Format And Type Fonts

CCHHEEMMIICCAALL EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG TTRRAANNSSAACCTTIIOONNSS

VOL. 39, 2014

A publication of

The Italian Association

of Chemical Engineering

www.aidic.it/cet
Guest Editors: Petar Sabev Varbanov, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Peng Yen Liew, Jun Yow Yong

ISBN 978-88-95608-30-3; ISSN 2283-9216 DOI: 10.3303/CET1439002

Please cite this article as: Liew P.Y., Wan Alwi S.R., Klemeš J.J., Varbanov P.S., Manan Z.A., 2014, Utility-heat exchanger

grid diagram: a tool for designing the total site heat exchanger network, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 39, 7-12

DOI:10.3303/CET1439002

Utility-Heat Exchanger Grid Diagram: A Tool for Designing the

Total Site Heat Exchanger Network

Peng Yen Liew
a
, Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi*

a
, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš

b
,

Petar Sabev Varbanov
b
, Zainuddin Abdul Manan

a
Process Systems Engineering Center (PROSPECT), Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,

81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
b
Centre for Process Integration and Intensification – CPI

2
, Research Institute of Chemical and Process Engineering -

MŰKKI, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Pannonia, Egyetem u.10, H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary.

shasha@cheme.utm.my

The world industrial energy consumptions have gained the focus from the sustainability experts. Industrial

Energy Efficiency is one of the important aspects that contributed to the energy consumptions. Process

Integration using Pinch Analysis is a very well established tool for energy conservation through systematic

design methodology of Heat Exchanger Network – HEN. The HEN for heat recovery within a single process is

design using the Grid Diagram. The streams temperature and heat duty are the main aspect in design a HEN

through Grid Diagram. The hot utility at above Pinch region is typically placed at the highest temperature,

while cold utility at below Pinch is located at lowest temperature. Heat Integration is extended for covering

multiple processes heat recovery via utility system, known as Total Site Heat Integration. There is a lot of

research done on graphical and numerical targeting of the minimum utility requirement for a Total Site (TS)

system. Some mathematical models of the TS utility system have been introduced to optimise the TS utility

consumption. However, these methodologies have not discussed the heat exchanger arrangements in the TS

HEN. The heat exchangers arrangement in a TS system should be able to produce steam at the high

temperature, while the hot utility consumption should be placed as low temperature as possible. This design

requirement is not the same as the design terminology for Grid Diagram in single process heat integration. In

this paper, the Utility-HEN Grid Diagram is introduced for assisting the HEN design for a TS system to

maximise the heat recovery using indirect heat transfer. This tool is able to visualise the heat transfer between

processes in the TS system. The Utility-HEN Grid Diagram allows the heat exchangers to be designed

according to utility temperature. The design process would be very much beneficiated by the Multiple Utility

Problem Table Algorithm (MU-PTA) and the Total Site Utility Distribution (TSUD) Table. The methodology is

demonstrated by an illustrative case study.

1. Introduction

Heat Integration (HI) is introduced to enhance energy efficiency in chemical processing industry. Pinch

analysis is a well-established concept, which is widely used for targeting energy consumption, designing the

Heat Exchanger Network (HEN) and identifying process integration opportunities (Klemeš, 2013). The HI

concept has been extended from individual process level to a Total Site (TS) level, which comprises of several

processes or industrial clusters (Dhole and Linnhoff, 1993). The TS HI methodologies are well developed

using the graphical (Fodor et al., 2012) and numerical (Liew et al., 2012) methodology. The methodologies are

proposed for targeting the minimum energy requirement of TS system. A lot of efforts are used to optimise the

utility system and cogeneration system in TS context (Velasco-Garcia et al., 2011).

Grid Diagram (GD) is the most common used methodology for designing the HEN in the single processing

plant integration (Linnhoff et al., 1982). There are other tools proposed for designing the HEN. Wan Alwi and

Manan (2010) proposed a novel methodology for simultaneous targeting and designing HEN. Mizutani et al.

(2003) performed a HEN synthesis using mathematical programming model based on trade-off between

piping cost and heat transfer area. Soršak and Kravanja (2002) introduced MINLP model for HEN synthesis

based on different heat exchanger type selection. Pejpichestakul and Siemanond (2013) perform a process

retrofit ensuring cost-effective HEN using mathematical optimisation methodology. Morrison et al. (2012)

proposed a mathematical model extension to design HEN for non-continuous processes.

