
especially for the retrofit design framework, on own experiences in an engineering company. The
method evolved over years together with the growing insights. There have been essential contributions
from various experts. Additionally, insight in the heat exchanger network design problem was gained
by the development of heat exchanger network analysis software using object oriented programming.
Below we will elaborate the above mentioned contributions to the development of the analysis and
design methods in more detail.
The roots of the analysis and design methods lie in the early nineties. Pinch technology was state of
the art for heat exchanger network design and support was available for the first phase of the research
project from an expert on pinch technology and heat exchanger design. Mathematical optimisation
methods were the main alternatives. These methods quickly developed, but were hardly used for
retrofit design. At that time the choice was made for a pinch technology based approach. Over time,
we became convinced that designer control is essential in retrofit design to incorporate the many case
specific details that are common in practical retrofit problems in a proper way. This is not easy with
mathematical optimisation design methods. Therefore, the pinch based design approach sustained. The
execution of practical, bigger size case studies showed, however, that mathematical methods can be
useful to support some part of design, especially to generate more accurate targets, to evaluate sets of
alternatives and to fine tune (parts of) designs. This may be subject of further research.
A software tool was developed during the research to support the analysis of cases. See Appendix G
for a more detailed description of the tool. The software development contributed in two ways to the
development of the analysis and design methods. On the one hand the tool itself facilitated a detailed
analysis of the cases with structural targeting and the use of various performance analysis methods,
including match efficiency and the Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves, that were not in the available
commercial software. The latter facilitated network design. The former allowed a check of the impact
of different integrity zone definitions, including the use of a larger number (up to 12) of smaller
integrity zones, whereas without the dedicated tool we experienced a practical upper limit of about six
integrity zones per case. On the other hand the development of the software with object oriented
programming contributed to the definition of the essential objects and attributes in network design, as
given in Chapter 2. This understanding facilitated the generalisation of specific results and also
contributed to the assessment of the methods available in literature.
10.4 Conclusion
10.4.1 Research Objectives and Results

For the final conclusion of this work we look back at the research objectives defined in Chapter 1.
Below we describe what is achieved for each objective.
Objective 1
Get a clear definition of the design space of the energy saving retrofit design problem, i.e. a
definition of all relevant design issues and design variables and their relations, based on a
structured analysis.
We have met this objective with the content of Chapter 2 and 3. Chapter 2 contains a structured
overview of the energy saving retrofit design problem of heat exchanger networks. It starts from the
fundamental physical phenomena and a systematic identification of the relevant objects and attributes.
Next, it systematically explores the relations between the objects and the interfaces that must be taken
into account and it identifies the required design decisions. Chapter 3 gives an clear definition of the
design stages of the conceptual network design phase with a specification of all variables and criteria
involved. The definition of the design space is useful to get a systematic definition of the design
problem of a specific cases.
Objective 2
Get a structured overview of the available analysis and design methods for the retrofit of heat
exchanger networks.
We have met this objective by the overviews of the methods for heat exchanger network retrofit
available in literature, given in Chapter 4, 5 and 7. The setup of the reviews is based on the design
framework of Chapter 3 and the extended problem description of Chapter 2 that provide the structure
to classify and evaluate the available methods. Both the problem definition and the design framework
are sufficiently generic to cover all relevant literature on heat exchanger network retrofit. The
completeness of the available methods is evaluated at the end of each review chapter.
The overview tables included in the review chapters give a useful guidance to select a proper analysis
or design method. It points at alternative methods that may have been overlooked by the designer. On
the other hand, the number of methods that are actually used is limited and may also be based on a
short list as given above.
Objective 3
Develop a practical conceptual analysis and design method to do energy saving retrofit of heat
exchanger networks and to allow exploitation of the properties of different exchanger types.
Significant progress has been made to meet this objective. A new conceptual analysis and design
method has been developed. The method can be split in three parts: a general design framework, a new
targeting method Structural Targeting and a new network design method, the Retrofit Thermal
Shifting Procedure. Additionally, there are some guidelines for a systematic problem definition.
248 Chapter 10
The general design framework gives an efficient decomposition of the design in manageable design
stages. The four stages of the conceptual network design phase are well defined. The stages of other
design phases need to be elaborated. This includes the need identification phase, but the guidelines
given for a systematic problem definition (Section 2.7) provide some guidance to elaborate the stages
of this phase.
The new targeting method, Structural Targeting, is a practical tool to allow a designer to focus on the
essential network parts that must be integrated and to reduce the complexity of the actual network
design problem. It allows incorporation of practical constraints and the use of background knowledge
of the design problem during design when this becomes relevant, as the designer keeps control over
the design decisions. The evaluation of design alternatives using targeting results must, however, be
done with care and take into account the possible limited accuracy of these targeting results.
Significant progress has been achieved in this thesis in the development of a practical design method
with possible application of different exchanger types. Some new insights were developed, which
could be applied to exploit some generic benefits of advanced heat exchangers, including relative low
allowed approach temperatures, strict counter-current heat exchange, relatively low costs per unit area
and possible multi-stream layout. The design method tends to integrate the entire network that is
subject to retrofit. It is therefore necessary to precede the design stage with a preliminary design stage
based on targeting to isolate the parts of the network that really have to be integrated.
10.4.2 Relevance of Work

This thesis is a combination of on the one hand a fundamental and scientifically sound investigation of
the design problem and the available literature and on the other hand a practical guide to do energy
saving retrofit. Therefore, it is relevant for both researchers and designers. The mentioned two subjects
are clearly covered in the research objectives and the research questions elaborated in the previous
sections. The research questions were found to be a good guidance to evaluate the work and covered
the work very well. The three objectives were mostly met. Below we list the main achievements.
The extended description of the retrofit problem has no equivalence in literature. The design problems
are generally deliberately simplified in literature to get a nice research case. The systematic overview
of design variables, the relations between them and the possible design criteria provide a new
reference to define specific design problems systematically.
The structured literature reviews are a comprehensive and practical reference to the available analysis
and design methods for heat exchanger network retrofit. The review is less complete for the literature
up to 2000 than the review of Furman and Sahinidis (2002) that contains more references. This thesis,
however, covers all useful analysis and design methods, whereas the review of Furman and Sahinidis
lacks an assessment and comparison of methods as given in this thesis. More detailed method
descriptions are available in some general text books, like Smith (2005), Shenoy (1995) and Kemp
(2007), but this thesis gives a more complete overview and includes methods that are generally
omitted in the text books.
The general design framework for retrofit is a new guide to perform heat exchanger network retrofit
projects with manageable design steps and an efficient use and generation of data. This is especially
useful for novice designers, but it can also facilitate experienced designers to get a more structured
design process with a systematic generation and selection of alternatives. This will give better
traceable and justifiable designs.
Structural Targeting, the new targeting approach with integrity zones, is a useful tool to do
preliminary network design. It gives the flexibility and the designer control required for practical
retrofit design and is sizeable depending on the case requirements and the available tools.
The new network design method, including the Retrofit Thermal Shifting Procedure, is only a first
attempt to design networks with different exchanger types. Still, it contains useful guidelines to apply
advanced strict counter-current heat exchangers in an existing network with conventional multi-pass
exchangers.
The case studies show the relevance of a stage-wise approach like the general design framework. They
also show the potential of advanced heat exchangers in the retrofit of heat exchanger networks and the
possible application of multi-stream exchangers.
10.5 Further Research
In this thesis, we identified a number of areas for which additional research or development work
should be done:
A structured review of grassroots design methods would provide a reference for designers to do
method selection in grassroots design and for some types of network completion in retrofit design and
a basis for researchers to identify deficiencies in this area that require further research. Such a review
should preferably have a similar setup as the review of the retrofit design methods in Chapter 7. The
number of grassroots design methods is significantly larger than the number of retrofit design
methods. Consequently, a structured overview is even more relevant for grassroots design methods,
but the required effort will also be substantial.
A review of the methods available in the current state-of-the-art software packages should be done to
complete the method evaluations of Chapter 4, 5 and 7. The availability of proper software is often
essential to select a method.
The elaboration of other design phases of the general design framework, especially of the need
identification and the base case definition phases, would enhance the practical applicability of the
framework. For the need identification phase, it is necessary to develop a systematic approach to
derive a case specific problem definition from the general problem description presented in this thesis.
An initial setup and some guidelines are already included in Chapter 2. The base case definition is a
major job in heat exchanger network retrofit. A systematic approach to collect and process plant data
and to develop a base case may significantly improve the execution of industrial case studies. General
methods for plant data processing and reconciliation will be applicable, but the specific requirements
and shortcuts for heat exchanger networks, especially related to the stage-wise design approach
proposed in this thesis, ask for specific methods. The elaboration of the design phases following
conceptual network design would also increase the transparency of the design framework. Supporting
methods for these phases may be found in company practices and standards and literature on project
250 Chapter 10
management in the process industries and publications related to heat exchanger (equipment) design.
The few publications of heat exchanger network design with heat exchanger details also pay some
attention to the interface between conceptual and more detailed design.
More case studies should be done to verify the new analysis and design methods and compare the
results with the results from alternative analysis and design methods. Additional case studies would
give an independent check of the effectivity of the new methods. Preferably, we should elaborate
designs for these cases with alternative methods to show their relative value. A check of the general
design framework would require the execution and monitoring of a complete retrofit design project,
which will be difficult to arrange. Apart from the verification of the new methods, it would also be
useful to evaluate the use of various network performance analysis methods and the accuracy of
different targeting methods for different cases. Some network performance analysis methods are
included in Chapter 4 to get a complete set of analysis methods, but their use has never been reported
in literature. The new general design framework may ask for these additional methods, but these can
only be effectively when we gain experience with their use. The case studies show that retrofit targets
may be very inaccurate. The proper use of targeting methods, including Structural Targeting, requires
knowledge of the accuracy of targets in general and for specific cases.
The development of a method toolbox that includes all relevant methods for network performance
analysis, targeting and supporting design tools would significantly improve the accessibility of
alternative methods. This will allow quick comparison of the results of alternative methods and to
exploit the benefits of specific methods for specific cases. Such a toolbox may have a similar setup as
the different sets of thermodynamic and physical property models in process simulators.
The extension of the new targeting and design methods can make the methods more accurate and
wider applicable. Methods are available in literature to incorporate pressure drop in targeting and
network design. Pressure drop based targeting methods can easily be incorporated in Structural
Targeting, if appropriate software is available. Some network design guidelines for pressure drop
constrained networks do not take into account the effective mean temperature difference for multi-pass
exchangers and may need to be adapted.
The lack of a proper method to do grassroots design of networks with different exchanger types has
hampered the development of a similar retrofit method. There are tables with application ranges for
advanced heat exchangers which help to identify opportunities for these exchangers, but there is no
structured network design method that exploits the advantages of specific heat exchanger types to built
an optimum network based on insights. There is a mathematical approaches (Sorsak and Kravanja
2002b) but this provides no understanding. The guidelines for the application of advanced heat
exchangers in retrofit, given in this thesis, have only limited validity and is limited to two idealised
types of exchangers. A more comprehensive design approach may identify more opportunities. We
should however avoid very detailed design procedures for retrofit cases, as case specific issues will
generally make such procedures hard to use.
The application of mathematical programming methods and the potential of hybrid pinch-based /
mathematical programming methods should be explored. Mathematical programming methods may be
especially useful to generate more accurate targets, to evaluate sets of alternatives and to fine tune
(parts of) designs. This will be especially useful for extended practical case studies in which many
alternatives need to be evaluated. For targeting it is interesting to apply hypertargets (Briones and
Kokossis, 1999a,b,c) and check if these are more accurate and thus result in better consistency
between the preliminary and refined design stages of conceptual network design. Hybrid methods with
pinch-based design and mathematical programming may be especially effective, when providing the
insight and designer control of the pinch based design approach with the efficiency of alternative
generation and evaluation of mathematical programming. The use of mathematical programming
methods to do the actual network design for more extended network design problems is not
recommended. It will be difficult to capture all details and constraints in a mathematical model and, if
successful, finding relevant optimum solutions from this model will be hard as well. Extensive
optimisation is generally not relevant as the basic data is rather inaccurate and many solutions will be
as good as the optimum. Dedicated models and smart optimisation strategies will be required for each
case, which will make the mathematical approach labourious and difficult to use for designers without
specific mathematical expertise.
The extension of the application area of the developed methods would increase the significance of
these methods. The general design framework should also be applicable for the retrofit design of heat
exchanger networks with other objectives than energy saving. Debottlenecking is especially interesting
as this is more common in industries. The design framework should also be applicable for the retrofit
of other systems than heat exchanger networks and may thus be extended to a generic retrofit design
approach for manufacturing processes. Structural Targeting may also be adapted to allow
debottlenecking (Jonsson, 1996). This requires a change of philosophy, as it is not possible to adapt
essential parts of the network only. Still, we can aim for minimum integration of integrity zones, while
we adapt the network to fulfill our retrofit objective.
252
Literature 253
Chapter 11 Literature
Abbas, H. A., G. A. Wiggins, R. Lakshmanan and W. Morton (1999). 'Heat exchanger network retrofit
via constraint logic programming.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 23(Suppl.), pp. S129-S132
Ahmad, S. and C. W. Hui (1991). 'Heat Recovery Between Areas of Integrity.' Computers & Chemical
Engineering 15(12), pp. 809-832
Ahmad, S. and B. Linnhoff (1984). 'Overall Cost Targets for Heat Exchanger Networks. IChemE
Annual Research Meeting, Bath, April 1984
Ahmad, S. and B. Linnhoff (1989). 'Supertargeting: different process structures for different
economics.' Journal of Energy Resources Technology-Transactions of the ASME 111(3), pp. 131-136
Ahmad, S., B. Linnhoff and R. Smith (1990). 'Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2. Targets and
design for detailed capital cost models.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 14(7), pp. 751-767
Ahmad, S. and G. T. Polley (1990). 'Debottlenecking of heat-exchanger networks.' Heat Recovery
Systems and CHP 10(4), pp. 369-385
Ahmad, S. and R. Smith (1989). 'Targets and Design for Minimum Number of Shells in Heat
Exchanger Networks.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 67, pp. 481-494
Amidpour, M. and G. T. Polley (1997). 'Application of problem decomposition in process integration.'
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 75(A1), pp. 53-63
Asante, N. D. K. and X. X. Zhu (1996). 'An automated approach for heat exchanger network retrofit
featuring minimal topology modifications.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 20(Suppl. A,
European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering-6- 1996), pp. S7-S12
Asante, N. D. K. and X. X. Zhu (1997). 'Automated and interactive approach for heat exchanger
network retrofit.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 75(A3), pp. 349-360
Aspen HX-Net (2007). AspenTech, www.aspentech.com
Aspen HYSYS Dynamics (2007). AspenTech, www.aspentech.com
AspenPinch (1999). Version 10.2, AspenTech, www.aspentech.com; discontinued. Replaced by Aspen
HX-Net
Athier, G., P. Floquet, L. Pibouleau and S. Domenech (1998). 'A mixed method for retrofitting heat-
exchanger networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 22(Suppl. S), pp. S505-S511
Bagajewicz, M. and J. Soto (2003). 'Rigorous procedure for the design of conventional atmospheric
crude fractionation units. Part III: Trade-off between complexity and energy savings.' Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 42(6), pp. 1196-1203
Bagajewicz, M. J. (1998). 'Energy savings horizons for the retrofit of chemical processes. Application
to crude fractionation units.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 23(1), pp. 1-9
Bakker, R. A. (2004). 'Process intensification in industrial practice: methodology and application.'
Chemical Industries (Dekker) 98(Re-Engineering the Chemical Processing Plant), pp. 447-470
Barletta, A. F. (1998). 'Revamping crude units.' Hydrocarbon-Processing 77(2), pp. 51-57
Barnicki, S. D. and J. J. Siirola (2004). 'Process synthesis prospective.' Computers & Chemical
Biegler, L. T. and I. E. Grossmann (2004). 'Retrospective on optimization.' Computers & Chemical
254 Chapter 11
Biegler, L. T., I. E. Grossmann and A. W. Westerberg (1997). 'Systematic methods of chemical

process design.' Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall Inc., ISBN 0-13-492422-3
Bird, R. B., W. E. Stewart and E. N. Lightfoot (2002). 'Transport phenomena.' New York, John Wiley
& Sons, ISBN 978-0-471-41077-5
Bjork, K. M. and R. Nordman (2005). 'Solving large-scale retrofit heat exchanger network synthesis
problems with mathematical optimization methods.' Chemical Engineering and Processing 44(8),
pp. 869-876
Bochenek, R. and J. Jezowski (1999). 'Adaptive random search approach for retrofitting flexible heat
exchanger networks.' Hungarian Journal of Industrial Chemistry 27(2), pp. 89-97
Booch, G. (1994). 'Object-oriented analysis and design with applications.' Redwood City,
Benjamin/Cummings, ISBN 0-8053-5340-2
Briones, V. and A. Kokossis (1996). 'A new approach for the optimal retrofit of heat exchanger
networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering (1996), 20(Supplement A, European Symposium on
Computer Aided Process Engineering--6, 1996) 20, pp. S43-S48
Briones, V. and A. C. Kokossis (1999a). 'Hypertargets: a Conceptual Programming approach for the
optimisation of industrial heat exchanger networks - I. Grassroots design and network complexity.'
Chemical Engineering Science 54(4), pp. 519-539
Briones, V. and A. C. Kokossis (1999b). 'Hypertargets: a Conceptual Programming approach for the
optimisation of industrial heat exchanger networks - II. Retrofit design.' Chemical Engineering
Science 54(4), pp. 541-561
Briones, V. and A. C. Kokossis (1999c). 'Hypertargets: a Conceptual Programming approach for the
optimisation of industrial heat exchanger networks - Part III. Industrial applications.' Chemical
Engineering Science 54(5), pp. 685-706
Bulatov, I. (2005). 'Retrofit optimization framework for compact heat exchangers.' Heat Transfer
Butterworth, D. (2004). 'Process heat transfer 2010.' Applied Thermal Engineering 24(8-9),
pp. 1395-1408
Carlsson, A. and T. Berntsson (1995). 'Retrofit of heat exchanger networks based on detailed match
calculations.' Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference 30th
(Vol. 2), pp. 139-45
Carlsson, A., P. Franck and T. Berntsson (1993). 'Design Better Heat Exchanger Retrofits.' Chemical
Engineering Progress 89(3), pp. 87-96
Castier, M. (2007). 'Pinch analysis revisited: New rules for utility targeting.' Applied Thermal
Engineering 27(8-9), pp. 1653-1656
Castier, M. and E. M. Queiroz (2002). 'Energy targeting in heat exchanger network synthesis using
rigorous physical property calculations.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 41(6),
pp. 1511-1515
CB&I Lummus (2008). ‘Introduction to the Selection of Heat Transfer Equipment’,
PDES 04-3005-05.001, Internal Standard
Cerda, J. and M. R. Galli (1990). 'Synthesis of flexible heat exchanger networks-II. Nonconvex
networks with large temperature variations.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 14(2), pp. 213-225
Cerda, J., M. R. Galli, N. Camussi and M. A. Isla (1990). 'Synthesis of flexible heat exchanger
networks-I. Convex networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 14(2), pp. 197-211
Literature 255
Cerda, J. and A. W. Westerberg (1983). 'Synthesizing Heat Exchanger Networks having Restricted
Stream/Stream Matches using Transportation Problem Formulations.' Chemical Engineering Science
38(10), pp. 1723-1740
Cerda, J., A. W. Westerberg, D. Mason and B. Linnhoff (1983). 'Minimum Utility Usage in Heat
Exchanger Network Synthesis - A Transportation Problem.' Chemical Engineering Science 38(3),
pp. 373-387
Ciric, A. and C. A. Floudas (1988). 'Optimization model for retrofitting heat-exchanger networks.'
Crump P.R., Greenwood D.V., Smith R., Understanding Process Integration II, The Institution of
Chemical Engineers, Rugby (UK), Symposium Series No. 109, EFCE Publication No. 65, pp. 137-157
Ciric, A. R. and C. A. Floudas (1989). 'A retrofit approach for heat-exchanger networks.' Computers &
Chemical Engineering 13(6), pp. 703-715
Ciric, A. R. and C. A. Floudas (1990a). 'A mixed integer nonlinear programming model for retrofitting
heat-exchanger networks.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 29(2), pp. 239-251
Ciric, A. R. and C. A. Floudas (1990b). 'A comprehensive optimization model of the heat exchanger
network retrofit problem.' Heat Recovery Systems and CHP 10(4), pp. 407-422
Ciric, A. R. and C. A. Floudas (1991). 'Heat exchanger network synthesis without decomposition.'
Computers & Chemical Engineering 15(6), pp. 385-396
Colberg, R. D. and M. Morari (1988). 'Analysis and synthesis of resilient heat-exchanger networks.'
Advances in Chemical Engineering 14, pp. 1-93
Colberg, R. D. and M. Morari (1990). 'Area and capital cost targets for heat exchanger network
synthesis with constrained matches and unequal heat transfer coefficients.' Computers & Chemical
Council of the European Union (2007). 'Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council
(8/9 March 2007), Document 7224/1/07 REV 1
Daichendt, M. M. and I. E. Grossmann (1994a). 'Preliminary screening procedure for the MINLP
synthesis of process systems. I. Aggregation and decomposition techniques.' Computers & Chemical
Daichendt, M. M. and I. E. Grossmann (1994b). 'Preliminary screening procedure for the MINLP
synthesis of process systems. II. Heat exchanger networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering
18(8), pp. 679-709
Daichendt, M. M. and I. E. Grossmann (1994c). 'Preliminary screening procedure for MINLP heat
exchanger network synthesis using aggregated models.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design
72(A3), pp. 357-363
Daichendt, M. M. and I. E. Grossmann (1998). 'Integration of hierarchical decomposition and
mathematical programming for the synthesis of process flowsheets.' Computers & Chemical
Engineering 22(1-2), pp. 147-175
Dewan, A., P. Mahanta, K. S. Raju and P. S. Kumar (2004). 'Review of passive heat transfer
augmentation techniques.' Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A-Journal of
Power and Energy 218(A7), pp. 509-527
Dhole, V. R. and B. Linnhoff (1993a). 'Total site targets for fuel, co-generation, emissions, and
cooling.' Computers & Chemical Engineering, 17(Supplement, European Symposium on Computer
Aided Process Engineering-2, 1992), pp. S101-S109
Dhole, V. R. and B. Linnhoff (1993b). 'Overall design of low temperature processes.' Computers &
Chemical Engineering 18(Suppl.), pp. S105-S111
256 Chapter 11
Douglas, J. M. (1988). 'Conceptual design of chemical processes.' New York, McGraw-Hill,

