02638762/98/$10.00+0.

00
q Institution of Chemical Engineers
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

MULTIPLE UTILITIES TARGETING FOR HEAT

EXCHANGER NETWORKS
U. V. SHENOY, A. SINHA and S. BANDYOPADHYAY*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, Bombay, India
*Energy Systems Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, Bombay, India

targeting methodology is proposed to determine the optimum loads for multiple

utilities considering the cost tradeoffs in energy and capital for heat exchanger
networks (HENs). The method is based on a newly-developed Cheapest Utility
Principle (CUP), which simply states that it is optimal to increase the load of the cheapest
utility and maintain the loads of the relatively expensive utilities constant while increasing the
total utility consumption. In other words, the temperature driving forces at the utility pinches
once optimized do not change even when the minimum approach temperature (D Tm i n ) at the
process pinch is varied. The CUP holds rigorously when the relationship between the
exchanger area and the capital cost is linear. Even when the relationship is non-linear, it proves
to be an excellent approximation that reduces the computational effort during multiple utilities
targeting. By optimizing the utility pinches sequentially and recognizing that these optimized
utility pinches essentially do not change with the process D Tm i n , the results can be elegantly
represented through the optimum load distribution (OLD) plots introduced in this work. The
total annual cost (TAC) target curves can be then established from the OLD plots for predesign screening of various options that lead to near-minimum cost HENs but involve different
combinations of utilities and load distributions. Rather than determine that single value for the
global optimum corresponding to the minimum TAC, it is bene cial in practice to de ne an
optimum D Tm i n range because the TAC curves are often reasonably at in the neighbourhood
of the minimum and consequently provide useful exibility in terms of capital investment.
Keywords: energy optimization; multiple utilities; capital-energy tradeoff; utility load
distribution targets; pinch analysis; heat exchanger networks

INTRODUCTION

cold utility. The aim of this work is to extend the concept of

supertargeting on a TAC plot to multiple utilities.
Different hot utilities (say, steam at different pressure
levels) may be used to meet the total hot utility load of the
process above the pinch, and various cold utilities (say, air
cooling and cooling water) may be used to satisfy the total
cold utility load of the process below the pinch. The
targeting of loads and levels for multiple utilities may be
done by pro le matching on the process grand composite
curve1 . This simple procedure involves maximizing the use
of the cheapest utility available at each stage based on a
global value of D Tm in , and consequently minimizes only the
utility costs without considering the capital costs.
The consideration of both energy and capital to select and
optimize utilities in order to target an overall minimum cost
HEN has been discussed by Hall et al.5 They optimized the
D T values for process as well as utility pinches, and
developed a targeting procedure to determine the lowest
cost solution effectively in terms of the optimum process
D Tm i n . However, this globally optimum D Tm in may not
necessarily provide a meaningful target in actual practice.
Experience from industrial projects indicates the following:

Targeting procedures in pinch analysis allow the designer of

heat exchanger networks (HENs) to determine the best
performance that can be achieved prior to actual synthesis.
Energy targets may be set using composite curves1 , where the
minimum requirement for the hot utility appears as the
overshoot of the cold composite and that for the cold utility
as the overshoot of the hot composite. The minimum
approach temperature (D Tm i n ) between the composites
de nes the process pinch point, which is the bottleneck
to heat recovery. According to the well-known pinch
principle2 , a maximum energy recovery design must have
no heat transfer across the pinch.
On increasing D Tm i n (by horizontally sliding one
composite relative to the other), both the hot and cold
utility requirements increase resulting in higher energy
costs. Simultaneously, the network area essentially
decreases (due to higher temperature driving forces with
increasing D Tm i n ) leading to lower capital costs. This
classical energy-capital cost tradeoff yields an optimum
value of D Tm i n at which the total annual cost (TAC) is
a minimum. The procedure for determining this optimum D Tm i n is referred to as supertargeting3 ,4 and is wellunderstood for the case of a single hot utility and a single

The uncertainty in data on heat transfer coef cients and

costs is often high enough that it is risky to design based on a

259

260

SHENOY et al.

single point-value for the globally optimum D Tm i n corresponding to the minimum TAC. It is important to examine
the TAC curve as a function of the process D Tm i n .
The TAC vs. D Tm i n curve is oftentimes found to be fairly
at in the neighbourhood of the minimum TAC. Consequently, it is better to de ne the optimum D Tm in in terms of a
range rather than a single value.
There are often constraints on capital investment. These
may be partially incorporated if targeting procedures de ne
an optimum D Tm i n range based on the TAC curve and
choose the upper or lower end of this range depending on
whether an investment ceiling exists or not.
The global optimum may demand the use of too many
utilities. In this case, it may be practically advantageous to
incur a small TAC penalty by eliminating utilities used in
little quantities and redistribute this load amongst the other
utilities.
Of the above four observations, the rst two have been also
emphasized by Kemp6 . This paper describes a targeting
methodology in the case of multiple utilities for generating
the TAC curve and de ning a meaningful D Tm i n target based
on the above techno-economic considerations.
MULTIPLE UTILITIES LOAD OPTIMIZATION AT
A FIXED PROCESS D Tm i n
If (n + 1) is the number of utilities (with temperature
levels speci ed), then the HEN problem typically features n
pinches [1 process pinch and (n - 1) utility pinches]. As
there is an approach temperature (say, D Ti with i = 1, ..., n)
for each pinch that is to be optimized, the optimization
problem is an n-dimensional one. However, it is possible7 , 8
to decompose this n-dimensional problem into a sequence of
n one-dimensional optimizations, each involving only two
utilities. The idea of decomposition is used in the
methodology below, but the sequence in which the onedimensional optimizations are performed is different from
that previously used5 ,7 .
The optimization sequence is demonstrated in Figure 1

using a simple system comprising one cold utility (say,

cooling water CW) and many hot utilities (say, steam levels
LP, MP, and HP). As the D Tm in for the process pinch is
xed, the CW load and the total hot utility load are xed at
their minimum values by the composite curves in Figure 1a.
Now, the optimization problem for a xed process D Tm i n
may be de ned as the determination of the optimum LP, MP
and HP steam loads (keeping the total hot utility load
constant) that yields the minimum TAC by trading off
capital cost against energy cost. Initialization of the problem
as in Figure 1a using the hottest hot utility and the coldest
cold utility (i.e., the most expensive utilities) corresponds to
maximum energy cost and minimum capital cost (i.e.,
minimum HEN area). The energy cost can be reduced by
using MP steam in place of HP steam, but this will lead to a
new utility pinch (with an approach temperature D T3 as
shown in Figure 1b) and an increase in the capital cost. The
additional HEN area causing the capital cost increase can be
readily targeted4 using balanced composites along with the
Uniform Bath Formula9 or the rigorous transshipment NLP
model1 0 . On establishing the optimum amount of MP steam
to be used for minimum TAC, an attempt is next made to
further reduce the energy cost by gradually replacing MP
steam with LP steam. By increasing the LP load and
correspondingly decreasing the MP usage, the utility pinch
with an approach temperature D T2 (Figure 1c) is optimized
by trading off the energy cost decrease against the capital
cost increase. With the approach temperature for the process
pinch (D T1 ) set to a speci ed D Tm i n , the methodology
outlined above sequentially determines the optimum HP,
MP and LP loads for minimum TAC through 2 onedimensional optimizations for D T3 and D T2 . Each of the
optimizations is effectively local to the region of the
composite curves (enthalpy intervals) bracketed by the two
utilities being optimized.
An alternative optimization methodology is depicted in
Figure 2, where the initialization of the problem corresponds to minimum energy cost and maximum capital cost
(i.e., in nite HEN area based on D T2 and D T3 both being set
to zero as in Figure 2a). Here, D T2 can be optimized