Liew et al. (2014) proposed the TS retrofit framework. Appropriate utility placement at heat sink and heat

sources are identified as an important factor for improving utility consumption in TS. It is important to ensure

that the utility is placed correctly in the design stage. Individual process HEN design typically does not

consider steam generations by process streams for indirect heat transfer between processes. The HEN

design in TS Heat Integration is indeed important to ensure steam consumption and generation take place at

the appropriate utility levels. The Utility-HEN Grid Diagram is proposed in this work for designing TS HEN,

steam boilers and steam consumers according to the utility temperature. The TS energy targeting method

considering water sensible heat (Liew et al., 2014) is used in this methodology in order to include the boiler

feed water preheat, evaporation and superheat in the HEN design.

2. Methodology

The overall HEN synthesis methodology aided by Utility-HEN Grid Diagram is described as below:

2.1 Step 1: Extract stream data

The process stream data is extracted from the process design flow sheet, which are mass flow rate (ṁ), heat

capacity (Cp), supply temperature (Ts), target temperature (Tt) and heat duty (∆H).

2.2 Step 2: Target utility consumption
Multiple utility requirement of single process is first determined using Multiple Utility - Problem Table Algorithm

(Liew et al., 2012). The TS utility consumption considering energy consumption for water sensible heat is then

targeted using the modified TS- Problem Table Algorithm proposed in Liew et al. (2014). The amount of

energy determined for steam preheat and superheat in the proposed methodology are identified as the heat

duty for preheater and superheater. The energy flow between processes and utility system is then able to be

illustrated in the modified Total Site Utility Distribution (TSUD) Table. The energy consumptions for preheater

and superheater, as well as steam produced via condensate recovery, are recorded in the TSUD table. These

tools aids the process of HEN synthesis for a TS together with preheater, evaporator and superheater

included.

2.3 Step 3: Construct Utility-HEN Grid Diagram
The Utility-HEN Grid Diagram is an extension of the Grid diagram for HEN design in conventional Pinch

Analysis. The heat exchangers are represented according to the temperature profile in the Utility-HEN Grid

Diagram. This would actually eliminate the step for checking minimum temperature using temperature -

enthalpy diagram for counter flow heat exchangers. The steps and heuristics are summarised as following:

(1) Draw the utilities temperature and stream lines according to its respective normal temperature. Shifted

utility temperature is added for hot streams at utility below pinch temperature with minimum allowable

temperature difference between utility and processes (ΔTminu,p) added to the utility temperature (Eq.1). Utility

temperature at below Pinch temperature is added for cold stream by deducting ΔTminu,p from utility

temperature (Eq.2).

Hot streams at below Pinch Region:

Shifted utility temperature = Utility temperature + ΔTminu,p (1)

Cold streams at above Pinch Region:

Shifted utility temperature = Utility temperature - ΔTminu,p (2)

(2) Design the network together with preheater (PH), evaporator (EV) and superheater (SH) for all the

processes based on Multiple Utility – Problem Table Algorithm or TSUD table. The design should be done

according to temperature interval between utility temperature and Pinch temperature.

Heuristic 1: Start the network design with the interval which is immediately above and immediately below

Pinch temperature.

Heuristic 2: If steam generation is required in the temperature interval, assign process-to-process heat

exchangers, before steam generation equipment. For process-to-process heat exchangers, use CP

rules (Eq.3) to determine stream pairs for process-to-process heat exchange, which heat capacity flow

rate (CP) flowing outwards the Pinch temperature should be larger or equal to the CP flowing towards

the Pinch temperature.

CPout ≥ CPin (3)

Heuristic 3: Cross utility process-to-process heat exchange is allowed for utilising heat sources from higher

temperature to lower temperature interval. Cross-process Pinch heat transfer is strictly not permissible.

Heuristic 4: If steam generation is required in the temperature interval, preheater should be placed nearest

to the low boundary in respective temperature interval, while superheater should be allocated close to

high boundary.

Heuristic 5: Stream splitting is considered when the energy consumption higher than the targeted energy

requirement in Step 2.

Heuristic 6: Use heat loop or heat path terminology (Klemeš, 2013) to minimise the number of heat

exchangers use in the network design.

3. Case Study

An illustrative case study is used to demonstrate the methodology proposed in this work. This case study

consist of two processes with four utility types serving the plant, which are High Pressure Steam (HPS – 270

°C), Low Pressure Steam (LPS – 133.5 °C) and Cooling Water (CW – 25 °C). Table 1 shows the streams data

together with minimum allowable temperature difference between processes (∆Tmin,pp) and between process

and utility (∆Tmin,up).