ISBN 0-07-017762-7
Dunn, R. F. and M. M. El-Halwagi (2003). 'Process integration technology review: Background and
applications in the chemical process industry.' Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology
78(9), pp. 1011-1021
El Sayed, Y. M. (2003). 'The thermoeconomics of energy conversion.' Elsevier, ISBN 0-08-044270-6
European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment. (2007). from http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Eurostat. (2007). from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
Excel (2003). Microsoft, www.microsoft.com
Feinberg, M. (2002). 'Towards a theory of process synthesis.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research 41(16), pp. 3751-3761
Feng, X. and X. X. Zhu (1997). 'Combining pinch and exergy analysis for process modifications.'
Applied Thermal Engineering 17(3), pp. 249-261
Fisher, W. R., M. F. Doherty and J. M. Douglas (1987). 'Screening of Process Retrofit Alternatives.'
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 26(11), pp. 2195-2204
Floudas, C. A. and A. R. Ciric (1989). 'Strategies for overcoming uncertainties in heat-exchanger
network synthesis.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 13(10), pp. 1133-1152
Floudas, C. A., A. R. Ciric and I. E. Grossmann (1986). 'Automatic Synthesis of Optimum Heat
Exchanger Network Configurations.' AIChE Journal 32(2), pp. 276-290
Floudas, C. A. and I. E. Grossmann (1995). 'Algorithmic approaches to process synthesis: logic and
global optimization.'AIChE Symp. Ser. No. 304 4th Int. Conf. Foundations of Computer Aided
Process Design, Colorado, July 1994,91, pp. 198-221
Fonyo, Z. and N. Benko (1996). 'Enhancement of process integration by heat pumping.' Computers &
Chemical Engineering 20(Sup. A), pp. S85-S90
Fraga, E. S., R. Patel and G. W. A. Rowe (2001). 'A visual representation of process heat exchange as
a basis for user interaction and stochastic optimization.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design
79(A7), pp. 765-776
Fraser, D. M. (1989). 'The Use of Minimum Flux Instead of Minimum Approach Temperature as a
Design Specification for Heat Exchanger Networks.' Chemical Engineering Science 44(5),
pp. 1121-1127
Fraser, D. M. and N. E. Gillespie (1992). 'The Application of Pinch Technology to Retrofit Energy
Integration of an Entire Oil Refinery.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 70, pp. 395-406
Frausto-Hernandez, S., V. Rico-Ramirez, S. Hernandez-Castro and A. Jimenez (2002). 'MINLP heat
exchanger network design incorporating pressure drop effects.'Computer-Aided Chemical
Engineering 10 (European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering - 12), pp. 193-198
Fryer, P. J., W. R. Paterson and N. K. H. Slater (1987). 'Robustness of fouling heat exchanger
networks and its relation to resilience.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 65(3),
pp. 267-271
Furman, K. C. and N. V. Sahinidis (2002). 'A critical review and annotated bibliography for heat
exchanger network synthesis in the 20th century.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
41(10), pp. 2335-2370
Literature 257
Furman, K. C. and N. V. Sahinidis (2004). 'Approximation algorithms for the minimum number of
matches problem in heat exchanger network synthesis.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
43(14), pp. 3554-3565
Galli, M. R. and J. Cerda (1991). 'Synthesis of flexible heat exchanger networks - III. Temperature and
flowrate variations.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 15(1), pp. 7-24
Galli, M. R. and J. Cerda (1998a). 'Customized MILP approach to the synthesis of heat recovery
networks reaching specified topology targets.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 37(6),
pp. 2479 -2495
Galli, M. R. and J. Cerda (1998b). 'A designer-controlled framework for the synthesis of heat
exchanger networks involving non-isothermal mixers and multiple units over split streams.'
Computers & Chemical Engineering 22(Suppl. S), pp. S813-S816
Galli, M. R. and J. Cerda (1998c). 'Synthesis of structural-constrained heat exchanger networks - I.
Series networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 22(7-8), pp. 819-839
Galli, M. R. and J. Cerda (1998d). 'Synthesis of structural-constrained heat exchanger networks - II -
Split networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 22(7-8), pp. 1017-1035
Glaviþ, P. and Z. Novak (1993). 'Completely Analyze Energy-Integrated Processes.' Chemical
Glemmestad, B., S. Skogestad and T. Gundersen (1999). 'Optimal operation of heat exchanger
networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 23(4-5), pp. 509-522
Gomes, L. G. and M. R. Wolf Maciel (1996). 'Development of a methodology to reproduce and to
optimize the operating conditions of a natural gas processing unit.' Computers & Chemical
Engineering 20(Suppl), pp. S1511-S1516
Gomolka, W. (1982). 'On an adjustment method and energy balance design for heat exchanger
networks.' Proc. - CHEMCOMP: Chem. Process Anal. Des. Using Comput., pp. 5.19-5.29
Gore, A. (2006). 'An inconvenient truth; The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We
Can Do About It.' Rodale Press, ISBN 1-59486-567-1
gPROMS (2007). Process Systems Enterprise Ltd, www.psenterprise.com
Grant, C. D. (2005). Energy Management in Chemical Industry. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Grossmann, I. E. and A. W. Westerberg (2000). 'Research challenges in Process Systems Engineering.'
AIChE Journal 46(9), pp. 1700-1703
Grossmann, I. E., A. W. Westerberg and L. T. Biegler (1987). 'Retrofit Design of Processes.' from
Reklaitis G.V., Spriggs H.D. (ed.), Foundations of Computer Aided Process Operations, Proc. of the
1st Int. Conf. on Found. of Comp. Aided Proc. Oper., Park City, Utah, July 5-10, 1987, Cache
Publication, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 403-442
Gulyani, B. B. and B. Mohanty (2000). 'A pragmatic strategy for retrofit of heat exchanger networks.'
Indian Chemical Engineer 42(2), pp. 103-108
Gundersen, T. (1990). 'Retrofit Process Design Research and Applications of systematic methods.'
Siirolo J.J., Grossmann I.E., Stephanopoulos G., Foundations of Computer-aided Process Design,
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Foundations of Computer-Aided Process
Design, Colorado, 1989, Cache, Elsevier, A'dam, pp. 213-240
Gundersen, T. (1991). 'Achievements and Future Challenges in Industrial Design Applications of
Process Systems Engineering.' Preprint PSE'91, Fourth International Symposium on Process systems
Engineering, Montebello, Quebec, Canada, August 1991
258 Chapter 11
Gundersen, T. (2000). A process integration primer, International Energy Agency; Implementing