Figure 1. Sequence of utilities load optimizations at a xed process D Tmin starting with maximum energy cost and minimum capital cost. (a) Initialization
with hottest hot utility (HP steam) and coldest cold utility (CW). (b) Optimization of the MP utility pinch by introduction of MP steam in place of HP steam.
(c) Optimization of the LP utility pinch by introduction of LP steam in place of MP steam.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

MULTIPLE UTILITIES TARGETING FOR HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS

261

Figure 2. Sequence of utilities load optimizations at a xed process D Tmin starting with minimum energy cost and maximum capital cost. (a) Initialization
with all utility pinches at zero approach temperature. (b) Optimization of the LP utility pinch by decreasing LP steam and correspondingly increasing MP
steam. (c) Optimization of the MP utility pinch by decreasing MP steam and correspondingly increasing HP steam.

(Figure 2b) by progressively increasing MP steam and

correspondingly decreasing LP steam, thereby resulting in
an energy cost increase and a capital cost decrease.
Similarly, D T3 can be optimized (Figure 2c) by systematically increasing HP steam and correspondingly decreasing MP steam. It may be noted that the methodology in
Figure 2 is essentially based on concepts proposed earlier by
Hall et al.5 , except that the process pinch is xed at a
particular D Tm i n rather than optimized rst.
An important difference between the two methodologies
is that Figures 1a and 1b represent systems optimized for the
case of one hot utility (HP steam) and two hot utilities (HP
steam and MP steam), respectively. On the other hand,
Figures 2a and 2b provide only intermediate steps in the
optimization and not optimal systems. The application of
the rst methodology is illustrated next through a simple
example.
Example 1
The data for this example5 ,7 are given in Table 1. The
results of the optimizations based on the methodology
outlined in Figure 1 are presented in Table 2 for a process
pinch xed at a D Tm in of 308 C. The process pinch is caused

by the inlet temperature of hot stream H1 (1058 C). The

minimum utility requirements calculated by the Problem
Table Algorithm1 1 are 425 kW (for total hot utility) and
775 kW (for cold utility) at D Tm in = 308 C. For this example,
the countercurrent area targets are computed using balanced
composites with the Uniform Bath Formula9 and the capital
cost calculations1 2 use an annualization factor given by
Af = r (1 + r)t /[(1 + r)t - 1]. The three rows of Table 2
correspond to the three steps in Figure 1. From Table 2, it is
observed that starting with only HP steam and consequently
the maximum energy cost, MP and LP steam are introduced
to progressively replace the costlier hot utility thereby
continuously decreasing the energy cost. During this course,
the area gradually increases starting from a minimum of
137 m2 for D Tm i n = 308 C thereby increasing the capital cost.
On considering this tradeoff, the optimum loads of HP, MP
and LP steam are determined to be 203 kW, 53 kW and
169 kW, respectively for a minimum TAC of 96,992 /yr at
D Tm i n = 308 C.
OPTIMUM LOAD DISTRIBUTION (OLD) PLOTS
The methodology outlined in Figure 1 allows optimization of the loads for the individual utilities at a xed total

Table 1. Stream, utility and cost data for Example 1.

Inlet temperature
(8 C)

Outlet temperature
(8 C)

Heat capacity owrate

(kW/8 C)

Heat transfer coef cient

(kW/m2/8 C)

H1
H2
C3

105
185
25

25
35
185

10
5
7.5

0.5
0.5
0.5

HP Steam
MP Steam
LP Steam
CW

210
160
130
5

209
159
129
6

Stream

Exchanger capital cost ()

Capital recovery time t
Rate of interest r
Annualization factor Af

=
=
=
=

800 x area (m2)

5 (yr)
15 (%)
r (1 + r)t / [(1 + r)t - 1] = 0.298(/ yr)

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

5.0
5.0
5.0
2.6

Cost
(/kW/yr)

160
110
50
10

262

SHENOY et al.
Table 2. Optimum utility load targets for Example 1 for D Tmin = 308 C.

Number of
hot utilities
1
2
3

CW Load
(kW)

HP Load
(kW)

MP Load
(kW)

LP Load
(kW)

Area Target
(m2)

Energy Cost
(/yr)

775
775
775

425
203
203

NIL
222
53

NIL
NIL
169

137
158
178

75750
64650
54510

utility requirement. Such an optimization was demonstrated

for Example 1 and the optimum loads (for HP, MP and LP
steam) tabulated in Table 2 for a xed D Tm in of 308 C.
Computations may be repeated by varying the process D Tm i n
(say, within the range 08 408 C in steps of 58 C) and results
similar to those in Table 2 obtained. These results may be
conveniently represented in the form of optimum load
distribution (OLD) plots as shown in Figure 3. Figures 3a,
3b and 3c correspond to the three rows in Table 2 with the
dotted vertical lines highlighting the optimum steam loads
at D Tm i n of 308 C.
Figure 3a represents the optimum load for a single hot
utility because it corresponds to the minimum HP steam
required according to the Problem Table Algorithm1 1 . It
shows the variation of the total hot utility with D Tm i n and the
load on the single hot utility (HP steam) varying linearly
from 200 kW at D Tm in = 08 C to 500 kW at D Tm i n = 408 C.
Although Figure 3a shows a line with a constant slope, the
variation is piecewise linear4 in general with line segments
of different slopes. The variations with D Tm i n of the total hot
utility (HU) and the total cold utility (CU) will necessarily
appear as parallel lines according to the rst law of
thermodynamics. In Figure 3a, the total CU line (not
shown) will be parallel to the total HU line but displaced
vertically upwards by 350 kW.
For the case of two hot utilities, Figure 3b shows the
optimum HP steam load to be constant at 203 kW for
D Tm i n $ 0.48 C. The remaining hot utility requirement for
D Tm i n >0.48 C must be supplied by MP steam and consequently the optimum MP steam load varies linearly with the
process D Tm in .

Capital Cost
(/yr)
32692
37710
42482

TAC
(/yr)
108442
102360
96992

For the case of three hot utilities, Figure 3c shows

the optimum loads to be constant at 203 kW for HP steam
(when D Tm i n $ 0.48 C) and 53 kW for MP steam (when
D Tm i n $ 7.58 C). Now, LP steam supplies the remaining hot
utility for D Tm i n >7.58 C and therefore a linear variation is
observed for the optimum LP steam load with D Tm i n . Note
that it is not optimal to use MP steam for D Tm in # 0.48 C (see
Figures 3b and 3c) and LP steam for D Tm in # 7.58 C (see
Figure 3c).
The nature of the plots in Figure 3 is typical of OLD plots
for other problems1 3 and therefore it is necessary to
understand OLD plots in greater detail. The utility scale
on the OLD plots is cumulative (e.g., the horizontal line
above the MP steam in Figure 3c is at 256 kW which is the
sum of 203 kW of HP steam and 53 kW of MP steam). The
cumulative manner of plotting OLDs conveniently breaks
up the region under the piecewise-linear total utility curve
into stacked regions corresponding to the individual
utilities. As CW is the only cold utility in Example 1, no
OLD plot is required for the cold utility distribution. In
general, two separate OLD plots (one for hot utility and
another for cold utility) are required for showing the
optimum distributions when multiple HUs and multiple CUs
are used.
The other important aspect of OLD plots is the order for
stacking the regions corresponding to the individual
utilities. It is suitable1 3 to stack the regions beginning with
the most expensive utility at the bottom. Typically, the
hottest hot utility and the coldest cold utility are the most
expensive in the case of point utilities. Point utilities for our
purpose are those that undergo negligibly small or no

Figure 3. Optimum load distribution (OLD) plots for multiple utilities as a function of process D Tmin. (a) Use of single hot utility (HP steam). (b) Use of two
hot utilities (HP and MP steam). (c) Use of three hot utilities (HP, MP and LP steam).