Table 1: Stream data for Illustrative Case Study

Stream Ts (°C) Tt (°C) ∆H (MW) ṁCP (kW/°C) Stream Ts (°C) Tt (°C) ∆H (MW) ṁCP (kW/°C)

Process A (∆Tmin,pp = 20 °C; ∆Tmin,up = 10 °C) Process B (∆Tmin,pp = ∆Tmin,up = 10 °C)

H1A 200 100 20.0 200 H1B 200 50 04.50 30

H2A 150 60 36.0 400 H2B 240 100 02.10 15

C1A 50 120 49.0 700 H3B 200 119 18.63 230

C2A 50 220 25.5 150 C1B 30 200 06.80 40

C2B 50 250 04.00 20

The data is analysed using the modified TS-PTA methodology (Liew et al., 2014) for determining the utility

requirement at different level, the amount of energy consumed by BFW preheat, as well as steam superheat.

The amount of energy recovered from condensate is also targeted in this step. A total of 10,778 kW of energy

from boiler is consumed at the LPS (3,778 kW) and HPS (7,000 kW) heaters, while total cooling requirement

of the TS is 7,283 kW. Based on the targeting result using modified TS - Problem Table Algorithm, energy

consumption on water sensible heat, a total of 2,147 kW of energy is consumed for producing 4.623 kg/s of

MPS. In order to produce this amount of MPS, 2,044 kW of heat source are used to preheat the boiler feed

water and 103 kW of energy is consumed for superheating saturated steam. HPS condensate is flashed to

LPS, which recovers 2,721 kW of LPS for process usage. The amount of energy consumptions are recorded

in the Total Site Utility Distribution - TSUD table (Table 2). The energy flows between processes and utilities

are clearly illustrated by using this tool.

Table 2: Modified Total Site Utility Distribution (TSUD) table

Heat Sources (kW) Heat Sinks (kW)

Process Utility Process Utility

A B Recovery Heaters A B Preheaters Superheaters Coolers

HPS 0 0 - 7,000 6,000 1,000 - - -

LPS 0 12,148 2,721 3,778 16,500 0 2,044 103 -

CW 4,000 3,283 - - 0 0 - - 7,283

The streams, Pinch and utility temperature are first plotted in the Utility-HEN Grid Diagram as Figure 1. For

Process A, the ∆Tmin,up is added to utility temperature at below Pinch region for hot streams, which the

effective CW temperature for hot streams is shifted to 25 °C. In above Pinch region, the ∆Tmin,up is deducted

from the utility temperature for cold stream. For example, LPS temperature shifted to 123.5 °C for cold

streams in Process A. In Process B, LPS is below Pinch temperature. The LPS temperature is added with

∆Tmin,up to 143.5 °C. The temperature intervals for HEN design are identified in Figure 1.

100°C
H1A

200°C

150°C60°C
H2A

120°C
C1A

220°C
C2A

H2B

H3B

PINCH

200°C

30°C
C1B

250°C50°C
C2B

190°C

H1B

123.5°C

25°C

260°C

260°

LPS

133.5°C

HPS

270°C

15°C

25°C

PINCH

70°C

50°C

143.5°C

200°C

Process A

Process B

∆Tmin,up

∆Tmin,pp

∆Tmin,up

∆Tmin,up ∆Tmin,pp

∆Tmin,up

100°C

119°C

240°C

50°C∆Tmin,up

∆Tmin,up

Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3

Interval 4 Interval 5 Interval 6

70°C

Interval 2

100°C

133.5°C

50°C 123.5°C

6,700 kW

25,400 kW

25,400 kW
120°C

23,600 kW

4,325 kW

200°C143.5°C

2,260 kW

1,130 kW

190°C133.5°C

10,735 kW

848 kW

1,130 kW565

Interval 5

Figure 1: Utility-HEN Grid Diagram Figure 2: Example of preliminary

HEN design for Interval 2 & 5

According to “Heuristic 1”, the HEN design should start from the Pinch temperature, which means Interval 2

should be design before Interval 3. The HEN for Interval 5 should be designed before Interval 4. HEN design

for Interval 2 and 5 are used to demonstrate “Heuristics 2 - 4”.