Agreement on Process Integration
Gundersen, T. and I. E. Grossmann (1990). 'Improved optimization strategies for automated heat
exchanger network synthesis through physical insights.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 14(9),
pp. 925-944
Gundersen, T. and L. Naess (1988). 'The synthesis of cost optimal heat exchanger networks. An
industrial review of the state of the art.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 12(6), pp. 503-530
Gundersen, T., P. Traedal and A. Hashemi Ahmady (1997). 'Improved sequential strategy for the
synthesis of near-optimal heat exchanger networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 21(Suppl.),
pp. S59-S64
Hall, S. G., S. Ahmad and R. Smith (1990). 'Capital cost targets for heat exchanger networks
comprising mixed materials of construction, pressure ratings and exchanger types.' Computers &
Hall, S. G. and B. Linnhoff (1994). 'Targeting for Furnace Systems Using Pinch Analysis.' Industrial
& Engineering Chemistry Research 33(12), pp. 3187-95
Hall, S. G. and S. W. Morgan (1994). 'Heat exchanger databases accelerate process design and
costing.' Chem. Eng. (N.Y.) 101(7), pp. 139-40,142,144
Hangos, K. M. and I. T. Cameron (2001). 'Process Modelling and Model Analysis.' London, Academic
Press, ISBN 0-12-156931-4
Haslego, C. and G. Polley (2002). 'Compact heat exchangers - Part 1: Designing plate-and-frame heat
exchangers.' Chemical Engineering Progress 98(9), pp. 32-37
Herder, P. (1999). 'Process Design in a Changing Environment; Identification of Quality Demands
Governing the Design Process'. Thesis Delft University of Technology
Hesselgreaves, J. E. (2001). 'Compact heat exchangers : selection, design and operation.' Amsterdam,
Pergamon, 2001, ISBN 0-08-042839-8
Hewitt, G. F. (1992). 'Selection and costing of heat exchangers.' ESDU Sub-series on Heat Transfer,
ESDU Data Item No. :92013, ESDU International plc, London, pp. 1-70
Hohmann, E. C. (1971). 'Optimum networks for heat exchanger.' PhD Thesis, University of
S. California, from Cerda et al. (1983a),
HTFS. (2007). from www.htfs.com
HTRI. (2007). from www.htri.net
Huang, F. and R. V. Elshout (1976). 'Optimizing the heat recovery of crude units.' Chemical
Engineering Progress 72, pp. 68-74, from Gundersen and Naess (1988)
Hui, C. W. and S. Ahmad (1994a). 'Minimum cost heat recovery between separate plant regions.'
Hui, C. W. and S. Ahmad (1994b). 'Total site heat integration using the utility system.' Computers &
IPCC, I. P. O. C. C. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for
Policymakers
ISO 14040 (2006). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -Principles and framework.
Geneva, International Standard Organization (ISO)
ISO 14044 (2006). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -Requirements and guidelines.
Geneva, International Standard Organization (ISO)
Literature 259
Jegede, F. O. (1990). 'Power, capital and energy cost trade-offs in heat exchanger networks.' PhD
Thesis UMIST
Jegede, F. O. and G. T. Polley (1992). 'Capital Cost Targets for Networks with Non-Uniform Heat
Exchanger Specifications.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 16(5), pp. 477-495
Jegla, Z., P. Stehlik and J. Kohoutek (2000). 'Plant energy saving through efficient retrofit of furnaces.'
Applied Thermal Engineering 20(15-16), pp. 1545-1560
Jezowski, J. (1994a). 'Heat exchanger network grassroots and retrofit design. The review of the state-
of-the art: part I. Heat exchanger network targeting and insight based methods of synthesis.'
Hungarian Journal of Industrial Chemistry 22(4), pp. 279-294
Jezowski, J. (1994b). 'Heat exchanger network grassroots and retrofit design. The review of the state-
of-the art: part II. Heat exchanger network synthesis by mathematical methods and approaches for
retrofit design.' Hungarian Journal of Industrial Chemistry 22(4), pp. 295-308
Jezowski, J. and F. Friedler (1992). 'A Simple Approach for Maximum Heat Recovery Calculations.'
Jezowski, J. M., H. K. Shethna and F. J. L. Castillo (2003). 'Area target for heat exchanger networks
using linear programming.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 42(8), pp. 1723-1730
Jones, D. A., A. N. Yilmaz and B. E. Tilton (1986). 'Synthesis techniques for retrofitting heat recovery
systems.' Chemical Engineering Progress 82(7), pp. 28-33
Jonsson, A. (1996). 'Methodology in the debottlenecking of heat exchanger networks.' Final year
project report Delft University of Technology Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials
Science
Kakaç, S. and H. Liu (2002). 'Heat exchangers : selection, rating, and thermal design.' Boca Raton :
CRC Press, ISBN 0-8493-0902-6
Kemp, I. C. (1991). 'Some Aspects of the Practical Application of Pinch Technology Methods.'
Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, Part A 69 nov, pp. 471-479
Kemp, I. C. (2007). 'Pinch analysis and process integration : a user guide on process integration for
the efficient use of energy.' Amsterdam, Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 0-7506-8260-4
Kern, D. Q. (1950). 'Process Heat Transfer.' New York, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0-07-034190-6
Kimura, M. and F. X. X. Zhu (2000). 'R-Curve concept and its application for industrial energy
management.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 39(7), pp. 2315-2335
Kotjabasakis, E. and B. Linnhoff (1986). 'Sensitivity tables for the design of flexible processes (1) -
How much Contingency in Heat Exchanger Networks is Cost-Effective?' Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 64, pp. 197-211
Kotjabasakis, E. and B. Linnhoff (1987). 'An optimal overdesign strategy for fouling.' Inst. Chem.
Eng. Symp. Ser., 100(Process Optim.), pp. 211-236
Kotjabasakis, E. and B. Linnhoff (1988). 'Sensitivity tables for the design of flexible processes (2) -
a case study.' Crump P.R.; Greenwood D.V.; Smith R., Understanding Process Integration II, The
Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby (UK), Symposium Series No. 109, EFCE Publication No. 65,
pp. 181-204
Kravanja, Z. and P. Glaviþ (1989). 'Heat integration of reactors. II. Total flowsheet integration.'
Kravanja, Z. and P. Glaviþ (1997). 'Cost targeting for HEN through simultaneous optimization
approach - a unified pinch technology and mathematical programming design of large HEN.'
260 Chapter 11
Lakshmanan, R. and R. Bañares-Alcántara (1996). 'Novel visualization tool for heat exchanger
network retrofit.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 35(12), pp. 4507-4522
Lakshmanan, R. and R. Bañares-Alcántara (1998). 'Retrofit by inspection using thermodynamic
process visualisation.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 22(Suppl., European Symposium on
Computer Aided Process Engineering--8, 1998), pp. S809-S812
Linnhoff, B. (1983). 'Royal Society Esso Energy Award Lecture. New Concepts in Thermodynamics
for Better Chemical Process Design.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 61, pp. 207-223
Linnhoff, B. (1993). 'Pinch analysis - A state-of-the-art overview.' Transactions of the Institute of
Chemical Engineers, Part A 71, pp. 503-522
Linnhoff, B. and S. Ahmad (1989). 'Supertargeting: optimum synthesis of energy management
systems.' Journal of Energy Resources Technology-Transactions of the ASME 111(3), pp. 121-130
Linnhoff, B. and S. Ahmad (1990). 'Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-1. Minimum energy and
capital using simple models for capital cost.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 14(7), pp. 729-750
Linnhoff, B. and V. R. Dhole (1990). 'Shaftwork targeting for Subambient Plants.' Paper presented at
the Low Temperature Engineering and Cryogenics Conference, Southampton, U.K., July 1990
Linnhoff, B. and V. R. Dhole (1992a). 'Shaftwork targets for low-temperature process design.'
Linnhoff, B. and V. R. Dhole (1992b). 'Shaftwork targeting for low temperature plants.' Chemical
Engineering Research and Design 70, pp. 180-182
Linnhoff, B., H. Dunford and R. Smith (1983). 'Heat Integration of Distillation Columns into Overall
Processes.' Chemical Engineering Science 38(8), pp. 1175-1188
Linnhoff, B. and J. R. Flower (1978a). 'Synthesis of Heat Exchanger Networks: I. Systematic
Generation of Energy Optimal Networks.' AIChE Journal 24(4), pp. 633-642
Linnhoff, B. and J. R. Flower (1978b). 'Synthesis of Heat Exchanger Networks: II. Evolutionary
Generation of Networks with Various Criteria of Optimality.' AIChE Journal 24(4), pp. 642-654
Linnhoff, B. and E. Hindmarsh (1983). 'The Pinch Design Method for Heat Exchanger Networks.'
Linnhoff, B., D. R. Mason and I. Wardle (1979). 'Understanding Heat-Exchanger Networks.'
Computers & Chemical Engineering 3(1-4), pp. 295-302
Linnhoff, B. and S. Parker (1984). 'Heat Exchanger Networks with Process Modifications.' IChemE
Annual Research Meeting, Bath, April 1984
Linnhoff, B., G. T. Polley and V. Sahdev (1988). 'General Process Improvements Through Pinch
Technology.' Chemical Engineering Progress 84, pp. 51-58
Linnhoff, B., D. W. Townsend, D. Boland, G. F. Hewitt, B. E. A. Thomas, A. R. Guy and R. H.
Marsland (1982). 'A User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy.'
Linnhoff, B., D. W. Townsend, D. Boland, G. F. Hewitt, B. E. A. Thomas, A. R. Guy and R. H.
Marsland (1994). 'A User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy.' , rev 1st Ed.
Lygeros, A., Z. B. Maroulis and G. J. Prokopakis (1996). 'Integrated software package for total site
integration and utilities design.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 20(Suppl pt B), pp. S1607-S1612
Ma, K. L., C. W. Hui and T. F. Yee (1999). 'Constant Approach Temperature Model for the Retrofit of
Heat Exchanger Networks - Simultaneous Optimization for Energy, Structural Modifications & New
Area Cost.' Pres '99, pp. 427-432
Literature 261
Ma, K. L., C. W. Hui and T. F. Yee (2000). 'Constant approach temperature model for HEN retrofit.'
Mah, R. S. H. (1990). 'Chemical process structures and information flows.' Boston, Butterworths,
ISBN 0-409-90175-x
Maple Version 9.50 (2004). Maplesoft
Marechal, F. and B. Kalitventzeff (1989). 'SYNEP1: a methodology for energy integration and optimal
heat exchanger network synthesis.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 13(4-5), pp. 603-610
Marechal, F. and B. Kalitventzeff (1996). 'Targeting the minimum cost of energy requirements: a new
graphic technique for evaluating the integration of utility systems.' Computers & Chemical
Engineering 20(Supplement A, European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering--6,
1996), pp. S225-S230
Marquardt, W. and M. Nagl (2004). 'Workflow and information centered support of design processes -
the IMPROVE perspective.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 29(1), pp. 65-82
Masso, A. H. and D. F. Rudd (1969). 'Synthesis of System Designs .2. Heuristic Structuring.' AIChE
Journal 15(1), pp. 10-17
Master, B. I., K. S. Chunangad, A. J. Boxma, D. Kral and P. Stehlik (2006). 'Most frequently used heat
exchangers from pioneering research to worldwide applications.' Heat Transfer Engineering 27(6),
pp. 4-11
Mizutani, F. T., F. L. P. Pessoa, E. M. Queiroz, S. Hauan and I. E. Grossmann (2003a). 'Mathematical
programming model for heat-exchanger network synthesis including detailed heat-exchanger designs.
1. Shell-and-tube heat-exchanger design.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 42(17),
pp. 4009-4018
Mizutani, F. T., F. L. P. Pessoa, E. M. Queiroz, S. Hauan and I. E. Grossmann (2003b). 'Mathematical
programming model for heat-exchanger network synthesis including detailed heat-exchanger designs.
2. Network synthesis.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 42(17), pp. 4019-4027
Muraki, M. and F. T. H. Toyohiko (1989). 'Investigation of a running condition for a heat-exchanger
network.' Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan 22(5), pp. 522-527
Nelson, D. A. and J. M. Douglas (1990). 'A systematic procedure for retrofitting chemical plants to
operate utilizing different reaction paths.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 29(5),
pp. 819-829
Nie, X. R. and X. X. Zhu (1999). 'Heat exchanger network retrofit considering pressure drop and heat-
transfer enhancement.' AIChE Journal 45(6), pp. 1239-1254
Nielsen, J. S., M. W. Hansen and S. B. Joergensen (1996). 'Heat exchanger network modeling
framework for optimal design and retrofitting.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 20(Supplement A,
European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering--6, 1996), pp. S249-S254
Nishida, N., S. Kobayashi and A. Ichikawa (1971). 'Optimal synthesis of heat exchange systems.
Necessary conditions for minimum heat transfer area and their application to systems synthesis.'
Chemical Engineering Science 26, pp. 1841-1856
Nishida, N., G. Stephanopoulos and A. W. Westerberg (1981). 'A Review of Process Synthesis.'
Nishimura, H. (1980). 'A theory for the optimum synthesis of heat exchange systems.' J. Optimization
Theory Applic. 30, pp. 423-450
Nordman, R. (2005). 'New process integration methods for heat-saving retrofit projects in industrial
systems'. PhD Thesis Chalmers University of Technology
262 Chapter 11
Nordman, R. and T. Berntsson (2001). 'New pinch technology based HEN analysis methodologies for
cost-effective retrofitting.' Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 79(4), pp. 655-662
O'Young, D. L., D. M. Jenkins and B. Linnhoff (1988). 'The constrained problem table for heat
exchanger networks.' Crump P.R., Greenwood D.V., Smith R., Understanding Process Integration II,
The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby (UK), Symposium Series No. 109, EFCE Publication
No. 65, pp. 75-115
Özgen, C., N. Baç, T. Gürkan and I. Tosun (1989). 'Designing heat-exchanger networks for energy
savings in chemical plants.' Energy 14(12), pp. 853-861
Panjeh Shahi, M. H. (1992). 'Pressure Drop Consideration in Process Integration.' Ph. D. University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
Panjeh Shahi, M. H. and A. Khoshgard (2006). 'Heat exchanger networks targeting and design with
unequal heat transfer coefficient regarding allowable pressure drop of streams.' Heat Transfer
Papalexandri, K. P. and E. N. Pistikopoulos (1993a). 'A multiperiod MINLP model for improving the
flexibility of heat exchanger networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 17(Suppl., European
Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering-2, 1992), pp. S111-S116
Papalexandri, K. P. and E. N. Pistikopoulos (1993b). 'A retrofit design model for improving the
operability of heat exchanger networks.' Energy Effic. Process Technol. [Proc. Int. Conf.],
pp. 915-928
Papalexandri, K. P. and E. N. Pistikopoulos (1994a). 'Synthesis and Retrofit Design of Operable Heat
Exchanger Networks. 1. Flexibility and Structural Controllability Aspects.' Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 33(7), pp. 1718-1737
Papalexandri, K. P. and E. N. Pistikopoulos (1994b). 'Synthesis and Retrofit Design of Operable Heat
Exchanger Networks. 2. Dynamics and Control Structure Considerations.' Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 33(7), pp. 1738-1755
Papalexandri, K. P. and E. N. Pistikopoulos (1994c). 'A multiperiod MINLP model for the synthesis of
flexible heat and mass exchange networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 18(11-12),
pp. 1125-1139
Papoulias, S. A. and I. E. Grossmann (1983). 'A Structural Optimization Approach in Process
Synthesis - II, Heat Recovery Networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 7(6), pp. 707-721
Parker, S. J. (1989). 'Supertargeting for multiple utilities'. PhD. Thesis University of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology, U.K.
Perry, R. H., D. W. Green and J.O. Malony (1984). 'Perry’s chemical engineers’ handbook.' 6th Ed.,
New York, Mc Graw-Hill Inc., ISBN 0-07-049479-7
Peters, M. S., K. D. Timmerhaus and R. E. West (2003). 'Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers.' New York, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-239266-5
Phipps, M. A. and A. F. A. Hoadley (2003). 'Experiences from using heat integration software to
determine retrofit opportunities within a refinery process.' Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering
20(4), pp. 642-648
Picón-Núñez, M., G. Martinez-Rodriguez and J. L. Lopez-Robles (2006). 'Alternative design approach
for multipass and multi-stream plate heat exchangers for use in heat recovery systems.' Heat Transfer
Picón-Núñez, M. and G. T. Polley (1995). 'Applying basic understanding of heat exchanger network
behaviour to the problem of plant flexibility.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 73(A8),
pp. 941-952
Literature 263
Picón-Núñez, M., G. T. Polley and M. Medina-Flores (2002). 'Thermal design of multi-stream heat
exchangers.' Applied Thermal Engineering 22(14), pp. 1643-1660
Polley, G. (1993). 'Integration means inserts: heat exchange.' Chem. Eng. (Rugby Engl.) 541,
pp. 18-20
Polley, G. and C. Haslego (2002a). 'Using plate exchangers in heat recovery networks.' Chemical
Polley, G. and C. Haslego (2002b). 'Compact heat exchangers - Part 3: Retrofit heat recovery networks
with plate exchangers.' Chemical Engineering Progress 98(11), pp. 46-51
Polley, G. T. (1991). 'Optimisation of compact heat exchangers.' An international conference on heat
exchanger technology: current practice and future developments, Leeds, pp. 77-83
Polley, G. T. and B. Linnhoff (1988). 'Interface between Conceptual Design of a Process and Detailed
Design of Equipment.' One Day Seminar: Process Heat Exchangers, BHRA, Cranfield, UK, 29
November 1988
Polley, G. T., J. Nasr and A. Terranova (1994). 'Determination and application of the benefits of heat
transfer enhancement.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 72(A5), pp. 616-620
Polley, G. T. and M. H. Panjeh Shahi (1990). 'Process Integration Retrofit Subject to Pressure Drop
Constraint.' Computer Applications in Chemical Engineering, pp. 31-36
Polley, G. T. and M. H. Panjeh Shahi (1991). 'Interfacing Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis and
Detailed Heat Exchanger Design.' Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, Part A 69
(nov), pp. 445-457
Polley, G. T. and M. H. Panjeh Shahi (1996). 'Interfacing heat exchanger network synthesis and
detailed heat exchanger design (vol 69, pg 445, 1991).' Chemical Engineering Research and Design
74(A5 (JUL)), pp. 602
Polley, G. T., M. H. Panjeh Shahi and F. O. Jedege (1990). 'Pressure Drop Considerations in the
Retrofit of Heat Exchanger Networks.' Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, Part A 68,
pp. 211-220
Polley, G. T., M. H. Panjeh Shahi and F. O. Jegede (1996). 'Pressure drop considerations in the retrofit
of heat exchanger networks (vol 68, pg 211, 1990).' Chemical Engineering Research and Design
74(A5 (Jul)), pp. 602
Polley, G. T., C. M. Reyes Athie and M. Gough (1992). 'Use of heat transfer enhancement in process
integration.' Heat Recovery Systems and CHP 12(3), pp. 191-202
Polley, G. T., D. I. Wilson, E. Petitjean and C. Derouin (2005). 'The fouling limit in crude oil preheat
train retrofits. Here are the design considerations for both single exchangers and exchanger networks.'
Hydrocarbon Processing 84(7), pp. 71-80
Ptacnik, R. and S. E. Chepos (1989). 'Retrofit analysis tables.' DECHEMA-Monogr., 116(Comput.
Appl. Chem. Ind.), pp. 375-384
Pua, L. M. and X. X. Zhu (2002). 'Integrated heat exchanger network and equipment design using
compact heat exchangers.' Heat Transfer Engineering 23(6), pp. 18-35
Raghavan, S. (1977). 'Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis: A Thermodynamic Approach'. Ph. D.
Thesis Purdue University
Ramananda Rao, K., U. Shrinivasa and J. Srinivasan (1990). 'Design Options Reduce Exchanger Cost.'
Hydrocarbon Processing 1990(Dec), pp. 81-83
264 Chapter 11
Rapoport, H., R. Lavie and E. Kehat (1994). 'Retrofit design of new units into an existing plant: case
study: adding new units to an aromatics plant.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 18(8), pp. 743-753
Ravagnani, M., A. P. da Silva and A. L. Andrade (2003). 'Detailed equipment design in heat
exchanger networks synthesis and optimisation.' Applied Thermal Engineering 23(2), pp. 141-151
Reay, D. A. (1994). 'Compact heat exchangers: A review of current equipment and R&D in the field.'
Heat Recovery Systems and CHP 14(5), pp. 459-474
Reddy, K. A., C. D. P. Rao and G. S. Davies (1998). 'Synthesis of multipass heat exchanger networks.'
Rev, E. and Z. Fonyo (1991). 'Diverse Pinch Concept for Heat Exchange Network Synthesis: the Case
of Different Heat Transfer Conditions.' Chemical Engineering Science 46(7), pp. 1623-1634
Roozenburg, N. F. M. and J. Eekels (1991). 'Produktontwerpen, structuur en methoden.' Utrecht,
Lemma, ISBN 90 5189 067 2
Roozenburg, N. F. M. and J. Eekels (1995). 'Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods.' John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, ISBN 978-0-471-95465-1
Rudd, D. F. and C. C. Watson (1968). 'Strategy of Process Engineering.' New York, Wiley
Rustem, B. (1998). 'Algorithms for Nonlinear Programming and Multiple-Objective Decisions.'
Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., ISBN 0 471 97850 7
Saboo, A. K., M. Morari and R. D. Colberg (1986a). 'RESHEX: an interactive software package for
the synthesis and analysis of resilient heat-exchanger networks. I. Program description and
application.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 10(6), pp. 577-589
Saboo, A. K., M. Morari and R. D. Colberg (1986b). 'RESHEX: an interactive software package for
the synthesis and analysis of resilient heat-exchanger networks. II. Discussion of area targeting and
network synthesis algorithms.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 10(6), pp. 591-599
Sagli, B., T. Gundersen and T. F. Yee (1990). 'Topology Traps in Evolutionary Strategies for Heat
Exchanger Network Synthesis.' Process Technology Proceedings., 9(Computer Applications in
Chemical Engineering), pp. 51-58
Salama, A. I. A. (2005). 'Numerical techniques for determining heat energy targets in pinch analysis.'
Sama, D. A. (1995a). 'The use of the second law of thermodynamics in process design.' Journal of
Energy Resources Technology-Transactions of the ASME 117(3), pp. 179-185
Sama, D. A. (1995b). 'Differences between second law analysis and pinch technology.' Journal of
Energy Resources Technology-Transactions of the ASME 117(3), pp. 186-191
Sama, D. A. (1996). 'Heat exchanger network optimization strategy based on reducing the number of
heat exchangers.' Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Advanced Energy Systems Division (Publication) AES 36, pp. 481-491
Santos, L. C. and R. J. Zemp (2000). 'Energy and capital targets for constrained heat exchanger
networks.' Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering 17(4-7), pp. 659-669
Sciubba, E. (2005). 'Exergo-economics: thermodynamic foundation for a more rational resource use.'
International Journal of Energy Research 29(7), pp. 613-636
Sciubba, E., M. Maiorano and M. Holweck (1999). 'HENEA: aan exergy-based expert system for the
synthesis and optimisation of heat exchanger networks.' ECOS'99, pp. 240-247
Seider, W. D., J. D. Seader and D. R. Lewin (2004). 'Product and Process Design Principles:
Synthesis, Analysis, and Evaluation,.' ISBN 978-0-471-21663-6
Literature 265
Serna, M. and A. Jimenez (2004). 'An area targeting algorithm for the synthesis of heat exchanger
networks.' Chemical Engineering Science 59(12), pp. 2517-2520
Shah, R. K. and A. C. Mueller (2000). Heat Exchange. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shah, R. K. and R. L. Webb (1983). 'Compact and Enhanced Heat Exchangers. Taborek J.; Hewitt
G.F.; Afgan N.; Heat Exchangers: Theory and Practice; ICHMT Symposium (14th, 1981, Dubrovnik,
Croatia), . Dubrovnik, Croatia, Hemisphere, Washington, pp. 425 - 468
Shenoy, U., A. Sinha and S. Bandyopadhyay (1998). 'Multiple utilities targeting for heat exchanger
networks.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 76(A3), pp. 259-272
Shenoy, U. V. (1995). 'Heat exchanger network synthesis: process optimisation by energy and
resource analysis.' Houston, Gulf Publishing Company
Shethna, H. K. and J. M. Jezowski (2006). 'Near independent subnetworks in heat exchanger network
design.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 45(13), pp. 4629-4636
Shethna, H. K., J. M. Jezowski and F. J. L. Castillo (1999). 'A New Methodology for Simultaneous
Optimization of Capital and Operating Cost Targets in Heat Exchanger Network Design.' Pres '99,
pp. 589-594
Shethna, H. K., J. M. Jezowski and F. J. L. Castillo (2000). 'A new methodology for simultaneous
optimization of capital and operating cost targets in heat exchanger network design.' Applied Thermal
Engineering 20(15-16), pp. 1577-1587
Shokoya, C. G. (1992). 'Retrofit of heat exchanger networks for debottlenecking and energy savings.'
Ph. D. Thesis Department of Chemical Engineering University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology
Sigal, R. (1996). 'Challenges in simulating heat exchanger networks.' Hydrocarbon Processing 75(10),
page 7
Siirola, J. J. (1996). 'Industrial applications of chemical process synthesis.' from Anderson J.L. (Ed.),
Process Synthesis, Advances in Chemical Engineering, Vol. 23, Academic Press Inc. San Diego 23,
pp. 1-62
Silva, M. L. and R. J. Zemp (1999). 'Retrofit of Pressure drop constrained Heat Exchanger Networks.'
Pres '99, pp. 601-606
Silva, M. L. and R. J. Zemp (2000). 'Retrofit of pressure drop constrained heat exchanger networks.'
Singh, H. and F. Castillo (2002). 'Process life cycle solutions for the case of automated heat exchanger
network retrofit.' Applied Thermal Engineering 22(8), pp. 949-958
Sinnott, R. K. (1993). 'Chemical Engineering Design.' Oxford, Pergamon Press, ISBN 0-08-041866
Smith, R. (2005). 'Chemical process design and integration.' John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISBN 0-471-48681-7
Smith, R. and B. Linnhoff (1988). 'The design of separators in the context of overall processes.'
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 66(3), pp. 195-228
Sorsak, A. and Z. Kravanja (2002a). 'MINLP retrofit of heat exchanger networks comprising different
exchanger types.'Computer-Aided Chemical Engineering European Symposium on Computer Aided
Process Engineering-12, 2002,10, pp. 349-354
Sorsak, A. and Z. Kravanja (2002b). 'Simultaneous MINLP synthesis of heat exchanger networks
comprising different exchanger types.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 26(4-5), pp. 599-615
266 Chapter 11
Sorsak, A. and Z. Kravanja (2004). 'MINLP retrofit of heat exchanger networks comprising different
exchanger types.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 28(1-2), pp. 235-251
Staine, F. and D. Favrat (1996). 'Energy integration of industrial processes based on the pinch analysis
method extended to include exergy factors.' Applied Thermal Engineering 16(6), pp. 497-507
Stankiewicz, A. and J. A. Moulijn, Eds. (2004). Re-Engineering the Chemical Processing Plant;
Process Intensification. Chemical Industries (Dekker). New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Stehlik, P. and V. V. Wadekar (2002). 'Different strategies to improve industrial heat exchange.' Heat
Transfer Engineering 23(6), pp. 36-48
Suaysompol, K. and R. M. Wood (1993). 'Estimation of the installed cost of heat exchanger networks.'
International Journal of Production Economics 29(3), pp. 303-312
Supertarget (2007). KBC Energy Services, www.kbcenergyservices.com
Taal, M., I. Bulatov, J. Klemes and P. Stehlik (2003). 'Cost estimation and energy price forecasts for
economic evaluation of retrofit projects.' Applied Thermal Engineering 23(14), pp. 1819-1835
Tantimuratha, L. and A. C. Kokossis (2004). 'Flexible energy management and heat exchanger
network design.' Annals of Operations Research 132(1-4), pp. 277-300
Tantimuratha, L., A. C. Kokossis and F. U. Muller (2000). 'The heat exchanger network design as a
paradigm of technology integration.' Applied Thermal Engineering 20(15-16), pp. 1589-1605
Taprap, R. and M. Ishida (1996). 'Graphic Exergy Analysis of Processes in Distillation Column by
Energy Utilization Diagrams.' AIChE Journal 42(6), pp. 1633-1641
TEMA (2007). ' Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association.' Tarrytown, N.Y,
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA)
Thonon, B. and P. Tochon (2004). 'Compact multifunctional heat exchangers: a pathway to process
intensification.' Chemical Industries (Dekker) 98(Re-Engineering the Chemical Processing Plant),
pp. 121-165
Tipton, E., S. Mullick and A. McBrien (2007). 'Focus on integrated FEED.' Hydrocarbon Engineering
(Jan 2007)
Tjoe, T. N. (1986). 'Retrofit of heat exchanger networks'. PhD. Thesis University of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology
Tjoe, T. N. and B. Linnhoff (1984). 'Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit.' IChemE Annual Research
Meeting, Bath, April 1984
Tjoe, T. N. and B. Linnhoff (1986). 'Using Pinch Technology for Process Retrofit.' Chemical
Engineering April 28, pp. 47-60
Tjoe, T. N. and B. Linnhoff (1987). 'Achieving the Best Energy Saving Retrofit.' Paper No 17d AIChE
Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, March 29 - April 2
Townsend, D. W. and B. Linnhoff (1984). 'Surface Area Targets for Heat Exchanger Networks.'
IChemE Annual Research Meeting, Bath, April 1984
Trivedi, K. K., B. K. O'Neill and J. R. Roach (1988). 'Synthesis of heat exchanger networks with
designer imposed constraints.' Chem. Eng. Commun. 69, pp. 149-68
Trivedi, K. K., B. K. O'Neill, J. R. Roach and R. M. Wood (1989). 'A new dual-temperature design
method for the synthesis of heat exchanger networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 13(6),
pp. 667-685
Literature 267
Trivedi, K. K., B. K. O'Neill, J. R. Roach and R. M. Wood (1990). 'Systematic energy relaxation in
MER (maximum energy recovery) heat exchanger networks.' Computers & Chemical Engineering
14(6), pp. 601-611
Turbo Delphi (2006). CodeGear, Borland, www.turboexplorer.com/delphi
Turton, R., R. C. Bailie, W. B. Whiting and J. A. Shaeiwitz (2003). 'Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of
Chemical Processes.' Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-064792-6
Umeda, T., T. Harada and K. Shiroko (1979). 'A Thermodynamic Approach to the Synthesis of Heat
Integration Systems in Chemical Processes.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 3(1-4), pp. 273-282
Umeda, T., J.Itoh, K. Shiroko. (1978). 'Heat exchange system synthesis.' Chemical Engineering
Progess 74, pp. 70-76, from Gundersen and Naess (1988)
Urbaniec, K., P. Zalewski and X. X. Zhu (2000). 'A decomposition approach for retrofit design of
energy systems in the sugar industry.' Applied Thermal Engineering 20(15-16), pp. 1431-1442
Valero, A., L. Serra and J. Uche (2006). 'Fundamentals of exergy cost accounting and
thermoeconomics. Part I: Theory.' Journal of Energy Resources Technology-Transactions of the
ASME 128(1), pp. 1-8
Van Reisen, J. L. B. (1994). 'Rational Process Design using Multi-stream Heat Exchangers:
Integration in Retrofit; Final Report; Revision February 1994.' TWAIO-report, Delft University of
Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials science, Section Process Integration.
Van Reisen, J. L. B., J. Grievink, G. T. Polley and P. J. T. Verheijen (1995a). 'The placement of two-
stream and multi-stream heat-exchangers in an existing network through path analysis.' Computers &
Chemical Engineering 19(Suppl., European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering--5),
pp. S143-S148
Van Reisen, J. L. B., G. T. Polley and P. J. T. Verheijen (1998). 'Structural targeting for heat
integration retrofit.' Applied Thermal Engineering 18(5), pp. 283-294
Van Reisen, J. L. B. and P. J. T. Verheijen (1996). 'Compact Heat Exchangers in Retrofit; a Case
Study Approach; Final Report.' Final report NOVEM project, Delft University of Technology,
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials science, Section Process Integration
Van Reisen, J. L. B., P. J. T. Verheijen and G. T. Polley (1995b). 'Potential Benefits of Using Compact
Multi-stream Heat Exchangers in Integrated Process Plants.' 1st International Conference on: Process
Intensification for the Chemical Industry, Antwerp, 6-8 Dec., pp. 83-93
Varbanov, P., S. Perry, Y. Makwana, X. X. Zhu and R. Smith (2004). 'Top-level analysis of site utility
systems.' Chemical Engineering Research and Design 82(A6), pp. 784-795
Varbanov, P. S. and J. Klemes (1999). 'Rules for paths construction for HENs debottlenecking.'
Pres '99, pp. 685-690
Varbanov, P. S. and J. Klemes (2000). 'Rules for paths construction for HENs debottlenecking.'
Verheijen, P. J. T. (1998). personal communication
Verheyen, W. and N. Zhang (2006). 'Design of flexible heat exchanger network for multi-period
operation.' Chemical Engineering Science 61(23), pp. 7730-7753
Viswanathan Murali and L. B. Evans (1987). 'Studies in the heat integration of chemical process
plants.' AIChE Journal 33(11), pp. 1781-90
Wadekar, V. V. (2000). 'Compact heat exchangers.' Chemical Engineering Progress 96(12), pp. 39-49
268 Chapter 11
Wang, L. and B. Sunden (2000). 'On plate heat exchangers in heat exchanger networks.' Proceedings
of the National Heat Transfer Conference, 34th, Pittsburgh, PA, United States, Aug. 20-22, 2000 1,
pp. 355-362
Wang, L. and B. Sunden (2001). 'Design methodology for multistream plate-fin heat exchangers in
heat exchanger networks.' Heat Transfer Engineering 22(6), pp. 3-11
Weast, R. C., M. J. Astle and W. H. Beyer (1986). 'CRC handbook of chemistry and physics.' Boca
Raton, CRC Press, ISBN 0-8493-0467-9
Webci-Wubo. (2003). 'DACE - pricebooklet.' Reed Business Information bv, ISBN 90 5895 009 3
Wen, Y. and D. R. Shonnard (2003). 'Environmental and economic assessments of heat exchanger
networks for optimum minimum approach temperature.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 27(11),
pp. 1577-1590
Westerberg, A. W. (2004). 'A retrospective on design and process synthesis.' Computers & Chemical
Wilson, D. I., G. T. Polley and S. J. Pugh (2002). 'Mitigation of crude oil preheat train fouling by
design.' Heat Transfer Engineering 23(1), pp. 24-37
Yan, Q. Z., Y. H. Yang and Y. L. Huang (2001). 'Cost-effective bypass design of highly controllable
heat-exchanger networks.' AIChE Journal 47(10), pp. 2253-2276
Yeap, B. L., D. I. Wilson, G. T. Polley and S. J. Pugh (2004). 'Mitigation of crude oil refinery heat
exchanger fouling through retrofits based on thermo-hydraulic fouling models.' Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 82(A1), pp. 53-71
Yeap, B. L., D. I. Wilson, G. T. Polley and S. J. Pugh (2005). 'Retrofitting crude oil refinery heat
exchanger networks to minimize fouling while maximizing heat recovery.' Heat Transfer Engineering
26(1), pp. 23-34
Yee, T. F. and I. E. Grossmann (1987). 'Optimization model for structural Modifications in the
Retrofit of Heat Exchanger Networks.' Foundations of Computer Aided Process Operations, Proc. of
the 1st Int. Conf. on Found. of Comp. Aided Proc. Oper., Park City, Utah, July 5-10, pp. 653-662
Yee, T. F. and I. E. Grossmann (1990). 'Simultaneous optimization models for heat integration - II.
Heat exchanger network synthesis.' Computers & Chemical Engineering 14(10), pp. 1165-1184
Yee, T. F. and I. E. Grossmann (1991). 'A Screening and Optimization Approach for Retrofit of Heat-
Exchanger Networks.' Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 30, pp. 146-162
Yee, T. F., I. E. Grossmann and Z. Kravanja (1990). 'Simultaneous optimization models for heat
integration - I. Area and energy targeting and modeling of multi-stream exchangers.' Computers &
Zhelev, T., C. Boyadzhiev and S. Kancheva (1987). 'Renovation of heat exchanger networks.'
Hungarian Journal of Industrial Chemistry 15(4), pp. 403-414
Zhu, X. X. (1995). 'Automated synthesis of HENs using block decomposition and heuristic rules.'
Computers & Chemical Engineering 19(Supplement, European Symposium on Computer Aided
Process Engineering--5), pp. S155-S160
Zhu, X. X. and N. D. K. Asante (1999). 'Diagnosis and optimization approach for heat exchanger
network retrofit.' AIChE Journal 45(7), pp. 1488-1503
Zhu, X. X., B. K. O'Neill, J. R. Roach and R. M. Wood (1995a). 'Area-targeting methods for the direct
synthesis of heat exchanger networks with unequal film coefficients.' Computers & Chemical
Literature 269
Zhu, X. X., B. K. O'Neill, J. R. Roach and R. M. Wood (1995b). 'A Method for automated heat
exchanger network synthesis using block decomposition and non-linear optimization.' Chemical
Engineering Research and Design 73(A8), pp. 919-930
Zhu, X. X., M. Zanfir and J. Klemes (2000). 'Heat transfer enhancement for heat exchanger network
retrofit.' Heat Transfer Engineering 21(2), pp. 7-18
Zimparov, V. (2002). 'Energy conservation through heat transfer enhancement techniques.'
International Journal of Energy Research 26(7), pp. 675-696
Zimparov, V. D. and P. J. Penchev (2006). 'Performance evaluation of some tube inserts as heat
transfer enhancement techniques.' Heat Transfer Engineering 27(8), pp. 39-46
270 Chapter 12
Nomenclature 271
Chapter 12 Nomenclature
Į area efficiency [-]
ĮǻP area efficiency calculated with fixed stream pressure drops [-]
Įex the area efficiency of the existing network = Atar(Eex) / Aex with Eex [W] is [-]
the energy use in the existing network
Įm match efficiency [-]
Įnew the area efficiency of added area [-]
ȕ,į constants for saving on investment approximation function [-]
J the heat transfer effectiveness, the dimensionless fraction of the maximum [-]
heat transfer possible for the given hot and cold stream inlet temperatures
Thi and Tci
Ȗ the dimensionless investment [-]
Ȗ0 the dimensionless minimum investment [-]
Qm mass flow rate [kg/s]
ǻP pressure drop [Pa]
ǻPm,id ideal match pressure drop [bar]
ǻT temperature difference [°C]
ǻTeff effective temperature difference [°C]
ǻTln the log mean temperature difference [C]
ǻTmin minimum approach temperature = HRAT [C]
ȘE, energy efficiency [-]
Șn units efficiency [-]
Ȝ the heat conductivity [W/(m°C)]
Ȝw the heat conductivity of the wall [W/(m°C)]
ȝ bulk fluid viscosity [Pas]
ȝ* dimensionless viscosity [-]
ȝw wall viscosity of the fluid [Pas]
ȟ the dimensionless saving [-]
ȡ density [kg/m3]
ȡm the density of the material m [kg/m3]
ȍopp,j,q the heat transfer resistance of the opposing streams of stream j in enthalpy [m2 ·°C/W]
interval
a heat exchanger cost constant that depend on the exchanger type, the [¼]
selected material and the required mechanical design pressures and
temperatures
A heat transfer area [m2]
Aadd target of area to be added to the network at a specific target use of utilities [m2]
Etar
Acc,q the transfer area of enthalpy interval q for counter-current flow [m2]
Aex the transfer area available in the existing network [m2]
Aex,j the actual transfer area of all exchangers related to stream j available in the [m2]
existing network
af , bf constant in relation of friction factor to Re [-]
aj , bj constant in relation of Colburn factor to Re [-]
Ahx exchanger area [m2]
Am match area [m2]
Amin estimated minimum transfer area [m2]
Aplain plain heat transfer area [m2]
Atar(Etar) the grassroots area target at Etar [m2]
Atar,j grassroots target contact area of stream j at a specific target use of utilities [m2]
272 Chapter 12
b heat exchanger cost constant that depend on the exchanger type, the [¼]
temperatures
c heat exchanger cost constant that depend on the exchanger type, the [-]
temperatures
C cost [¼]
C* ratio of minimum and maximum heat capacity flowrates of streams in [-]
exchanger
CA area cost [¼]
CApb area cost at the minimum payback period point [ ¼]
Cfix fixed cost per match [¼]
Cinv the annual investment costs [¼/yr]
Cm the cost per unit mass of the raw construction material m [¼/kg]
Coper the annual operational costs [¼/yr]
cp heat capacity [kJ/(kg·°C)]
CPm heat capacity flowrate CPm = c p ⋅ ϕm [W/C]
Ctot the annual total costs [¼/yr]
Cu,i the utility cost per duty per annum [¼/(W·yr)]
D channel diameter [m]
dfin fin thickness [m]
dplate plate thickness (plain area) [m]
dw diameter of wall [m]
E characteristic energy input [W]
Eex existing energy input [W]
Etar the target energy use [W]
Eused actually used energy input [W]
f friction factor [-]
Fcon construction cost multiplication factor, typically = 3 [-]
Fins installation factor [-]
Fins,j the installation factor for heat exchanger j [-]
Fo fouling factor [m2 ·°C/W]
FT log mean temperature difference correction factor for a match being the [-]
ratio of the actual effective temperature difference and the ideal counter-
current log mean temperature difference with the same in- and outlet
temperature.
h single side or film heat transfer coefficient of a stream to the wall, without [W/m2/°C]
subscript generally meant as the overal single side heat transfer coefficient
including fouling
H enthalpy [W]
hov the overall heat transfer coefficient [W/m2/C]
I investment [¼]
I0 minimum investment in a network independent of specific exchangers [ ¼]
Ihx required investment for heat exchanger [ ¼]
Ihx,j the investment associated with heat exchanger j [ ¼]
I, j, k, q counters
j Colburn factor [-]
J(q) the set of all (hot and cold) streams that are in enthalpy interval q
Js set of all streams in group s
Kj,q set of all opposing streams for stream j in interval q
n the number of heat exchangers [#]
nloops the number of independent loops in a system [#]
ns,cold the number of cold streams [#]
Nomenclature 273
nshells number of shells [#]

ns,hot the number of hot streams [#]
ns,match number of stream in the match [#]
nsubsets the total number of independent subnetworks in the network [#]
ns,util the number of utility types [#]
NTU Number of (heat) Transfer Units [#]
Nu Nusselt number [-]
p pressure [Pa]
P ratio of cold stream temperature change and hot and cold stream inlet [-]
temperatures = (Tco - Tci)/(Thi - Tci)
Pr Prandtl number
q enthalpy interval counter [-]
Q duty [W]
Q uh Q uc vector with hot, cold utility duties [W]