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

MULTIPLE UTILITIES TARGETING FOR HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS

temperature change (e.g., steam levels and refrigerant
levels) as well as those that have no overlap with other
utilities in terms of temperature (e.g., cooling water and air
cooling). For example, starting from the bottom, an OLD
plot for hot utilities may stack HP steam, then MP steam and
nally LP steam. On the other hand, an OLD plot for cold
utilities may stack cooling water (at the bottom), air cooling,
LP steam-raising, MP steam-raising and HP steam-raising
in that order.
THE CHEAPEST UTILITY PRINCIPLE
On the OLD plot, the stacking order for regions
corresponding to the individual utilities is primarily based
on the following observation:
`Within D Tm i n ranges of the OLD plot, the additional utility
required with increasing process D Tm i n is optimally satis ed
by the cheapest utility and the optimum loads of the
relatively expensive utilities (if any exist) remain constant
with changing D Tm i n .
The above observation may be termed the Cheapest Utility
Principle (CUP) and simply stated as `it is optimal to
increase the load on the cheapest utility as the total utility
usage increases. The cheapest utility needs to be de ned
within a D Tm in range as discussed below.
The CUP manifests itself in Figure 3 in terms of the
cheapest utility region being bounded by a horizontal line at
the bottom and a (piecewise) linear curve at the top. On the
other hand, the relatively expensive utility regions are
bounded at both the top and bottom by horizontal lines.
The D Tm i n ranges appropriate to the CUP are de ned
next. Figure 4a is a reproduction of Figure 3c with the D Tm i n
ranges highlighted as de ned below:

R1 is the range (08 < D Tm i n # 0.48 C) where it is optimal to

use only one utility (HP steam). Here, HP steam is the

cheapest utility which is increasing with D Tm i n and there is
no relatively expensive utility in the terminology of the
CUP.
R2 is the range (0.48 < D Tm i n # 7.58 C) where it is optimal
to use two utilities (HP and MP steam). The cheapest utility,
MP steam, is continuously increasing here and the relatively
expensive utility, HP steam, has a constant load.
R3 (D Tm i n >7.58 C) is the range where it is optimal to use
three utilities (HP, MP and LP steam). Here, the cheapest
utility is LP steam which is continually increasing with
D Tm i n and the loads on the relatively expensive utilities, MP
and HP steam, are constant.
If the upper bounds in terms of D Tm i n are denoted by D TR 1
(for range R1) and D TR 2 (for range R2), then D TR 1 = 0.48 C
and D TR 2 = 7.58 C for Example 1.
The fundamental basis for the CUP is presented next with
generalized criteria that de ne the range boundaries in terms
of D TR 1 and D TR 2 . For a system using three hot utilities (HP,
MP and LP steam) and one cold utility (CW), the total
annual cost is given by
TAC = CHP QHP + CMP QMP + CLP QLP

+ CCW QCW + Af CC

(1)

The capital cost in the above equation may be written in the

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

263

following general form:

CC = Nu [a + b(A/ Nu )c ]

(2)

where a, b and c are the cost coef cients in the exchanger

capital cost law, A is the HEN area target, and Nu is the
number of units target for the HEN.
The optimization question that is being addressed is as
follows: If the process D Tm in is increased by an in nitesimal
amount, would it be optimal (in order to minimize the TAC)
for the additional hot utility requirement dQH U to be met by
increasing HP steam (by dQH P ), MP steam (by dQM P ) or LP
steam (by dQL P )? To answer this question, it may be noted
that dQH U = dQH P + dQM P + dQL P = dQC U = dQC W . Next,
equation (1) is differentiated to get
d(TAC) = CT ,HP dQHP + C T,MP dQMP + CT,LP dQLP

(3)

where CT ,H P = CH P + CC W + Af CC/QH P + Af CC/QC W ;

CT ,M P = CM P + CC W + Af CC/QM P + Af CC/QC W ; and
CT ,L P = CL P + CC W + Af CC/QL P + Af CC/QC W . Thus,
CT signi es the rate of change of total cost (energy
cost + capital cost) for an incremental change in the load of
a particular utility. For the simple case where a = 0 and c = 1
(as in Example 1), equation (2) gives the rates of change of
capital cost as CC/QH P = b A/QH P , CC/QM P = b A/
QM P , CC/QL P = b A/QL P and CC/QC W = b A/
QC W .
In the range R1, CC/QH P is a large negative quantity
(relative to CC/QM P and CC/QL P ) resulting in CT ,H P
being more negative than CT ,M P and CT ,L P . Hence, in order
to decrease TAC, it is optimal to increase the hot utility
requirement through the HP steam (i.e., dQH P = dQH U , and
dQM P = dQL P = 0). As the process D Tm in is gradually
increased, CT ,M P becomes less than (more negative with
respect to) CT ,H P and CT ,L P . This is the condition in the
range R2 where it is optimal to put the additional hot utility
through MP steam (i.e., dQM P = dQH U , and dQH P =
dQL P = 0). Thus, the transition from range R1 to range R2
(which de nes the value of D TR 1 ) occurs when
C T,HP

=C

T, MP

or

C HP + Af CC/ QHP

= C + A CC/ Q
MP

MP

(4)

Further increase in the process D Tm i n causes CT ,L P to

become less than (more negative compared to) CT ,H P and
CT ,M P . This condition leads to range R3 where it is optimal
to add the extra hot utility through LP steam (i.e.,
dQL P = dQH U , and dQH P = dQM P = 0). The criterion for
the transition from range R2 to range R3 (which de nes
D TR 2 ) is identical to equation (4) with HP replaced by LP.
Figure 4b shows a plot of the TAC as a function of the
process D Tm in corresponding to the optimum load distribution in Figure 4a. For Example 1, the gure shows that the
global optimum corresponds to a process D Tm in of 23.48 C
and a minimum TAC of 96412 /yr. Since this value lies in
the range R3, it may be noted that dQH P = dQM P = 0 and the
condition for the global optimum D Tm i n is
C T,LP

=0

or

C LP + C CW + Af CC/ QLP + Af CC/ QCW = 0

(5)
Clearly, CT ,L P <0 for D Tm i n <23.48 C and CT ,L P >0 for
D Tm i n >23.48 C. However, throughout range R3, CT ,L P is
less than CT ,H P and CT ,M P making it optimal to place the
additional hot utility on LP steam. If the global optimum