100°C
H1A

HE3

200°C

150°C

60°C

C1 H2A

120°C

96.4°C

86.3°C

C1A HE6

HE3
220°C

C2A H2

87.8°C 160.2°C

EV1HE8C2

240°C100°C
HE9EV2C3

193.1°C

H2B

H3B

125.5°C
181.9°C

HE11

152.4°C

EV3
HE10C4

PH2

200°C

30°C

H3HE10HE11C1B

250°C225°C50°C
HE9 H4HE7HE8C2B

190°C

H1B

119°C

123.5°C

25°C

260°C

LPS

133.5°C

180°C

HPS

270°C

15°C

25°C

70°C

50°C

143.5°C

200°C

Process A

Process B

HE4

HE7

SH1

50°C

HE1

HE2 HE1

157.6°C

HE2

HE5

94.7°C

HE6

Figure 3: HEN design with Utility-HEN Grid Diagram

In the preliminary HEN design for Interval 2, process-to-process heat exchangers are designed at the first

place (Heuristic 2). There are remaining 29,725 kW (25,400 + 4,325 kW) of unsatisfied cooling demands in

this temperature interval. These demands need to be heated by process heat sources or steam at LPS level.

However, the Modified TSUD table (Table 2) shows Process A consists 16,500 kW of process heat sinks,

which means that there is excess cooling demand in this design. Cross-utility heat transfer without crossing

process Pinch is allowed in TS HEN design (Heuristic 3). The excess cooling demand is allowed to be heated

by process heat sources at Interval 3. The cooling demands of C1A and C2A are partially heated by excess

heat sources at Interval 3, which are shown as HE2 and HE3 in Figure 3.

Similar to Interval 2, Interval 5 should be designed before Interval 4 (Heuristic 1). According to “Heuristic 2”,

process-to-process heat exchange opportunities are first identified for the preliminary HEN design for Interval

5 as shown in Figure 2. After considering heat recovery within temperature interval is considered, there are

12,148 kW of heat sources in excess for steam generation (Heuristic 4) or process-to-process heat exchange

(Heuristic 3). This amount of excess energy tally with Table 2, in which 2,044 kW, 10,001 kW and 103 kW of

energy is consumed by preheater, evaporator and superheater for generating LPS. “Heuristic 4” is used for

assigning steam generation equipment in Interval 5. Superheater should be allocated at the higher boundary

of the temperature interval. The 103 kW superheater (SH1) is placed at stream H2B, due to the high

temperature heat sources in another two streams are consumed for heat recovery within process. A preheater

is assigned at the stream H3B due to energy content remained in other streams are insufficient to satisfy the

requirement. Lastly, evaporators are allocated to utilise the heat sources in all the streams for generating LPS.

The new utility system and HEN is designed according to temperature intervals and shown in Figure 3.

Split streams (Heuristic 5) are not required to be performed in this case study, because the network design

achieved the maximum heat recovery as suggested in the targeting step. The HEN design in Figure 2 can be

evolved by heat loop and path (Heuristic 6). HE1, HE2 and HE4 are exchanging energy between H1A and

C2A. These heat exchangers could be combined for reducing the capital cost involved, if the heat load of HE3

moved to lowest temperature. HE5 and HE6 could also be combined for reducing the number of heat

exchangers. The final HEN design is shown in Figure 4, while the equipment heat duties are listed in Table 4.

197.5°C100°C
H1A

HE2 200°C

150°C

60°C

C1 H2A

120°C

96.4°C95.7°C

C1A HE3

HE1

220°C

C2A H2

87.8°C 160.2°C

EV1HE5C2

240°C100°C
HE6EV2C3

193.1°C

H2B

H3B

125.5°C
190.1°C

HE8

152.4°C

EV3
HE7C4

PH2

200°C

30°C

H3HE7HE8C1B

250°C225°C50°C
HE6 H4HE4HE5C2B

190°C

H1B

119°C

123.5°C

25°C

260°C

LPS

133.5°C

180°C

HPS

270°C

15°C

25°C

70°C

50°C

143.5°C

200°C

Process A

Process B

HE1

HE4

SH1

∆Tmin,up

∆Tmin,pp

∆Tmin,up

∆Tmin,up ∆Tmin,pp

∆Tmin,up

50°C

HE3

Figure 4: Final HEN design with Utility-HEN Grid Diagram after evolution with heat loops

4. Conclusion

The Utility-HEN Grid Diagram is proposed in this work to design a TS HEN. The proposed methodology is an

extension for Grid Diagram in conventional Pinch Analysis. The equipment’s’ temperature profile are illustrated

in the Utility-HEN Grid Diagram. This feature replaced the temperature profile checking using enthalpy-

temperature profile. Heuristics for Grid Diagram are enhanced for the HEN design considering steam