Qj,q duty to be transfer from/to stream j in interval q [W]
Qq the duty of enthalpy interval q [W]
Qu,cj duty of cold utility j [W]
Qu,hi duty of hot utility I [W]
Qu,i duty utility I [W]
R ratio of cold and hot stream heat capacity flowrate in exchanger [-]
Re Reynolds number [-]
Reff ratio of effective plain area to total plain area [-]
Rfr ratio of fin area to total area [-]
RI utility duty shift from original utility duty of utility I [W]
S yearly cost saving [¼/yr]
Smax maximum yearly cost saving [¼/yr]
St Stanton number [-]
ST set of all stream groups
Stot the annual total cost savings [¼/yr]
T temperature [°C]
T* shifted temperature of stream [°C]
T0 temperature of environment [°C]
Ts source temperature of stream [°C]
Tt target temperature of stream [°C]
v velocity [m/s]
Vm,hx the volume of the material m required to construct the exchanger [m3]
w the perimeter of the interface between the hot and cold streams [m]
Xp fraction of maximum duty that can be transferred in a multi-pass exchanger [-]
with infinite area
z coordinate perpendicular to the used interface between hot and cold streams [m]
Z set of all enthalpy intervals
274 Chapter 12
Subscripts
act actual k counter

add additional L low
c cold m match
cc count-current max maximum
ci cold inlet min minimum
co cold outlet new new
comp composite nto no temperature overlap
E at a given energy input oper operating
eff effective ov overall
ex existing pb at min payback time point
f1, f2 fluid 1 , fluid 2 q enthalpy interval counter
h hot r reduced
H high ref reference
hi hot inlet s source
ho hot outlet t target
hx heat exchanger tar target
I i-th stream (hot or general) tot total
id ideal used actually used
inv investment
j j-th stream (cold or general)
Abbreviations
CC composite curve
CFD computational fluid dynamics
cont continuous
DCS digital control system
disc discrete
EMAT Exchanger Minimum Approach Temperature
GCC grand composite curve
HEN heat exchanger network
HRAT Heat Recovery Approach Temperature
htc heat transfer coefficient
HTFS Heat Transfer & Fluid Flow Service
HTRI Heat Transfer Research Institute
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LP linear programming
max maximum
MILP mixed integer linear programming
min minimum
MINLP mixed integer non-linear programming
MP multi-pass
NLP non-linear programming
NTU number of heat transfer units
par parallel (placement of shells)
ser serial (placement of shells)
tar target
Nomenclature 275
Grid diagram legend
100 ° 10 °
H1 Hot Stream H1 with source and target temperature
150 ° 50 °
C1 Cold Stream C1
with stream split
Normal line : duty to be assigned
Bold line: duty assigned
100 ° Stream temperature [°C]
H C
Hot and cold utility exchanger
HU1 CU1
Different match types used
Existing New Obsolete

Match Match Match
276 Chapter 12
Summary of Assumptions and Limitations 277
Appendix A Summary of Assumptions and Limitations

This appendix summarises the main assumptions and limitations that are applicable throughout this
thesis. They are divided in issues related to the scope of work, to the definitions of heat streams, to
heat exchanger modelling, design and selection and to economic calculations.
A.1 Scope of Work

This thesis concentrates on the conceptual network retrofit design of heat exchanger networks.
Conceptual network design is defined as (Section 3.3.2):
The phase in the generic framework for the retrofit design of heat exchanger networks that includes
all main design decisions to get to a revised network. It produces all the heat and mass balances, the
process flow diagrams and the main specifications of the unit operations.
The retrofit design is limited to energy saving retrofit, the adaptation of existing plants aiming at
saving on utility duty or yearly utility cost, while maintaining the plant functionality including
capacity and product quality. The retrofit covers the heat exchanger network only. There are no
changes to the associated process and the heat streams remain unchanged. See heat stream definition
in the next section.
Section 3.4 of this thesis specifies in detail the scope of the conceptual network design problem. This
design is executed in four stages. The first three stages - target, preliminary and refined design - are
elaborated in this thesis. The fourth stage, final network design, is elaborated in less detail and not
verified. The network design activities in this final stage are generally very similar to the design
activities in the refined design stage. The final design stage will have more focus on performance
analysis and will require much additional detailed information about the process, the heat exchanger
designs, the present situation and the future use of the plant. These details are generally very case-
specific and not easily available and therefore there has been less focus on this final design stage.
The specification of the scope of work above, excludes

• the detailed base case definition of a heat exchanger network retrofit case, though some
guidelines and requirements are given to fit the base case definition in the stage-wise conceptual
design approach;
• detailed heat exchanger rating and design.
Exergy analysis and exergo-economics are not regarded as a proper alternative analysis or design
method and they are not considered as basis for the new design method. The retrofit design scope is
limited to energy saving retrofit. Changes in the process are excluded from this retrofit type.
Meanwhile, pressure drop and conversion from work to enthalpy or reverse is generally ignored.
Consequently, we can ignore the following aspects in the thermodynamic analysis:
• changes in stream composition;
• enthalpy changes due to chemical reactions;
• work performed by any stream upon the environment and reverse;
• gravity;
• kinetic energy.
Due to this simplifications, the review of the 2nd law of thermodynamics reduces to a review of the
available and used temperature differences for heat transfer. This is covered in the analysis of the
278 Appendix A
composite curves. Exergy analysis has no added value compared to pinch analysis with these
simplifications. The exergy concept only complicates the analysis and is therefore ignored.
The literature until March 2007 and available from the library of the Delft University of Technology
has been included in this work. The literature survey has focussed on pinch-based and mathematical
optimisation methods, as they are well-established for the analysis and design of heat exchanger
networks.
Throughout this thesis, we have aimed for a practical, generally applicable design method that gives
insight, and relaxed on accuracy and optimality of the solution. Retrofit generally contains numerous
case specific requirements. This requires a flexible design approach that should be used as a guideline,
rather than as a fixed recipe. The accuracy of the cost - benefit analysis in conceptual network design
will be limited in retrofit. Consequently, it is likely that the design problem will have a number of
designs with comparable cost - benefit characteristics. Therefore, we generally look for (independent)
alternatives instead of the ultimate optimum.
A.2 Heat Stream Definition

The heat streams form the actual heat balancing task for the design. They represent, for a specific case,
the heat available and required for specific services and at specific temperature levels and are the
translation of the process requirements for heat integration. The definition of the heat streams used in
this thesis include the following assumptions and limitations:
• no physical processes with solids (crystallisation, melting, solving) take place;
• heat loss to and gain from the environment is neglected;
• all streams are steady state: all time dependencies of the heat content of the streams (variations
in flowrate and physical properties, source and target temperatures) are ignored;
• the system has only one operating mode and consequently each stream is uniquely defined with
one source temperature, one target temperature and one duty (released of absorbed); multi-
period cases are excluded;
• the debottlenecking cases, i.e. production expansions, are excluded: all stream properties, the
flowrate and the total duty (released or absorbed) for each stream are assumed constant and
equal to the original case;
• only physical heat transfer through a surface is included; this excludes any specific heat transfer
operations like stream quenching, heat transfer by radiation and combined heat and mass
transfer as in distillation column integration.
The methods and tools developed in this thesis have no specific provisions for the excluded cases, but
still may be applicable.
A.3 Heat Exchangers

The heat exchanger network design in this thesis is based on standard simple heat exchanger models.
Detailed exchanger rating and design is excluded. In network design the option of alternative heat
exchanger types is taken into account, but in a limited way. Below, we list the applicable assumptions
and limitations for the heat exchangers used in network design in this thesis.
Available Types
Cases that allow alternative exchanger types within the network have the following constraints:
• the existing network consists of a single type of exchangers;
Summary of Assumptions and Limitations 279
• two types of new exchangers may be installed: either the existing type or one selected
alternative new type;
• new exchangers may be joined in the multi-stream version of the new type, if the selected new
type has a multi-stream option;
• the applicable exchanger types for existing and new equipment are
A. multi-pass shell-and-tube exchanger with 1 shell and 2 tube passes;
B. single pass shell-and-tube exchanger with 1 shell and 1 tube pass;
C. advanced strictly counter-current heat exchanger.
Only the application of new multi-stream heat exchangers is examined, as the retrofit of networks with
existing multi-stream exchangers requires the evaluation of very problem specific aspects.
Modeling
The heat transfer of all used exchangers is calculated with the basic heat transfer relation (Section 2.3):
Q = A ⋅ h ov ⋅ ∆Τeff = A ⋅ h ov ⋅ FT ⋅ ∆Τln (A1)
For the specific exchanger types the following applies:
A. multi-pass shell-and-tube exchanger with 1 shell and 2 tube passes
htot and ǻTln are calculated with standard Equations 5 and 6 in Section 2.3, respectively.
The FT - factor is calculated by the standard relation for shell-and-tube exchangers with two
tube passes given in Appendix F, Equation F8 and F9.
B. single pass shell-and-tube exchanger with 1 shell and 1 tube pass
hov and ǻTln are calculated with standard Equations 5 and 6 in Section 2.3, respectively.
We assume strictly counter-current heat transfer thus FT = 1.
C. advanced strictly counter-current heat exchanger
Calculation is equal to Type B. This is conservative as the heat transfer coefficient of advanced
area is generally higher than of shell-and-tube area.
D. multi-stream advanced strictly counter-current heat exchanger
The calculation of the transfer area of multi-stream exchangers is equal to the area target for the
streams handled by the multi-stream heat exchanger. The used area targeting method is the
extended vertical aligned area targeting method (the Bath formula, Section 5.3.3.
Heat Transfer Targets

Area and investment costs targeting for cases that take into account alternative exchanger types use
targets based on the following three scenarios:
A. multi-pass area targeting with constant area efficiency (equal to the area efficiency in the
original network) and conventional exchanger cost for new area;
B. counter-current area targeting with incremental area efficiency (new area efficiency of one) and
conventional exchanger cost for new area;
C. counter-current area targeting with incremental area efficiency (new area efficiency of one) and
advanced (weight-based) exchanger cost for new area.
A.4 Economic Calculations

The cost evaluation of heat exchanger networks is simplified to balance the required calculation effort
to the required accuracy. Accurate cost estimates of the retrofit of plants is only possible after detailed
design. Case specific details may significantly contribute to the costs. Meanwhile, the setup and
verification of a generic design method requires cost trends and the comparison of alternatives rather
than accurate absolute cost figures. Simple cost evaluation methods are assumed to be sufficient to
280 Appendix A
give the necessary cost trends and to allow alternative comparison. The following simplifications are
used in this thesis:
• The operating costs are set equal to the utility costs; other contributions like labour and
maintenance are ignored.
• The utility costs are given as a fixed sum per unit energy. The total utility cost result from
multiplication of the required duties and the given sum per unit energy. Different cost per unit
energy apply for different utility types and levels. Derivation of these cost figures per unit
energy from the primary fuel cost based on the actual utility system is outside the scope of this
thesis. Refer to Marechal and Kalitventzeff (1996) and Lygeros et al. (1996) for more details.
• The investment costs are based on annualisation of the investment using the simple pay back
method. No interest is taken into account. The use of another method will probably affect the
results, but it will hardly affect the use of the techniques that are presented in this thesis. In real
cases the company policy will determine the economic calculations methods and criteria that we
have to use.
Glossary 281
Appendix B Glossary
1-2 Shell-and-Tube Exchanger: Multi-pass shell-and-tube exchangers with one shell and two tube
passes.
Area Efficiency (Į):1,2,3,4,5 Ratio of the real used area and the targeted minimum area. It quantifies the
deviation from vertical alignment (Įideal = 1).
Auxiliary Heat Flow: The enthalpy flow as function of temperature that is allowed to flow through
heat exchangers from hot streams above that temperature to cold streams below the vertically aligned
cold composite temperature related to that temperature while heat balancing the network remains
practically feasible with the specified utility duties.
Cold Stream:6,7 A process stream to be heated.
Composite Curves:6,7 A presentation of the heat

content of streams in a temperature versus enthalpy
plot. The presentation consists of two plots,
Figure 64, the hot composite curve containing all
available heat and the cold composite curve
containing all required heat. The curves are
constructed from the H-T plots of the individual
hot (cold) streams by summation of the heat supply
(demand) at each temperature. The reference
temperature for the enthalpy of the hot curve is the
lowest temperature at which heat is available (the
target temperature of the coldest hot stream), The
reference for the cold curve is the lowest temper-
ature at which heat must be supplied (the source
Figure 64 Typical composite curves
temperature of the coldest cold stream). The hot
and cold composite curve can be shifted over the enthalpy field (i.e. horizontally) relative to each other
because of the individual reference points. If the cold composite curve is totally beneath the hot
composite curve the available heat in the latter can be transferred to the former. The overlap presents
the maximal process to process heat exchange. The end of the cold curve that does not overlap is the
minimal hot utility demand. The equivalent end of the hot curve is the minimal cold utility demand.
The overlap depends on the minimal allowed approach temperature of the curves. The hot and cold
temperatures were this approach temperatures are the smallest is called the pinch.
Constant Area Efficiency Target:1,2,3,4 Retrofit target assuming new added transfer area has equal
area efficiency as existing area. See Section 5.4.3.
Criss-Crossing:1,3,4,5 The combination in a network of exchangers that have higher driving forces than
the ideal value and others that have lower driving forces. The ideal value is generally the temperature
difference between the hot and the cold composite curve at some enthalpy value (vertical alignment).
If a match uses a higher temperature difference than ideal at some temperature range, other matches
282 Appendix B
have to use less unless more utility is supplied. If those non ideal matches are plotted in the composite
curves crossed lines appear.
Driving Force Plot:1,4 A network analysis tool that gives a graphical presentation of the hot stream
temperatures and cold stream temperatures (or one of them and a temperature difference). The ideal
combinations of hot and cold stream temperatures that result to vertical alignment are plotted as a
reference. The existing or proposed matches can also be included and evaluated.
Enthalpy Interval:6 The enthalpy range between two nearest breakpoints in either the hot or the cold
composite curve. Breakpoints may be caused by a change of heat capacity flowrate (a slope change of
the composite curve) or a change of heat transfer coefficient of one of the streams that are the basis of
the composite. Changes in the hot or cold curve are equal in this respect. Within an enthalpy interval
the stream population and individual stream properties are constant. This property is used for
calculations of the heat transfer between the composite curves. Enthalpy intervals are generally
different from temperature intervals.
Figure 65 Exchanger shifting in thermal space by a) change of specified in- and outlet temperatures or
b) stream splitting. See text glossary Exchanger Shifting.
Exchanger Shifting:1,2,3,4,5 Adaptation of the in- and outlet temperatures of an exchanger to get a
temperature shift (a shift in thermal space) of the heat transfer task of the heat exchanger. This is
generally done to improve the efficiency of the heat exchanger network the exchanger is part of.
There are two ways to establish an exchanger shift in thermal space: a change of inlet temperatures
and stream splitting.
a) A change of the exchanger inlet temperature(s) changes the task of the exchanger and can shift the
exchanger driving force profile towards the ideal temperature profile as displayed in the driving
force plot (Figure 65a). The connected streams remain the same, but the duty generally changes as
the mean temperature difference changes, while the area is fixed. In the example the duty
decreases, but an increase is also possible if the existing temperature differences are lower than the
ideal situation. Note, a change of the inlet temperature must result from a change of task of other
(existing or new) exchangers.
Glossary 283
b) Stream splitting corrects the slope of an exchanger line in the driving force plot (Figure 65b). We
must split either the hot stream to decrease the hot outlet temperature, as in the shown example, or
the cold stream to increase the cold outlet temperature. The exchanger duty decreases as the mean
temperature difference decreases and the area is fixed.
Grassroots: New design, without restrictions of existing hardware.
Grid Diagram:6 Presentation of the regarded streams plotted with the highest temperature on the left
and the lowest on the right. An arrow is plotted on the target side. Generally all hot streams are plotted
above the cold streams. Matches are presented by a line between the specific hot and cold stream. The
heat loads on the matches are frequently plotted under the match. The pinch and eventually the near
pinches are plotted as vertical lines at the corresponding stream temperatures. Streams that don't cross
the pinch are start or end just beside the pinch.
Heat Exchanger: Defined in this thesis as a physical piece of equipment that contains heat transfer
area and has dedicated piping to connect the heat exchanging streams. Generally, there is a limitation
on the size and the amount of heat transfer area it can have.
Heat Recovery Level: The amount of process-to-process heat exchange. It is only a qualitative term
and equivalent to the Heat Recovery Approach Temperature.
Heat Recovery Approach Temperature (HRAT):6,8 A parameter that determines the heat recovery
level and thus the minimum required utilities. It is the temperature difference between the hot and cold
composite curve. It represents the minimal driving force that is allowed at the pinch. The temperature
difference may be derived from practical limitations or standards. Alternatively, an optimum HRAT
can be determined by supertargeting. In both cases the HRAT is only a target parameter and not a
design limit. In the design lower temperatures may occur. This is the reason why the HRAT used in
mathematical programming literature was preferred above the minimum temperature difference ǻTmin
frequently used in pinch technology literature for the same parameter.
Heat Capacity Flowrate (CPm): The heat content of a stream given by multiplication of the mass
based heat capacity and the mass flowrate [kW/C].
Hot Stream:6 A process stream to be cooled.
Incremental Area Efficiency Target:9 Retrofit target assuming new added transfer area has a higher
area efficiency than the existing area. Generally, it is assumed that the new area has ideal efficiency
(Į = 1) See Section 5.4.3.
Integrity Zone:10 logically identifiable areas specified in terms of streams and matches, in which a
process plant can often be divided associated with specific processing tasks or with practical aspects
like safety and layout.
Match:6 a thermal link between a number of hot and cold streams to transfer an amount of duty. The
match size is unconstrained and results from the thermal duty requirement. A match may consist of
one or more generally identical shells, which are the heat exchangers that are part of a match, either to
284 Appendix B
provide the required amount of transfer area or, in case of multi-pass exchangers to get an outlet
temperature cross, i.e. a hot outlet temperature below the cold outlet temperature.
Multiple Utilities:6 The availability of more than one cold or hot utilities. In that case the distribution
of the heat to or from the utilities must be optimized which complicates the design.
Path:6 A connection between a cooler and a heater via process to process matches. It enables the shift
of heat loads from process to process heat exchangers to both hot and cold utility exchangers.
Near Pinch: Area in the composite curve with low approach temperatures but not that low as at the
pinch.
Network Pinch:11 Location in the heat exchanger network that has a pinching match in which the
temperature approach between hot and cold streams unavoidably tends towards a limiting value as
heat recovery in the heat exchanger network is increased. The network pinch is the bottleneck in the
network structure that restricts the possible energy saving
Pinch:6 Point in the composite curves with the lowest approach temperatures (see Composite Curves).
Pinch Violation: A match that crosses the pinch.
Process-to-Process Heat Exchangers: Heat exchangers that transfer heat from a hot process stream to
a cold process stream.
Range Targeting:8 Targeting at a range of HRAT or utility duties, yielding trends for duty savings,
cost savings and related area requirements and investment.
Remaining Problem Analysis:1,2,3,4 Network analysis tool to determine the area efficiency of one or
more heat exchangers individually within the network, calculating the heat transfer area requirement
of the entire network but without the part covered by the heat exchanger under review. See Section
4.5.2.
Retrofit: The adaptation of an existing plant, in this thesis limited energy saving retrofit, which aims
for a reduction of the required utilities, without change of capacity.
Sink: A stream or set of streams that have the ability to absorb heat or the need to take heat to get heat
balanced..
Source: A stream or set of streams that have the ability to supply heat or the need to release heat to get
heat balanced.
Stream Contact Area:1 The calculated amount of heat transfer area that we can associate with a
process or utility stream to transfer the required duty from or to that stream, based on ideal heat
transfer by virtual matches that are vertical aligned in the composite curves of the system (network,
subnetwork or match) we are reviewing.
Glossary 285
Shell: A shell is a physical piece of equipment that contains heat transfer area and has dedicated
piping to connect the heat exchanging streams. Generally, there is a limitation of the shell size and the
amount of heat transfer area it can have (typically 400 m2).
Stream Splitting:1,6 The split of a hot or cold stream to make it available for more cold or hot streams
for heat exchange. This technique also enables the improvement of the performance of existing
exchangers. See Exchanger Shifting.
Subnetwork: Any fraction of a heat exchanger network.
Target: The result of targeting, a preliminary design approach that explores the design space of a
design problem to identify, demarcate and initialise the main design variables and get insight and
direction for a consecutive design step, using simplified models and often lumped characteristic design
variables
Temperature Cross: an overlap of the hot and cold stream temperatures within a match. Multi-pass
heat exchangers allow only a very small temperature cross, otherwise more shell in series are required.
Temperature Interval:6 The temperature range between two nearest breakpoints in either the hot or
the cold composite curve. Breakpoints are generally only specified at points with a change of heat
capacity flowrate (a slope change of the composite curve). Changes in the hot or cold curve are equal
in this respect. To get unambiguous interval boundary the actual temperatures are converted to shifted
temperatures, denoted by T*. Shifted temperatures can be defined in different ways, but always
reduce the temperatures of streams with available heat and/or increase the temperatures of the streams
that require heat. In this thesis we use the shift of the temperature of the available heat only, according
to T* = Treal - ǻTmin for the available heat
T* = Treal for the required heat
Each interval boundary coincides with a shifted source or target temperature of either a hot or a cold
stream. Each temperature interval thus has a specific stream population.
Threshold Problem:6 Process that can be heat balanced with only one utility (either hot or cold) with
a finite approach temperature.
Tie-in Point: An interface between new and existing equipment.
Topology: The way the inlets and outlets of (process) units are connected to each other to form a
network.
Utility Exchangers: Heat exchangers that transfer heat from a hot or to a cold utility.
Vertical Alignment:1,3,4,5,8 A way to match hot and cold streams. Generally this approaches the ideal
way of matching to achieve the area target. Heat from a temperature on the hot composite curve is
transferred to the temperature on the cold composite vertically beneath. The hot and cold temperatures
that correspond depend on the HRAT.
Zone: See Integrity Zone

286 Appendix B
References
1. Panjeh Shahi (1992)
2. Polley et al. (1990)
3. Tjoe (1986)
4. Tjoe and Linnhoff (1986)
5. Tjoe and Linnhoff (1987)
6. Kemp (2007)
7. Smith (2005)
8. Linnhoff and Ahmad (1990)
9. Ahmad and Polley (1990)
10. Ahmad and Hui (1991)
11. Asante and Zhu (1996)

Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves 287
Appendix C Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves

C.1 Summary
Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves (AHFC) are a new Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves
tool to support the analysis of heat exchanger
networks. An auxiliary heat flow curve is a Objective
Analyse duty based driving forces.
special form of the grand composite curve and
shows the available or used driving forces for Input
heat transfer per temperature level. The used For all heat transferring streams (incl. utilities and
auxiliary heat flow curves per exchanger or • source and target temperature
group of exchangers are compared with the • heat capacity flowrate: CPm(T) = cp(T) ĳm
available auxiliary heat flow curve for the total For each (planned) heat exchanger
system that are all drawn in one plot to show • in- and outlet temperatures
• duty or actual heat curves
feasibility and efficiency of the exchanger(s).
The AHFC are supplementary to the Driving Output
Review the available and the actual used net heat
Force Plot (DFP) and Remaining Problem
cascade per temperature level
Analysis (RPA). The AHFC better show the Heat recovery constraining matches
feasibility of matches within the entire network Exergy loss related visualisation of heat exchange
than DFP, but are less easy to construct. RPA
comprises more aspects than the AHFC and
gives quantitative results. RPA is however
labourious and gives less overview than AHFC.
C.2 Background
The concept of auxiliary heat flow result from a
thorough analysis of the composite curves,
Figure 66. The composite curves are heat
balanced by utilities to get the shown balanced
composite curves. Each vertical line drawn in shifted curve
this plot divides the balanced system in two T
individually balanced systems. The available [°C]
Th+
heat below Th+, the intersection of the hot curve actual curve
and the vertical, equals the heat demand below EMAT
Tc+, the intersection of the cold curve and the
vertical. The same applies for the available and Tc+
+ +
demanded heat above Th and Tc . To keep the
heat balance, no net heat transport may result AHF
through the vertical. This is generally accepted
and known for the pinch point of a system, but H [W]
actually valid for any vertical. Heat transfer
Figure 66 Available auxiliary heat flow
through the vertical is allowed as long as it is
compensated for by heat transfer in the opposite direction. If an exchanger allows heat to flow from
the hot streams above Th+ to cold streams below Tc+, thus transferring heat through the vertical, the
remaining network has to transfer an equal amount of heat from hot streams below Th+ to cold streams
above Tc+ to avoid the use of additional utility. The maximum heat flow that can be transferred from
below Th+ to above Tc+ is the available auxiliary heat flow.
288 Appendix C
The overall pinch point is the most limited point

in the system to allow transfer of heat from below
Th+ to above Tc+. If the minimum approach
temperature for the set utility duties (HRAT)
equals the true equipment limit (EMAT), it is
impossible to transfer heat from below Th+ to
above Tc+. This is obviously the case for ǻTmin =
0 for which Th+ = Tc+ at the pinch. If HRAT is
higher than the equipment limit there is always a
maximum amount of heat that we can physically
transfer from below Th+ to above Tc+. In Figure
66 we marked this using the drawn horizontal
line. This heat duty is also the maximum flow we
may allow from above Th+ to below Tc+ without
increasing the utility demand. We called this heat
flow the available auxiliary heat flow, as it
represents the driving force push we may allow in
exchangers using the currently specified utility
Figure 67 Auxiliary Heat Flow Curve with
duties. typical bottlenecks
We can determine the available auxiliary heat flow for any vertical and the related Th+ and Tc+ and
draw these values in a curve. We use the shifted temperatures on the y-axis to have an unambiguous
temperature reference. The result is Figure 67. As we can see the GCC and AHFC are very similar.
They become equal if HRAT = EMAT. The GCC (See Section 4.3.2) shows the maximum cascade of
heat for each shifted temperature that is possible for a predefined ǻT (HRAT). This heat cascade
assumes no reverse flow from a lower to a higher shifted temperature interval. If HRAT = EMAT, the
basis for the GCC is exactly the same as the bases for the AHFC and thus they become equal. If
HRAT increases, more utility duty is supplied, which gives more AHF for any temperature between
the temperatures of the increased hot and cold utilities. The increase of AHF is the same for all
temperatures and equals the added utility. The resulting AHFC has the same shape as the one at HRAT
= EMAT but it is shifted to the right to higher duties. Note that the shifted temperature of the AHFC is
always based on EMAT and independent of HRAT. The shifted temperature for the GCC is based on
HRAT and thus the GCC at the higher HRAT may deviate significantly.
In the AHFC we can also plot the used auxiliary heat flow for each exchanger. These plots are the
grand composite curves of the streams or part thereof 17 handled by that heat exchanger. It is always a
closed curve, with origin and end point at the y-axis, as a heat exchanger is always in heat balance.
When we use ǻTmin = EMAT for the exchanger grand composite curve, it shows the excess driving
force or the auxiliary heat flow taken by the heat exchanger. Similarly, we can construct the auxiliary
heat flow curve for any set of heat exchangers.
17
When a stream is heated or cooled by more than one heat exchanger, only the part (duty and
temperatures) that is actually handled by the heat exchanger is included.
Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves 289
C.3 Application
The combination of the curves for the available and used auxiliary heat flows in one plot enables the
evaluation of the exchanger performance. We can easily identify the matches that obstruct on their
own the completion of the network design with the specified utilities. These infeasible matches use at
some temperature more auxiliary heat flow than there is available. An example is Match HX A in
Figure 67. Any set of matches that are feasible on their own, may turn out to be infeasible, when they
are combined. This is the case, if the sum of auxiliary heat flows for these matches exceeds the
available auxiliary heat flow at some temperature. The matches B and C in the figure are such an
infeasible combination.
Apart from the feasibility of any (set of) matches, the curves also show the relative performance of
each match, though only in a qualitative way. For an ideal match we should find a exchanger auxiliary
heat flow curve relative to the available auxiliary heat flow curve that is proportional to the match duty
relative to the total transferred duty at the temperatures that are present in the match. In the typical
curve, Figure 67, Match HX D covers half the available auxiliary heat flow and thus this match should
ideally cover about half the transferred duty at the related temperature. In practice, it is often less
important to get locally an ideal situation. Instead, it is more important to be aware of the available
margins and the limitations put thereon by specific decisions. The auxiliary heat flow curves show the
performance of individual matches, measured by the limitations it puts on other matches. Its
interpretation requires good insight in the problem. The graphical presentation helps an engineering
judgement of any match in combination with other matches and the remaining problem. As long as the
sum of auxiliary heat flows for all fixed exchangers is within the maximum available heat flow
envelope, the completion of the network is theoretically possible. If part of the problem is not yet
specified while the sum of heat flows equals the available heat flow, then all remaining matches
should be made with exactly the EMAT. Meanwhile, the sum of auxiliary heat flows will always be
equal to the available auxiliary heat flow as long as the specified utilities are used. One need not to be
too conservative in using the available auxiliary heat flows to prevent either the use of less utility than
planned with the economic optimisation or ending up with some relatively uneconomical matches.
In retrofit the use of the auxiliary heat flow curves is especially useful. For retrofit cases we have a
base case for which we can construct the completely filled auxiliary heat flow curves. We can easily
review from these curves the relative contribution of each match and evaluate what options are
available to reduce the total auxiliary heat flow and thus reduce the utility use. The curves give some
qualitative insight in the relation between saving and the required modifications. Note that the shape
of the available auxiliary heat flow curve is essentially fixed. It may be stretched only at the
temperatures at which utilities are present. More utility duty expands the envelope and shifts the
process parts of the curve horizontally to the right. A reduction of the utility duty has the reverse
effect. The exchanger auxiliary heat flow curves are independent of the utility duties. All curves are
affected by the EMAT.
290 Appendix C
Cross-reference Design and Review Variables 291
Appendix D Cross-reference Design and Review Variables

Table 46 Cross-reference design variables used in Chapter 2 (Table 10) and variables used in the
overviews of targeting methods (Chapter 5) and retrofit network design methods (Chapter 7)
Design Variable Target Variable
Ts , Tt , massflow (except for utilities), stream data
properties, duty, heat transfer characteristics
Ts , Tt , properties, heat transfer characteristics, utility data
cost
Stream ǻp, heat exchanger stream/utility ǻp ǻp distribution
stream/utility fouling factor fouling factor
massflow utilities, operating cost utility use, operating cost
heat exchanger type unit type
exchanger minimum approach temperature hx ǻTmin (EMAT)
hx stream Ts ,Tt , massflow hx Tin, Tout , hx duty
utility hx stream Ts ,Tt , massflow
hx size (lumped) total transfer area
(individual) hx size
materials materials
number of shells in series match / shell count
hx location hx location
hx investment investment/profit
equipment revisions reuse equipment
thermal design hx details
stream splits/mixers split fractions hx massflow
tie-in -
FT FT, ǻTeff
hx max ǻp hx max ǻp
for all hx: streams/utilities included topology
up- and downstream units
stream splits
feed/product
hx = heat exchanger, ǻp = stream pressure drop, Ts = source temperature ,Tt = target temperature
ǻTmin = Minimum approach temperature, EMAT = Exchanger Minimum Approach Temperature
FT = non counter-current correction factor, ǻTeff = effective temperature difference
292 Appendix D
Saving on Investment Relation 293
Appendix E Saving on Investment Relation

E.1 Introduction
This appendix shows the derivation of a typical saving on investment relation for the retrofit of heat
exchanger networks. This relation is used in this thesis to obtain rough quick targets for numerous
(sub)networks with two or more utilities and to compare these targets to identify the most promising
alternatives.
First we derive an analytical solution for the simplest integration case with one heater, one cooler, a
single process-to-process exchanger and one hot and cold stream with constant properties. Next, we
simplify this relation to allow easy calculation of the constants in this relation from a few data points
that are easily available also for practical cases. Finally, we demonstrate the use of the approximation
in a few examples.
E.2 Basic Integration Case Solution
Consider the simple heat path of Figure 68, consisting of one hot and one cold stream, one heater, one
cooler and one process-to-process exchanger. The properties of the streams (heat capacity flowrate,
CPm) and the heat transfer coefficient are independent of the temperature. The duty of the process-to-
process exchanger is Q and the duty of the heater is QU.
Figure 68 also shows the corresponding composite curves. In this case we can reduce the utility duty
QU by increasing the process-to-process heat transfer, Q. This reduces the temperature difference in
the process-to-process heat exchangers and thus requires more exchanger area. The cost associated
with the additional area (CA) is the required investment. The reduction of utility duty, QU, is the
related saving.
Below we derive for this case an analytical relation between the saving on utility costs and the
required investment for heat transfer area relation.
H
Q QU
T
[°C] T2 1/CPm,min
T1
1/CPm,max
Q QU
H [W]
Figure 68 Basic heat path
294 Appendix E
E.3 Nomenclature
1 + ω − Rω
ȕ fit constant = for base case
R
ȕr fit constant for reduced relation
Ȗ dimensionless investment = I / Cref
Ȗ0 the dimensionless minimum investment
į fit constant = 1/c for base case
įr fit constant for reduced relation
ǻM difference of inverse of the minimum and maximum heat capacity flow rates of the
1 1
exchanging streams = −
CPm,min CPm,max
ǻT1 temperature difference between the hot and cold streams at exchanger side with maximum
difference
ǻT2 temperature difference between the hot and cold streams at exchanger side with minimum
difference
ǻTln log mean temperature difference
c
a ( h ⋅ A ref ⋅ ∆Μ )
ș fit constant = b for base case
șr fit constant for reduced relation
ȟ relative saving, the ratio of target utility duty saving and the maximum utility duty saving or
the target utility cost saving and the maximum utility cost saving
ȟr ȟ approximated
ȟrpd ȟr at the minimum payback period point ( CA,pd , ȟrpd)
c
Cref ( h ⋅ A ref ⋅ ∆Μ )
ȥ fit constant = b for base case
Ȧ ratio of the existing process to process exchanged duty and the maximum utility duty saving
a constant for area cost (fixed cost)
A exchanger area
Anew new (additional) exchanger area required
Aref reference exchanger area for exchanger cost function
b constant for area cost (factor)
c constant for area cost (exponent)
CA,pd area cost at the minimum payback period point ( CA,pd , ȟrpd)
CPm,max heat capacity flowrate (= heat capacity * flow) of stream with highest value
CPm,min heat capacity flowrate (= heat capacity * flow) of stream with lowest value
Cref reference investment costs to make investment dimensionless, is set to CA,pd
CU utility cost related to QU
h overall heat transfer coefficient
I investment (for area)
I0 minimum investment prior to any saving (= a)
Q exchanged duty from process to process
QSsmax maximum saving duty
QStar target utility duty saving
QU utility duty to be transferred to the process
R ratio of minimum and maximum heat capacity flowrate

S utility cost saving related to QStar
Smax maximum utility cost saving related to QSsmax
( A ⋅h⋅∆Μ )
X intermediate lumped variable = e new
Z intermediate variable; no specific meaning
Subscripts
ex existing situation
tar target situation, i.e. situation at target approach temperature
ref reference
fit fitted constant
r reduced
E.4 Derivation Relation
The derivation of the saving on investment relation starts with a number of basic relations:
Area cost function
c
§A ·
I = a + b ¨ new ¸ (E1)
© A ref ¹
with A new = A tar − A ex (E2)
Basic heat transfer relation for ideal strict counter-current heat exchangers:
Q
A= (E3)
h ⋅ ∆Tln
with
∆T1 − ∆T2
∆Tln = ∆T1 ≠ ∆T2 (E4)a
§ ∆T ·
ln ¨ 1 ¸
© ∆T2 ¹
(E4)b
∆Tln = ∆T2 ∆T1 = ∆T2
and ǻT1 = temperature difference between hot and cold streams in- or outlet at exchanger side
with maximum difference;
ǻT2 = temperature difference at the exchanger side opposite of ǻT1;
The basic heat balance for ideal strict counter-current two-stream heat exchangers with constant cold
and hot heat capacity flowrate gives a reduction of the temperature difference between the hot and
cold
stream over the heat exchanger that is proportionally to the heat duty:
∆T1 − ∆T2 = Q ⋅ ∆Μ (E5)
1 1
with ∆M = − (E6)
CPm,min CPm,max
Note that by definition Q 0 and ǻM > 0. Consequently, also ǻT1 ǻT2 .

296 Appendix E
We can substitute a rearrangement of Equation E5 in Equation E4a resulting in:

Q ⋅ ∆Μ
∆Tln =
§ ∆T + Q ⋅ ∆Μ · (E7)
ln ¨ 2 ¸
© ∆T2 ¹
Next, we apply this Equation E3 to the target and existing situation and substitute in Equation E2 to
get:
Q tar Qex
A new = − (E8)
h ⋅ ∆Tln,tar h ⋅ ∆Tln,ex
and with substitution of Equation E7 for the target and existing situation for ǻTln:
§ ∆T2,tar + Q tar ⋅ ∆Μ · § ∆T2,ex + Qex ⋅ ∆Μ ·
A new ⋅ h ⋅ ∆Μ = ln ¨ ¸ − ln ¨ ¸ (E9)
¨ ∆ T ¸ ¨ ∆ T ¸
© 2,tar ¹ © 2,ex ¹
As the heat capacity flowrates of both streams are constant, the lowest temperature difference between
the hot and cold stream will always remain at the same side and this side is independent of the target
duty Qtar. The pinching temperature, which gives the lowest temperature difference, is always at the
stream with the highest heat capacity flowrate. This pinching temperature, either hot or cold, remains
constant and is independent of Qtar. The opposite cold or hot temperature varies with Qtar and is
inversely proportional to the minimum heat capacity flowrate. The minimum temperature difference
between the hot and cold stream thus has the following relation with Qtar and CPm,min:
Q − Qex
∆T2,tar − ∆T2,ex = − tar (E10)
CPm,min
or alternatively:
QStar
∆T2,tar − ∆T2,ex = − (E11)
CPm,min
with QStar is the target utility duty saving :

QStar = Q tar − Qex (E12)
The maximum duty saving results from Equation E11, if we set ǻT2,tar = 0 (pinching streams):
QSmax = ∆T2,ex ⋅ CPm,min (E13)
Additionally, we define the heat capacity flowrate ratio:
CPm,min
R= (E14)
CPm,max
with Equation E6 we can write:

1− R
∆M = (E15)
CPm,min
and further define X as:

X = e( new )
A ⋅h⋅∆Μ (E16)
Taking the exponent of Equation E9 and substitution of the Equations E11 and E16 gives:
X=
( ∆Τ2,ex ⋅ CPm,min − QStar + ∆Μ ⋅ Qtar ⋅ CPm,min ) ∆Τ2,ex
(E17)
( ∆Τ2,ex ⋅ CPm,min − QStar )( ∆Τ2,ex + Qex ⋅ ∆Μ )
Substituting the Equation E12, E13 and E15 gives:

QSmax ⋅ ( QSmax − QStar ⋅ R + Qex (1 − R ) )
X= (E18)
( QSmax − QStar ) ( QSmax + Qex (1 − R ) )
This relation can be simplified by the introduction of two dimensionless numbers:
QStar
ξ= (E19)
QSmax
Qex
ω= (E20)
QSmax
The resulting equation is:
ξR + ωR − ω − 1
X= (E21)
( ξ − 1)( ωR − ω − 1)
We can solve ȟ from this relation, which results in:
β (1 − X )
ξ= (E22)
βX − 1
ωR − ω − 1
with β = (E23)
R
To get a saving on investment relation we have to introduce the investment in E22. Combining
Equation E1 and E16 gives
§
¨ h⋅A ⋅∆Μ § I −a ·
( 1c ) ·¸
¨ ref ¨ ¸ ¸
X = e© © b ¹ ¹ (E24)
Substitution of this equation in E22 and the introduction of the variables į, K and ȥ gives after some
rearrangement:
δ
β e(
ψγ−ϑ)
−β
ξ= δ (E25)
β e(
ψγ−ϑ )
−1
I
with γ = (E26)
Cref
c
Cref ( h ⋅ A ref ⋅ ∆Μ )
ψ= (E27)
b
a ⋅ψ
ϑ= (E28)
Cref
1
δ= (E29)
c
This is the desired relation for the general case between saving, represented by ȟ, and investment,
included as Ȗ. Note that ȟ has been defined in Equation E19 as the ratio of duty savings. The duty costs
are however proportional to the utility duty. ȟ therefore also represents the ratio of duty costs.
The relation is valid if ȥȖ K, i.e. I a.
298 Appendix E
There are two special cases for which the relations above are not valid:
A) CPm,min → 0 or CPm,max → ∞ for which R → 0 and β → ∞.
The case of CPm,min to zero is irrelevant as QSmax also approaches to zero.
If R = 0, Equation E21 can be simplified to
1
X= (E30)
1− ξ
and thus
1
ξ =1− (E31)
X
which finally gives
δ
ξ =1− e (
− ψγ−ϑ) (E32)
R = 0, ψγ ≥ ϑ
B) CPm, max = CPm, min or R = 1
In this case Equation E4b is applicable. We can do a similar derivation as elaborated for the general
case above which results in:
δ
ξ=
( ψe γ − ϑ)
R = 1, ψ e γ ≥ ϑ (E33)
( ψ e γ − ϑ )δ + ω
c
§ h ⋅ A ref ·
Cref ¨ ¸¸
¨ CPm,min (E34)
in which ψe = © ¹
b
E.5 Approximation for Practical Cases
The equations E25, E32 and E33 give analytical expressions for the desired saving on investment
relation for the simple base case described above. The constants ȕ, į, K and ȥ or ȥe can be derived
from the input data for the base case. Practical integration problems consist of more than two streams,
with variable heat capacity flowrates and heat transfer coefficients, and more than one exchanger. For
these cases no (or only very complex) analytical solutions exist. We would like to represent the saving
on investment relation in an easily identifiable equation, similar to the analytical expression given
above. This will avoid excessive targeting calculations and eases comparison of cases, also if their
number increases. Instead of the equation set E25, E32 and E33, we need a simple relation with
constants that can be derived from some characteristic points. We will derive such an equation below
and develop relations to calculate the constants in this equation.
The approximation is based on the a first order approximation of the exponential factors:
ex = 1 + x (E35)
Application to Equation E25 gives:
ξ =r
( )−β
β 1 + ( ψγ − ϑ )
δ
ψγ ≥ ϑ (E36)
β (1 + ( ψγ − ϑ ) ) − 1
δ
The subscript ‘r’ refers to the reduced form of the relation.

We can simplify this relation by the introduction of a new set of parameters:

δ
βr ( γ − γ 0 )
ξr = γ ≥ γ0 (E37)
δ
βr ( γ − γ 0 ) + 1
β ⋅ ψδ
with βr = (E38)
β −1
ϑ
γ0 = (E39)
ψ
We want to determine the parameters of the reduced dimensionless saving on investment relation,
Equation E37, to some characteristic points that we can determine for any heat exchanger network in
retrofit. We select the following characteristic points:
• The minimum payback period point (Ȗpb , ȟpb) in which the payback period, the first derivative of
Equation E37 to Ȗ, equals to
§ ∂ξr · ξpb
¨ ¸ = (E40)
© ∂γ ¹ γ=γ pb γ pb
ξ=ξpb
We will define Ȗpb 1, which sets Cref to the investment at the minimum payback period point:
Cref = CA,pb (E40)
• The intersection point with the x-axis at which I = I0 , the minimum investment for any saving > 0.
This gives the point (0, ȟpb).
• The maximum yearly cost savings, Smax at infinite investment, which is already included in the
definition of ȟr. It implies that
ξr → 1 for γ→∞
Now we have three equations with the parameters of Equation E37 as the only unknown variables.
This results in the following relations for the parameters:
I
γ0 = 0 (E41)
C Apb
§ 1−γ 0 ·
ξ pb
(1 − ξ ) ( ) ¨¨ ξ pb −1 ¸¸
β r , fit = 1−γ © ¹ (E42)
0
pb
γ 0 −1
δ fit = (E43)
ξ pb − 1
Equation E37 with the fitted parameters is valid for Ȗ > Ȗ0. Due to the simplification of the function, its
shape deviates from the more rigorous function Equation E25 especially between Ȗ0 and Ȗpb. The slope
of Equation E25 for Ȗ = Ȗ0 is a positive number whereas the slope of Equation E37 approaches to zero
when Ȗ approaches to Ȗ0. This deviation should be recognized during the evaluation of alternatives
using this function, but generally this will be irrelevant as the most economical alternatives have
Ȗ Ȗpb.
The curve is applicable for all cases for which the three above mentioned characteristic points are
valid. The horizontal asymptote at ȟr = 1 implies that the temperature difference between the hot and
300 Appendix E
cold curves approaches zero to get the maximum saving. This is not valid for so-called threshold cases
and thus the approximation function should not be used for these cases.
In the main text of this thesis, Chapter 6, we use ȟ , ȕ and į instead of ȟr , ȕr,fit and įfit.
E.6 Worked Out Example Cases
In this section we will compare the approximation function, derived in the previous section, and the
original analytical relation for some simple cases. These cases are based on the simple heat transfer
problem introduced in Section E.2. Each case has different values for the case input data as shown in
Table 47. For each case the analytical and approximation saving on investment relations are plotted in
a figure. Additionally, minimum payback line is shown.
The comparison shows a good match of the approximation for values of Ȗ around Ȗpb and higher. The
deviation between Ȗ0 and Ȗpb can be significant as especially the shape of the curve around Ȗ0 is
different. This deviation is generally no problem as the range between Ȗ0 and Ȗpb is less relevant for
energy saving projects. These projects will aim for minimum payback or accept a lower payback to
have a higher saving.
Table 47 Data for approximation function check cases

Case Case1 Case2 Case3
Qex 250 100 250
CPm,min 75 25 75
CPm,max 200 30 350
h 250 100 150
ǻT2 30 70 30
a 5000 1500 100
b 1800 200 1200
c 0.7 0.4 0.7
K 4.643 6.377 0.114

ȕ -2.852 -1.211 -5.074
į 1.429 2.500 1.429
ȥ 6.764 8.207 1.154
CA,pb 1.00 1.00 1.00
ȟpb 0.929 0.981 0.611
ȟpb/CA,pb 0.929 0.981 0.611
I0 5000 1500 100
Ȗ0 0.686 0.777 0.099

ȕr 2201.090 1.465E+09 1.997
į 4.419 11.453 2.314
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
ȟ
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Ȗ
Original Approximation Payback Line
Figure 69 Original and approximate dimensionless saving on investment function for Case 2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
ȟ
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Ȗ
Original Approximation Payback Line
302 Appendix E
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
ȟ 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ȗ
Original Approximation payback line
Effect of Thermal Shifting and Splitting on FT 303
Appendix F Effect of Thermal Shifting and Splitting on FT