264

SHENOY et al.
The salient features of OLD plots and the CUP may be
summarized as follows.
1. When the process D Tm in is increased, the additional utility
is always satis ed by the utility with the lowest CT in order
to minimize TAC.
2. Over a certain range of D Tm in , the load on only one utility
(namely, the lowest CT utility) will change whereas the
loads on all the other utilities will remain constant.
3. The load on a utility will not increase with D Tm i n when its
CT becomes equal to that of another utility (equation 4); in
this case, a transition occurs to the other new utility in terms
of an increase in its load and a new D Tm i n range on the OLD
plot.
4. If CT for a particular utility goes to zero (equation 5), then
the global optimum will lie in that D Tm i n range where the
load for this utility is changing on the OLD plot.
5. The OLD plot being cumulative leads to the region under
the piecewise-linear total utility curve being divided into
sub-regions associated with the individual utilities: the subregions are vertically stacked starting with the one
corresponding to the most expensive utility at the bottom.
6. The OLD plots exhibit typical characteristics (as in
Figure 4a) with the maximum number of D Tm i n ranges equal
to the number of utilities; however, some of the ranges may
lie over infeasible (negative) D Tm in values and therefore
often a vertical window of the entire OLD plot (i.e., a
portion of Figure 4a) will appear depending on the cost
coef cients.
Network Design at the Global Optimum

Figure 4 . The optimum load distribution plot for multiple utilities with the
associated TAC curve as a function of process D Tmin. (a) OLD plot for three
hot utilities highlightingthe three D Tmin ranges. (b) TAC curve showing the
global optimum.

were to lie in the range R1 or R2, then the criterion

analogous to equation (5) would be CT ,H P = 0 or CT ,M P = 0.
Having developed a mathematical basis for OLD plots, a
conceptual understanding may be gained next. At very low
values of the process D Tm in , the capital cost predominates
and therefore an expensive utility (like HP steam) is
preferred in order to provide high temperature driving
forces. As D Tm in is increased, a portion of the cold
composite curve gets shifted from the below-pinch region
to the above-pinch region (provided the process pinch is
determined by the inlet temperature of a hot stream). The
cheapest utility (MP steam in Figure 1b and LP steam in
Figure 1c) takes care of the increased utility requirement
due to this shifted portion of the composite curves near the
process pinch. This does not affect the optimum loads on the
costlier utilities. These effects may be easily visualized by
sliding horizontally (to the left) the portion of the hot
composite between MP and CW in Figure 1b as well as the
portion between LP and CW in Figure 1c. Importantly, it is
observed that the driving forces at the utility pinches (once
optimized) remain constant even when the D Tm i n of the
process pinch is changed. This provides an alternative
statement of the CUP.

A target for the global optimum has been established for

Example 1, and is given in accordance with Figure 4 by the
following: D Tm in (process) = 23.48 C; HP steam = 203 kW;
MP steam = 53 kW; LP steam = 119.5 kW; CW =
725.5 kW; area = 188 m2 ; and TAC = 96,412 /yr. A network synthesized using the Pinch Design Method1 ,2 for
these targets is shown in Figure 5. It recognizes the process
pinch (1058 /81.68 C) and two utility pinches (1308 /114.28 C
and 1608 /141.38 C). It meets the utility targets and has an
area of 196 m2 (about 4% higher than the target, essentially
due to the non-vertical heat transfer in unit 7 of Figure 5)
giving a TAC of 98263 /yr (about 2% above target). The
greater concern is that the network in Figure 5 has too many
units (4 process-process exchangers, 3 steam heaters and 2

Figure 5. Network designed at the global optimum target uses all three hot
utilities (HP, MP and LP steam). Temperature in 8 C and load in kW.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

MULTIPLE UTILITIES TARGETING FOR HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS

Figure 6. The total annual cost (TAC) curves as a function of process D Tmin
for different combinations of utilities.

water coolers) and hence requires to be evolved. Elimination

of unit 3 (MP steam heater) appears a promising evolution
option as it reduces two units (on merging units 2 and 4) in the
network and completely does away with the use of MP steam.
The MP steam load however needs to be redistributed
amongst HP and LP steam, but this makes the optimization
performed thus far partly meaningless. Rather than carry out
network load optimization, is it possible to do the multiple
utilities optimization in a more meaningful manner at the
targeting stage itself? The next section demonstrates that it is
indeed possible to screen various combinations of utilities
and their distributions prior to network design and
optimization through TAC target curves.
USE OF TARGET CURVES FOR TOTAL ANNUAL
COST
Figure 6 shows total annual cost (TAC) target curves as a
function of the process D Tm in for the optimum load
distributions determined in Figure 3. In addition to the
three cases in Figure 3, a fourth involving the use of HP and
LP steam is also analysed. The motivation to eliminate MP
steam in this fourth case is obviously provided at the
targeting stage itself by the fact that the MP steam load is
minimum (53 kW compared to 203 kW for HP and
119.5 kW for LP) when the optimization for all three
utilities is performed. The OLD plot for this case (not
shown) is similar to Figure 3b except that the constant HP
steam load line is at 240 kW and therefore it intersects the
total HU line at D Tm i n = 5.38 C. For D Tm i n >5.38 C, the
additional hot utility required must therefore be satis ed by
LP steam.

265

Figure 7. Network that is very close to the global optimum target with the
practical advantage of having only seven units and using only two hot
utilities (HP and LP steam). Temperature in 8 C and load in kW.

The four cases in Figure 6 include all the possible

combinations of utilities for Example 1. The TAC curves are
readily generated using any conventional pinch analysis
targeting software (HXTARG 4 being used throughout this
work) by varying the appropriate (single) hot utility within
each D Tm in range and including the other(s) with constant
heat loads within the process stream data. As pointed out
earlier, the global optimum corresponds to a TAC of 96,412
/yr (at D Tm i n = 23.48 C) when HP, MP and LP steam are
used (Table 3, rst row). If all three steam levels are not to
be used from a practical viewpoint, then the TAC curves in
Figure 6 show minima at 100,965 /yr (at D Tm i n = 15.28 C
when 314 kW of HP steam are used), 98603 /yr (at
D Tm i n = 17.78 C when 203 kW of HP steam and 129.75 kW
of MP steam are used), and 96,839 /yr (at D Tm in = 23.48 C
when 240 kW of HP steam and 135.5 kW of LP steam are
used). Thus, the penalty in the TAC on eliminating MP
steam is negligibly small (less than 0.5% as shown in
the second row of Table 3), and Figure 7 shows the
corresponding network design at a D Tm i n of 23.48 C that uses
only two hot utilities (HP and LP steam). It is a more
practical design compared to the network in Figure 5
because it shows a reduction of two units, no requirement
for MP steam, and an insigni cant increase in the TAC. The
network in Figure 7 has an area of 194 m2 giving a TAC of
98,699 /yr (and these values compare very favourably with
196 m2 and 98,263 /yr for the network in Figure 5). In fact,
the network (Figure 7) with fewer units would be cheaper
had the exchanger capital cost law included a xed charge
term (a 0).
Furthermore, for the case where HP and LP steam are
used, the TAC curves in Figure 6 are very at around
D Tm i n = 23.48 C. Therefore, it is advantageous to de ne an
optimum range for D Tm in (rather than a point value) as a

Table 3. Practical utility load, area and cost targets for Example 1.
D Tmin
(8 C)

CW Load
(kW)

HP Load
(kW)

MP Load
(kW)

LP Load
(kW)

Area Target
(m2)

Energy Cost
(/yr)

Capital Investment
()

TAC
(/yr)

23.4
23.4
17
32
15.2

725.5
725.5
677.5
790
664

203
240
240
240
314

53
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL

119.5
135.5
87.5
200
NIL

188
186
202
174
185

51540
52430
49550
56300
56880

150418
148867
161348
139010
147779

96412
96839
97683
97769
100965

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

266

SHENOY et al.