Table 4: Equipment heat duties for the HEN design in Utility-HEN Grid Diagram

Equipment Duty (kW) Equipment Duty (kW) Equipment Duty (kW) Equipment Duty (kW)

HE1 19,500 HE7 2,260 SH1 103 H1 16,500

HE2 500 HE8 4,140 C1 4,000 H2 6,000

HE3 32,000 EV1 565 C2 1,134 H3 400

HE4 1,130 EV2 744 C3 652.5 H4 600

HE5 1,670 EV3 8,691 C4 1,495

HE6 600 PH1 2,044

generation using process hot streams. The proposed methodology is able to design HEN with targeted energy

requirement using Modified TS - Problem Table Algorithm and illustration on Modified TS Utility Distribution

table. The proposed methodology is ensuring that the TS utility consumption take place at correct utility level.

In TS HEN design, high temperature heat sources are properly utilised and energy consumption consequently

reduced in TS context. The Utility-HEN Grid Diagram is drawn according to heat exchanger’s inlet/outlet

stream temperature. This reduced the effort to perform temperature check using temperature - enthalpy

diagram.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in providing the research fund (Vote

No Q.J130000.2509.07H35) and the Ministry of Education Malaysia for offering PhD scholarship to the first

author. This work also received the support from the EC project Energy - ENER/FP7/296003/EFENIS and the

Hungarian project Tarsadalmi Megujulas Operativ Program - TAMOP – 4.2.2.A-11/1/KONV-2012- 0072, which

are highly appreciated by the authors.

Reference

Dhole V.R., Linnhoff B., 1993, Total site targets for fuel, co-generation, emissions, and cooling, Computers

and Chemical Engineering, 17, 101-109.

Fodor Z., Klemeš J.J., Varbanov P.S., Walmsley M.R.W., Atkins M.J., Walmsley T.G., 2012, Total site

targeting with stream specific minimum temperature difference, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 29,

409-414.

Klemeš J., Ed. 2013, Handbook of Process Integration (PI): Minimisation of Energy and Water Use, Waste

and Emissions, Woodhead/Elsevier, Cambridge, UK.

Liew P.Y., Lim J.S., Wan Alwi S.R., Abdul Manan Z., Varbanov P.S., Klemeš J.J., 2014, A retrofit framework

for Total Site heat recovery systems, Applied Energy, DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.090.

Liew P.Y., Wan Alwi S.R., Lim J.S., Varbanov P.S., Klemeš J.J., Abdul Manan Z., 2014, Total Site Heat

Integration incorporating the water sensible heat, Journal of Cleaner Production, DOI:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.047.

Liew P.Y., Wan Alwi S.R., Varbanov P.S., Manan Z.A., Klemeš J.J., 2012, A numerical technique for Total Site

sensitivity analysis, Applied Thermal Engineering, 40, 397-408.

Linnhoff B., Townsend D.W., Boland D., Hewitt G.F., Thomas B.E.A., Guy A.R., Marsland R.H., 1982, User

guide on Process Integration for the efficient use of energy, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby,

UK.

Mizutani F.T., Pessoa F.L.P., Queiroz E.M., Hauan S., Grossmann I.E., 2003, Mathematical programming

model for heat-exchanger network synthesis including detailed heat-exchanger designs. 2. Network

synthesis, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 42, 17, 4019-4027.

Morrison A.S., Atkins M.J., Walmsley M.R.W., 2012, Ensuring cost-effective heat exchanger network design

for non-continuous processes, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 29, 295-300.

Pejpichestakul W., Siemanond K., 2013, Retrofit of refinery heat exchanger network under different kinds of

crude oil by pinch design method using mathematical programming, Chemical Engineering Transactions,

32, 1411-1416.

Soršak A., Kravanja Z., 2002, Simultaneous MINLP synthesis of heat exchanger networks comprising different

exchanger types, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 26, 4–5, 599-615.

Velasco-Garcia P., Varbanov P.S., Arellano-Garcia H., Wozny G., 2011, Utility systems operation:

Optimisation-based decision making, Applied Thermal Engineering, 31, 16, 3196-3205.

Wan Alwi S.R., Manan Z.A., 2010, STEP—A new graphical tool for simultaneous targeting and design of a

heat exchanger network, Chemical Engineering Journal, 162, 1, 106-121.