The FT correction factor gives the deviation from ideal strict counter-current exchanger performance:
A cc = FT ⋅ A act 0 ≤ FT ≤ 1 (F1)
with Acc the effective ideal strict counter-current area [m2];
Aact the actual exchanger area [m2].
The FT-factor is a function of the exchanger in- and outlet temperatures.
Non-ideal exchangers have the best efficiency, if the FT-factor approaches one. We want to maximise
the efficiency of existing exchangers in heat exchanger network retrofit design as this saves
investment for new area. This efficiency is the result of two contributions:
• the thermal efficiency of the exchanger in the network, that depends on its position in thermal
space;
• the internal efficiency of the exchanger that is expressed by the FT - factor.
We can use thermal shifting and stream splitting to improve the thermal efficiency of the exchanger.
This may, however, also affect the internal efficiency, i.e. the FT - factor, as the in- and outlet
temperatures of the exchanger will change. Therefore, we will review the consequences for FT of
thermal shifting and stream splitting below. Thermal shifting and stream splitting affects the in- and
outlet temperatures of the exchanger and the heat capacity flowrates, CPm of the connected streams.
We can evaluate the impact on FT, if we have a relationship between these variables and FT. Below we
derive this relationship. We have used the mathematical analysis software tool Maple Version 9.5
(2004) to support the derivation.
Initially, we explored the dependency of some variables by some examples worked out in a
spreadsheet. This showed that the FT - factor is independent of the inlet temperatures. This is what we
want to prove in general. We start with the following assumptions:
• the exchanger is a standard shell-and-tube exchanger with one shell and two tube passes;
• the heat capacity flowrate of both the hot and cold stream is independent of the stream
temperature;
• the total heat transfer coefficient for transfer from
the hot to the cold stream is independent of the
hot and cold stream temperatures.
Used variables:
Q exchanged duty by the exchanger [W]
Ah heat transfer area * total heat transfer coefficient
(assumed constant in retrofit for this analysis)
[W/°C]
Thi hot side inlet temperature [°C]
Tho hot side outlet temperature [°C]
Tci cold side inlet temperature [°C]
Tco cold side outlet temperature [°C]
ǻTln logarithmic mean temperature difference [°C]
CPmh hot heat capacity flowrate = massflow * heat
capacity [W/°C] Figure 72 Used case and variables for FT
factor review
304 Appendix F
CPmc cold heat capacity flowrate = massflow * heat capacity [W/°C]

FT correction factor to account for not-strictly counter-current flow [-]
NTUc Number of Transfer Units for the cold side [-]
Some of the used variables are illustrated in Figure 72.
Both the logarithmic mean temperature difference (ǻTln) and the FT factor are not continuous at
R = CPmc/CPmh = 1 and thus have to be worked out separately.
First, we define a set of basic equations.
A) General heat transfer equation and definition of ǻTln, the log mean temperature difference.
Q = Ah ⋅ DT ln⋅ FT (F2)
(Thi − Tco ) − (Tho − Tci )
∆Tln = for R <> 1
§ T − Tco · (F3)
ln ¨ hi ¸
© Tho − Tci ¹
∆Tln = Thi − Tco for R = 1 (F4)

CPmc
R= (F5)
CPmh
B) Heat balances for the hot and cold sides of the exchanger.
Q
Tho = Thi − (F6)
CPmh
Q
Tco = Tci + (F7)
CPmc
Correction factor for not ideal counter-current heat exchangers with 1 shell and 2 tube passages
(Smith, 2005):
§ 1− S ·
R 2 + 1 ln ¨ ¸
© 1− RS ¹
FT = for R <> 1
§
¨
(
2 − S R +1− R2 +1 ) ·¸ (F8)
( R − 1) ¨
ln
(
© 2 − S R +1+ R +1
2 ) ¹¸
2 ⋅S
FT = for R = 1
(1 − S) ln ¨¨
(
§ 2−S 2− 2 ·
¸ ) (F9)
© (
2−S 2+ 2 ¸
¹ )
T − Tci
S = co (F10)
Thi − Tci
Elaboration for R = CPmc/CPmh <> 1

First we write apart the variables that are especially important for retrofit. These are the existing heat
transfer capacity, i.e. the product of the area and the (total) heat transfer coefficient (Ah) and the in-
and outlet temperatures (Thi, Tci). As we will maintain the same streams connected to the exchanger
and initially assume no split, the CPmh and CPmc are also fixed and known. We will use R and CPmc
and eliminate CPmh using Equation F5. Additionally, we will eliminate Q, ǻTln, Tho and Tco by
combination of the Equations F2, F3 and F5 to F7. This results in the following relation:
§ § S −1 ··
S ¨ Ah ⋅ FT ( R − 1) − CPmc ⋅ ln ¨ ¸ ¸ ( Thi − Tci ) = 0 (F11)
© © R ⋅S −1¹¹
From this equation we can solve S. The relevant result is:
§ ( R −1)Ah⋅FT ·
¨ ¸
CPmc
e© ¹ −1
S= (F12)
§ ( R −1)Ah⋅FT ·
¨ ¸
CPmc
e© ¹R −1
Equation F12 can be substituted in Equation F8. From this relation we can solve FT as follows:
§ § R 2 +1⋅Ah · ·
¨ ¨ ¸ ¸
¨ § R − 1 + R 2 + 1 · e¨© CPmc ¹¸ + 1 − R + R 2 + 1 ¸
¨ ¨ ¸ ¸
ln ¨ − © ¹
¸ CPmc
§ R 2 +1⋅Ah ·
¨ ¨ ¸ ¸
¨ § 2 · ¨ CPmc ¸
© ¹ +1− R − R +1 ¸
2
¨ ¨ R −1− R +1¸e ¸ (F13)
© ¹
FT = © ¹ for R <> 1
Ah(R − 1)
Elaboration for R = CPmc/CPmh = 1

Similar to the elaboration above, we can combine for R = 1 the relations F2 and F4 to F7 and eliminate
Q, ǻTln, Tho and Tco. This results in the following relation:
( Thi − Tci ) ( CPmc + Ah ⋅ FT ⋅ (S − 1) ) = 0 (F14)
We can solve S from this relation:
1
S=
CPmc (F15)
+1
Ah ⋅ FT
Finally, we can get the relation for R=1, when we substitute F15 in F9 and solve FT:
§ § Ah 2 · ·
¨ ¨¨ CP ¸¸ ¸
CPmc © e© mc ¹ − 1¹ 2
FT = for R = 1 (F16)
§ § Ah 2 · ·
¨ ¨¨ CP ¸¸ ¸
Ah © e© mc ¹ + 1¹
We can also obtain this relation if we take the limit of the right hand side of F13 for R1.
306 Appendix F
Function Evaluation
FT is only a function of R, CPmc and Ah. Apparently, the FT - factor is independent of the in- and
outlet temperatures and thus thermal shifting does not affect this FT-factor as long as the heat capacity
flowrates, CPm, and the overall heat transfer coefficient, h, remain constant. The dependency of FT on
CPmh and CPmc for a specific value of Ah is shown in Figure 73.
Instead of Ah we can use the number of heat transfer units, NTU. For the number of cold heat transfer
units, NTUc, we can use:
Ah = NTU c ⋅ CPmc (F17)
Figure 73 FT as function of CPmh and CPmc with Ah=30
Figure 74 FT as function of R and NTUc

The relations F13 and F16 can be rewritten to relations with only R and NTUc:
§
(
¨ §¨ R − 1 + R 2 + 1 ·¸ e )
R 2 +1⋅NTU c ·
+1− R + R2 +1 ¸
¨ ¸
ln ¨ − © ¹
¸
¨ § 2
¨ ¨ R −1− R +1¸e
·( )
R 2 +1⋅NTU c
2
+1− R − R +1 ¸
¸ (F18)
© © ¹ ¹
for R <> 1 FT = for R <> 1
NTU c ⋅ (R − 1)
FT =
( e
( NTU 2 ) − 1) 2
c
for R = 1 (F19)
NTU c ( e
( NTU 2 ) + 1)
c
We can use this set of relations to analyse and visualise the impact of splitting on FT. Some plots are
shown in Figure 73 and 74.
For non-ideal exchanger the FT - factor will nearly always decrease due to stream splitting. This
general trend is shown in Figure 75. The severity of this effect depends on the original and resulting
NTUc and NTUh. Stream splitting has two effects on the NTU. Primarily, it reduces the related heat
capacity flowrate, which results in a proportional higher NTU. Secondly, it reduces the related single-
side heat transfer coefficient due to lower velocities and related Reynolds number (see Section 8.3.2).
This in turn reduces the NTU at both sides which depend on the total heat transfer coefficient. This
effect is less than linear. The changes at one side are damped by the opposite single-side heat transfer
coefficient, that remains constant. As a consequence splitting always increases the NTU at the split
side, but may reduce the NTU of the opposite side. This generally results in a decrease of the
FT - factor, but an increase is possible in some cases, depending on the original values of both NTU.
Figure 75 FT as function of NTUh and NTUc

308 Appendix F
This analysis is based on Equation F8 and F9 that are applicable for shell-and-tube heat exchangers
with one shell and two tube passes. The nature of the correction factors for other heat exchanger types
is similar and thus it is likely that they will show similar trends.
PHITS Targeting and Analysis Software 309
Appendix G PHITS Targeting and Analysis Software

G.1 Introduction
G.1.1 Overview
PHITS is a computer program, developed during the research for this thesis, to facilitate the analysis
and targeting design of heat exchanger networks. It calculates targets for utility requirement, the
number of heat transfer units and shells, the amount of heat transfer area and network costs for both
grassroots and retrofit cases. The included targeting methods are based on the methods from pinch
technology and some new enhancements thereof. PHITS can also perform match calculations to
determine the size or duty of exchangers, if sufficient specifications are given.
PHITS is especially designed to execute Structural Targeting (Chapter 6). It can easily generate all
possible subnetworks from an existing network and execute a set of analyses with these subnetworks
or any subset thereof. Alternatively, analyses can be done for any set of user-defined zones, any
subnetwork built from these user-defined zones or any other user-defined set of subnetworks.
G.1.2 Interface and Main Program Structure

PHITS is a batch-wise running program which takes its input from a standard text input file. This file
contains a number of input data sections each with a predefined format. PHITS is started as either a
normal executable file or from a command prompt to allow run options. PHITS processes the input,
builds the model and performs the analyses. A text file report is generated to store the results of all
analysis. The program closes itself after completion of the report generation. Any messages generated
by the program are stored in another text file. This includes error and warning messages that allow
input debugging. Results may also be written to a comma and delimited file for easy transfer to a
spreadsheet. Some Excel applications are developed to process the PHITS output to generate graphs
and to compare the saving potential of alternative subnetworks.
PHITS is written in Object Pascal using various versions of Borland Delphi and finally Turbo Delphi
(2006) for Windows from CodeGear. The entire program, including both the technical calculation
code and the software implementation code, is written as an object oriented program (Booch, 1994). It
uses class types to define objects that represent on the one hand the physical objects used for technical
calculations and evaluations and on the other hand the software objects that are used to built the
software functions including input/output, data management and memory management. Class types
are defined from generic to specific and use inheritance in which more specific classes are defined as
descendants (children) of a more generic class (the parent). The main classes of PHITS and their
relations and functions are described in Section G.2.
Most structures in PHITS are dynamic and as a result the program has no limitations on the number of
streams, heat exchangers or any other network element. Also, any number or combination of analyses
is allowed. The program is quick: simple analyses return output in seconds and a full analysis of more
than 1000 subnetworks returns output in a few minutes.
PHITS is setup to allow ongoing development. Both the object structure (Section G.2), the input and
output data structures and keyword language are expandable with limited code. New elements can be
added without adaptation of the core code. The above mentioned features make PHITS a versatile tool.
310 Appendix G
G.1.3 Program Validation

All program elements were built and tested independently. Most program elements have been built in
and with classes. Each class was therefore developed and debugged independently and tested on main
functions. The entire application has been tested with an example case that was developed especially
for this purpose. This case was elaborated manually to obtain reference results. Additionally, PHITS
has been verified frequently during execution of the case studies. The main results for all cases were
cross checked with the results from similar analyses elaborated using Aspen Pinch (1999). The final
version of PHITS generally gave the same results for the same calculations. However, some errors in
the Aspen Pinch program were identified.
PHITS has been used to analyse a large number of subnetworks for each case study. This has exposed
the program to many exceptional cases. We have used such large scale test regularly to check the
robustness of the algorithms. The output of these analyses were critically review to identify
unexpected output. The final version of the program, used for the case studies of this thesis, gives
reasonable figures for all cases processed.
G.2 Network Object Model
PHITS owes its ability to handle exchangers and subnetworks in a consistent and flexible way to its
network object model. This model also enables (basic) network simulation and analysis with the same
objects, while other programs have separate environments for analysis and design and for simulation.
The simulation functions of PHITS is, however, limited.
PHITS is a data processing application. The core object of the application is a program manager ,
which holds (Figure 76) a model object and an object set of analyses to be performed on the model.
The program manager reads the input, configures the model and the requested analyses, executes all
analyses on the model and writes the output. The object oriented setup of the program gives that any
descendants of a base model class can be subject of an analysis designed for objects of the base model
class. We have used this property to make analyses for heat exchanger networks easily available for
any fraction of the base network. This is especially useful for Structural Targeting method (Chapter6).
AnalysisManager Class Class Type
1 1 Object Object (actual entity)

Generalization relation
(inherits from)
Composition relation (has )
1 *
one to many elements
1..* 1..*
«uses» Composition relation (shared)
1 1..*
One to many elements >= 1
Model AnalysisMethod
Figure 76 Main object structure of a model Legend for simplified software model diagrams
analysis application like PHITS
TModel
1 1
StreamManager THENModel
1
1
1 1
Stream *
*
*
StreamNode *
1
1* *
*
* 1
UnitOperation CostModel
1 1
InletNodes 2
OutletNodes 1 1
Figure 78 Core object structure in the THENModel class.
The heat exchanger network model is a descendant (THENModel in Figure 78) of the generic model
class (TModel). This network model has four sets of components:
• a set of Streams;
• a set of StreamNodes;
• a set of UnitOperations;
• a set of CostModels.
The first two sets are linked to the THENModel via a StreamManager, which is an administrative
object. The UnitOperations and CostModels are directly associated with the THENModel. Each
Stream object is associated with a number of StreamNodes that represent the states (temperature,
massflow) of that stream. Each StreamNode is associated with two UnitOperation objects that give the
UnitOperation from which the stream originates and the UnitOperation to which the stream goes.
Each UnitOperation has a set of inlet and outlet nodes, for each stream or stream fraction entering or
leaving the exchanger. These nodes define the streams that enter and leave the exchanger with the
applicable in- and outlet states. Each UnitOperation has a CostModel to calculate the investment and
operating costs. Additionally, each UnitOperation has an association with a set of Streams, which are
used to do the internal calculations to determine the performance of the UnitOperation. Heat
exchangers use these streams to setup the composite curves and determine the internal pinch and
utility requirements. In reality, the object structure is more complex, Figure 78 gives the main objects
and associations only.
The Unit Operations in Figure 78 are instances of the TUnitOp class given in Figure 79. This class has
three main descendants: TPort, TMixSplitUnOp and THeatX. The TPort objects are the feeds and
products of the network, which are the only units that create or dispose material streams.
TMixSplitUnOp objects include the mixers and splitters of streams. THeatX is the parent class of all
heat exchanging unit operations, including two-stream and multi-stream exchangers. THeatX has a
container descendant TNetwork, which contains a number of exchangers that are objects of THeatX or
one of its descendants including TNetwork itself. All networks and subnetworks defined within PHITS
312 Appendix G
are instances of TNetwork. Due to the shown class structure, these networks are just complex heat
exchangers within PHITS. Consequently, all analyses or operations designed for a generic heat
exchanger (THeatX) are applicable to a network as well. The other way around: most analyses and
operations known for networks are easily adapted to allow application to any exchanger.
As shown in the class diagram, TUnitOp and THeatX have a few supporting classes to calculate some
of their properties. These calculation methods are separated from the core unit model to allow method
configuration during setup of the model. This way each TUnitOp can get a specific cost method and
each THeatX can get a specific method for composite curve construction and utility targeting, through
via the TMakeComposite model class or a descendant, and for area targeting calculations, through the
TAreaTargetMethod model class or a descendant. It is also easily to add new methods during the
development of the program.
TUnitOp
1..*
TFeedProd TMixSplitOp
TFeed TProduct TMixer TSplitter
1
TMakeCompositeMethod
1
THeatX
1 TAreaTargetMethod
1
1
TNetwork
Figure 79 Main unit operation classes within PHITS
G.3 Main Functions and Calculation Methods
PHITS contains all standard network performance analysis tools, necessary for basic heat exchanger
network retrofit analysis (Chapter 4) and the main targeting methods. An overview of the functions is
in Table 48. We can recognize the following main functions or function groups:
• Network Performance Analysis Methods;
• Targeting Methods;
• Target Optimisation Methods;
• Subnetwork Analysis;
• Network Match Duty Calculation;
• Match Calculator.
Network Performance Analysis Methods

The network performance analysis methods include a number of analysis reports and performance
related curves. There are network reports with different detail level. Typically, they contain a listing of
overall utility use, unit count, area assigned and overall network costs. It may include a listing of
match details. PHITS can also provide the data to create a number of performance analysis curves. It
will give no graphical output, but data in table format. These data can be used to prepare plots. Some
spreadsheet tools in Excel (2003) have been developed to generate plots from the PHITS output with
just a few manipulations.
Targeting Methods
The targeting methods are built in the program as separate objects that are associated with specific
objects of the THeatX type or its descendants (Figure 79). There are calculation methods available for
energy and utility targeting, unit, shell and area targeting and for cost targeting. The object oriented
setup makes it possible to select appropriate methods per unit. Defaults methods can be set to ease the
input. For energy/utility targeting it is possible to select either a heat balance check (no utilities
allowed) or a problem table algorithm with utility balancing. The former is used for exchangers with
only process-to-process heat transfer, the latter for any other heat exchanger including heat exchanger
networks.
Units, shells and area targeting is in one object, as shells targeting depends on area targeting. Joined
calculation of shells and area targets enhances the calculation efficiency. It is possible to select units
targeting based on the Euler rule instead of shells targeting. All area targeting methods in PHITS are
based on fixed heat transfer coefficients and fouling factors. The result of the Bath formula and the
area contribution area targeting methods are the same, unless we apply specific corrections for area
type contributions like the exchanger type correction proposed in Chapter 6.
Target Optimisation Methods

The optimisation of targets can be done for all exchangers, including networks, that are balanced with
more than one utility. Range targeting calculates targets for a series of values for a single variable to
show the trends and determine the optimum value. This is especially used in the optimisation of
networks with two utilities that has only one variable to optimise. PHITS allows this range targeting in
various forms and presents the results in a table.
The optimal application of utilities in multi-utility networks requires the optimisation of more than one
variable. Range targeting can facilitate targeting of such a multi-utility system showing the trends of
selected pairs of utilities. Actual optimisation of a multi-utility system requires simultaneous
optimisation of the available degrees of freedom: the number of utilities minus one. This optimisation
is generally a linear programming problem, if only utility costs are optimised. It is a non-linear
optimisation, if also investment costs are taken into account. PHITS has a smart placement routine for
the determination of the utility mix with lowest utility costs, which replaces the linear programming
optimisation. This routine is adequate, if utilities have no temperature overlap, whereas hotter hot
utilities and colder cold utilities are always more expensive and no utility generation is allowed.
PHITS uses a specially developed constraint simplex algorithm (Verheijen, 1998) to solve the total
cost NLP optimisation problem (Section 6.3). It uses a simplex algorithm to optimise all variables
simultaneously. Additionally, the algorithm can freeze variables that arrive at one of their bounds and
314 Appendix G
continue optimisation with a reduced variable set. Finally, it tests if the fixed variables are at an
optimum at the selected boundary. If not, the variable is released and the simplex is continued with an
expanded variable set. The algorithm is robust and reasonably fast for the network cost optimisations,
at least up to six optimisation variables.
Subnetwork Analysis
The unit operations class model, Figure 79, shows that any heat exchanger network or subnetwork,
represented by TNetwork is a descendant of the base heat exchanger THeatX. Exchanger performance
analysis, targeting and optimisation in PHITS are developed for THeatX. As a result, they are also
applicable to any network.
PHITS can merge any set of exchangers, including (sub)networks, to form a specific subnetwork. It
recognizes and lumps common streams to get adequate targets. For a rigorous Structural Targeting
analysis, it can generate a complete set of all possible subnetworks within a network and perform
similar actions on all generated subnetworks. The results are summarised in tables. An Excel (2003)
tool is developed to review the results of the total costs multi-utility optimisation for a large number of
subnetworks and select the one with the best economic potential.
Network Match Duty Calculation

PHITS can calculate the heat and mass balance for a simple heat exchanger network. This is especially
useful to determine the temperatures of the streams between two exchangers, which may be necessary
to get a consistent specification of the heat exchanger and any other related heat exchangers. PHITS
can determine all data that depends on other exchangers up- or downstream, if we choose the right
calculation path.
The calculation algorithm in PHITS is rather simple and does not allow solution of variables that have
implicit relations and thus require iteration to solve. Tear streams or variables are not available.
Consequently, the allowed specifications for the exchangers, which are part of the network match duty
calculations, are limited to the overall duty, the duty per stream and the in- and outlet temperatures of
the exchanger.
Match Calculator
PHITS can calculate the performance of a match between two or more defined streams based on
adequate heat exchange specifications. The match must at least contain one hot and one cold stream.
Specifications may include, overall duty, heat transfer area, in- and outlet temperatures and stream
duties. The exchanger may be a strictly counter-current or a multi-pass (1 shell, 2 tube passes)
exchanger. The exchanger specifications must be adequate, over specification is not allowed. Under
specification is also not allowed, except in case of a multi-stream exchanger. The match calculator
Table 48 Overview of main functions of PHITS

Network Performance Analysis Methods
composite curves balanced curves, unbalanced curves, ǻTmin dependent
grand composite curves balanced curves, unbalanced curves, ǻTmin dependent
driving force plots various types
auxiliary heat flow curves overall available auxiliary heat flow curve
exchanger used auxiliary heat flow curve
network analysis report report with network characteristics and stream and exchanger data
match efficiency based on remaining problem analysis, different reference area targets
possible, including total area and process-to-process area
Targeting Methods
minimum energy heat balance check only using problem table algorithm (Kemp,
2007)
utility targeting using problem table algorithm (Kemp, 2007)
units and shells Euler rule (Kemp, 2007) with/without pinch decomposition
shell targeting algorithm from Smith (2005) with and without pinch
decomposition
area based on fixed heat transfer and fouling coefficients
Bath formula (Ahmad and Linnhoff, 1984)
area contributions from Panjeh Shahi (1992)
area contributions with exchanger type correction (Chapter 6)
cost operational/utility cost
investment
annualisation / payback
Target Optimisation Methods
two-utility range targeting range of points for values of ǻTmin,
range of points for values of hot or cold utility duty
utility mix selection minimum utility cost through smart placement
lowest total network cost utility mix through optimisation with
constraint simplex optimizer aiming at:
- minimum payback point
- a specific payback
Other Functions
network match duty simplified network simulation to determine exchanger in- and outlet
calculation temperatures, duty
match calculator match performance calculation independent of other exchangers,
based on the selected streams and specifications for duty, area and
in- and outlet temperature
316 Appendix G
assumes equal in- or outlet temperature for all unspecified streams in the exchanger and therefore does
not require complete input of all streams in this case.
The match calculator gives balance values for all unspecified variables. It calculates heat transfer area,
duty and cost of the match. Internally, the match is a descendant of THeatX. Consequently, all
analyses designed for THeatX are also applicable to the match specified by the match calculator.
Matches specified by the match calculator are not included in the network match duty calculation as
described above and therefore allow more specification options.
Case Details 317
Appendix H Case Details

H.1 Simplified Crude Preheating Case
H.1.1 Basic Data

Stream Data
The Simplified Crude Case is used as example case for the design guidelines in Chapter 8. See
Section 8.5. The case is a simplified crude preheat train and has been introduced and elaborated before
by Panjeh Shahi (1992). Stream data used for the case are in Table 49, the existing exchanger data in
Table 50. All exchangers are multi-pass shell-and-tube exchangers. The FT-factor is calculated from
the existing in and outlet temperatures as shown in Figure 80. The heat transfer coefficients, exchanger
duties, areas and FT-factors have been made consistent with the simple multi-pass exchanger model
used in the design (Section 2.3 and Appendix F).
270 ° 138.9 ° 40 °
H2 C2
11312
350 ° 128.1 ° 30 °
H3 C3
380 ° 3316
228.9 ° 50 °
H4 C4
26048
150 ° 115 ° 100 °
H5 C5
290 ° 9890 190 °

H6
`
390 ° 235.4 ° 193° 119° 90.2 ° 75.8 ° 31.54 °
C1 H1
80418 E6 E5 E4 E3 E2
38450 \ 2356 7500 \ 241
22000 \ 1183 15000\ 729 23023 \ 1223
Figure 80 Original network grid for example problem with stream temperatures [°C] and existing duty
[kW] \ area [m2] specification for each exchanger.
Table 49 Stream data of the simplified crude preheating train case

Stream Ts Tt CPm h1
C C kW/C W/m2/C
H2 270 40 114.4 447
H3 350 30 33.8 439
H4 380 50 145.6 430
H5 150 100 657.8 552
H6 290 190 384.5 438
C1 20 390 520 330
HU 2 500 500 500
CW 2 10 30 500
1
Heat transfer coefficients include stream fouling factors
2
Cold and hot utility streams are model fluids; utility-to-process exchanger not reviewed in this case.
318 Appendix H
Table 50 Original process-to-process exchanger data
Identifier Hot Cold Type Area nshells FT calc Duty

stream stream m2 ser x par kW
E2 H5 C1 multi-pass 1477 1x1 0.96 23000
E3 H3 C1 multi-pass 319 1x1 0.96 7500
E4 H2 C1 multi-pass 892 2x1 0.98 15000
E5 H6 C1 multi-pass 2569 3x2 0.95 38450
E6 H4 C1 multi-pass 1540 4x1 0.98 22000
Economic data
The used cost data for utilities and exchangers is based on the cost level of 2006. The hot utility cost is
linked to the an average natural gas price per GJ in Western Europe between 2003 and 2006 taken
from Eurostat (2007). The cold utility cost is set at 10% of the hot utility cost. The used values are in
Table 51.
The exchanger cost is based on the DACE-price booklet of 2003 (Webci Wubo, 2003) with cost
escalation according to the CEP Cost Index (2007) to 2006.
The cost of conventional shell-and-tube exchangers is based on the data given for carbon steel fixed
tube exchangers with a surcharge of 10% for more complex exchangers. The used escalation factor is
1.35. The exchanger cost is fitted to the most commonly used exchanger cost function :
c
§A ·
Chx = a + b ¨ hx ¸ (H1)
© A ref ¹
in which a [¼], b [¼], c [-] and Aref[m2] are constants depending on exchanger properties. The used
values are in Table 51.
The fixed cost ‘a’ are independent of the number of shells that are in the match. The exchanger
investment for a only counted once per match. The cost of a match with nshells shells is:
c
§A ·
Cmatch = a + n shells ⋅ b ¨ shell ¸ (H2)
© A ref ¹
The installed cost of the exchangers are calculated from the match or exchanger cost using:
I hx = Fins ⋅ Chx (H3)
in which Fins = installation factor [-] = 4
The existing design of the crude case shows an average exchanger shell area of approximately 465 m2.
This figure is used to estimate the required number of shell in the new situation by shells targeting.
The maximum shell size was set at 750 m2, based on a typical maximum of the expected exchanger
type used by exchanger design experts. We have assumed that carbon steel is applicable for all
conventional exchangers.
The cost of advanced exchangers is based on the estimated exchanger weight.