target. For this example, the TAC is within 1% of the

optimum so long as D Tm i n lies between 178 C and 328 C. The
third and fourth rows of Table 3 give the targets for D Tm i n of
178 C and 328 C, respectively. Although the TAC values are
very close for these two values of D Tm in , it is observed that
the capital investment required is signi cantly different
(16% higher for 178 C compared to 328 C). Two scenarios
arise depending on the capital availability. If there is no
investment ceiling, then the network may be designed at
178 C. If capital is limiting, then the design may be
performed at 328 C and retro ts subject to the availability
of capital planned (at the grassroots design stage itself to
make provisions for space in the plant layout). The networks
for the two scenarios may be easily derived from Figure 7 by
shifting loads along the path involving units 5, 7 and 8 in
accordance with the CUP. For D Tm i n = 178 C, 48 kW may be
shifted (decreased on units 5 and 8) to obtain a network with
a TAC of 101064 /yr that requires a capital investment of
172,683. On the other hand, 64.5 kW may be added to units
5 and 8 in Figure 7 to obtain a network for D Tm i n = 328 C that
needs a relatively lower capital investment of 142,121 and
has a TAC of 98,697 /yr.
It is clear that the optimal networks for the case of three
hot utilities and two hot utilities are provided by Figures 5
and 7, respectively. Figure 7 may be derived from Figure 5
by eliminating units 3 and 4 followed by redistribution of
the utility loads (in this case, for HP and LP steam) to their
optimal values as dictated by the OLD plots and the TAC
curves. A similar procedure may be adopted to obtain the
optimal network for the case of one hot utility (HP steam)
from Figure 7. Units 5 and 6 may be eliminated, and then the
utility loads redistributed to their optimal values using a
path through units 1, 7 and 8. The resultant network (not
shown) comprises ve units with the following matches:
HP-C3 (314 kW); H2-C3 (400 kW); H1-C3 (486 kW); H1CW (314 kW); and H2-CW (350 kW). The loads for HP
steam (314 kW) and CW (664 kW) are optimally chosen
based on the curve for HP steam in Figure 6 (which shows a
minimum TAC of 100,965 /yr at D Tm i n = 15.28 C). The
gains in terms of reduced complexity for this network using

only one hot utility and ve units are partially offset by the
increased TAC (which shows a penalty of about 5% over the
global optimum as per the targets given in the last row of
Table 3).
Thus, optimal networks can be readily generated which
use one, two or three hot utilities for the above example. The
capital investment for each of these networks may be varied
to match the capital fund availability for the project without
signi cantly affecting the TAC. The globally optimal
network (Figure 5) is not promising in terms of practical
implementation due to its complexity (too many units and
three steam levels). Whether to implement the network with
one steam level (only HP steam) or that with two steam
levels (HP and LP steams as in Figure 7) is in general a
techno-economic decision that needs to consider the total
annual cost, capital investment, energy bill, as well as the
steam and power balance of the total site. Network
complexity and its effect on operability need to be also
considered. The important point is that several promising
options may be rapidly identi ed by pre-design optimization through three useful representations: TAC curves for
different utility combinations (Figure 6), corresponding
OLD plots (Figure 3), and a results summary (Table 3)
showing utility, area and cost implications. Targeting using
TAC curves and OLD plots considerably reduces the tedium
associated with the synthesis, evolution and optimization of
a large number of networks. It thus provides a very effective
screening and scoping tool for multiple utility designs as has
been observed earlier with regard to the supertargeting
methodology3 in the case of a single hot/cold utility.
EFFECT OF CAPITAL COST COEFFICIENTS
During the discussions so far on the CUP and the OLD
plots, a simpli ed exchanger capital cost law (equation (2)
with a = 0 and c = 1) was assumed. Now, a capital cost
equation of the form CC = Nu [b (A/Nu )c ] is considered, and
the effect on the optimal utility load distributions is studied
when c is not unity (typically, less than 1). Figure 8 shows
OLD plots for Example 1 with capital cost coef cients

Figure 8. Optimum load distribution plots for multiple utilities for capital cost coef cient c = 0.83. (a) Use of two hot utilities (HP and MP steam). (b) Use of
three hot utilities (HP, MP and LP steam). Dotted lines highlight the assumption of constant optimal utility load as per the CUP.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

MULTIPLE UTILITIES TARGETING FOR HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS

b = 800 (as before) and c = 0.83 (modi ed for a new heat
exchanger speci cation).
On comparing Figure 8a with Figure 3b, it is observed
that the effect of decreasing c is a reduction in the optimal
HP steam load (from 203 kW to about 148 kW for
D Tm i n = 408 C). This is because the capital cost for
exchanger area becomes cheaper (relative to utility cost)
on decreasing c from 1 to 0.83, and consequently it is
optimal to use more MP steam. The more important aspect
to observe is the decrease (and lack of constancy) in the
optimal HP steam load for low values of the process D Tm in .
The explanation may be provided by understanding the HPMP steam tradeoff at a xed process D Tm in starting with
equation (3). On setting dQL P = 0 and dQH P = - dQM P , the
condition for optimality turns out to be CT ,H P = CT ,M P .
Assuming the number of units target is constant (which is the
case over speci c D Tm in ranges), the optimality condition
may be rewritten as
(6)
A/ QMP - A/ QHP = R
c- 1
where R = (CH P - CM P )/[Af b c (A / Nu ) ]. Equation (6)
indicates that the optimal HP steam load corresponds to an
ordinate equal to R on a plot of (A/QM P - A/QH P ) vs.
QH P . The plot itself is independent of the cost data. The
optimal HP steam load does not change in Figure 3b
primarily because R is a constant (dependent only on the
cost data) for c = 1. Furthermore, the quantity (A/QM P A/QH P ) is essentially independent 1ofc the process D Tm i n
for c = 1. On the other hand, R ~ (A) - for c 1, and the
optimal HP steam load cannot be expected to be constant
with varying process D Tm i n . The variation in the optimal
load of HP steam will be signi cant at low values of D Tm i n
(as observed in Figure 8a) where the HEN area target A
changes rapidly. To estimate the magnitude of these
variations, consider a typical value of c (say, 0.83). For
this case, R increases by only 12.5% when the HEN area
doubles. The decrease in the optimal HP steam load will be
signi cantly less than 12.5%, given the typical nature of the
(A/QM P - A/QH P ) vs. QH P plot (where a relatively large
change in the ordinate causes a small change in the
abscissa). In fact, the HEN area approximately doubles
when D Tm i n is changed from 408 C to 58 C in Figure 8a;
however, the optimal HP steam load decreases by less than
4%. In other words, the optimal temperature driving force at
the utility pinch (for MP steam) changes marginally when
the D Tm i n of the process pinch is decreased from 408 C to
58 C.
On considering all the three hot utilities, the OLD plot in
Figure 8b may be generated by optimizing the HP, MP and
LP steam loads (i.e., both the utility pinches) simultaneously
rather than sequentially at different values of the process
D Tm i n . The optimal HP steam load curve in Figure 8b is
marginally higher than the corresponding curve for HP
steam in Figure 8a. However, when Figures 8a and 8b are
superposed, then the two curves are virtually indistinguishable indicating that the error in performing sequential
optimizations for the utility pinches (as per the methodology
in Figure 1) is negligible. When D Tm i n is changed from 408 C
to 88 C in Figure 8b, the optimal HP steam load decreases by
only 2.3% and the optimal MP steam load increases by
merely 1.9%. Another feature to be noted in Figure 8b is
the delayed transition from range R2 to R3. This is due to
the increase in the number of units target (Nu ) by one on the
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