Case Details 319
§ § 1 − R ft ··
Chx = ( n streams − 1) ⋅ Cfix + Fins ⋅ Fcon ⋅ Cm ⋅ ρm ⋅ ¨ A plain ¨ R fr ⋅ d fin + d plate ¸ ¸ (H4)
¨ R eff ¸
© © ¹¹
in which nstreams number of stream in the match [-];
Aplain heat transfer area based on plain tube heat transfer coefficients [m2].
The following constants are used in this equation:

Cfix fixed cost per match [¼] = 54000
Fins installation factor [-] = 4
Fcon construction factor [-] = 3
Cm the cost per unit mass of the raw material m [¼/kg] = 6.7
ȡm the density of the material m [kg/m3]; = 8000
Rfr ratio of fin area to total area [-] = 0.888
Reff ratio of effective plain area to total plain area [-] = 1
dfin fin thickness [m] = 410-2
dplate plate thickness (plain area) [m] = 410-4
The material density and cost are based on Stainless Steel 316 and the data in DACE (2003) and CEP
Cost Index (2007) mentioned above.
The pay back time is used as economic evaluation criterion. Data of plant availability and the
maximum pay back period allowed are in Table 51.
Table 51 Cost Data Used for Case Studies

Data Description Symbol Used Value
Hot utility cost 9.0 [¼/GJ]
Cold utility cost 0.9 [¼/GJ]
Heat exchanger cost constant fixed cost a 13500 [¼]
Heat exchanger cost constant b 1080 [¼]
Heat exchanger cost constant exponent c 0.7 [-]
Reference area for standard cost function Aref 1 [m2]
Installation factor Finst 4
Cost per unit mass of the raw material m Cm 6.7 [¼/kg]
Fixed cost per match (advanced heat exchangers) Cfux 54000 [¼]
Construction factor (advanced heat exchangers) Fcon 3
Plant availability 8600 h/yr
Max pay back period for new investment 1 yr
320 Appendix H
H.1.2 Detailed Case Elaboration
Targeting Details and Match Efficiencies

The retrofit problem was analysed using conventional retrofit range targeting with one hot and one
cold utility as implemented in PHITS (Appendix G) . Targeting has been done with three methods:
A) Multi-pass area targeting with constant area efficiency (equal to the area efficiency in the
original network) and conventional exchanger cost for new area;
B) Counter-current area targeting with incremental area efficiency (new area efficiency of one)
and conventional exchanger cost for new area;
C) Counter-current area targeting with
incremental area efficiency (new area
Table 52 Match efficiencies of existing and new
efficiency of one) and advanced matches in the two-stream multi-pass final design. All
(weight-based) exchanger cost for new given area targets are strictly counter-current process-to-
area. process areas. The total network area target used to
2
calculate the match efficiency is 14282 m
For method A and B the target number of new Match Match Area Remaining Match
shells is the first integer above the ratio of the Problem Efficiency
amount of new area divided by the average area Area Target
size in the existing network (475 m2). For the m2 m2
cost of the network in method C the number of E2 1480 12900 0.99
streams, including utility streams, that are
E3 320 14098 0.99
present in the network is taken. Each use of any
utility in the original network is counted as E4 892 13699 0.98
separate stream. E5 2569 12076 0.98
The first targeting method is rather conservative E6 1540 12827 0.99

and is used as a safe limit. As the application of NW1 2275 12524 0.97
multi-pass conventional exchangers is most
NW2 226 15220 0.92
likely, method A is used to determine the target
energy saving at the economic constraint of 1 NW3 3280 11767 0.95
year maximum pay back period. Table 32 NW4 1158 13244 0.99
contains the results for the three targeting
NW5 4045 10842 0.96
methods.
Split Options Elaboration Upstream Desalter

Figure 81 a and b show the series and partly parallel options there are for the exchangers E3 and E4
and the new match NW1. Unlike the final design discussed in Section 8.5, the hot inlet temperatures
of all hot streams are 150°C for the split option study. Heat capacity flowrates and heat transfer
coefficients are as in Table 49 above. The coolers C2 and C3 and exchanger E2 are only given for
reference, they are excluded from the analysis below.
The split fraction must be optimized to heat balance the system and to reduce the area requirement.
There is some flexibility in the design as the cold outlet temperature, the inlet to the desalter, is
allowed to vary. The hot stream outlet temperatures can also vary as we can redistribute the cold utility
load on the coolers downstream. The allowed variations at both the hot and cold streams is, however,
limited.
Case Details 321
Figure 81 Series and parallel options for new exchanger installation upstream desalter
Initially, we have to investigate if stream splitting has any benefits. The saving potential is sufficient
also with the exchangers in series thus the only benefit may be the reduction of heat transfer area
required. For cases with strict counter-current exchangers and equal heat transfer coefficients on all
hot and all cold streams, the heat transfer area is minimum when the all heat transfer follows the ideal
profile of the driving force plot (Townsend and Linnhoff, 1984). This vertical alignment may not give
the minimum area requirement for cases with unequal heat transfer coefficients (Ahmad et al., 1990)
or in case of multi-pass exchangers (Section 8.3).
To explore and understand the options we have investigated eight cases :

A) series option with original heat transfer coefficients
B) split option with original heat transfer coefficients
C) series option with all hot stream heat transfer coefficients set equal to 450 W/m2 /°C
D) split option with all hot stream heat transfer coefficients set equal to 450 W/m2 /°C
E) series option with original heat transfer coefficients with counter-current exchangers
F) split option with original heat transfer coefficients with counter-current exchangers
G) series option with all hot stream heat transfer coefficients set equal to 450 W/m2 /°C with counter-
current exchangers
H) split option with all heat hot stream transfer coefficients set equal to 450 W/m2 /°C with counter-
current exchangers
To allow easier comparison, the duty of all three matches was equal for all four cases.
322 Appendix H
Table 53 Exchanger areas for the matches in the eight split and series match arrangements (see
text)
Option E3X E4X NW1 Total
m2 m2 m2 m2
A Series original htc 319.5 960 1662.9 2942.4
B Split original htc 326.8 1310.5 1574.7 3212
C Series equal htc 316.2 957.3 1803.9 3077.4
D Spit equal htc 323.7 1319.5 1694.7 3337.9
E Series original htc CC 319.5 960 1662.9 2942.4
F Split original htc CC 320.3 1195 1440.4 2955.7
G Series equal htc CC 316.2 957.3 1803.9 3077.4
H Spit equal htc CC 317.3 1202.1 1551.3 3070.7
Table 53 shows the results for the three options. The cases A and B represent the original series and
split options. Although less vertical aligned, the series option, Case A, has less area than the split
option, Case B. There are two possible causes:
• the presence of unequal heat transfer coefficients
• the use multi-pass heat exchangers
To investigate the cause of this deviation we investigated six other cases as described above with
either the original or all equal heat transfer coefficient (450 W m2/°C) for the hot streams and multi-
pass or counter-current heat exchangers. The series option requires also less area for the cases with
equal hot heat transfer coefficients and the cases with all counter-current exchangers. Only if both the
hot heat transfer coefficients are equal and counter-current exchangers are used, the split option
requires less heat transfer area than the series option. For the counter-current exchanger options the
difference between the split and series options is small.(less than 0.5%). Apparently, the use of multi-
pass exchangers is the main cause for the lower area in the series option.
Note that the results above are case specific, for different configurations and numbers the optimum
may be different. If we do the same analysis for the case with E3, E4 and NW1 in the final design with
a hot inlet temperature of the stream H2 and H3 of 190°C, the split option has 7.5% less area than the
series option. We have accepted this area penalty to save on additional area on the existing matches E3
and E4
This way we have made the design upstream the desalter rather simple.
H.1.3 Final Network Design Details

Th complete specifications of the exchangers in the three retrofit design options are in the tables
below.. The existing exchangers have the same specifications in all options. For each option a separate
table is given for the new exchangers.
Case Details 323
Table 54 Specifications for existing two-stream multi-pass exchangers in final designs

ID Hot Cold Stream Area Duty Shells FT Temperatures
Str
ID ID frac m2 kW ser / par hot in hot out cold in cold out
H1 HU C1 1 1738.9 54000 1/1 1.00 500.00 500.00 286.15 390.00
E2 H5 C1 1 1480 18884 1/3 0.96 128.71 100.00 31.55 67.87
E3 H3 C1 1 319.6 3341 1/1 1 190.00 91.16 67.87 74.29
E4 H2 C1 1 892.0 9653 2/1 1 190 105.62 74.29 92.86
E5 H6 C1 1 2569.0 12395 2/3 0.95 290 257.76 234.87 258.71
E6 H4 C1 1 1540.0 14267 3/2 0.98 380.00 282.01 258.72 286.15
C2 H2 CW 1 718.2 7507 1/2 0.90 105.62 40.00 10 30.00
C3 H3 CW 1 296.6 2067 1/1 0.81 91.16 30.00 10 30
C4 H4 CW 1 930.4 14542 1/2 0.9 149.9 50 10 30
C5 H5 CW 1 0.0 0 1/1 1.00 100.00 100 10 30
Table 55 Specifications for new exchangers for option with new two-stream multi-pass exchangers
ID Hot Cold stream Area Duty Shells FT Temperatures
str
NW1 H5 C1 1 2275.1 14006 1/4 0.9 150.00 128.71 92.86 119.79
NW2 H3 C1 0.544 232.21 5408 1/1 1 350.00 190.00 119.79 138.91
NW3 H4 C1 0.312 3086.9 19233 5/1 0.9 281.97 149.88 119.79 238.34
NW4 H2 C1 0.144 1158.1 9152 3/1 0.9 270.00 190.00 119.79 242.01
NW5 H6 C1 0.544 4035.5 26055 3/2 0.9 257.76 190.00 138.91 231.01
Table 56 Specifications for new exchangers for option with new two-stream counter-current
exchangers
Str
NW1 H5 C1 1 2058.4 14006 1/1 1.00 150.00 128.71 92.86 119.80
NW2 H3 C1 0.544 224.3 5408 1/1 1.00 350.00 190.00 119.80 138.91
NW3 H4 C1 0.312 2827.1 19233 1/1 1.00 281.97 149.88 119.80 238.34
NW4 H2 C1 0.144 1050.2 9152 1/1 1.00 270.00 190.00 119.80 242.02
NW5 H6 C1 0.54 3680.7 26055 1/1 1.00 257.76 190.00 138.91 231.02
324 Appendix H
Table 57 Specifications for new exchangers for option with new multi-stream exchangers
Str
NW1 H5 C1 1 2275.1 14006 1/4 0.9 150.00 128.71 92.86 119.79
MS1 H3 C1 1 6689 59848 1/1 1 270.00 190.00 119.79 234.88
H2 350.00 190.00
H6 281.97 149.88
257.76 190.00
H4
Case Details 325
H.2 C234 Case
The C234 Case is elaborated in Chapter 9. Below additional details are given.
H.2.1 Base Case Definition and Basic Data
Base Case Definition

The stream data based on the plant data from the design books, DCS and available models, was
inconsistent with the exchanger performance estimated with the simple counter-current and multi-pass
exchanger models from the exchanger details (area, number of shells, number of passes) and design
heat transfer coefficients. Manually, we reconciled the stream conditions and the stream heat transfer
coefficients to improve the results of the heat exchanger network model with the plant data.
It was not possible to get an acceptable fit with reasonable stream conditions and heat transfer
coefficients for all exchangers. Some deviations seemed to originate from incorrect measurements.
Some other deviations were due to the plant model that was only validated to produce a proper mass
balance and not to produce a heat balance as required in this case. Some exchangers seemed to
perform very bad which could be caused by incorrect design information or an operational problem.
All significant deviations have been discussed with the plant owner. Some issues like measurements
errors could easily be resolved. Some performance issues were taken over by the plant owner to check
the cause and identify possible operational or design improvement.
For the C234 Case Study it was useful to idealise the existing situation, if necessary. Based on the best
set of stream properties, stream conditions and heat transfer coefficients we adapted the exchanger
area to fit the simplified heat exchanger and heat exchanger network models to be used in the
Conceptual Network Design.18 This specification of effective heat exchange area in the network design
allows continuation of the case study while some reconciliation or performance problems are still
pending, whereas it prevents the propagation of incidental errors or mal performance in the current
operation to the new design. Finally, we must eliminate or quantify the risk for the retrofit design
associated with the idealisations. This can be part of the refinement stages in data extraction phase
discussed in Chapter 3. For the demonstration purpose of the case study in this thesis, the idealisations
are irrelevant. The stream data of an initial fit of the exchanger network model can already be used to
do the first stage of the Conceptual Network Design. If there is sufficient scope for saving, the data-
extraction can further be elaborated.
Stream Data
The stream data is given in Table 58.
18
We allowed only an area reduction as we can explain this by reduced effectiveness of the area. We
assume that area cannot be more effective than calculated with the used simple exchanger models. If
necessary, the heat transfer coefficients were increased.
326 Appendix H
Table 58 Process stream data of the C234 case

Stream Ts Tt CPm Qsegment h1
C C kW/C kW W/m2/C
H01 73.43 58.17 3187.61 486434414 891891

58.17 55.21 1491.22
H12 29.44 21.15 1037.03 8597 1058
H13 38.26 31.8 1087.15 7023 1058
H21 35.68 34.66 50639.22 51652 1058
H22 36.15 26.39 29.51 288 850
H23 34.5 33.231 923.08 1200327 1.1e+07
33.2 148.64
H31 27.34 26.34 5559.00 5559 1058
H52 115.03 77.34 23.32 879 366
H70 158.5463 633.47 28.73 27451463 994994
24.58
C10 53.13 55.3 3162.21 6862 1166
C11 73.92 77.81 1386.63 5394 1166
C20 47.06 51.21 11721.20 48643 967
C30 77.1 77.49 11215.38 4374 1166
C40 70.96 73.44 4409.68 10936 1325
C50 2 29.4 48.9 38.10 743 1.1e+10
48.9 49.1 17685.00 3537
49.1 89 24.84 991
C51 2 55.3 89 1.16 39 239
C71 -15.25 -15.11 3164.29 443 989
C72 -22 3.15 16.90 425 667
C73 9.8841 4174.88 25.80 803719 468468
21.22
C50X 2 29.4 48.9 38.10 7.434e+09 1.1e+10
48.9 49.1 17685.00
49.1 54.3 24.84
C5051 2 54.5 89 26 879 239
1
2
For systems without Exchanger E50, the streams C50 and C51 are mixed and heated as one stream C5051. The
remaining part of C50 is given as C50X. Either C50 and C51 or C50X and C5051 are included.
HU1 101 ° 100 ° 57.85 °
HU2 118 ° 117 °
HU3 149 ° 148 °
H01 73.43 ° 58.17 ° 55.21 °
H12 29.44 ° 21.15 °
H13 38.26 ° 31.8 °
H31 27.34 ° 26.34 °
H21 35.68 ° 34.66 °
H22 36.15 ° 26.39 °
H23 34.5 ° 31 °
H52 115.03 ° 77.34 °
H70 158.54 ° 38.8 ° 21.51 ° 3.47 °
C10 55.3 ° 53.13 °

C11 77.81 ° E10 73.92 °
C20 51.21 ° E11 47.06 °
C30 77.49 ° E20 77.1 °

C40 73.44 ° E30 70.96 °
C50 89 ° E40 54.49 ° 29.4 °
C51 89 ° E50 55.3 °
C71 E51 -15.11 ° -15.25 °
C72 3.15 ° E70 -22 °
C73 74.88 ° E71 9.88 °

AIR 50 °E73 E72 24 °
CW1 24 ° 17 °
CW2 47.06 ° 22.2 °E52 E13 E12 E21 E31 E23 E22 17 °
Figure 82 Heat exchanger grid diagram of the C234 Separation Section

328 Appendix H
Table 59 Utility data of the C234 case

Stream Ts Tt cp Latent Heat h1 Cost
2
C C kJ/kg/C kJ/kg W/m /C ¼/GJ
HU1 101 100 2610 2957 5.00
HU2 118 117 2210 2957 5.70
HU3 149 148 2120 2957 5.90
CW1 17 24 4.20 1058 0.29
CW2 17 22.2 4.20 1058 0.39
AIR 24 50 1.00 4639 2 0.15
1
2
Air heat transfer coefficient is per m2 plain tube area, finning included in heat transfer coefficient.
Exchanger Data
Table 60 Original exchanger data for the C234 case
Identifier Hot Cold Type Area 1 nshells FT_calc Duty

Stream Stream m2 ser x par kW
E10 HU1 C10 Count-Cur 178 1x1 1 6862
E11 HU1 C11 Count-Cur 263 1x1 1 5394
E12 H12 CW2 Multi-pass 3119 2x1 0.94 8597
E13 H13 CW1 Multi-pass 949 1x2 0.96 7023
E20 H01 C20 Multi-pass 6843 1x4 0.96 48643
E21 H21 CW1 Count-Cur 6750 1x4 1 51652
E22 H23 CW1 Multi-pass 229 1x1 0.98 1527
E23 H22 CW2 Multi-pass 57 1x1 0.93 288
E30 HU1 C30 Count-Cur 226 1x1 1 4374
E31 H31 CW2 Multi-pass 1522 1x2 0.98 5559
E40 HU2 C40 Count-Cur 264 1x1 1 10936
E50 H01 C50 Multi-pass 1183 2x1 0.98 4414
E51 HU3 C50 Count-Cur 54 1x1 1 896
E52 H52 CW1 Multi-pass 44 1x1 0.99 879
E70 H70 C71 Multi-pass 34 1x1 1 443
E71 H70 C72 Multi-pass 29 1x1 0.95 425
E72 H70 AIR Count-Cur 69 1x1 1 1818
E73 H70 C73 Multi-pass 57 1x1 0.93 1522
1
The shown exchanger areas are fitted to the used model
Economic Data
The economic data is similar as for Simplified Crude Case in the previous section. The used utility
cost is in Table 59. The cost basis is the same as for the Simplified Crude Case.
Case Details 329
H.2.2 Targeting Details

For multi-pass area targeting, we have set the Xp factor to 0.8. This value is based on a comparison of
the retrofit targets for the total C234 network with different values for Xp between 0.7 and 0.95. High
Xp values give less shells but more exchanger area. Around Xp=0.8 the cheapest balance between area
and shells is calculated. Therefore this Xp-value is used for all multi-pass area targeting in this case.
During optimisation the maximum shell size is set high to get smoother saving on investment relation.
A small maximum shell size often drives the optimizer to a solution with one shell of the maximum
size. More area will give a step change in the cost, which is artificial. With a large maximum shell area
there is no step in cost, but the cost estimates for larger amount of area less conservative.
For the Structural Targeting a number of characteristic figures have been used to compare the
subnetworks. The following characteristics have been determined for each subnetwork.
• existing exchangers included
• number of streams included
• maximum saving target (ǻTmin = 0°C)
• duty for each utility
• cost saving
• duty saving
• maximum cost saving from zone integration only
• minimum pay back retrofit target
• duty for each utility
• cost saving
• duty saving
• pay back
• fraction of maximum saving achieved at minimum pay back
• constants for saving on investment approximation function (Section G)
• from the approximation function:
• saving at 1 year pay back
• saving at 2 years pay back
For the initial ranking of the options we used the weighted sum of rankings for each subnetwork of the
characteristic numbers mentioned above. The highest weight was assigned to the number of units and
streams in each subnetwork. This would promote small subnetworks which are likely to give simple
retrofit designs. Some lower weight was assigned to the minimum pay back found to find the
subnetworks that can fulfill the economic constraint anyway. The next highest weight was assigned to
the target maximum cost saving and the saving at minimum pay back, which together with the
minimum pay back, will promote the subnetworks with the highest saving scope. Finally and with the
lowest weight, three numbers that tell something about the shape of the (maximum) saving on
investment curve are included in the ranking: the fraction of maximum saving at minimum pay back
and the saving at 1 and 2 years pay back.
The main characteristics were summarized in a spreadsheet and used to rank the subnetworks. Finally,
an overall ranking was determined by summing the ranking per characteristics to a weighted average.
Table 61 gives a typical example of the used analysis data. The table shows the overall best
subnetworks for the refined zones analysis without Zone E and with utility HU1 on Exchanger E40
330 Appendix H
and economic Model B (counter-current weight based). The used weight to get the overall ranking is
also given in the table.
H.2.3 Final Network Design Details