267

introduction of LP steam and the corresponding sudden

jump in the capital cost for c 1. It is obviously not
economical to use small amounts of LP steam and this is
re ected by the delayed introduction of LP steam in
Figure 8b. Equation (2) suggests that such a delay will
also occur for a 0 (even if c = 1).
In essence, the CUP holds rigorously for c = 1 and the
optimum loads of the relatively expensive utilities remain
truly constant with changing process D Tm in . For c = 0.83,
the deviation of the optimum loads for the relatively
expensive utilities from the constant utility load lines
(shown by the dotted horizontal lines in Figure 8) is less
than 4% over the practical D Tm i n range of 58 C408 C. Even
for c = 0.6, the deviation is less than 6% and this accuracy
suf ces for targeting purposes in most cases. Similarly,
performing sequential optimizations of the utility pinches as
in Figure 1 is valid for c = 1. When c <1, the error in
performing optimizations sequentially rather than simultaneously is negligible. Thus, the multiple utilities targeting
method developed below based on the CUP and the capital
cost target equation (2) provides the true optimal load
distributions when c = 1 and near-optimal load distributions
in other cases when c 1. Interestingly, the TAC curves for
c 1 based on the true optimal load distribution (obtained
by simultaneous optimization of all the utility pinches) and
the near-optimal load distribution (determined by sequential
optimization of utility pinches and the assumption of
constancy of optimal loads for the more expensive utilities)
are practically indistinguishable because of the relatively
low sensitivity of the TACs to small variations in the OLDs.
GENERALIZED METHODOLOGY FOR MULTIPLE
UTILITIES TARGETING
The concepts and optimization approach have been
discussed so far with a simple example involving three
hot utilities and one cold utility. The generalized methodology is outlined below and subsequently illustrated through
an example featuring several hot as well as cold utilities.
The targeting methodology performs the optimization of the
utility pinches sequentially and assumes constancy of the
optimum loads for the relatively expensive utilities. This
allows easy and rapid generation of the OLD plots at the
very outset based on optimizations at a few process D Tm i n
values. The OLD information is then used to generate TAC
curves and optimize the process pinch.
The stepwise procedure for multiple utilities targeting is
as follows:
1. Generate the total HU curve and the total CU curve as a
function of the process D Tm i n . This variation of the
minimum total hot/cold utility requirements over a D Tm i n
range may be readily determined by continuous energy
targeting4 using any conventional pinch analysis software
based on the Problem Table Algorithm1 1 . These total utility
curves are piecewise linear and constitute the upper bounds
on the OLD plots for the hot and cold utilities.
2. Determine the optimum load distribution for the hot and
cold utilities at a particular process D Tm i n (preferably a high
value) using the approach outlined in Figure 1. Plot the
optimal loads for this D Tm i n value on the OLD plots (as in
Figure 3) and draw horizontal line segments at these
cumulative load levels in the direction of decreasing D Tm i n .

268

SHENOY et al.

3. Check for topology traps6 ,1 4 in the given problem.

Topology traps may be easily detected4 through discontinuities in the pinch temperature vs. D Tm i n curve. The
optimum load distribution for the multiple utilities could be
substantially different in different topology regions.
4. Verify the accuracy of the OLD plots by determining the
optimum load distribution for the hot and cold utilities using
the approach outlined in Figure 1 (as done in Step 2) but at
different values of the process D Tm in . These D Tm i n values
may be strategically chosen to minimize computations but
capture the detailed behaviour in the neighbourhood of
topology trap(s), changes in the units target (Nu ), and
transition point(s) for ranges R1, R2, R3, ... (see Figure 4).
5. Equipped with the information on the OLDs for the
multiple utilities, establish the TAC curves (as in Figure 6)
for different combinations of utilities. As mentioned earlier,
the TAC curves are easily generated using conventional
pinch analysis targeting software by varying the appropriate
utilities (one hot and one cold utility) within each range and
including the other(s) with constant heat loads within the
process stream data.
6. Select promising options that include different number of
utilities, and summarize the utility, area and cost targets (in
a tabular format as in Table 3, if necessary and convenient).
In case the TAC curve is at around the optimum, then
greater exibility exists in terms of the level of capital
investment and the annual energy bill (despite using the
same combination of utilities and having approximately the
same TAC).
For the options identi ed in Step 6, networks may
be designed. It may be convenient to use a driving
force plot1 5 ,1 6 to identify the pinches. The initial designs
may be evolved (to reduce the number of units) and
optimized to arrive at the nal networks. The above
procedure is illustrated next with an example.

Example 2
The data for the example are given in Table 4. The results
of the six steps followed in the multiple utilities targeting for
this example are brie y outlined below.
1. The total HU varies linearly from 4700 kW (at D Tm in =

08 C) to 11750 kW (at D Tm i n = 308 C). The total CU is

700 kW less than the total HU in this case.
2. At a process D Tm i n of 308 C (chosen), the CW-AC tradeoff
is analysed and the optimal load for CW is found to be
3500 kW. Next, the optimal load for HP steam is determined
to be 1600 kW on trading off HP and MP steam. Finally, on
varying the loads for MP and LP steam, the optimal MP
steam load turns out to be 6600 kW. It is suf cient to
determine these optimal loads to an accuracy of about
100 kW as this ensures that one is within 0.01% of the
minimum TAC (which is 1189.11 103 $/yr at D Tm in =
308 C). On plotting the optimal loads for D Tm i n of 308 C and
drawing horizontal line segments at the appropriate
cumulative load levels, the OLD plots (Figure 9) are
obtained.
3. On examining the pinch temperature vs. D Tm in curve, it is
found that the pinch is caused by the inlet temperature of
stream C3 (1158 C) for the entire D Tm i n range of 08 308 C.
Thus, there is no topology trap in this range.
4. The transition points for the different ranges on the OLD
plot are expected to be delayed and may now be determined
accurately. For instance, the transition from range R2 to R3
occurs in Figure 9a when the TAC for the case where some
LP steam is used and the units target is higher by one
becomes in nitesimally less than the TAC for the case
where only MP steam is used. In this example, it is not
economical to use less than 1800 kW of LP steam (i.e., to
use LP steam for D Tm i n <22.58 C). Similarly, it is uneconomical to use MP steam for D Tm i n <18 C (see Figure 9a) and
to use AC for D Tm i n <248 C (see Figure 9b).
5. Having established the OLDs for the multiple utilities, the
TAC curves are obtained as a function of D Tm i n . Figure 10
shows six different combinations of utilities. Note that each
combination shows the utilities available, but it not
necessarily optimal (as indicated by the OLD plots) to use
all the utilities within the combination over the entire D Tm i n
range.
6. The global optimum in Figure 10 corresponds to a TAC
of 1130.34 103 $/yr (at D Tm in = 16.18 C) and calls for the
use of only HP, MP and CW. The atness of the TAC curve
may be fruitfully exploited to de ne an optimum D Tm i n
range of 138 C208 C rather than a point value of 16.18 C.
Although the TAC in this range is within 1% of the global
optimum, the capital investment target varies suf ciently

Table 4. Stream, utility and cost data for Example 2.