The tables 62 and 63 give the match specification data for all revised and new matches in the retrofit
designs for option F-G2 and E51-E52.
Table 61 Typical data used for ranking subnetworks in Structural Targeting. See text.
Included Zones No Units No Strms Max Cost Target Target Fraction Saving at
Saving Cost Saving Payback max 1 yr
@ Min PB @ Min PB saving @ pay back
k¼/yr k¼/yr yr Min PB k¼/yr
Ranking weight 10 10 2 2 5 1 1
_ _ _ __ _ F __ G2 3 5 290 290 0.32 100% 290
_ B _ __ _ _ __ G2 4 7 374 336 0.32 90% 374
A _ _ __ _ _ __ G2 4 7 388 314 0.36 81% 387
_ _ _ D1 _ F __ G2 5 9 434 434 0.44 100% 434
_ _ _ D1 _ F __ __ 3 6 144 135 0.44 94% 144
_ _ _ __ _ F G1 G2 5 7 290 290 0.36 100% 290
_ B _ __ _ F __ G2 5 9 374 338 0.35 90% 374
A _ _ __ _ F __ G2 5 9 391 321 0.38 82% 391
A _ _ D1 _ _ __ G2 6 11 532 453 0.47 85% 531
_ B _ D1 _ _ __ G2 6 11 543 427 0.44 79% 543
_ _ C __ _ F __ G2 5 9 315 315 0.60 100% 315
_ _ C __ _ _ __ G2 4 7 168 168 0.74 100% 168
_ _ C D1 _ _ __ __ 4 7 168 156 0.54 92% 168
Table 62 Specifications for new exchangers for option F-G2 (new counter-current exchangers)
ID Hot Cold Area Duty Shells CC/ FT Temperatures
Str Stream MP
ID ID m2 kW ser / par hot in hot out cold in cold out
E40+ HU1 C40 264 9118 1/1 CC 1 101 100 71 73.4
E40A *0.83 + 92
E72 H70 AIR 69 0 1/1 CC 1 38.8 38.8 24 24
E73 H70 C73 57 465 1/1 MP 0.9 57.7 38.8 9.9 27.9
NW1 H70 C73 128 1057 1/1 CC 1 95.3 57.7 27.9 74.9
NW2 H70 C40 66 1818 1/1 CC 1 158.5 95.3 71 73.4
*0.17
Case Details 331
Table 63 Specifications for new exchangers for option E51E52 (new counter current exchangers)
ID Hot Cold Area Duty Shells CC/ FT Temperatures
Str Stream MP
ID ID m2 kW ser / par hot in hot out cold in cold out
E51 HU3 C5051 54 17 1/1 CC 1 149 148 88.3 89
E52 H52 CW1 44 0 1/1 CC 1 77.3 77.3 17 17
NW3 H52 C5051 246 879 1/1 CC 1 115 77.3 54.5 88.3
332
Samenvatting 333
Samenvatting
Een gestructureerde aanpak voor warmtewisselaarsnetwerk retrofit ontwerp

Jos van Reisen
Energiebesparing is van maatschappelijk en industrieel belang vanwege de stijgende energiekosten en

de dreigende klimaatverandering, waarvoor wereldwijd een drastische reductie van de kooldioxide-
emissies nodig is. Structurele reducties op de korte termijn vereisen aanpassing van bestaande
installaties (retrofit), waarbij het bestaande geïnvesteerd vermogen en de geïnvesteerde energie bij de
bouw van de installatie behouden blijft. Dit proefschrift gaat over energiebesparende retrofit, een
specifieke manier van retrofit met als doel energiebesparing bij gelijkblijvende functionaliteit van de
installatie. Het werk is gericht op retrofit ontwerp van warmtewisselaarsnetwerken (WWN), de
belangrijkste systemen voor warmteoverdracht in chemische fabrieken.
Retrofit-ontwerp zoekt de beste combinatie van efficiënt hergebruik van de bestaande apparatuur en
optimale inpassing van nieuwe apparatuur voor een betaalbare energiebesparing. Verbeterde retrofit-
ontwerpmethoden en nieuwe types warmtewisselaars, die in de afgelopen decennia gepubliceerd zijn,
kunnen de mogelijkheden voor netwerk retrofit vergroten. Ze worden in de praktijk echter maar
weinig gebruikt. Dit proefschrift beoogt het opstellen van een WWN retrofit ontwerpaanpak, die
geschikt is voor praktische problemen en werkprocessen, waarin de systematische verkenning van het
potentieel van verschillende warmtewisselaarstypes is opgenomen. Het werk richt zich op stationaire
continue processen met één operationele werkpunt. Daarbij zijn de volgende doelen nagestreefd:
• een algemeen kader voor de systematische definitie van specifieke WWN ontwerpproblemen
vanuit een gestructureerde analyse van het algemene ontwerp probleem;
• een vergelijkend overzicht van de in de literatuur beschikbare netwerkanalyse- en
ontwerpmethoden;
• een gestructureerde praktische conceptuele analyse- en ontwerpmethodiek, inclusief selectie van
het type warmtewisselaars.
Warmtewisselaarsnetwerk retrofit ontwerp is gecompliceerd. Het moet rekening houden met veel
probleemspecifieke details en beperkingen, gerelateerd aan de bestaande installatie en operatie.
Daarbij is de retrofit doelstelling meestal slechts gedefinieerd als een trend voor verbetering. Zo’n
doelstelling kan zeer verschillende alternatieven op leveren, variërend van aanpassing van de operatie
tot complete vervanging van het netwerk. Het bepalen van de optimale maat van integratie is onder-
deel van het retrofit ontwerp. Deze complicerende factor wordt nauwelijks meegenomen in de
bestaande ontwerpmethoden, die voornamelijk gebaseerd zijn op sterk vereenvoudigde ontwerp-
problemen.
Een uitgebreide probleemanalyse wordt gegeven met de afbakening van het ontwerpprobleem, de
variabelen en criteria. Ook worden hun onderlinge afhankelijkheden in de meest brede zin beschreven,
gebaseerd op een combinatie van fundamentele warmte-overdrachtsrelaties, ontwerpnormen en
ervaringen. Deze beschrijving is een uitgangspunt voor de systematische definitie van specifieke
ontwerpproblemen en de selectie van essentiële ontwerpvariabelen en criteria. Deze zaken zijn
noodzakelijk om de ontwerpproblemen hanteerbaar te maken, en om adequate ontwerpmethoden te
kiezen, afhankelijk van de achtergrond en werkomgeving van de ontwerper.
334
Een nieuwe algemene opzet voor WWN retrofit ontwerp wordt voorgesteld, die rekening houdt met de
specifieke complexiteit daarvan. De methodiek is gebaseerd op de algemene ontwerpcyclus en
ontwerpopzet van Siirola (1996). Het geeft de ontwerper een leidraad om zowel het ontwerpprobleem
als het ontwerpproces te beheersen. De nieuwe opzet voor ontwerp bevat acht ontwerpfasen,
beginnend met de behoeften-inventarisatie en eindigend met het productie- en onderhoudsplan voor de
installatie. Elke ontwerpfase is onderverdeeld in vier stappen: doelstelling, voorlopig ontwerp, verfijnd
ontwerp en eindontwerp, met toenemende omvang en detail. Dit proefschrift richt zich op de derde
fase, het conceptuele netwerkontwerp. Deze fase bevat de belangrijkste activiteiten voor het
conceptuele ontwerp en wordt algemeen gezien als de kernactiviteit voor netwerkontwerp. De vier
stappen in deze fase zijn:
Doelstelling: bepaal het maximum energiebesparingspotentieel met doelstellingsmethoden
voor nieuw ontwerpen;
Voorlopig ontwerp: schat het reële potentieel, de mogelijke besparingsopties en de belangrijkste
aanpassingen die daarvoor nodig zijn met doelstellingsmethoden voor retrofit;
Verfijnd ontwerp: eerste concept voor netwerkontwerp, een compleet ontwerp op hoofdlijnen;
Eindontwerp: afgerond conceptueel ontwerp: het eerste concept geverifieerd en gecompleteerd
met alle noodzakelijke details.
Er is een uitgebreid literatuuronderzoek gedaan naar de analyse- en ontwerpmethoden, die in deze vier
ontwerpstappen gebruikt kunnen worden. De methoden zijn verdeeld in drie toepassingsgroepen:
• netwerkkarakterisering om de effectiviteit van ontwerpen te bepalen in elk van de vier stappen;
• doelstellingsmethoden om het ontwerp te ondersteunen in zowel de doelstellingsstap als de
voorlopig ontwerp stap met respectievelijk nieuw en retrofit doelstellingsmethoden;
• netwerk ontwerpmethoden te gebruiken in de verfijnde ontwerp stap voor het conceptueel
ontwerp.
De beschikbare methoden worden kort besproken, geclassificeerd en vergeleken met beschikbare
alternatieven. Diverse tabellen zijn opgenomen om de passende methoden te kiezen voor specifieke
gevallen op basis van relevante variabelen en ontwerpcriteria, waarbij gebruik is gemaakt van de
eerdergenoemde nieuwe probleemanalyse van het WWN ontwerp.
De beschikbare methoden voor netwerkkarakterisering en de doelstellingsmethoden voor nieuw
ontwerp zijn afdoende voor conceptueel netwerkontwerp. De doelstellingsmethoden voor retrofit
ontwerp bevatten de belangrijkste ontwerpvariabelen, maar hebben beperkte nauwkeurigheid en
beperkte mogelijkheid om netwerkstructuur en meerdere utiliteiten mee te nemen. De netwerk-
ontwerpmethoden hebben voldoende mogelijkheden, maar missen speciale aandacht voor de locatie
van warmtewisselaars, het warmtewisselaarstype en de uitvoeringsdetails.
Twee nieuwe methoden worden voorgesteld als oplossing voor enkele beperkingen in de bestaande
methoden: Structureel doelstellen voor retrofit en de Retrofit Thermische Schuif Procedure voor
netwerk ontwerp. Structureel doelstellen is een retrofit methode die doelstellingen geeft voor het
utiliteitsverbruik, het aantal warmtewisselende eenheden, de hoeveelheid oppervlak en de topologie,
op basis van afwegingen tussen besparing, investering en complexiteit. De methodiek maakt gebruik
van ‘integriteitszones’ afgeleid uit het bestaand netwerk om een afweging te maken tussen bespa-
ringspotentieel en de noodzaak om origineel onafhankelijke netwerkdelen te integreren. Daarnaast
worden nieuwe methoden voorgesteld om doelstellingen te bepalen voor oppervlak, besparing en
investering voor gevallen met meerdere utiliteitsniveau’s.
Samenvatting 335
De Retrofit Thermische Schuif Procedure is een netwerk-ontwerpmethode die toepassingsmogelijk-

heden creëert voor efficiëntere, geavanceerde (meerstrooms)warmtewisselaars. De methode stuurt de
aanpassing van de warmtewisselende taak van de bestaande warmtewisselaars. Het concentreert het
benodigde nieuwe oppervlak in het algemeen op de plekken met relatief lage temperatuurverschillen.
Het bevat aanwijzingen voor warmtewisselaar (thermisch) schuiven, het minimaliseren van het aantal
snij-/aansluitpunten (‘tie-ins’) en voor stroomsplitsen.
De nieuwe methoden zijn met succes toegepast op twee voorbeeldgevallen, een vereenvoudigde olie
voorverwarmingstrein en een netwerk van een aromaten fabriek. De volledige nieuwe ontwerp
methodiek van de conceptuele ontwerp fase, inclusief de nieuwe analyse- en ontwerpmethoden, zijn
gedemonstreerd met een studie van een C2 C3 C4 - scheidingssectie uit de industriële praktijk. De
nieuwe ontwerpmethoden bleken effectief voor het bepalen van de optimale besparing en om diverse
onafhankelijke eenvoudige retrofit opties te vinden.
De resultaten van het onderzoek dekken het merendeel van de eerder genoemde drie onderzoeks-
doelen. De nieuwe analyse van het WWN ontwerpprobleem in het algemeen is een nuttige referentie
gebleken om het specifieke ontwerpprobleem voor een specifieke geval te definiëren met de relevante
ontwerpvariabelen en criteria. De combinatie van deze probleemanalyse en het nieuw ontwikkelde
ontwerpkader, geeft een stevige basis voor de beoordeling van de beschikbare literatuur over analyse
en ontwerpmethoden. De nieuwe gestructureerde praktische aanpak voor conceptueel ontwerp en
ontwerpanalyse is bruikbaar gebleken voor algemeen gebruik, gezien de effectiviteit daarvan voor een
aantal typische gevallen.
9 september 2008
336
Dankwoord 337
Dankwoord (Acknowledgement)
Dit proefschrift is het product van 16 jaar studeren, programmeren, schrijven en vormgeven. In zo’n
lang proces wordt zonder meer duidelijk, dat je alleen productief en creatief kunt zijn, als anderen je
de juiste omgeving en randvoorwaarden bieden; anderen de juiste wending geven aan je gedachten.
Dit werk was dan ook nooit voltooid, of zelfs maar begonnen, zonder de inbreng van vele mensen om
mij heen. Een ieder die, op welke wijze dan ook, heeft bijgedragen aan dit werk, ergens in het lange
traject, wil ik graag hartelijk bedanken. Een aantal personen wil ik nog speciaal noemen.
Allereerst Peter Verheijen, jarenlang mijn vaste en persoonlijke begeleider, daarnaast uitdager, kritisch
klankbord en geweten; eerst dichtbij en later op afstand. Als geen ander heb jij het mogelijk gemaakt
dit werk te beginnen en af te ronden. Op vele punten in het traject heb jij de weg bereidt en de
motivatie gegeven om verder te gaan, al ging ik soms een andere kant op dan jij voor ogen had. Ook
inhoudelijk was je steeds weer in staat om substantieel bij te dragen aan mijn werk, al was het soms
met een zucht. Ik heb grote waardering voor en veel geleerd van je scherpe probleemanalyses en
oplossingen, je programmeerbijdragen en de vele, vele correcties.
Johan Grievink, mijn promotor en sectieleider van de PSE groep, je hebt belangrijk bijgedragen aan
mijn academische vorming, vooral op het gebied van de ontwerpmethodologie. Op die manier heb je
geholpen de vele puzzelstukjes in mijn onderzoek op zijn plaats te krijgen en structuur in denken en
schrijven te krijgen. Ik heb veel plezier beleeft aan onze lange soms filosofische discussies over
procesontwerpen in het algemeen en de ontwerpproblematiek in mijn onderzoek. Je geduld, begrip en
blijvende belangstelling en je inzet vooral bij de laatste schrijffase heb ik zeer gewaardeerd.
Graham Polley, you have been my coach and teacher in the initial phase of the research and a critical
reviewer after its completion. You have introduced me to the principles of heat exchanger network and
compact heat exchanger design. By doing this, you have laid the foundation for the research and this
thesis. You contributed substantially to the successful completion of the initial research projects by
your great bird’s-eye view and by putting the right focus at the right moment. I really enjoyed your
teaching.
The members of the thesis review committee, prof. Bakker, prof. van den Berg, prof. Boesten and
prof. Gundersen, I would like to thank you for the extensive reading and many valuable comments of
my thesis. I appreciate that you all spent so much time despite your loaded agendas.
Naast mijn begeleiders en commissieleden, wil ik ook de Netherlands’ Advanced Heat Exchanger
Users’ Group (NLAHX) noemen met haar toenmalige voorzitter ir. A.R. Braun, die het initiatief voor
het onderzoek hebben genomen, waar dit proefschrift uiteindelijk uit voortgekomen is. Samen met
NOVEM, het huidige SenterNovem, hebben zij de belangrijke eerste fase van het onderzoek mogelijk
gemaakt, door het onderzoek te sponsoren (onder de projectnummers 33104/0131 en 33104/0134) en
door het beschikbaar stellen van expertise en case studies.
De voortgang van het onderzoek is mede mogelijk gemaakt door mijn aanstelling als part-time
onderwijscoördinator bij de ontwerpersopleiding proces- en apparaatontwerpen aan de TU Delft.
338
Ondersteuning uit die hoek kwam er ook in de laatste fase van het schrijven. Giljam bedankt voor je
belangstelling en het gereedschap dat je beschikbaar hebt gemaakt.
Verschillende afstudeerders, scriptieschrijvers en deelnemers aan de ontwerpersopleiding in Delft

hebben bijgedragen aan het onderzoek en een verbeterd begrip van de warmteïntegratie. Anna, Hans-
Jochem, Maurice, Cris, Bart, Arnoud, Carl, Gerald, bedankt voor de prettige samenwerking en alle
inzichten die jullie me gegeven hebben.
De PSE-groep van de TU Delft, waar ik zeven jaar deel van uit heb mogen maken, heeft mij de
omgeving gegeven om prettig te werken en nieuwe ideeën te generen. Monique, als kamergenoot heb
je het meest nabij de ontwikkelingen op het werk en thuis meebeleeft. Ik heb altijd in een goede sfeer
kunnen werken, ook als niet alles van een leien dakje ging bij één van ons. Natuurlijk waren er ook
andere sfeermakers in de groep, André, Arno, Michiel.
Caroline, als management assistente was jij al die tijd beschikbaar. Bedankt voor al het geregel en de
hand en span diensten die met enige regelmaat tijdens al die jaren nodig waren.
Mijn mede-promovendi van het eerste uur, Bert-Jan, Folmer, Sean. Ieder voor zich en met elkaar heb-
ben wij onze weg gezocht in de wetenschap, helaas niet altijd met het beoogde resultaat. Het was goed
om op niveau over het onderzoek te kunnen bomen en daarmee de gedachten te slijpen.
Mijn mede-promovendi van het laatste uur, Pieter en Marco, jullie hebben gedeeld in het enthousias-
me en de frustraties die blijkbaar horen bij het afronden van een proefschrift. Het was prettig een
lotgenotengroep te hebben, waarmee ook nog wel heel andere zaken te bepraten waren.
Mijn collega’s van CB&I Lummus, die het mogelijk gemaakt hebben dat ik dit werk uiteindelijk af
kon maken. Piet, Hans, Ernst, Ronald, Harold, Remco en Tony, dank ik voor alle vrijheid en vrije tijd
die ik met name in de afgelopen anderhalf jaar heb gekregen. Verder hebben veel collega’s bijgedra-
gen aan mijn ontwikkeling als process engineer, wat in grote mate mijn kijk op mijn eigen onderzoek
heeft bepaald. Mijn speciale dank gaat uit naar Adri Bembaron voor zijn commentaar op hoofdstuk 2.
Aan het eind van deze lange lijst staan de belangrijkste mensen in mijn leven.
Mijn ouders, jullie hebben de basis gelegd voor alles wat ik nu kan doen. Jullie hebben altijd belang-
stelling gehouden voor dit werk en begrip gehad voor de inspanningen die dat met zich meebracht.
Ik ben dankbaar dat jullie het eindresultaat van dit levenswerk nog kunnen zien.
Mijn gezin, mijn dochters Annika en Marit en vooral mijn vrouw Mireille, jullie hebben het meeste
last gehad van mijn wens om dit werk af te maken. Het is, zeker de laatste periode, niet makkelijk
geweest. Voor jullie is niet zo van belang wat bereikt is, maar wat nu voltooid is. Pappa kan nu weer
wat meer pappa worden. Mireille, jij hebt mij de ruimte gegeven om mijn werk af te maken, door
jezelf naar de achtergrond te schuiven. Mijn voortgang heeft jou beperkt. Je hebt me op vele manieren
ondersteund. Zonder dat was het nooit af gekomen. Ik vind het groots wat je hebt gedaan en ben er je
dankbaar voor. Het is tijd voor een retrofit van ons eigen netwerk!
6 juli 2008
Curriculum Vitae 339
Curriculum Vitae
Jozef Lambertus Benjamin (Jos) van Reisen was born on the 1st May 1968 in Vlaardingen. After his
secondary school (Gymnasium ȕ) he joined the Delft University of Technology (DUT) in 1986 to
study Chemical Engineering. He graduated in 1991 with Prof. ir. C.M. van der Bleek on a master
thesis on pressure drop in low pressure drop reactors.
After his graduation he stayed with the Delft University of Technology and joined a two-years
designers course in chemical process and equipment engineering. The second year of this course, an
individual design project, introduced him to field of heat integration. During this year he executed a
project on the heat integration with multi-stream heat exchangers in retrofit, within the Process
Systems Engineering group of Prof. ir. J. Grievink under supervision of Dr. ir. P.J.T. Verheijen. This
project as funded by NOVEM, the Dutch Society for Energy and Environment, and executed in
cooperation with Dr. G.T. Polley, at that time associated with the University of Manchester Institution
of Science and Technology (UMIST) in the United Kingdom.
After completion of the designer's course Jos became Assistant Researcher at the DUT, In this position
he did additional research and case studies on energy saving retrofit, prepared and taught a designer's
course on heat integration and was part of the management team of the designer's course process and
equipment design.
In 1998 he joined ABB Lummus Global b.v., an engineering and contracting company, as process
engineer. He has executed many different projects within this company, both in basic and detailed
engineering. He was assigned as process engineer, lead process engineer and basic design specialist,
and on various petrochemical and refinery processes. During these jobs he got expertise especially in
process simulation, heat transfer equipment and the design of steam crackers for ethylene production.
Various retrofit jobs were among these jobs. Currently, he still works with this engineering and
contracting company, which operates since 2007 as CB&I Lummus b.v.
Jos is married since 1993 with Mireille and has two daughters, Annika (2001) and Marit (2004).

Reisen 20080909 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Reisen 20080909 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Structured Approach to Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit Design

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

Jozef Lambertus Benjamin VAN REISEN

Rector Magnificus, voorzitter,

Published by J.L.B. van Reisen, Vlaardingen

An electronic version of this thesis is available from http://www.library.tudelft.nl

© 2008 by J.L.B. van Reisen

Printed by BOX Press, Oisterwijk, The Netherlands

Laat elke plek waar je mag verblijven

2 The Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit Design Problem 21

3 New Framework for Basic Retrofit Design 55

4 Network Performance Analysis 73

5 Targeting Method Review 101

6 Retrofit Targeting with Integrity Zones and Multiple Utilities 131

7 Conceptual Retrofit Design Method Review 159

8 Retrofit Design with Alternative Exchanger Types 181

9 Case Study 215

10 Evaluation: Results and Prospects 235

Appendix A Summary of Assumptions and Limitations 277

Appendix B Glossary 281

Appendix C Auxiliary Heat Flow Curves 287

Appendix D Cross-reference Design and Review Variables 291

Appendix E Saving on Investment Relation 293

Appendix F Effect of Thermal Shifting and Splitting on FT 303

Appendix G PHITS Targeting and Analysis Software 309

Appendix H Case Details 317

Dankwoord (Acknowledgement) 337

Curriculum Vitae 339

1.1 Energy Conservation Incentives

Process industries, that are traditionally very energy

to reduce the carbon dioxide emission by 20% in

2020 compared to 1990 (Council of the European PLANT

Union, 2007). It will require substantial investments

(Utilities, Heat & Power)

Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit

1.2 Systematic Design Methods

1.2.1 General Process Design Methods

Table 1 Main topics of Process Synthesis

Object Class Model Synthesis Method Evaluation Method Work Process

• reactor paths • object • evolutionary • criteria • mental design

• Evolutionary methods: a step-wise modification of a previously synthesised design leading to an

1.2.2 Retrofit Design Methods

The mentioned reviews list a number of reasons to retrofit a plant:

1.2.3 Methods for Heat Exchanger Network Design

1.3 Advances in Heat Exchanger Design and Equipment

1.3.1 Heat Exchanger Design

1.3.2 Heat Exchange Equipment

1.4 Scientific Challenges

1.5 Research Objectives

The related research questions are:

The related research questions are:

The related research questions are:

1.6 Thesis Content and Set-up

1.6.1 Overview of Research Activities

1.6.2 Set-up of Thesis

New methodological development from thesis research

Set-up per Chapter

2.2 The Heat Exchanger Network Design Problem

Need CLIENT Solution

Figure 5 Heat exchanger network design and related specialisms

Table 5 Generic grassroots heat exchanger network design problem definition

Criteria sum of yearly utility cost and annualised investment cost

Starting Point set of hot and cold streams with