Inlet temperature
(8 C)

Outlet temperature
(8 C)

Heat capacity owrate

(kW/8 C)

Heat transfer coef cient

(kW/m2/8 C)

H1
H2
C3
C4
C5

155
230
115
50
60

85
40
210
180
175

150
85
140
55
60

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

HP Steam
MP Steam
LP Steam
CW
AC

255
205
150
30
40

254
204
149
40
65

Stream

Exchanger capital cost ($)

Plant life t
Rate of interest r
Annualization factor Af

=
=
=
=

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

Cost
($/kW/yr)

70
50
20
10
5

13000 + 1000 (area)0.83 (m2)

5 (yr)
10 (%)
(1 + r)t / t = 0.322 (/yr)

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

MULTIPLE UTILITIES TARGETING FOR HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS

269

Figure 11. The driving force plot (DFP) at a process D Tmin of 168 C for
Example 2 shows that the temperature driving force at the utility pinch
caused by MP steam is not tight.

Figure 9. The optimum load distribution plots for Example 2. (a) OLD
plot for three hot utilities. (b) OLD plot for two cold utilities.

from $ 2017.06 103 for D Tm i n = 138 C to $1712.08 103 for

D Tm i n = 208 C.

The network may be designed at D Tm in = 168 C using HP,

MP and CW after identifying the pinches using a driving
force plot (DFP) as in Figure 11. The DFP may be plotted as

Figure 10. The total annual cost (TAC) curves as a function of process
D Tmin for different combinations of utilities for Example 2.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

D T vs. Tc below the process pinch and D T vs. Th above the

process pinch to allow direct read-off of the temperature
driving forces at the cold utility pinches and hot utility
pinches, respectively. On noting that the MP utility pinch in
Figure 11 does not exhibit tight temperature driving forces,
the design may be performed on a balanced grid that
recognizes the process pinch but not the MP utility pinch. If
all pinch decompositions are respected, then the design is
usually more complicated, features many units and requires
more evolution.
Figure 12 shows a possible network design that satis es
the utility targets of 1600 kW for HP steam, 6860 kW for
MP steam and 7760 kW for CW at a process D Tm i n of 168 C.
The design below the process pinch is straightforward and
shows two options. The below-pinch design in Figure 12
with the H1-C5 and H2-C4 matches has a lower area than
the alternative with the H1-C4 and H2-C5 matches. The
design above the process pinch is tricky, and demands a
complicated splitting scheme if the pinch design method is
rigorously followed. To reduce network complexity in
terms of number of splits and units, a lower exchanger
minimum approach temperature (EMAT) is tolerated. For

Figure 12. Network designed with a stream split based on the global
optimum target for Example 2. Temperature in 8 C and load in kW.

270

SHENOY et al.

the above-pinch region, a possible design is shown in

Figure 12 with heaters on every cold process stream that
help in better controllability of the target temperatures. This
design above the pinch features an isothermal mixing
junction on stream H1 and one unit more than the target.
The network in Figure 12 has an area of 5544 m2 (about
12% higher than the target of 4956 m2 ) and a TAC of
1182.94 103 $/yr (4.7% above the target of 1130.36
103 $/yr). An alternative design without a stream split is
possible for the above-pinch region, as shown in Figure 13.
The synthesis does not strictly adhere to the pinch design
rules (namely, the MCp feasibility criteria2 ), and prefers
matching stream H2 with stream C4 (rather than stream C5)
in unit 6 as it is a mirror image match1 7 of unit 8. The
network in Figure 13 has an area of 5904 m2 (about 19%
higher than target) and a TAC of 1212.69 103 $/yr (7.3%
above target).
Both the networks (Figures 12 and 13) based on the
global optimum target may be evolved using the following
considerations. Firstly, unit 9 may be combined with unit 5
in Figure 12 and unit 8 may be merged with unit 6 in
Figure 13 to save one unit in each network. The MCp -split
ratio for stream H1 in Figure 12 could be then optimized.
This is a desirable evolution as it does not change the
operating cost, but reduces the capital cost and consequently
the TAC. Secondly, it is possible to merge units 1 and 4 by
using HP steam rather than MP steam in unit 4. This would
cause an increase in the utility cost but a reduction in the
capital cost (due to the decrease in area and the reduction of
one unit). Thirdly, it is possible to use air cooling (AC)
rather than cooling water (CW) for unit 10. It is found that
the decrease in utility cost more than offsets the increase in
capital cost in this case resulting in a lower TAC.
Interestingly, the use of AC does not increase the number
of units below the pinch due to the creation of a subset
equality. The nal networks after these evolutions are
presented in Figures 14 and 15. The network in Figure 14 is
evolved from Figure 12 and has an area of 5046 m2 with
a TAC of 1158.50 103 $/yr for an MCp -split ratio of
63.84 : 86.16 on stream H1. On the other hand, the network
in Figure 15 evolved from Figure 13 has an area of 5636 m2
with a TAC of 1163.14 103 $/yr. Although the TAC is

Figure 13. Network designed without a stream split based on the global
optimum target for Example 2. Temperature in 8 C and load in kW.

Figure 14. Evolved network for Example 2 with a stream split that has the
advantage of having only nine units. Temperature in 8 C and load in kW.

lowered by all the above evolutions, it may be noted that the

second evolution (increasing HP steam usage) causes a
reduction in the investment cost whereas the third evolution
(introduction of air cooling) leads to an increase in the
capital required. Thus, evolutions of the network typically
done by inspection are important steps in controlling the
capital investment, energy bill and TAC. Note that targeting
does not totally eliminate the need for the network evolution
and optimization steps, but signi cantly reduces the effort
and the uncertainty (due to the large number of possibilities)
associated with them.
CONCLUSIONS
This work provides a cost-optimal targeting methodology
for the selection of utilities and their loads. It must be
appreciated that a targeting strategy cannot replace the steps
of network evolution and optimization. Targeting is done
before a network structure is available and, in fact, it enables
the designer to start with a promising initial network
topology rather than tediously screen many options.
Network synthesis and evolution are problem-speci c and

Figure 15. Evolved network for Example 2 that has the advantage of having
only nine units and no stream split. Temperature in 8 C and load in kW.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

MULTIPLE UTILITIES TARGETING FOR HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS

draw on the expertise of the designer. On the other
hand, targeting is problem-independent and therefore the
algorithm can be automated.
Such an algorithm has been developed for multiple
utilities targeting based on the Cheapest Utility Principle
(CUP), which in its simplest form states that it is optimal to
increase the load on the cheapest utility (and keep other
utility loads xed) while increasing total utility usage. The
CUP is rigorously valid when the relationship between the
exchanger area and the capital cost is linear. Even when the
relationship is non-linear, the CUP provides an excellent
approximation that reduces the computational effort during
targeting.
The optimum load distribution (OLD) plots along with
the total annual cost (TAC) curves provide two simple yet
powerful representations for the targeting of multiple
utilities. The OLD plots may be readily generated by
optimizing the utility pinches sequentially and assuming
constancy for the optimal loads of the relatively expensive
utilities. Then, the TAC curves may be established based on
the OLD plots for various combinations of utilities to
visualize the range of options available for near-minimum
cost HENs.
The choice of D Tm i n for design does not necessarily need
to coincide exactly with the global optimum (i.e., with the
point with the minimum TAC). The typical atness of the
TAC curves in the region of the global optimum provides
the much-needed exibility on the capital investment in
actual industrial projects. A procedure to rapidly generate
TAC target curves for different combinations of utilities
(rather than focus on a single global optimum value that
may involve too many utilities5 ) is thus an important
contribution of this paper. In contrast to Hall et al.5 whose
methodology required that the process pinch be optimized
rst before any utility pinch, the approach developed here
suggests that the process pinch be optimized last in order to
generate the TAC curves as a function of the process D Tm in .
The elimination of a certain utility during the optimization
of a utility pinch calls for the re-optimization of the process
pinch in the methodology of Hall et al.5 This is clear from
the OLD plots which show that it is not optimal to use all
utilities at each value of D Tm i n . The targeting approach here
does not demand such re-optimizations for the process
pinch.
The proposed multiple utilities targeting methodology
uses previous targeting procedures for area, units and cost.
Therefore, the same assumptions and inaccuracies are
inherently built into it. For example, the capital cost target
assumes equal distribution of the entire network area
amongst the total number of exchangers. This assumption
appears to give good predictions1 8 for the HEN capital in
general. The area target assumes a spaghetti network1 6 that
requires a large number of stream splits and matches within
every enthalpy interval. For this reason, the area target can
only be approximately achieved in practice. Similarly, it
must be noted that the multiple utility load targets may not
always be exactly met in practice because the design may
then call for an excessively large number of matches. The
units target for HENS based on Euler s network theorem1 is
simply speci ed as one less than the number of streams.
This assumes a fully connected network with no loops.
There appear to be no better assumptions to make prior to
network design; however, the assumptions are often found
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998

271

to be not valid after designing the network due to the

existence of subset equalities and loops. Furthermore, the
units target must be calculated by summing up over all the
thermodynamically independent regions divided by the
various pinches. However, uncertainty exists over the utility
pinches to be considered and this could lead to erroneous
units targets. The inaccuracy in the units target can have a
signi cant effect on the TAC curves and OLD plots
(especially in terms of the delays in the transition points
for the different D Tm i n ranges on the OLD plot). This may be
partly taken care of at the network evolution stage (as
demonstrated in Example 2 through the use of air cooling in
place of cooling water).
The procedure described here optimizes the utility loads
assuming the temperature levels are speci ed. To determine
the optimum temperature levels for steam, the methodology
proposed here may be pro tably combined with the twostage procedure of Hui and Ahmad8 : a large number of
steam levels may be initially used to achieve the absolute
minimum TAC target, and then a practical number of steam
levels chosen by eliminating those levels with relatively
small loads. Steam costs required for the optimization may
be meaningfully determined by using exergy analysis8 .
The discussion in this paper is restricted to point utilities
and grassroots designs. The concepts however have the
potential to be extended to non-point utilities and retro ts.
NOMENCLA TURE
a

t
TAC
D T1
D Ti
D Tmin
D TR1, D TR2

cost coef cient (representing xed costs) in exchanger

capital cost law
area target for HEN
annualization factor for capital cost
air cooling
cost coef cient in exchanger capital cost law
cost coef cient (exponent) in exchanger capital cost law
cost (annual) per unit of utility
rate of change of total cost for increment in load of particular
utility
capital cost
cold utility
cheapest utility principle
cooling water
driving force plot
heat exchanger network
high pressure steam
hot utility
index for different pinches
low pressure steam
heat capacity owrate
medium pressure steam
number of pinches
number of units target for HEN
non linear programming
optimum load distribution
utility load or heat content
rate of interest (fractional) per year
quantity de ned in equation (6)
D Tmin ranges where it is optimal to use one, two or three
utilities
time for capital recovery or plant life in number of years
total annual cost
approach temperature at a process pinch
approach temperature at a pinch
speci ed minimum approach temperature for process pinch
upper bounds for ranges R1 and R2 in terms of D Tmin

Subscripts
CU
CW

cold utility
cooling water

A
Af
AC
b
c
C
CT
CC
CU
CUP
CW
DFP
HEN
HP
HU
i
LP
MCp
MP
n
Nu
NLP
OLD
Q
r
R
R1, R2, R3

272
HP
HU
LP
MP
opt

SHENOY et al.
high pressure steam
hot utility
low pressure steam
medium pressure steam
optimum

12.
13.
14.

REFERENCES
1. Linnhoff, B., Townsend, D. W., Boland, D., Hewitt, G. F., Thomas, B.
E. A., Guy, A. R. and Marsland, R. H., 1982, User Guide on Process
Integration for the Ef cient Use of Energy (The Institution of Chemical
Engineers, Rugby, UK).
2. Linnhoff, B. and Hindmarsh, E., 1983, The pinch design method for
heat exchanger networks, Chem Eng Sci, 38(5): 745-763.
3. Linnhoff, B. and Ahmad, S., 1989, Supertargeting: Optimum synthesis
of energy management systems, ASME J Energy Resources Tech,
111(3): 121-130.
4. Shenoy, U. V., 1995, Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis: Process
Optimization by Energy and Resource Analysis (Gulf Publishing Co.,
Houston, TX, USA).
5. Hall, S. G., Parker, S. J. and Linnhoff, B., 1992, Process integration of
utility systems. IEA Workshop on Process Integration, Gothenburg,
Sweden.
6. Kemp, I. C., 1991, Some aspects of the practical application of pinch
technology methods, Trans IChemE, 69(11): 471-479.
7. Parker, S. J., 1989, Supertargeting for multiple utilities, PhD Thesis
(UMIST, UK).
8. Hui, C. W. and Ahmad, S., 1994, Total site heat integration using the
utility system, Comput Chem Eng, 18(8): 729-742.
9. Townsend, D. W. and Linnhoff, B., 1984, Surface area targets for heat
exchanger networks. IChemE Annual Research Meeting, Bath, UK.
10. Colberg, R. D. and Morari, M., 1990, Area and capital cost targets
for heat exchanger network synthesis with constrained matches
and unequal heat transfer coef cients, Comput Chem Eng, 14(1):
1-22.
11. Linnhoff, B. and Flower, J. R., 1978, Synthesis of heat exchanger

15.
16.
17.
18.

networks: I. Systematic generation of energy optimal networks,

AIChEJ, 24(4): 633-642.
Smith, R., 1995, Chemical Process Design (McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY, USA).
Sinha, A., 1997, Multiple utility optimization in chemical processes,
MTech Thesis (Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India).
Linnhoff, B. and Ahmad, S., 1990, Cost optimum heat exchanger
networks 1. Minimum energy and capital using simple models for
capital cost, Comput Chem Eng, 14(7): 729-750.
Linnhoff,B. and Vredeveld, D. R., 1984, Pinch technology has come of
age, Chem Eng Prog, 80(7): 33-40.
Ahmad, S. and Smith, R., 1989, Targets and design for minimum
number of shells in heat exchanger networks, Trans IChemE, 67(5):
481-494.
Suaysompol, K. and Wood, R. M., 1991, The exible pinch design
method for heat exchanger networks I. Heuristic guidelines for free
hand designs, Trans IChemE, 69: 458-464.
Ahmad, S., Linnhoff, B. and Smith, R., 1990, Cost optimum heat
exchanger networks 2. Targets and design for detailed capital cost
models, Comput Chem Eng, 14(7): 751-767.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The rst author would like to thank Mr Rajdeep Aggarwal (Research &
Development Centre, Engineers India Limited) for his preliminary
observations on this work.

ADDRESS
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Dr Uday
V. Shenoy, Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Powai, Bombay 400 076, India. e-mail: uvs@che.iitb.ernet.in.
The manuscript was received 7 August 1997 and accepted for publication
after revision 19 January 1998.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998